Presidential RomneyJanuary 11th, 2012 | 1 Comment | Posted in Electability, Florida Primary, Mitt Romney, New Hampshire Primary, Presidential Politics, Republican Nomination, South Carolina Primary
|
David Gergen hit the nail on the head with this one. I thought it was great that he went ahead and gave his speech early instead of waiting until the later hours of the night when he wouldn’t have captured as much of an audience. Romney stood on point, didn’t allow the past three days of attacks to bother him, and turned those instances into his own strengths. It was brilliant of him to lump the attackers in with President Obama. I believe that this type of confidence and not losing his cool will resonate with voters along the line after this in South Carolina, Michigan, Nevada and beyond.
People don’t realize that Mitt Romney has worked with people from all walks of life throughout his life. He’s not some business CEO that sits at his desk all day long barking orders. He’s a genuine individual, who cares deeply about this country as well as it’s citizenry. He wants us to be happy and successful and not be shackled to the government to make it happen. He believes not only in US as citizens but in American greatness itself.
Romney will now head into South Carolina and despite all the naysayers, he’s going to win there and win big. The more people come into contact with him, the more they’re going to see how much he cares about them and this country and the attacks from those who wish to destroy this country will fall by the way side. They didn’t stick in Iowa, they most certainly didn’t stick in New Hampshire, and they won’t stick in South Carolina and beyond either.
Tags: 2012 Election, Believe in America, Electability, Mitt Romney, President, Republican Nomination, South Carolina, Win
The power to fire people. |
Mitt Romney is catching a lot of flack for a comment that he made.
I’ll go ahead and quote it here (courtesy of The Los Angeles Times:
While discussing his plans to improve health insurance coverage before members of the Nashua Chamber of Commerce this morning, Romney argued that health insurance companies have few incentives to offer better care because most Americans get healthcare from their employers and have little choice in their providers. Allowing individuals to choose their own insurance companies, he said, would give them the flexibility to fire them if they don’t perform.“I like being able to fire people who provide services to me. You know, if someone doesn’t give me the good service I need, I want to say, you know, I’m going to go get someone else to provide that service to me,” Romney went on to say.
I have a little story to share in regards to the kind of “firing” that Mitt spoke about. Almost ten years ago I was living in Jacksonville Florida, and I was pregnant with my fourth and final child Austin. At the beginning of the pregnancy I was given a guarantee that I would be able to give birth at the hospital in which I gave birth to my third child Erin almost three years prior. Well, at around the seven month point in the pregnancy my obstetrician informed me that no, he had given up his privileges at that hospital and that I would need to deliver at the beach almost fifteen miles away from my home. I reminded him of his promise and he basically (with the aid of his nurse) told me that I was going to deliver at the beach and that was that. That plain and simple, right? Well, NO. After being demeaned after I informed him that I’d have to think about that, I FIRED him. Yes, at SEVEN months pregnant I fired my OB. After doing this, his nurse and him went on to tell me how big of a mistake I was making because people drove from a hundred miles away to see him as their OB. I replied with the as much confidence as I could and said, well, I’m not going to be one of them.
Was I scared at the idea of having to find a new OB at a point in my pregnancy in which I normally had major problems (as I had high risk pregnancies each time)? Yes, but I also knew that the last time I stood up to him and went with my gut instinct instead of his “orders” that I came away victorious that time too.
So, after a few days of asking friends that I had locally on a Yahoo discussion board about natural pregnancy and holistic pediatrics I found a midwife/OB team that were willing to take me on so late in the pregnancy, and you know what? It was the best delivery I’d had thusfar. I was able to go without drugs completely, it was a much more laid back experience. And for the first time in four pregnancies I went to TERM. Yes, just barely as I was thirty-seven weeks, but that was a milestone that I’ve cherished ever since.
I FIRED my doctor, because he was not meeting my needs as a patient. He wasn’t doing as I wanted. Is there anything wrong with that? I think NOT, nor was what Mitt said wrong either.
Tags: Business, Empowerment, Firing, Health Care, Mitt Romney, Physicians
We should promote the individual ownership of health insurance |
Reasons to agree:
- You shouldn’t loose your health insurance just because you loose your job.
- There is no logical reason to provide health insurance through your employer. It was just done as a loophole to get around rules during WWII that stooped increases in salary.
- Healthcare as an employment benefit keeps you from comparing apples to apples when you compare jobs. Some companies don’t make you pay very much for health insurance. Other make you pay a lot.
- Health insurance as an employment benefit keeps people from going into different jobs because they are afraid of loosing insurance.
- When healthcare is connected to employment, employers only want to employ young healthy employees, because they end up footing the bill of the health insurance. If you had insurance as an individual, and tax incentives were restructured so it was just as cheap to get it as an individual, you would already have your insurance, and their would be one less reason to not hire an older individual.
- It encourages employers to push their married employees onto their spouse’s heal insurance. Workers in low paying jobs have no health insurance.
- Workers in high paying jobs of super expensive health insurance. So most of the pre-tax benefit goes to the wealthy. This could be restructured in a way so that instead of benefiting people proportionally to how expensive the insurance is, and tying it to your income, the insurance benefit could come to individuals separate from their employer.
We should focus tax breaks on the middle class |
- The wealthy are doing just fine (+8)
- The poor have a sufficient safety net.
Dodd-Frank is bad |
- Dodd-Frank created the the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). Romney is right that the CFPB has too much power (+6). Romney has spent his life organizing complex systems, and making sure that they work the way they are intended. He could have designed a financial reform program that wouldn’t have gone overboard. Romney is also right that the (CFPB) will be one of the least accountable entities in the U.S. government (+2). Again, Romney’s experience in finance and business would have resulted in a system that has better incentives.
- Romney complains that Dodd Frank creates an economic environment for businesses that is less predictable (+1).
- Dodd-Frank did a lot of things that democrats like, that had nothing to do with preventing banks from being too big to fail (+1).
- Dodd-Frank provides incentives to promote banking among low- and medium-income residents. This is one of the causes of the economic crisis. You can’t force people with no money to be able to take out loans that they can’t afford. Just because democrats with that poor people had lots of money, doesn’t mean that they should force banks to give it to them. Until they get a bigger income, they should not get bigger loans.
- Romney points out that Dodd-Frank did not address bank or housing over-leveraging.
- Dodd-Frank is too confusing. Senator Christopher Dodd, remarked: “No one will know until this is actually in place how it works.”
- Dodd Frank rules are unclear, and open to interpretation. Romney would have ensured that it was more clear. Romney should be more specific about the exact changes he would make to Dodd-Frank (Reasons to disagree: it is thousands of pages… He doesn’t have enough time to summarize other people’s criticisms).
We should eliminate taxes for taxpayers with AGI below $200,000 on interest, dividends, and capital gains |
- We should focus tax breaks on the middle class (+10).
- As with the marginal income tax rates, Mitt Romney will seek to makepermanent the lower tax rates for investment income put in place by President Bush. Another step in the right direction would be a Middle-Class Tax SavingsPlan that would enable most Americans to save more for retirement. As president, Romney will seek to eliminate taxation on capital gains, dividends, and interestfor any taxpayer with an adjusted gross income of under $200,000, helpingAmericans to prepare for retirement and enjoy the freedom that accompaniesfinancial security. This would encourage more Americans to save and to invest forthe long-term, which would in turn free up capital for investment flowing backinto the economy and helping to facilitate economic growth.
- We we remove taxes from money that people save, then they will save more. We need people to save more. Not enough people have enough money in savings, to even make it a few months if they were to get laid off.
We should reform legal liability system to prevent spurious litigation |
- Excess litigation increases the cost of doing business.
- Excess litigation increases business uncertainty.
- Excess litigation decreases business investment.
- We should ensure that the loosing party has to pay for legal expenses. +1
- We should use a no-fault insurance scheme for accident victims, similar to New Zealand. +3
- The costs of litigation and compensation payouts raise the cost of insurance. For instance, the cost of malpractice insurance increases the cost of health care, by excessively taking money from doctors that didn’t mean to do harm. If rewards weren’t so obscene, no one would care, but people shouldn’t view becoming a victim the same way they view winning a lottary.
- It is estimated that in Britain 85% of the cost of litigation goes to the process and that only 15% goes to the victims ( GAO Study, Medical Malpractice, Implications of Raising Premiums on Access to Medical Care, 2003). Whatever the numbers are, anything less than 95% going to the victims is totally inefficient, unacceptable, and needing of reform. Only lawyers would see the current system as good for our future.
- Because most tort claims will be paid from insurance companies, sane payouts will benefit everyone who pays for insurance. It will often victim the victim. Their is such thing as obscene amounts of spending. No one needs to spend more than a few million dollars on themselves, and their family.
- Even in England, which restricts claims, the costs of litigation to the health system are steadily growing.
- Saying that malpractice lawsuits don’t amount to more than 2.3% of the money we spend on healthcare isn’t the only measurement. Money spent on healthcare includes R&D, building hospitals. Looking at the actual dollars it cost doctors, and patients would be more important in determining if it is need of reform.
- Medical malpractice isn’t the only area of legal liability that should be reformed.
- “Texas enacted some of the most extensive malpractice reforms in the nation in 2003. The number of lawsuits in the state has fallen by half since then, and malpractice premiums are down 30%. But health-care costs in Texas are still among the highest in the nation and are growing at a faster rate than in most other states.”
The worldwide tax code that we currently have is bad |
Background:The United States currently operates under what is known as a “worldwide” tax system, meaning that business income is taxed at the U.S. rate regardless of whether the income is earned within American borders or overseas.
- The worldwide tax code encourage American multinational companies to park their profits permanently overseas.
- The United States should transition to a “territorial” tax system.
- The United States requires its corporations to pay a higher percentage of their earnings than all other countries except Japan. The combination of our high tax rates and the worldwide tax code penalizes those U.S. corporations that bring their foreign profits home to invest in the United States.
- It is a deeply irrational system that benefits the rest of the world at our expense.
- Other nations have noted the competitive disadvantage inherent in a worldwide tax system, resulting in a gradual movement of countries converting from a worldwide to a “territorial” system, in which income is taxed only in the country where it is earned.
- Of the 34 OECD member nations, 26 have either a full territorial system or something very close to it.
- Alone at the top, the United States is now the only country in the OECD that adheres to the worldwide system while imposing a corporate tax rate above 30 percent
- The Bowles-Simpson Commission recommended that we switch to a territorial system. The Bowles-Simpson Commission was bi-partial, and represents common sense reforms that can be supported by both sides.
- This would enhance the ability of our corporations to compete around the world and would end the perverse incentives that keep companies from repatriating profits to the United States.
- Domestic companies that can compete vigorously abroad are in a better position to grow and create jobs at home.
- With proper draftsmanship, these potential hazards can be overcome. Romney can be trusted to get this delicate procedure crafted. Other presidential candidates who have jumped on the Romney band wagon, can not be trusted to do a good job at this.
- A territorial system must be designed to encourage the creation of jobs in the United States, not to outsource them.
- As much as $1 trillion, that could be invested in the United States, is at stake.
- It is past time to eliminate tax laws that place American firms at a competitive disadvantage, decrease revenue, and diminish corporate investment in America.
- Notwithstanding President Obama’s counterproductive meddling in the tax code, there are some short-term measures that—far from increasing uncertainty and discouraging job creators—can serve as powerful incentives for investment and hiring. These short-term measures are very much the subject of current discussion and debate in Washington. Some of them may even be proposed by President Obama in the coming days.
- Government should move from an adversarial posture to one that fosters an environment in which the private sector can flourish.
- Fixing the tax code is an important first step, but much more is required.
We should ensure that environmental laws properly account for cost in regulatory process |
Reasons to agree:
- We don’t have to spend a lot of money or force businesses to spend lots of money to help the environment, .+22
- Some environmental regulations are not worth the cost that we pay for them. +1
- Some ideas might help the environment only just a little bit, but hurt our economy a lot. Poverty is bad for the environment. American bankruptcy would be bad for the environment.
- If we don’t care about how much our environmental programs cost, we will go bankrupt.
- We should first focus our money on environmental solutions that don’t cost very much for the amount of benefit they produce. We should do a cost-benefit analysis for expensive government programs. Each large government program should receive a score for how cost efficient it is. We could then sort the programs, and prioritize which ones we should proceed with. There is a very algorithm, wiki based way of running a government. We could use online debate forums that generate arguments in a structured way that allows algorithms to promote better ideas
- There are actual laws that forbid cost assessment with respect to environmental laws. This is anti science, ant-logic, and insanity. Cost should always be considered. Nothing is free. We could spend billions of dollars saving one peanut plant, sounds good if it is a great plant, but even Homer Simpson realizes that money can buy more peanut plants. The clean air and clean water act should be modified so that each stage of the regulatory process involves cost accounting, to see if we can help the environment in better ways.
We should balance environmental needs with business needs |
Reasons to agree:
- Some ideas might help the environment only just a little bit, but hurt our economy a lot.
- American bankruptcy would be bad for the environment. +4
- If we don’t care about how much our environmental programs cost, we will go bankrupt. +2
- We should first focus our money on environmental solutions that don’t cost very much. +23
- We should do a cost-benefit analysis for all expensive government programs. +2
- Each large government program should receive a score for how cost efficient it is. We could then sort the programs, and prioritize which ones we should proceed with. There is a very algorithm, wiki based way of running a government. We could use online debate forums that generate arguments in a structured way that allows algorithms to promote better ideas
- One EPA ozone regulation has been estimated to cost over 90 billion in new cost, and the loss of 7 million jobs.
- There are actual laws that forbid cost assessment with respect to environmental laws. This is anti science, ant-logic, and insanity. Cost should always be considered. Nothing is free. We could spend billions of dollars saving one peanut plant, sounds good if it is a great plant, but even Homer Simpson realizes that money can buy more peanut plants. The clean air and clean water act should be modified so that each stage of the regulatory process involves cost accounting, to see if we can help the environment in better ways.
- A strong America can prevent wars. Wars are bad for the environment. If American businesses are unsuccessful, american power will diminish, and the world will be less stable, and more likely to go to war.
- We should care more about the environment when our economy is healthy. Because the sun will burn out destroying all life on earth, we should ensure that the long term survival of our species is more important than the long term survival of plants or other animals, as we are the only life form that can take other life forms off the planet. We should seek for environmental balance, but not before we have vanquished those who would deny human rights. We can’t spend 100% of our money on the environment, and 100% of our money on other priorities. We have to choose.
ROMNEY IS RIGHT THAT: |
ROMNEY IS RIGHT THAT:
Governor Mitt Romney and South Carolina |
“Our country will need real leadership to undo President Obama’s failed policies, and replace them with the conservative principles Mitt Romney learned turning around businesses and a failing Olympics and successfully, conservatively governing a Democratic state. I am proud to endorse him and will work my hardest to ensure he is elected so we can turn around our country.” - Nikki Haley
Romney South Carolina Videos
Mitt Romney Addresses the South Carolina Republican Convention
Romney SC Endorsements - A SC Hotline Production
US Senate Jim DeMint and other State house members endorse Mitt Romney for President.
www.schotline.com. ‘Insider politics from across the State of South Carolina’
Mitt Romney in South Carolina 02-23-06 - Part 1: Jokes
Mitt Romney spoke in South Carolina on February 23, 2006. These are the opening jokes from that speech
-”Free Speech”
-Johnny Damon
-Ann’s wildest dreams
-Front page of the sports section
Mitt Romney in South Carolina 02-23-06 Part 2
Mitt Romney spoke in South Carolina on February 23, 2006. This section of his speech discusses:
-Working with Democrats in MA
-Reducing the size of government
-Changing the homeless program
Mitt Romney in South Carolina 02-23-06 - Part 3:Education
Mitt Romney spoke in South Carolina on February 23, 2006. This section of his speech addressed Education.
-Bi-Lingual Education
-Merit-based scholarships
Mitt Romney in South Carolina 02-23-06 - Part 4
Mitt Romney spoke in South Carolina on February 23, 2006. This section of his speech discusses:
-Some Education
-Praises President Bush and Republican Congress’ handling of the threat of terrorism
Mitt Romney in South Carolina 02-23-06 Part 5: Economics
Mitt Romney spoke in South Carolina on February 23, 2006. This section of his speech discusses:
-Outsourcing
-Maintaining America’s Superpower status
Gov. Mitt Romney visits Columbia, South Carolina - Intro Sen
Gov. Mitt Romney visits Columbia, South Carolina Part Two SC State Senator Ronnie W. Cromer R introduces the former Governor of MA to Lizards Thicket patrons
Mitt Romney on Government
Mitt Romney on Government Speaking at Richland County Republican Convention in Columbia, South Carolina.
Mitt Romney in Columbia, SC
Mitt Romney announces for president in Columbia, SC on 2.14.07
Mitt Romney in Columbia, SC | Part 2
Mitt Romney announces for president in Columbia, SC on 2.14.07.
Mitt Romney in Columbia, SC | Part 3
Mitt Romney announces for president in Columbia, SC on 2.14.07
Romney Takes On Religion Heckler
Selling Access |
Newt called on Obama to refund the money Obama got from Fannie and Freddie. Newt should give his money back.
1 hour long interview with Romney |
It gets off to a slow start. Around 6:40: “He continues to complain about the problems in Congress. Look that’s Government, we need a leader.”
31:44: Cuts in military spending
34:58: Same sex marriage. Defend DOMA. National amendment. Not planning on changing gays in military.
36:27: What are the differences between you and Newt?
#1: Leadership: Tell me about the person’s capacity to lead. How did they do? What do the people around him think about his leadership. What made Ronald Reagan a great president? They were great leaders. Not necessarily that they had the best answers, but that they were great leaders. They faced our problems with sobriety, wisdom, and character.
#2: Spending time in the private sector. The battles we are facing are not militarily, but economic.
#3: Issues. Medicare, Wall Street Journal says the Romney plan is better than the Newt plan. Eliminate child labor laws so kids can clean schools. Permanent colony on the moon. We have other priorities. Series of mirrors to light our highways at night. I have some better ideas for our resources.
42:30 Why should conservatives trust you?
45:00 Gay rights
47:49: Romneycare
49:06: Individual Mandate
53:51: Are you taking shots at Newt because of his 3 marriages?
55:14: Islamic Jihad. What would you do differently than Obama? Nuclear Iran. The president has taken too long to take sanctions against Iran. It was wrong to remove our missile defense without getting Russia and China to sanction Iran. It was wrong for Obama to remain silent when little squinty stole the Iranian election. Should have put pressure similar to South Africa. Credible military actions. Provide advisers similar to Philippines in Nigeria. Send advisers to avoid conflicts. America’s and civilized world interest.
1:03:44 Closing. Person of judgment, care, and caution. Propose solutions that are well thought through, vetted, and will make America better. Leader, trust, loyalty, vision. Has the capacity to create success where failure was a real option. Had I led and failed, I wouldn’t be doing this.
Tags: Gay Rights, Individual Mandate, Newt, Romneycare, Trust[ Copy this | Start New | Full Size ]