I got into another fight with Blogger today and lost. I wanted to delete some troll comments and inadvertently deleted everyone's comments from two posts.
I tried to restore as many as I could, but I'm just too busy with other work that has to be done, so I found this on the "intertubes" and it made everything okay.
Enjoy!
How many more people like this Ohio firefighter realize that Mr. Obama is on their side.
This is a reminder of what gaffe-prone, out-of-touch 99 percenter Romney, who wants to be president, said about firefighters, cops, and teachers:
June 11, 2012:
"During Gov. Romney's tenure, local government was cut dramatically," says Rob Dolan, the mayor of Melrose, Mass. [Melrose, Mass., is my home town--SK]
"We lost police, firefighters, teachers at rapid rates — people that directly impacted the lives of every citizen."
Here's what Romney said Friday:
"He [President Obama] wants another stimulus, he wants to hire more government workers. 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.”
Just three different public-sector professions — any three different public sector professions — and Mitt Romney would have been completely on-message and void of any political repercussions. He could have hit Obama especially hard on the "doing fine" gaffe.
Instead, Romney has gotten himself into a world of potential political trouble. He has the Republican all-star governor, Scott Walker, clean-breaking with him on the issue and disagreeing on what the "message of Wisconsin" and Walker's recall victory actually was.
"The big issue is that the private sector still needs more help," Walker said Sunday on CBS' "Face the Nation" with Bob Schieffer. "The answer's not more big government. I know in my state, our reforms allowed us to protect firefighters, police officers and teachers. That's not what I think of when I think of big government."
Romney also has surrogates like former New Hampshire Gov. John Sununu saying things like, "There is wisdom in the comment." Of course, he prefaced his statement by saying he was responding as a "taxpayer, not a representative of the Romney campaign, so that will probably make everything OK.
The facts are that firefighters and police aren't even a subject Walker would touch in his controversial law that spawned the Wisconsin recall election last week. Walker exempted police officers, firefighters and the Wisconsin State Patrol from the law.
The Washington Post's Greg Sargent writes...that protecting the aid of teachers and first responders is wildly popular with the American public. He points to two polls, both of which find that more than 70 percent of Americans favored some variation of aiding state and local governments to hire or prevent the layoffs of firefighters, teachers and police.
Not only does this put Romney in a compromising political position in the race, it could also give Obama a chance to build momentum for his jobs bill, which has gotten little buzz since he introduced it last September. A big part of that bill is Obama's assertion that it would prevent the layoffs of nearly 400,000 teachers, firefighters and police. His campaign is already pushing it, in fact:
"While President Obama has a plan to create 1 million jobs, Mitt Romney is proposing cutbacks of jobs for police officers, firefighters, and teachers—the same plan he enforced in Massachusetts."
22 comments:
Wow a former republican is now supporting Obama, must be a slow news day.
Romney expected to be booed at the NAACP convention but he showed commitment just by speaking. The audience was not interested in any facts. What would anyone expect when he is addressing a racist group who's main reason for voting for Obama is because he is black, and of course he promised free stuff.
A racist group who's main reason for voting for Obama is because he is black?
skudrunner, your bigotry is all too evident.
What would you call all the white people who voted for John McCain and that foolish woman in the last election?
Mr. Obama is a Democrat. 98% of the African American community votes for Democrats, always have.
Romney is a Republican who threatened to repeal health care in his speech.
What did Romney expect from that audience? French kisses?
Your comment reeks of anger and petulance.
Romney deserved booing and more for lying to the African American audience.
Good for them.
Free stuff? That's about as deceitful and inaccurate as it gets. And Romney is good at it.
There's no "free stuff" in the ACA, unless a person is destitute.
He's a liar.
skudrunner can always be counted on to come to shaw's blog and whine.
here's what romney did:
"Romney speech to the NAACP will probably help him with certain segments of the Republican base, but the broader electorate may well react negatively to the contemptuous attitude he displays toward people who support health care reform, who simply want the insurance that they pay for to actually cover them and their loved ones when they need it to.
It will also give the press, and the former Massachusetts Governor’s opponents, a chance to remind independent voters that Mitt Romney actually does give different speeches to different audiences. To his donors, people who favor government health care reform with an individual mandate are freeloaders, while he tells the people of several years ago that government health care reform with an individual mandate eliminates the freeloaders.
as they say in massachusetts, he's a wicked pissah!
Saw some of his speech, noticed the boos, also caught the clapping. Listened to some in the black community showing appreciation for Romney appearing and making his remarks.
Thought Mittens handled the situation fairly well, given what could only be considered a hostile audience. And Romney was honest, well consistent anyway with his goal of repealing ObamaCare. Which of course we know won't happen.
Romney isn't wicked anymore than Obama is. However they are both out of touch with reality in there own unique way.
I hate blooger!!!!
I can sympathize, and no apology necessary.
Julian Bond, the noted civil rights leader and former head of the NAACP, said he did not see Romney's appearance as genuine outreach to the African American community.
"He went there to bait us," Bond said. He argued that Romney deliberately sparked boos by referring to "Obamacare," which Bond said many African Americans regard as pejorative.
"He wanted to be able to go to some of the independents he needs to get elected and tell them, 'See? I stood up to the Negroes,'" Bond said. He noted that Romney later said on Fox News that he knew he'd be booed for the Obamacare remark.
I have never heard a white voter say he voted for McCain because he is white but several blacks have said the vote for Obama because he is black. They did not state because he is qualified just because he is black.
Samuel L. Jackson
"I Voted for Obama BECAUSE HE'S BLACK"
The bigotry comment was uncalled for and flatly untrue. I don't believe Obama is capable of running the country and his record proves it.
Why doesn't Obama address the NAACP convention, because he knows he has their vote regardless of what he has done. Why didn't Obama show some courage and address the NRA convention. Romney may not get much out of this but at least he entered the lions den.
I agree with Polosi when she said Romney expected to get booed but at least he showed up.
@ Shaw - "He went there to bait us," Bond said. He argued that Romney deliberately sparked boos by referring to "Obamacare,...
"He wanted to be able to go to some of the independents he needs to get elected and tell them, 'See? I stood up to the Negroes...
Well then Shaw I guess if the " noted civil rights leader" Julian Bond said it must be absolute fact. No possibly whatsoever it is just unsubstantiated opinion.
In my considered opinion Bond is engaging in the worst kind of race baiting. Shameful.
And I don't particularly like (or dislike) Romney. He just isn't very good presidential material. But of course you are aware of that.
skudrunner,
This is YOUR comment--the first one on this thread--about the NAACP:
What would anyone expect when he is addressing a racist group who's main reason for voting for Obama is because he is black, and of course he promised free stuff.
You brought race into the discussion, not I. And for you to generalize that the entire group is racist and voted for Obama only because he's black and because he'd give them "free stuff" is without a doubt disgusting bigotry.
You wrote that crap; you own it.
And it tells us a lot more about what you are than anything else you've ever written here.
since you are all into science
"...it has been suggested that C. obamae, which had nearly gone extinct when cattle ranches were active, will make a comeback on the island."
Thanks, @ anonymous 11:04, for that encouraging link!
After visiting the forest fires and meeting the temporary fire fighters, Obama found out that these temporary fire fighters (government employees) were working without insurance, it simply was not offered to them.
So when Obama got back to DC, he made it possible for these fire fighters to BUY (it was not given to them) insurance. Problem solved.
Two different approaches and attitudes towards those who put their lives on the line to protect Americans.
I like Obama's approach and attitude, for these people who have dangerous jobs.
Steve,
You mean Mr. Obama ISN'T trying to give African Americans and gummint employees "free stuff?"
Geez. Someone. Quick. Tell Rmoney and skudrunner!
Romney got booed because he's white
Not an entire group because there are people who will vote for someone who is qualified instead of being a yellow dog democrat.
Obamacare = Free Stuff provided by the middle class tax increase
Increase of 16 million food stamp recipients under the Obama Recession
@anonymous 12:52
Bullpuckey!
skudrunner, the onus is on YOU to prove what "free stuff" is in the ACA. Until you can come up with verifiable specifics, I call bullpuckey on that as well.
And finally:
Fact check: Gingrich's faulty food-stamp claim
By Brooks Jackson, FactCheck.orgUpdated 2/6/2012 10:29 AM Comments
Newt Gingrich claims that "more people have been put on food stamps by Barack Obama than any president in American history." He's wrong. More were added under Bush than under Obama, according to the most recent figures.
More reporting on food stamps from USA Today:
"Gingrich strained the facts when he accused Obama of being responsible. The rise started long before Obama took office, and accelerated as the nation was plunging into the worst economic recession since the Great Depression.
The economic downturn began in December 2007. In the 12 months before Obama was sworn in, 4.4 million were added to the rolls, triple the 1.4 million added in 2007.
To be sure, Obama is responsible for some portion of the increase since then. The stimulus bill he signed in 2009 increased benefit levels, making the program more attractive. A family of four saw an increase of $80 per month, for example. That increase remains in effect and is not set to expire until late next year, according to USDA spokeswoman Jean Daniel.
The stimulus also made more people eligible. Able-bodied jobless adults without dependents could get benefits for longer than three months. That special easing of eligibility also expired on Sept. 30, 2010. Spokeswoman Daniel told us that 46 states have been able to continue the longer benefit period under special waivers granted because of high unemployment. Previously, able-bodied adults without dependents could collect food stamps for only three months out of any three-year period.
Otherwise, current eligibility standards are unchanged from what they were before Obama took office, USDA officials say. Generally, those with incomes at or below 130% of the official poverty level, and savings of $2,000 or less, may receive aid. The income level is currently just over $29,000 a year for a family of four.
That leaves the economic downturn that began in 2007 — and the agonizingly slow recovery that followed — as the principal factors making more Americans eligible for food stamps. Officials say that another factor is that Americans today are less reluctant to accept aid than before.
Of those whose income was low enough to qualify, only 54 percent actually signed up in 2002, but that rose steadily to 72 percent by fiscal 2009, the latest USDA figures show.
USDA researchers said the jump in the participation rate happened because of actions by state governments. In a report released in August 2011, the Office of Research and Analysis said:
USDA: States have increased outreach to low-income households, implemented program simplifications, and streamlined application processes to make it easier for eligible individuals to apply for and receive SNAP [food stamp] benefits. Most States also have reduced the amount of information that recipients must report during their certification period to maintain their eligibility and benefit levels, making it easier for low-income households to participate.
Another reason may be that "food stamps" no longer exist as paper coupons. Instead, beneficiaries now receive plastic debit cards, known as "Electronic Benefit Transfer" or EBT cards, which look pretty much like an ordinary credit card when used in a supermarket checkout line.
And more HERE.
Shaw,
It's hard to talk serious issues with those so entrenched in the untruths of Republican talking points.
Skudrunner,
The ACA is not free, except to those who are in total poverty, about 1%.
No one will be taxed, except those who can afford health insurance, but refuse to buy (about 3%) thus boosting costs for all of us.
If you have insurance, you will not be taxed.
Nothing is free, unless like Republicans, you don't pay for spending. Like two wars, tax cuts, a drug program, etc., which is why we have such large debts.
Pretty simple Math.
So the question is, why do Republicans vote for all this unpaid spending?
Republicans cry about Democrats wanting higher taxes, at least they try to pay for our spending.
With the debt at 16 trillion, obviously we are not taxing ourselves enough.
I disagree with Obama's tax cut plan. With such high debt, it is irresponsible to talk any tax cuts.
The fact that you want to blame Obama for all this mess, is well...I'll skip the verbs.
I'm sure you will disregard my opinions anyways.
"A record 44.7 million people -- or 1 in 7 Americans -- were on food stamps last year."
That is from your own article and seems to say Obama is the record holder.
You are correct the ACA is not totally free except for those who are in poverty, The middle class will be taxed to pay for it. The rich take care of themselves, the poor are taken care of and the middle class gets screwed. I guess for the rich democrats it just doesn't matter who suffers.
"With the debt at 16 trillion, obviously we are not taxing ourselves enough."
There is never enough money for our corrupt leaders. Taxing the Obama "rich" will have little to no effect on spending or the deficit. All it does is create class warfare. Why not cut wasteful spending for a change.
We voted for them. We are responsible for what they do, and what they spend.
People who don't pay their debts, are deadbeats.
And apparently you think it's ok not to pay our debt.
Just pass it on, right?
Post a Comment