Jump to content

Wow...okay, So Even Conservatives Should Agree That This Is A Pretty Stupid Comment By Mitt Romney.


Recommended Posts

"He says we need more firemen, more policemen, more teachers. Did he not get the message of Wisconsin? The American people did. It's time for us to cut back on government and help the American people."

So we "help the American people" by having fewer firemen, policemen, and teachers??? Seriously, is this it the Republican message...all government in all forms is bad, even the people who teach our kids to read/write and keep us safe from criminals? We need LESS people to put out the fire if our house is burning down??

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/06/08/romney-on-obama-is-he-really-that-out-of-touch/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 63
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Yes, that comment is unnecessary and stupid. I also don't understand why these guys are talking about firemen, policemen, and teachers, when all anybody is worried about is getting a job, keeping a job, getting a better job, or getting a raise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was a stupid comment. Obama makes them regularly. Please post those as well in an effort to be less partisan.

It's more than just stupid. It's very revealing. The solution is to fire policemen, teachers, and firefighters, according to Romney. That's what the Republican Party has become. They hate any and all government so much that they'll brag about wanting fewer teachers, police officers, and firefighters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's more than just stupid. It's very revealing. The solution is to fire policemen, teachers, and firefighters, according to Romney. That's what the Republican Party has become. They hate any and all government so much that they'll brag about wanting fewer teachers, police officers, and firefighters.

And what about Obama's "the private sector is doing just fine" comment?

He said that the weakness is actually in the public sector. Really, so if were adding half and half public and private sector jobs, that would be a good thing? I think that's an incredibly irresponsible economic theory from our President.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's more than just stupid. It's very revealing. The solution is to fire policemen, teachers, and firefighters, according to Romney. That's what the Republican Party has become. They hate any and all government so much that they'll brag about wanting fewer teachers, police officers, and firefighters.

For what it's worth, Romney didn't say we need fewer teachers, policemen and firemen, he just said we dont need more, and that we need to shrink the size of government. And I agree with him.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And what about Obama's "the private sector is doing just fine" comment?

He said that the weakness is actually in the public sector. Really, so if were adding half and half public and private sector jobs, that would be a good thing? I think that's an incredibly irresponsible economic theory from our President.

Except that he's not entirely wrong. Unemployment would be nearly a point lower if we hadn't lost so many public sector jobs. The private sector is recovering...it's added over 3.5 million jobs during the past two years. The public sector, however, has lost over half a million jobs in that same time frame, if not more.

To say it's "fine" was an overstatement and was kind of dumb. But the gist of his point was accurate.

Now, to Romney's point, do you think the gist of his comment--we need fewer policemen, firemen, and teachers--was generally accurate?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For what it's worth, Romney didn't say we need fewer teachers, policemen and firemen, he just said we dont need more, and that we need to shrink the size of government. And I agree with him.

Okay.

Here's what Obama said:

The truth of the matter is that, as I said, we created 4.3 million jobs over the last 27 months, over 800,000 just this year alone.

The private sector is doing fine. Where we're seeing weaknesses in our economy have to do with state and local government. Oftentimes cuts initiated by, you know, Governors or mayors who are not getting the kind of help that they have in the past from the federal government and who don't have the same kind of flexibility as the federal government in dealing with fewer revenues coming in.

And so, you know, if Republicans want to be helpful, if they really want to move forward and put people back to work, what they should be thinking about is how do we help state and local governments and how do we help the construction industry? Because the recipes that they're promoting are basically the kinds of policies that would add weakness to the -- to the economy, would result in further layoffs, would not provide relief in the housing market, and would result, I think most economists estimate, in lower growth and fewer jobs, not more.

And here is Romney's comment:

He wants another stimulus, he wants to hire more government workers. He says we need more fireman, more policeman, more teachers. Did he not get the message of Wisconsin? The American people did. It’s time for us to cut back on government and help the American people.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Except that he's not entirely wrong. Unemployment would be nearly a point lower if we hadn't lost so many public sector jobs. The private sector is recovering...it's added over 3.5 million jobs during the past two years. The public sector, however, has lost over half a million jobs in that same time frame, if not more.

To say it's "fine" was an overstatement and was kind of dumb. But the gist of his point was accurate.

Now, to Romney's point, do you think the gist of his comment--we need fewer policemen, firemen, and teachers--was generally accurate?

He's completely wrong.

The private sector isn't even keeping up with population growth. 120,000 jobs need to be added every month just to keep up with our expanding population!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He's completely wrong.

The private sector isn't even keeping up with population growth. 120,000 jobs need to be added every month just to keep up with our expanding population!

Actually, the average monthly job gains are over 120,000. We've just had two or three bad months back to back. So he's actually correct. Also, remember that his comment was during a press conference held precisely to address how to grow the economy. Why would he hold a press conference about the need for more economic recovery if he thought that the economy was "fine"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Show me where he said he wants to fire teachers.

There are other ways to shrink government. Benefits is one of them.

He wants to pursue policies that will result in more teachers, firefighters, and policemen getting fired. Again, the context is important here. Obama was talking about the layoffs being forced on governors and state legislatures because of less help from the federal government.

Romney responded by mocking the notion that we need more teachers, firefighters, and policemen and saying we need to "cut government" more. By "cutting government more", you are forcing more layoffs or, at least, not stopping the layoffs that result from less federal aid for states.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, the average monthly job gains are over 120,000. We've just had two or three bad months back to back. So he's actually correct. Also, remember that his comment was during a press conference held precisely to address how to grow the economy. Why would he hold a press conference about the need for more economic recovery if he thought that the economy was "fine"?

You really want to argue that the private sector is "fine"? Even close to fine?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Except that he's not entirely wrong. Unemployment would be nearly a point lower if we hadn't lost so many public sector jobs. The private sector is recovering...it's added over 3.5 million jobs during the past two years. The public sector, however, has lost over half a million jobs in that same time frame, if not more.

To say it's "fine" was an overstatement and was kind of dumb. But the gist of his point was accurate.

Now, to Romney's point, do you think the gist of his comment--we need fewer policemen, firemen, and teachers--was generally accurate?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He wants to pursue policies that will result in more teachers, firefighters, and policemen getting fired. Again, the context is important here. Obama was talking about the layoffs being forced on governors and state legislatures because of less help from the federal government.

Romney responded by mocking the notion that we need more teachers, firefighters, and policemen and saying we need to "cut government" more. By "cutting government more", you are forcing more layoffs or, at least, not stopping the layoffs that result from less federal aid for states.

State and local spending has risen over 50% since 2002, from $2 trillion in 2002 to $3.1 trillion this year.

And you want more..............

Link to comment
Share on other sites

State and local spending has risen over 50% since 2002, from $2 trillion in 2002 to $3.1 trillion this year.

And you want more..............

Huh? The entire federal budget is barely $3.1 trillion. You realize that we're talking about federal support for states, right? And when the economy crashed, states are facing revenue problems that are leading them to layoff firefighters, teachers, police officers, and other public workers.

I honestly have no idea what point you are trying to argue with this post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Huh? The entire federal budget is barely $3.1 trillion. You realize that we're talking about federal support for states, right? And when the economy crashed, states are facing revenue problems that are leading them to layoff firefighters, teachers, police officers, and other public workers.

I honestly have no idea what point you are trying to argue with this post.

What's hard to understand? States and local governments have their own budgets. When added up, it equals $3.1 trillion. That's a 50% increase since 2002. It's clearly unsustainable, hence the laying off of public sector workers.

Keeping federal funding for states the same, states are still going to have to cut back to meet budgets.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What's hard to understand? States and local governments have their own budgets. When added up, it equals $3.1 trillion. That's a 50% increase since 2002. It's clearly unsustainable, hence the laying off of public sector workers.

Keeping federal funding for states the same, states are still going to have to cut back to meet budgets.

Clearly. Unsustainable.

Budgets will increase because of cost of living increases and infrastructure renovations and so forth. But that doesn't mean that a short-term economic recession should force states to slash necessary jobs like police, teachers, and firefighters. The federal government could step in to protect those jobs for a couple of years in order to keep employment from sagging. Just because state spending increased during the Bush years doesn't mean that Obama is wrong or that Romney is correct.

The public sector is where we've seen the job losses. We've had okay growth in the private sector regarding jobs. Slashing government spending at this point in time would result in more teachers, policemen, and firemen getting laid off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Deisel

"He says we need more firemen, more policemen, more teachers. Did he not get the message of Wisconsin? The American people did. It's time for us to cut back on government and help the American people."

So we "help the American people" by having fewer firemen, policemen, and teachers??? Seriously, is this it the Republican message...all government in all forms is bad, even the people who teach our kids to read/write and keep us safe from criminals? We need LESS people to put out the fire if our house is burning down??

http://politicaltick...t-out-of-touch/

No one's said that. We need better teachers with competition involved, which you don't get in public sector unions. If you really want to ask abt a stupid comment, how abt Obama saying, "the private sectors doing fine....Its the local and state govt.s that need propping up" That will and SHOULD play big in the election. Is he really that out of touch? I think he is.

Edited by Deisel
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No ones said that. We need better teachers with competition involved, which your don't get in public sector unions. If you really want to ask abt a stupid comment, how abt Obama saying, "the private sectors doing fine....Its the local and state govt.s that need propping up" That will and SHOULD play big in the election. Is he really that out of touch? I think he is.

So how much should teachers get paid? How do you evaluate a teacher? If a teacher has the bad kids and they have all sorts of out of class issues that takes away their attention from school or no help from the parent, then you are punishing a teacher for something they cannot control. Can't wait to see private sector school kick out those bad kids because they are bringing their scores down.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...