PDA

View Full Version : After the Welfare State



Marvin S
12-10-2012, 09:43 AM
A book from CATO - Edited by Tom Palmer - Jameson Books, Ottawa, IL - Interesting read - I've posted this for Luvy, so she can be somewhat more informed prior to her ranting about leeches :).

Uncle Bill
12-10-2012, 11:24 AM
This sorta follows the idea of the short answer as to why Romney lost:


Why Romney Lost


Romney said, "When I'm elected, I will put Americans back to work."


and 51% said, "Screw That!!"












UB

murral stark
12-10-2012, 10:06 PM
This sorta follows the idea of the short answer as to why Romney lost:


Why Romney Lost


Romney said, "When I'm elected, I will put Americans back to work."


and 51% said, "Screw That!!"

.












UB
He also called 47% of the country lazy. You just can't bad mouth people that you want to vote for you. He figured there were enough of the elite in the country that would vote for him and that would override the peasants that he talked badly about. How was "he" going to put people back to work? He was going to be the president, not a CEO that could tell people to start hiring. Unless he was going to create a whole bunch of government jobs. then he could put people back to work

M&K's Retrievers
12-10-2012, 10:17 PM
He also called 47% of the country lazy. You just can't bad mouth people that you want to vote for you. He figured there were enough of the elite in the country that would vote for him and that would override the peasants that he talked badly about. How was "he" going to put people back to work? He was going to be the president, not a CEO that could tell people to start hiring. Unless he was going to create a whole bunch of government jobs. then he could put people back to work

Where does one begin???

murral stark
12-10-2012, 10:35 PM
Where does one begin???

How was "he" going to put people back to work? Anxiously awaiting the explanation.

mngundog
12-10-2012, 10:41 PM
How was "he" going to put people back to work? Anxiously awaiting the explanation.
He was going to put people back to work by taking them off welfare, no more freeloading, no work no money.

murral stark
12-10-2012, 11:07 PM
He was going to put people back to work by taking them off welfare, no more freeloading, no work no money.

Fair enough. what jobs was "he" going to create? If the HR people see that someone has been on welfare and has no work history, you really think they are going to hire them?

mngundog
12-10-2012, 11:20 PM
Fair enough. what jobs was "he" going to create? If the HR people see that someone has been on welfare and has no work history, you really think they are going to hire them?
I'm not going to pretend I know the state of economy everyplace but here low level jobs are available, but people aren't going to go out and work for $7 hr when they can sit home and collect $5 an hour watching TV, add to that fuel assistance, free medical, wic, food stamps I would imagine one gets by just fine by not working. I applaud Romney for going after these people, I just wish he'd go after the corporate welfare recipients with the same vigor (never going to happen). I agree with you in the fact that the Republicans have never came out with a plan, besides saying that they had a plan.

road kill
12-11-2012, 05:01 AM
He also called 47% of the country lazy. You just can't bad mouth people that you want to vote for you. He figured there were enough of the elite in the country that would vote for him and that would override the peasants that he talked badly about. How was "he" going to put people back to work? He was going to be the president, not a CEO that could tell people to start hiring. Unless he was going to create a whole bunch of government jobs. then he could put people back to work

BRAVO SIERRA!!!!

He did not say that!

charly_t
12-11-2012, 01:20 PM
BRAVO SIERRA!!!!

He did not say that!

Bingo ! :)

M&K's Retrievers
12-11-2012, 07:17 PM
BRAVO SIERRA!!!!

He did not say that!


Bingo ! :)

He must have said that. Murral said so. :rolleyes:

HPL
12-11-2012, 08:31 PM
What he actually said was that there was a section of the electorate that was not going to vote for him no matter what and that he couldn't waste resources trying to get their vote. Of course it was spun that he didn't care about those people, but much of his personal history would indicate that he might actually care about his fellow man. If you want to know what I'm referencing, look up his charitable donations, and his other personal good works.

murral stark
12-11-2012, 08:56 PM
What he actually said was that there was a section of the electorate that was not going to vote for him no matter what and that he couldn't waste resources trying to get their vote. Of course it was spun that he didn't care about those people, but much of his personal history would indicate that he might actually care about his fellow man. If you want to know what I'm referencing, look up his charitable donations, and his other personal good works.

Maybe he should have "wasted a few resources" to make "those people" understand that he really was looking out for them. Make your comments in public, not at some fundraiser of very wealthy donors, and then try to crawfish out of what he said. Face it, he was/is out of touch with the common working class people in the country and they don't trust him.

gmhr1
12-11-2012, 09:14 PM
What does Obama have in common with the middle class working man? Obama ran on the fact that he would only raise taxes on those making over 250K, but now everyone will pay the price. Thats something he knew all along, never once while he was running did he say, if we dont get the fiscal cliff issue resolved middle class taxes will be going up, in fact at the debate his words were "the fiscal cliff wont happen". So he can skip his $40K Xmas trip to Hawaii, stay here and come up with a solution.

Gerry Clinchy
12-11-2012, 09:16 PM
Maybe he should have "wasted a few resources" to make "those people" understand that he really was looking out for them. Make your comments in public, not at some fundraiser of very wealthy donors, and then try to crawfish out of what he said. Face it, he was/is out of touch with the common working class people in the country and they don't trust him.

Murral, HPL explained what he said ... but the opposition and the MSM continued to hammer on their own interpretation.

There is far more in Romney's work history to indicate that he is probably more in touch with working class people than Obama will ever be or ever has been.

I can agree that Romney was not effective in getting that message to the electorate.

You might say that the 47% voted as anticipated; and another 3% of the electorate voted for the belief that they should support re-distribution of wealth because it was the right thing to do or because they have special interests that will stand to profit from the expansion of govt. It's no secret that some socialists and some communists are taxpayers. Some of them are actually quite wealthy ... just look at how many of them are in Obama's cabinet posts or czars on his staff.