Mitt Romney tells people he won't fire federal workers or cut education spending. He says he'll spend more on the military. He sounds like a big-government guy. Or is he just pandering for votes? Posted on 10/31/2012 7:00:03 AM PDT by Kaslin
Mitt Romney tells people he won't fire federal workers or cut education spending. He says he'll spend more on the military. He sounds like a big-government guy. Or is he just pandering for votes?
Ann Coulter came on my TV show to defend Romney.
"What you call pandering is called getting elected," Coulter said.
Romney says he'll repeal Obamacare. Great! But he wants to keep popular parts: coverage for pre-existing conditions and keeping grown kids on their parents' policies until age 26. Those mandates are popular. But that's not insurance. That's welfare.
"If we do not repeal Obamacare in the next few years, America takes the first step into 1,000 years of darkness. ... Romney is far more free market than any recent Republican candidate, including George Bush. What Romney is talking about here is the free market."
But that's not the free market. It's a forced handout.
"If it's popular, it will be provided on the free market. There are insurance products we can't even think of, including buying insurance for your unborn children. ... The problem with health care -- and the reason Romneycare was a libertarian solution for a governor to provide because the governor can't repeal all the federal government stuff -- is that right now, you already have government intervention. Government pays for nearly 50 percent of all health care in America. It is already 50 percent socialist. Romney is going to roll it back, apply free-market magic, and everything you want covered is going to be covered."
But he says he will force every insurance company to cover pre-existing conditions.
"He's not saying 'force.' ... The free market will cover it. I promise you that's what he means."
Really? He does say, "Pre-existing conditions are covered under my plan." That sounds like force. A free market is voluntary. But I decided to move on.
Romney wants to increase military spending. America is going broke, and yet we still spend about as much on "defense" as all other countries combined. How can we afford this?
"For one thing, I do trust Romney to cut a lot of government -- more than Ronald Reagan did. That's why we need Romney right now as much as we needed Reagan in 1980. This is a free-market guy. He saved companies from going into bankruptcy. He saved the Olympics from going into bankruptcy. In Massachusetts -- the Soviet Union -- he balanced the budget and cut taxes. You need someone who'll go through the budget line by line and look at the things that can be cut."
But he says he's going to increase military spending by $2 trillion!
"With a booming economy we're going to have under Romney, we will have so much money we won't know where to spend it."
I moved on again. In one debate with Obama, Romney said, "I don't have any plan to cut education funding." He doesn't? Why not? Education is a local responsibility. The federal government wastes $100 billion every year, intruding on local schools. But Romney won't even cut that?
Coulter wouldn't defend her candidate on that point.
"But I will just say in his defense ... he said, 'We want to send that money to the parents.' He's talking about vouchers there."
My last complaint about Romney was his promise to label China a currency-manipulator, and if China doesn't respond, raise tariffs. So he wants a trade war? That would hurt everyone. And raising tariffs means Americans pay more for things.
"You're having a kneejerk reaction to the word 'tariffs.' ... That's not the issue. The issue is the intellectual (property) theft. ... Every libertarian I know is very concerned about intellectual theft."
Well, some libertarians don't think that's theft, but that's another story. Romney mostly talks about the Chinese currency, not intellectual property, and yet currency manipulation is something our Federal Reserve has been known to do. If China devalues its currency, Chinese people suffer, but we Americans get to buy cheaper products. We win!
Coulter dodged my argument. "If we continue for five more seconds on currency manipulation," Coulter said, "I'm going to need a bottle of NoDoz."
He's made the point about a thousand times that he'll cut the federal payroll by attrition. By not replacing those who die, retire or who by some divine act, are fired.
HEY JOHNNY BOY... I DO NOT CARE WHAT MITT SAYS... HE IS NOT obama AND NOTHING THAT ANYONE SAYS OR DOES CAN STOP ME AND EVERYONE THAT I KNOW FROM VOTING FOR MITT ON TUESDAY!
LLS
Libertarians! Aren't they great?
Ann Coulter is defending a liberal Republican!
I’m not expecting much over the next four years but that’s better than the damage O can inflict on the economy and the country.
I do believe more could be done if Mittens was a conservative but I have realistic expectations for the future.
And attrition can do it if helped along by a continuing pay freeze for the overpaid federal workforce and by substantial modifications to the federal retirement systems. As a minimum, the rate of employee withholding can be significantly increased to more reasonable levels (that’s been done before for existing government employees) and their retirement can be transitioned from being based on a high-3 years average salary to a high-5 basis. The dwindling number of non governmental employees with an actual pension system rarely have it based on a high-3 years average calculation.
A new 401K only retirement plan should be the only thing that all new federal employees are under just as is the case in private industry which creates the wealth that the government consumes. If it were up to me, the same thing would happen for current employees PROSPECTIVELY. That is, they would get whatever pension they earned up to now, but would not accrue further increases in it. They are not (at least I hope they are not) yet our overlords and our ruling class.
Ditto here
I am just curious how you feel if that arrogant pos occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania is reelectedand achieves his goal, which is the destruction of this great Nation?
I always held an admiration for Coulter’s sharp mind, chock full of facts and figures ready to deflate whatever nonsense a liberal is spouting at her. But I’ve found her arguments in favor of Romney’s “conservatism” consistenty unconvincing, to the point of being almost ludicrous. Give a thousand reasons why Romney is preferable to Obama, and I’m right there. But trying to sell Romney and his record as brimming with Reaganesque conservatism is too far-flung. Coulter has lost a ton of credibility with me, these past few years, with her unwavering cheerleading of liberal ‘establishment’ Republicans, and lukewarm attitude towards the grassroots/Tea Party.
Goldstate,
I’ve had the mispleasure of reading your posts too many times this election cycle. You’re one of the true BSers around.
Ann is much more conservative than your sorry ass. You’re posturing as some righteous conservative is a ugly ass sight. GTFO.
Agreed. There will a laundry list to cuss under a Romney presidency for conservatives, but I kiss the feet of God that He allow us to remove Obama with Romney, as you alluded.
The welfare think has taken over and it’s shiniest example is in covering pre existing conditions. That is no longer insurance, but becomes welfare. Insurance is insurance against the unexpected and catastrophic, not funding your past troubles.
Stossel never told you not to vote for Romney.
He’s just telling you not to expect Romney to “save” the country because he is a big government moderate.
Is that really news to you?
Romney IS a liberal Republican!
That’s not news to any one on this thread. He’s not the kind of conservative we would like.
The reason for electing him is that he will do no harm! Obama can do a great deal more harm in a second term since he will never have to face the voters again.
And while Americans want to re-elect their President, quite frankly the cost of a second Obama term is just way too high for them to put up with it.
Mittens was no one’s choice on here and he’s not going to alter a great deal. If he does, I will be very pleasantly surprised! But I have low expectations since he’s way to the left of of where we are.
Ann Coulter is a character played by an elitist east coast woman on TV and in books which she markets to conservative bubbas. The human being behind the character may or may not share the character’s point of view, but who cares?
Never a doubt!!!
LLS
“But attacking Romney 6 days before the election strikes me as the action of a pro-Obama guy.”
Maybe, just maybe, he is trying to perform his job as a journalist and ask questions that the public has a right to know the answer to. You know, like journalists used to do before they decided to abandon any pretense of being unbiased?
It seems like we just assume if they are not in the tank for Romney, they must be pro-Obama, or vice-versa. There are actually a few journalists left that try to be tough on both sides.
sorry sarah,
gold state is spot on...
if you want me to vote for him because he is better than fubo, then just say that..
championing him as some sort of conservative “god” is just blind, plain blind...
and coulter gets no respect from me ‘cuz she is no longer anything resembling a conservative
“Choice” between going off a cliff at 100 MPH vs. going off the same cliff at 75 MPH. Romney will be little different from 0bambi as far as spending, amnesty, DeathCare or government size.
Romney is by no stretch of the imagination a Conservative. Once again, the RINO elite forces us to hold our nose and vote the Party and not the man.
“Choice” between going off a cliff at 100 MPH vs. going off the same cliff at 75 MPH. Romney will be little different from 0bambi as far as spending, amnesty, DeathCare or government size.
Romney is by no stretch of the imagination a Conservative. Once again, the RINO elite forces us to hold our nose and vote the Party and not the man.
Stossel’s correct...Romney does pander and make some illogical arguments. He made some silly statements during the last debate about how to win over Islamists in the Mideast. That’s why he was not in my first five picks during the primaries. However, he will be immensely better than Obama. That’s all that matters.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.