Is Romney a social darwinist? (47 Percent Quote)

Trancendental

Trancendental

CAGiversary!
Feedback
4 (100%)
[quote name='"Mitt Romney"']There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it -- that that's an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what. ... These are people who pay no income tax. ... [M]y job is not to worry about those people. I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives.[/QUOTE]

Social Darwinism is an ideology of society that seeks to apply biological concepts of Darwinism or of evolutionary theory to sociology and politics, often with the assumption that conflict between groups in society leads to social progress as superior groups outcompete inferior ones.
Click to expand...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Darwinism

Some of us thought Romney was without core or principle, an empty suit that would say anything to be elected. But here, evidently, is the real Mitt — a man whose core principle is clearly on display, and articulated with deep conviction: social Darwinism — survival of the richest, the hell with those who need a helping hand.
Click to expand...

http://www.salon.com/2012/09/19/the_real_mitt_exposed/

IMO the quoted article hit the nail on the head, Romney is a social darwinist. Shocking that such an anachronistic and flawed ideology could be espoused by a serious Presidential candidate, even if it only in private.
 
If I actually believed he even espoused any sort of political beliefs rather than readily contorting himself any which-way needed to get elected, yeah I'd say he's a social Darwinist.
 
I wonder how these comments play within members of his church. I know quite a few Mormons since I lived in Salt Lake for 6 years. I need to ask. I am sure there is a struggle for some to separate their desire for their Religion to be represented in the White House and the disgust for having someone who does not represent many of the teachings they believe in. Mormons are very conservative on social issues like abortion and gay marriage but very liberal on things like welfare. Now maybe they would not agree the government should provide those things, but many have a lot more compassion for the needy than good old Mitt has shown. They have their own welfare program so I guess Mitt thinks less of those members of his own Church that need it (his Dad included).
 
Just to play Devil's Advocate

Given that he was at a fundraiser and the demographics there are the "elite", he was likely pandering to that crowd as he is wont to do quite often. Dude's core convictions are basically a windsock in a tornado. As a prime example of capitalism, his virtue is that of an opportunist that will say and do anything to win. His core supporters are either blissfully unaware of this reality, or gleefully support it since they are the same.
On the other hand, with all of Obama's "broken promises", at least you can't pin that on Romney since he'll promise both sides of the coin.
 
Yeah, that's the problem with Romney. He doesn't stand for anything and will say anything to please the crowd he's talking to.

His comment was clearly very social darwinist. The health care plan he implemented at governor of MA was clearly not social darwinist.

He's just a raging capitalist. He'll say or do anything to come out on top. I don't think he believes half the shit he says, or thinks his health care plan was a mistake. He just couldn't get on the republican ticket running on that kind of platform, so he did a 180.
 
While on the surface, it might sound like he subscribes to social darwinism, it's not a very accurate description. After learning a little more about Mormonism, it's closer so Just World theory with a religious twist that I'm sure some of you are familiar with: if you're a good and proper/devout Mormon, you'll have a good life and make lots of money because god favors you, but if you suck at it/live in sin, then you'll be poor and you'll be on god's shit list.

This is why they're extra "good" to their families and neighbors because the church is quite literally keeping score. The more money you get, the more you donate, and the higher you can climb within the organization. It's a lot like Scientology when you get right down to it.

Calling him a social darwinist just seems too secular for me when he's balls deep in Mormonism.
 
[quote name='dohdough']While on the surface, it might sound like he subscribes to social darwinism, it's not a very accurate description. After learning a little more about Mormonism, it's closer so Just World theory with a religious twist that I'm sure some of you are familiar with: if you're a good and proper/devout Mormon, you'll have a good life and make lots of money because god favors you, but if you suck at it/live in sin, then you'll be poor and you'll be on god's shit list.

This is why they're extra "good" to their families and neighbors because the church is quite literally keeping score. The more money you get, the more you donate, and the higher you can climb within the organization. It's a lot like Scientology when you get right down to it.

Calling him a social darwinist just seems too secular for me when he's balls deep in Mormonism.[/QUOTE]

Yeah this is pretty accurate. They still are very charitable people (even outside of Church) but I have been to enough of their Sunday worships to definitely see that (I dated a Mormon girl, they like to call it "flirt to convert"). They do not really beat you over the head with the "god favor" thing. It is more subversive. It is a lot of stories of how those who tithe somehow got that great job or got a bonus they did not expect. On the flip side you hear a lot about how life sucked when someone did not follow the Church. Every first Sunday of the month is Fast and Testimony where literally people just go up in front of the Church and say how good or bad life is when they do or don't follow the Church. I do not miss those days...I almost married that girl (still have the ring).
 
It was either here or something else I'm remembering, but it was being discussed how close Mormonism is to Scientology. Really does seem like it.
 
The sad thing is that the 47% number will only go up in the near future. For every two outgoing boomers, only one new person is being hired (hence the unsustainable SSI/Medicare/caid catterwauling) and that doesn't look to change until "the economy" improves. Of course that simply cannot happen as retired boomers will play it pretty tight with their finances. Thus consumer spending remains depressed and doesn't drive the rest of everything.

Welcome to the US' lost quarter century. Good news is, there's only about 18-20 years left!
 
[quote name='nasum']The sad thing is that the 47% number will only go up in the near future. For every two outgoing boomers, only one new person is being hired (hence the unsustainable SSI/Medicare/caid catterwauling) and that doesn't look to change until "the economy" improves. Of course that simply cannot happen as retired boomers will play it pretty tight with their finances. Thus consumer spending remains depressed and doesn't drive the rest of everything.

Welcome to the US' lost quarter century. Good news is, there's only about 18-20 years left![/QUOTE]

Maybe those "death panels" were not such a bad idea. I am not saying we kill grandma, but we don't have to save her either. (modified Batman quote intended).
 
[quote name='Clak']And the previous generation screws the next, thanks folks![/QUOTE]

Modern Medicine has really screwed us. Benefits are being provided for so much longer than originally calculated for. Life expectancy in 1950s was 69, now it is 77 (avg). 8+ more years of providing benefits to the boomers far outweighs the increases in tax and retirement age that was implemented. It is a double whammy also because modern medicine is super expensive. So basically we have an expensive system to keep older people alive longer to draw more benefits. We talk about how the founders of the country could not see what the world would be like 200 years later but we cannot even make policy/law that can be applied for 60 years without having to change it.
 
Well the future is hard to predict, ask meteorologists. I just want a little recognition that the older folks currently running the country have royally screwed the younger generation (their own kids in some cases). For some it doesn't matter, they were going to be ok anyway coming from a wealthy family, but the rest of us are getting fucked because of their decisions. Seems like for all the effort we put in, we won't be better off than our parents much if at all. Hell, my father made as much as I do working in a unionized factory, and he didn't have to spend thousands of dollars and years of his life going to school to get that job. WTF America.
 
I'm already better of than my parents in terms of salary (especially vs. hours worked as my dad logged a ton of overtime)--but I also have a ton of education, got terminal degree from the top program in my field etc. so I'm very fortunate/lucky.

But yeah, something has to give with the aging problem noted above. People are living longer and society can't afford retirement services for people who are retiring at 55-65 and living another 30-40+ years.

Retirement ages need to go up (though as dohdough pointed out in another thread, that means fewer open jobs/promotion opportunities for younger workers) and we need tax hikes to better fund medicare, social security etc.
 
If anyone actually watches the video, Romney sounds like he believes what he's saying. He isn't stuttering and trying to find a politically correct answer. What he is saying is said with conviction of belief. Personally, I think people in first world countries SHOULD be entitled to food, particularly children. Children shouldn't go hungry and have stunted growth as a result in America. Obviously the extremely wealthy don't give a damn if children are starving on the street (as long as its not their street). They would rather keep more money rather than see their money go to taxes to ensure children in school get enough milk with vitamin D to prevent rickets. I've always heard these types of claims from extremely liberal friends but I never believed it. After seeing this, it's really apparent that the very rich think they shouldn't pay taxes to help other people.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']I'm already better of than my parents in terms of salary (especially vs. hours worked as my dad logged a ton of overtime)--but I also have a ton of education, got terminal degree from the top program in my field etc. so I'm very fortunate/lucky.

But yeah, something has to give with the aging problem noted above. People are living longer and society can't afford retirement services for people who are retiring at 55-65 and living another 30-40+ years.

Retirement ages need to go up (though as dohdough pointed out in another thread, that means fewer open jobs/promotion opportunities for younger workers) and we need tax hikes to better fund medicare, social security etc.[/QUOTE]
You're the exception though, not all of us have PHDs or even want to. I'm the first in my family to have graduated with a 4 year degree, imagine how I feel right now. If I'd forgone college and worked I'd at least have more work experience. Face it, the baby boomers haven't done us any favors, in fact they're usually the first to start shitting on everyone else.
 
As I noted, I know I'm very fortunate/lucky for sure. Aside from that, a Ph D isn't the way to go to make a lot of money anyway. Other advanced degrees are much more financially beneficial both in general,and relative to the school years invested (i.e. a couple years of law school, vs. 5+ years--I spent 7--getting a masters and Ph D).

The job market is just super tough, and a 4-year degree is pretty much the new high school diploma. It doesn't help one rise to the top anymore as people are mostly applying for jobs with tons of other people with degrees also applying.

That part of it isn't so much the boomers fault, just societal change in the amount of people going to college and getting degrees. But yeah, the boomers shit on everything else by voting republican in large numbers, thus keeping taxes down at a time costs are up due to medicare and social security benefits for their generation.
 
Maybe I am grasping at straws here, I don't especially like Romney, I think he was the wrong pick if Republicans wanted to win, but could it be that he wasn't saying he wouldn't be their president, but that they will never vote for him, so he doesn't need to pander to them? Maybe he was just venting that he can't campaign for tax cuts for people who don't pay taxes? Why advertise 50% off TVs when your competitor is advertising free TVs?

Still a stupid thing to say, but I would have to say he would be an idiot to say it the way everyone is claiming he meant it, less than 2 months before the election.
 
[quote name='Knoell']Maybe I am grasping at straws here, I don't especially like Romney, I think he was the wrong pick if Republicans wanted to win, but could it be that he wasn't saying he wouldn't be their president, but that they will never vote for him, so he doesn't need to pander to them? Maybe he was just venting that he can't campaign for tax cuts for people who don't pay taxes? Why advertise 50% off TVs when your competitor is advertising free TVs?

Still a stupid thing to say, but I would have to say he would be an idiot to say it the way everyone is claiming he meant it, less than 2 months before the election.[/QUOTE]

I do not think that is the part people have issue with. The part people are upset about it he characterized them as crybabies who consider themselves "victims" and deserve food, medicine and shelter and that the government should provide for it. I mean if 47% of Americans really relied on the government to pay for all 3 of those things fully we would already be done financially as a country. You are talking about 145 million people. A $20,000 a person ($16,666/month) it would cost $2.9 trillion/year. This is obviously NOT the case so the idea 47% of Americans are somehow 100% reliant on the government is ludicrous. A big portion (~27%) are working Adults not able to make ends meets because their income does not match their expenses. The next biggest (~10%) are senior citizens who used to pay taxes. The remaining 10% are various other situations with about ~5% being those that sort of live of the government completely. The numbers might be slightly different depending on the source but that is what he say won't vote for him. Yet we know many Red states take more than they give so obviously this is false. Pandering to millionaires to make them feel better is all it is and it is disgusting.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']

That part of it isn't so much the boomers fault, just societal change in the amount of people going to college and getting degrees. But yeah, the boomers shit on everything else by voting republican in large numbers, thus keeping taxes down at a time costs are up due to medicare and social security benefits for their generation.[/QUOTE]
Eh, I wouldn't say it isn't their fault at all. Even if a degree is worth less than it was, if there were more jobs available employers would have to lower standards if they wanted to find enough people, thus making those degrees worth more again. That generation is in charge of most everything which could increase the number of jobs in the country. They control the companies, they control the government, their generation has a grip on most everything in the country. If anything can be done to improve conditions, it's to them to do it.
 
[quote name='Blaster man']This has the video
http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/09/19/romneys-remarks-huge-mistake-or-plain-truth/?hpt=hp_t1[/QUOTE]

That article is frustrating. It reminds me of my sister and her husband. They won't vote any Dem because of abortion and gay marriage. It is such a non-issue to most Republican politicians but they use it to gather up votes from those types of people and then stab them in the back about economic issues. It drives me crazy.
 
This isn't so much a generational problem as it is a class problem. There are plenty of people in the post-boomer generations that try to fuck everything up worse than they already are.
 
[quote name='cancerman1120']That article is frustrating. It reminds me of my sister and her husband. They won't vote any Dem because of abortion and gay marriage. It is such a non-issue to most Republican politicians but they use it to gather up votes from those types of people and then stab them in the back about economic issues. It drives me crazy.[/QUOTE]
I think all the comments about him being out of touch that seemed like rhetoric before have suddenly become real to a lot of people. As stated in the article, many people are Republican's that receive assistance. We have TONS of unemployed people that can't find work and he's out there claiming that they're lazy sons of bitches that just want to sit back and collect assistance. The truth is, we have MILLIONS of people that WANT to work and haven't yet found jobs. He's grouping all these people together as Obama supporters. It's absolutely amazing, this bubble that Romney (and presumably the rest of the ultra rich that were born that way) is in to actually believe this stuff. He needs to get out of his ivory tower and actually see what it's like for people. Watch someone go and try to get work every day for month after month until they are so disheartened that they give up for a while. The man doesn't understand what most of the country has to deal with and this comment is going to hurt him way more than he probably believes.

[quote name='dohdough']This isn't so much a generational problem as it is a class problem. There are plenty of people in the post-boomer generations that try to fuck everything up worse than they already are.[/QUOTE]
I think the point here is that the baby boomers are responsible for the largest voting block in the US so they're chiefly responsible for the current political landscape. As such, it seems that they vote for people to lower taxes and keep (or increase) social security and medicare spending. Look at Bush, he's a prime example. Massive tax cuts combined with a huge increase in medicare expenditures. He's responsible for Medicare part D, prescription drugs. It didn't even EXIST before he was elected. I think for those of us that will be around after the baby boomers are gone, it's clear that we're going to raise taxes, not cut taxes AND we're going to have to cut entitlement spending, not maintain or raise entitlement spending. We're going to get fucked big time because of what the generation before us did. We'll have more taxes and less benefits in order to pay for all the spending they demanded.
 
[quote name='Blaster man']I think the point here is that the baby boomers are responsible for the largest voting block in the US so they're chiefly responsible for the current political landscape. As such, it seems that they vote for people to lower taxes and keep (or increase) social security and medicare spending. Look at Bush, he's a prime example. Massive tax cuts combined with a huge increase in medicare expenditures. He's responsible for Medicare part D, prescription drugs. It didn't even EXIST before he was elected. I think for those of us that will be around after the baby boomers are gone, it's clear that we're going to raise taxes, not cut taxes AND we're going to have to cut entitlement spending, not maintain or raise entitlement spending. We're going to get fucked big time because of what the generation before us did. We'll have more taxes and less benefits in order to pay for all the spending they demanded.[/QUOTE]
I completely get the point, but there are more than enough people to perpetuate the economic disparity. Believe me, I wish post-boomers would be more responsible, but I don't see things changing until maybe when the millenials get in office. Gen X and Y aren't changing shit. By the time our taxes go up to put a band-aid on some things, I'll be retired or dead.

To give a little more context, I'm turning 34 in a couple months and my generation and peers are as politically dumb as the previous ones. We ain't changing shit.
 
[quote name='dohdough']I completely get the point, but there are more than enough people to perpetuate the economic disparity. Believe me, I wish post-boomers would be more responsible, but I don't see things changing until maybe when the millenials get in office. Gen X and Y aren't changing shit. By the time our taxes go up to put a band-aid on some things, I'll be retired or dead.

To give a little more context, I'm turning 34 in a couple months and my generation and peers are as politically dumb as the previous ones. We ain't changing shit.[/QUOTE]

Interesting point. I wasn't aware that generations x and y held as much political influence as you are suggesting nor did I realize that there are that many gen x/y in Congress....
 
[quote name='Blaster man']Interesting point. I wasn't aware that generations x and y held as much political influence as you are suggesting nor did I realize that there are that many gen x/y in Congress....[/QUOTE]
Stop being an obtuse shithead. You can blame boomers all you want, but your own generational peers are going to be doing the same shit. Do you really think that the later generations are any more class-conscious than previous ones? Of course not.

The generational argument is akin to saying that racism will die out when the old racist fucks die out. This couldn't be further from reality.

Focusing on boomers is a waste of energy if you don't hold your own generation responsible. In 10-15 years, my generation will start having a lot more political control and those toolbags will be just as bad as the previous toolbags because that's just the nature of the system in which only certain people of a particular pedigree get into political office. And those institutions that churn them out haven't really changed at all in the last 50 years.

edit: As for your argument that they're chiefly responsible, I don't disagree as a superficial fact, but it goes so much deeper than that.
 
[quote name='dohdough']Stop being an obtuse shithead. You can blame boomers all you want, but your own generational peers are going to be doing the same shit. Do you really think that the later generations are any more class-conscious than previous ones? Of course not.

The generational argument is akin to saying that racism will die out when the old racist fucks die out. This couldn't be further from reality.

Focusing on boomers is a waste of energy if you don't hold your own generation responsible. In 10-15 years, my generation will start having a lot more political control and those toolbags will be just as bad as the previous toolbags because that's just the nature of the system in which only certain people of a particular pedigree get into political office. And those institutions that churn them out haven't really changed at all in the last 50 years.

edit: As for your argument that they're chiefly responsible, I don't disagree as a superficial fact, but it goes so much deeper than that.[/QUOTE]

There was the baby boom. That's a giant bump on a chart that represents voting power. Following that is a big dip. After the large dip is another giant bump. This second bump after the valley is chiefly Hispanic/Latino. The generations in the valley have very little power now and will have very little power when the next bump hits. There will be some cultural changes but nothing that will change the country as much as some people fear. Weve had cultural changes and influxes of people in the past. My point isn't to discuss possible cultural changes though. It's to explain that I disagree that gen x will ever have much voting power. The fact is, gen x is a baby bust. With less people comes less votes. With less votes come less ability to make changes or take responsibility. I'm not suggesting that gen x/y has no Hispanic/Latinos in it or that the next baby boom has only hispanics but what I am saying is that what people consider as gen x will not be a major voting influence and as other groups gain prominence different issues will move to the foreground.

All that aside, I do agree that this is a bit of a sidebar to the actual thread topic. Romney is actually talking about a huge number of unemployed baby boomers, claiming they are happy on government assistance, don't want to work, and already decided to vote Obama. Huge numbers of people pay no taxes because they can't find work. Romney is in for some real trouble after claiming that 47% (those that pay no taxes) are a bunch of losers who will vote for Obama anyway. Frankly, ceeding 47% of the population sounds like a good way to lose an election.
 
Apparently someone attending the infamous Romney $50,000 dinner made an astoundingly brilliant argument that demonstrated thoughtful, considerate, moderate conservatism.

I think one of the aspects about the changes that worked well for Obama four years ago was he promised to bring us more honest, transparent government to Washington. I’ve been around politics for this campaign. I worked even with Barry Goldwater in 1964, so I’ve got the oldest Republican [unintelligible] … but from what I see, particularly in the last seven months in my own personal involvement in the issue, is the government in Washington right now is permeated by cronyism, outright corruption. … Our regulatory agencies that are supposed to protect the public are protecting the people that they’re supposed to be regulating. And I think people are fed up with that. It doesn’t matter whether you are in the Tea Party or Occupy Wall Street. People see that the government is working for the powerful interests and the people who are well connected politically and not for the common person, which threatens that whole idea that we have this great opportunity, which we should have and have had historically in the West for anybody from whatever background to become successful. One way in which that becomes compromised is when the government is no longer seen as an honest agent and when our tax dollars are not really being put to work for us but for the people who are plugged in politically. You know, you have cases like [unclear], which I talk about and am involved in. You have Eric Holder, who is probably the most corrupt attorney general we’ve had ever in American history. And I think it’s something, that if spun the right way and in simple terms, can actually resonate with the American people. Obama did not keep his promises. Nancy Pelosi, who was supposed to give us an honest Congress, has given us just the opposite as speaker. And I think that’s a campaign issue that can work well. I’m optimistic that you’ll be elected president, and my recommendation would be to clean house immediately …
Click to expand...
 
Oh in the future I don't doubt my generation (guess that'd be Y) will be equally as oblivious to the effect we're having on the country. I can promise you one thing though, if the economy sucks ass when my (theoretical) kids are grown and looking for work, I won't walk around like some cranky old fart and blame them for not being able to find work. I'll at least be aware that my generation sat on it's hands and did fuck all, and I'll be really disappointed too. I just wish that at the very least, the boomers were more self aware. They fucked things up, fine, but don't blame the next generation for it. I don't even want an apology from anyone, just for them to understand that we didn't do this. I mean for crying out loud, it's like when Billy Joel released We Didn't Start the Fire, it's like we're getting blamed for shit we had no hand in.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Apparently someone attending the infamous Romney $50,000 dinner made an astoundingly brilliant argument that demonstrated thoughtful, considerate, moderate conservatism.[/QUOTE]
Thoughtful and considerate maybe, but still full of it in a few ways. Just from the part you highlighted, I don't know if I'd say that historically America was a place where anyone, from any background could be successful. Now maybe, but not for a good long while after the founding of the country.
 
No, I think there's some truth to what you're saying - definitely a tinge of reminiscence for the "way things never were" in that quote. But the remark about government working for the connected only is rather shocking from a party that is quick to cast aside those who do not follow the party line unquestionably and unwaveringly.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Apparently someone attending the infamous Romney $50,000 dinner made an astoundingly brilliant argument that demonstrated thoughtful, considerate, moderate conservatism.[/QUOTE]

I disagree with virtually everything stated there. It's like people are supposed to just accepted unproven allegations because rich people that want to pay less taxes say it? I'm sure they have absolutely NO motive other than pure altruism in wanting to cut taxes for the rich. I especially love the claim about Holder. Did everyone suddenly forget an entire day of different ways to say "I forgot" by Alberto Gonzolez?
 
I'll give him credit for admitting that the government works best for the well connected, although I do have to fight the urge to say "well duh". I mean what is it with these folks and their tendency to state the obvious, well after everyone else sees it? The bit about Holder, yeah that's partisanship rearing it's head. I know the fast and furious thing didn't go down like it was supposed to, but to say he's the worst AG in history? I'd need evidence of that.
 
Don't mistake me for thinking this is super genius or anything of that nature. I'm not saying everything is brilliant or even agreeable - but I did include the whole statement.

sigh. i guess it's easy to go through life not being impressed by anything.

But for myself, I'm pretty surprised and pleased to see someone, in the presumed unrecorded privacy of superwealthy peers, understands and, with no sense of disdain, sees underlying similarities between the root causes of disaffect that led to both the tea party and occupy movements. there's nobody to impress with bipartisanship there - after all, that's precisely why and how we got Romney cutting loose an expressing contempt for the underclass of the US.
 
Like I said, I'll give the guy credit for saying that in the company he did. It'd be like sitting in the lion's den and saying, maybe we shouldn't chase down gazelle's for food anymore. I'm just the type that usually sees the positive and negative at the same time. For example, despite him having the courage to say that in front of those folks at the private dinner, would he say that on camera, knowing it's going to be all over the news? Probably not I'd guess.
 
I hope everyone saw the daily show tonight, if not go watch the re-airing tomorrow. So much truthiness it makes colbert jealous.
 
[quote name='Clak']I hope everyone saw the daily show tonight, if not go watch the re-airing tomorrow. So much truthiness it makes colbert jealous.[/QUOTE]

I am going to download this and watch the first 11 min twice a week. He deconstructs the "entitlement" issue so well. The stuff on Fox News was funny but infuriating also. Was it just me but was there no censor on this episode? They said bullshit more than a dozen times and the Pink song was not censored either.
 
[quote name='cancerman1120']I am going to download this and watch the first 11 min twice a week. He deconstructs the "entitlement" issue so well. The stuff on Fox News was funny but infuriating also. Was it just me but was there no censor on this episode? They said bullshit more than a dozen times and the Pink song was not censored either.[/QUOTE]
Yeah it was the part about "entitlements" that I thought was best. It cut right to the heart of the matter. If you have a successful business, you built that, if your business suffers or fails, it's the government's fault for regulating too much or something. Republicans use the government as a convenient scapegoat.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='Feeding the Abscess']http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LRcEED9caqE

I'd say sociopath before darwinist.[/QUOTE]

You have to wonder if the Romney Campaign does not think they actually appear on video tape...a bit like vampires. Yes we are going to repeal Obama Care and replace it with reforms that work since I have experience creating policy that was the blueprint for Obama Care. What?
 
[quote name='cancerman1120']You have to wonder if the Romney Campaign does not think they actually appear on video tape...a bit like vampires. Yes we are going to repeal Obama Care and replace it with reforms that work since I have experience creating policy that was the blueprint for Obama Care. What?[/QUOTE]

He was saying as late as summer 2009 that Obama should implement the mandates he instituted in Massachusetts as the center of any health reform legislation, and was saying for years that his Massachusetts mandate should be taken nationally. Jim DeMint echoed these calls in 2008.

For all the talk of him being inconsistent, there's one thing he's been consistent on: individual mandates for health insurance.
 
[quote name='Feeding the Abscess']
For all the talk of him being inconsistent, there's one thing he's been consistent on: individual mandates for health insurance.[/QUOTE]

Until he decided to run for president in the Tea Party era when a huge part of the GOP platform has been repealing Obamacare.

And thus he wants to cut it all other than popular things like no denying coverage for pre-existing conditions, kids staying on parents insurance until 26 etc.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Until he decided to run for president in the Tea Party era when a huge part of the GOP platform has been repealing Obamacare.

And thus he wants to cut it all other than popular things like no denying coverage for pre-existing conditions, kids staying on parents insurance until 26 etc.[/QUOTE]

He defended individual mandates on the state level during the debates.

The mandate isn't going anywhere under a potential Romney administration.
 
We'll see. I bet at the least he'd take it away as a federal mandate and say states can require it if they choose. So it would become like the medicare expansion that the Supreme Court struck down and is now up to states to opt in or out of.

But I don't see anyway Romney wins, so we'll never know.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top