Romney on disaster relief -- "We just can't afford it!"

Romney just can't discuss anything that involves humanity without showing what a heartless piece of shit he is.

The perfect storm is now inundating the East Coast. We won't know for a weeks/months how devastating it will be for the 50 million who live there.

In case you don't remember Katrina, try and imagine what a President Romney will do to address this disaster.

From the ATLANTA (Red State) CONSTITUTION JOURNAL.

http://blogs.ajc.com/jay-bookman-blo...-those-things/

The impacts of monstrous Hurricane Sandy are already being felt. Thousands are already without power, with the storm still 200 miles off shore.

Most dramatically, off the North Carolina coast, the crew of the HMS Bounty, a three-masted, 180-foot replica of the “Mutiny on the Bounty” original, has been forced to abandon the tall ship. High winds and seas initially prevented the Coast Guard from launching a rescue operation, leaving the 17-member crew to try to weather the storm in two lifeboats. As of 9:15, helicopters had finally reached the scene and had begun hoisting crew members aboard.


A file photo of the HMS Bounty, now probably lost at sea. (AP)

Elsewhere, the storm is packing every bit of the punch predicted and then some. Predictions are that as far away from the coast as Lake Michigan, winds could reach 50 mph with waves as high as 25 feet. Along the Virginia-West Virginia border, snow may total two feet.

Stu Ostro, senior meteorologist at The Weather Channel, predicts Sandy “will occupy a place in the annals of weather history as one of the most extraordinary to have affected the United States.”

Sandy possesses “a combination of track, size, structure and strength that is unprecedented in the known historical record there,” Ostro writes, calling it “a meteorologically mind-boggling combination of ingredients.”

“This is an extraordinary situation, and I am not prone to hyperbole,” he concludes.

Both Mitt Romney and President Obama have called off political events scheduled for Virginia. Obama has canceled events in Florida and Ohio as well, heading back to the White House to oversee storm preparations. He has also signed emergency declarations for seven states to make them eligible for FEMA assistance.

And what would a President Romney be doing in such a situation? If you take him at his word, he would prefer to be doing little or nothing.

Back during the Republican primary season, in the wake of devastating tornadoes that hit Louisiana, Missouri and Tennessee, Mitt Romney strongly endorsed the idea of ending federal disaster-relief programs and devolving that job to the states. As I pointed out in a blogpost at the time, that’s a dangerous proposal, because a state that has just been hit hard by a major natural disaster simply does not have the financial resources necessary to respond on the necessary scale.

But Romney, asked that question point blank in the debate by CNN’s John King, did not equivocate:

“Every time you have an occasion to take something from the federal government and send it back to the states, that’s the right direction. And if you can go even further and send it back to the private sector, that’s even better. Instead of thinking in the federal budget, what we should cut — we should ask ourselves the opposite question. What should we keep? We should take all of what we’re doing at the federal level and say, what are the things we’re doing that we don’t have to do? And those things we’ve got to stop doing, because we’re borrowing $1.6 trillion more this year than we’re taking in. We cannot…

KING: Including disaster relief, though?

ROMNEY: We cannot — we cannot afford to do those things without jeopardizing the future for our kids. It is simply immoral, in my view, for us to continue to rack up larger and larger debts and pass them on to our kids, knowing full well that we’ll all be dead and gone before it’s paid off. It makes no sense at all.

I rarely quote myself, but in this case I’ll make an exception because what was said more than a year ago in response to Romney applies more than ever, with Sandy about to hit shore and wreak havoc on millions of people:

“… it is moments such as these that put the “United” in the United States. We are not self-contained human units each out to maximize individual wealth and consumption; we are Americans, and we help each other out. The notion that disaster relief is among “those things we’ve got to stop doing” is nonsense, and to base that suggestion on grounds of morality, as Romney does, boggles the mind.

After all, we are the richest nation the world has ever known. The concept that “we cannot afford to do those things” — “those things” being assisting our fellow Americans in a time when they have lost everything as a result of natural disaster — is unacceptable.

I’m not sure what Romney was thinking in those remarks. This was not some misstatement or misunderstanding on his part. I suspect, however, that this is what happens when a party becomes so trapped in its rhetoric that it no longer recognizes rational bounds or even basic compassion.”

And yes, I fully expect Romney to break out his Etch A Sketch and thoroughly repudiate his comments of a year ago. But the record should still be noted, because it accurately reflects the governing philosophy that Romney and his fellow Republicans would attempt to implement if given the chance to do so.

– Jay Bookman

CRICKETS AGAIN!

BIG FUCKING SURPRISE!

RWW can't handle the truth! So they believe the lies!

A shame the hurricane didn't hit Ohio.

It's not that we have nothing to say, it's that your post is so ridiculous, it's rendered us speachless. A blog? Really?

it's rendered us speachless. Originally Posted by LovingKayla

That's probably a good thing!

Lets see, you post opinion after opinion, right wing blog after blog and you have the balls to challenge any source?

Editorial writer from the Atlanta Constitution Journal is not the same as some Timothy McVeigh wannabe writing love letters to Rush Limbaugh on his mummy's computer.

we all know the difference.

So give it a rest.

Romney is right "We Can't afford It" That doesn't mean he's heartless, he's just being honest.

Romney is right "We Can't afford It" That doesn't mean he's heartless, he's just being honest. Originally Posted by acp5762

We're bankrupt. We can't afford basic services anymore. The social welfare state is eating us alive. We now spend $60,000, in various welfare benefits, per household, for "families" living below the poverty line.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/...ty_657889.html

We're bankrupt. We can't afford basic services anymore. Originally Posted by joe bloe

JB, the nicest way I can put it is you and your sources have no idea what you are talking about for a number of reasons.

#1 - The US creates its own money so technically (from an accounting standpoint) it cannot go bankrupt unless the people and their elected representatives choose not to pay their bills (like in the debt ceiling fight). It is like having a black American Express that you have charged up (say between jobs, but you have tons of non-liquid assets) and you decide not to pay the bill. That is just plain fact jack!

#2 - Because we create our own money (thanks to Nixon who ended convertibility in 1971) we don't have to buy bonds to finance stuff and we set our own interest so technically we don't have to pay interest either, but we choose to do it to keep all those people in business.

#3 - You don't call someone who has tons of non-liquid assets (say $4 Million in land, bonds and T-bills) bankrupt as long as they pay their bills. They can always borrow and last time I looked the US had LOTS of assets and can still borrow (even if it chooses not to collect any taxes or create any money which is unlikely). That might change, but hasn't yet.

#4 - The US has taxing authority. Its like a guaranteed income in perpetuity as long as the representatives and people are willing to cash the check (see #1 on political will to pay the bills) Now if you look at how the taxing system works we don't actually use taxes to pay for stuff, but we could if we wanted to.

Now I was mixing up micro-economic examples as analogies for the macro-economic facts, but in reality there is are significant differences between macro and micro. Thus the micro "debt is bad, always balance the budget" perspective of a household, business or even a state just doesn't apply when talking about a country. If you can't see the difference now, you just aren't trying.

So...... We can create money out of thin air, we don't have to borrow or pay interest if we don't want to (see #1), we have lots of assets and we have a guaranteed income (as long as we will cash the check). If that is "bankrupt" then I'd like to be "bankrupt" like that! Doesn't seem like "bankrupt" to me. You?

These are just plain accounting facts and the realities of a sovereign's (in fact the sovereign that owns the world's reserve currency) fiat monetary system and the primary reason that macro-economics is different from micro-economics.

This isn't totally cut and dried because there are lots of pitfalls and caveats to this such as the risk of runaway inflation (not an issue for the last four years), a deflationary spiral, political will, group psychology and unemployment with a shrinking GDP (not in evidence yet) but we are FAR FAR from bankrupt unless you and your fear-mongering brethren on the right destroy this country by plunging it into another worse recession or depression by spreading this ignorance and fear to a majority of the people.

Do you really think you are trying to save the US by repeating these complete and total fallacies? Do you and yours really want to destroy this country and it's people? To what end? Possibly just to get rid of Obama? Please quit it, now and talk about economics based on fact and evidence.

JB, the nicest way I can put it is you and your sources have no idea what you are talking about for a number of reasons.

#1 - The US creates its own money so technically (from an accounting standpoint) it cannot go bankrupt unless the people and their elected representatives choose not to pay their bills (like in the debt ceiling fight). It is like having a black American Express that you have charged up (say between jobs, but you have tons of non-liquid assets) and you decide not to pay the bill. That is just plain fact jack!

#2 - Because we create our own money (thanks to Nixon who ended convertibility in 1971) we don't have to buy bonds to finance stuff and we set our own interest so technically we don't have to pay interest either, but we choose to do it to keep all those people in business.

#3 - You don't call someone who has tons of non-liquid assets (say $4 Million in land, bonds and T-bills) bankrupt as long as they pay their bills. They can always borrow and last time I looked the US had LOTS of assets and can still borrow (even if it chooses not to collect any taxes or create any money which is unlikely). That might change, but hasn't yet.

#4 - The US has taxing authority. Its like a guaranteed income in perpetuity as long as the representatives and people are willing to cash the check (see #1 on political will to pay the bills) Now if you look at how the taxing system works we don't actually use taxes to pay for stuff, but we could if we wanted to.

Now I was mixing up micro-economic examples as analogies for the macro-economic facts, but in reality there is are significant differences between macro and micro. Thus the micro "debt is bad, always balance the budget" perspective of a household, business or even a state just doesn't apply when talking about a country. If you can't see the difference now, you just aren't trying.

So...... We can create money out of thin air, we don't have to borrow or pay interest if we don't want to (see #1), we have lots of assets and we have a guaranteed income (as long as we will cash the check). If that is "bankrupt" then I'd like to be "bankrupt" like that! Doesn't seem like "bankrupt" to me. You?

These are just plain accounting facts and the realities of a sovereign's (in fact the sovereign that owns the world's reserve currency) fiat monetary system and the primary reason that macro-economics is different from micro-economics.

This isn't totally cut and dried because there are lots of pitfalls and caveats to this such as the risk of runaway inflation (not an issue for the last four years), a deflationary spiral, political will, group psychology and unemployment with a shrinking GDP (not in evidence yet) but we are FAR FAR from bankrupt unless you and your fear-mongering brethren on the right destroy this country by plunging it into another worse recession or depression by spreading this ignorance and fear to a majority of the people.

Do you really think you are trying to save the US by repeating these complete and total fallacies? Do you and yours really want to destroy this country and it's people? To what end? Possibly just to get rid of Obama? Please quit it, now and talk about economics based on fact and evidence. Originally Posted by austxjr

Countries go "bankrupt" by hyperinflating the currency. I was using the term loosely. In a personal bankruptsy, your creditors get stiffed because you've run up more debt than you can pay.

When a country has more debt than it can possibly pay, it just prints more money and pays the creditor with worthless currency. That's what Germany did after WWI and that's where we're headed, or possibly where we are.

Countries go "bankrupt" by hyperinflating the currency. I was using the term loosely. In a personal bankruptsy, your creditors get stiffed because you've run up more debt than you can pay.

When a country has more debt than it can possibly pay, it just prints more money and pays the creditor with worthless currency. That's what Germany did after WWI and that's where we're headed, or possibly where we are. Originally Posted by joe bloe

this isnt Germany, or Mexico, there is no hyperinflation and we arent bankrupt .

Lets see, you post opinion after opinion, right wing blog after blog and you have the balls to challenge. Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

Name even one time I've posted a blog as proof I was right. In fact post one time I've EVER posted a blog. I can understand how you'd get confused. I write well.

So, please. Tell me one time I've posted a blog.


Yes, it's all about me.

We can't afford it....any recovery funds spent will have to be borrowed funds.........more debt.

BTW, most of the NJ storm damage is to property owned by the (Democratically Despised) 1%ers !!!!!!!!!!!

They need all the help they can get to re-build those vacation homes and rental properties in Mantoloking.

That's a nice spin, Austtxjr, but you simply ignore the obvious. We owe money to many bondholders, many of them foreign governments. There is not enough wealth in the US to tax to pay it off, that is a limited source. We can't print the money, because the resulting hyperinflation will devastate the economy.

We're stuck. We need to quit spending so much. Plain and simple. It's not going to get any better regardless who wins.

JB, the nicest way I can put it is you and your sources have no idea what you are talking about for a number of reasons.

#1 - The US creates its own money so technically (from an accounting standpoint) it cannot go bankrupt unless the people and their elected representatives choose not to pay their bills (like in the debt ceiling fight). It is like having a black American Express that you have charged up (say between jobs, but you have tons of non-liquid assets) and you decide not to pay the bill. That is just plain fact jack!

#2 - Because we create our own money (thanks to Nixon who ended convertibility in 1971) we don't have to buy bonds to finance stuff and we set our own interest so technically we don't have to pay interest either, but we choose to do it to keep all those people in business.

#3 - You don't call someone who has tons of non-liquid assets (say $4 Million in land, bonds and T-bills) bankrupt as long as they pay their bills. They can always borrow and last time I looked the US had LOTS of assets and can still borrow (even if it chooses not to collect any taxes or create any money which is unlikely). That might change, but hasn't yet.

#4 - The US has taxing authority. Its like a guaranteed income in perpetuity as long as the representatives and people are willing to cash the check (see #1 on political will to pay the bills) Now if you look at how the taxing system works we don't actually use taxes to pay for stuff, but we could if we wanted to.

Now I was mixing up micro-economic examples as analogies for the macro-economic facts, but in reality there is are significant differences between macro and micro. Thus the micro "debt is bad, always balance the budget" perspective of a household, business or even a state just doesn't apply when talking about a country. If you can't see the difference now, you just aren't trying.

So...... We can create money out of thin air, we don't have to borrow or pay interest if we don't want to (see #1), we have lots of assets and we have a guaranteed income (as long as we will cash the check). If that is "bankrupt" then I'd like to be "bankrupt" like that! Doesn't seem like "bankrupt" to me. You?

These are just plain accounting facts and the realities of a sovereign's (in fact the sovereign that owns the world's reserve currency) fiat monetary system and the primary reason that macro-economics is different from micro-economics.

This isn't totally cut and dried because there are lots of pitfalls and caveats to this such as the risk of runaway inflation (not an issue for the last four years), a deflationary spiral, political will, group psychology and unemployment with a shrinking GDP (not in evidence yet) but we are FAR FAR from bankrupt unless you and your fear-mongering brethren on the right destroy this country by plunging it into another worse recession or depression by spreading this ignorance and fear to a majority of the people.

Do you really think you are trying to save the US by repeating these complete and total fallacies? Do you and yours really want to destroy this country and it's people? To what end? Possibly just to get rid of Obama? Please quit it, now and talk about economics based on fact and evidence. Originally Posted by austxjr

So then austxjr, since we can print Fiat money at will whats with the 15 Trillion deficit. The fact is we have so much debt every dollar we make is spoken for. Every time we print money it hurts the economy even more. If it didn't we wouldn't be in this economic perdiciment.