Romney says Obama believes in a ‘government-centered society’

By Holly Bailey | The Ticket – Sat, Mar 31, 2012

PEWAUKEE, Wis.—Making a direct appeal to social conservatives, Mitt Romney reiterated his pledge to "defund" Planned Parenthood and defend the "sanctity of life" and religious freedom if elected president.

But speaking at a rally hosted by the conservative Faith & Freedom Coalition, Romney focused less on social issues and more on President Obama and his handling of the nation's economy.

The former Massachusetts governor repeatedly slammed Obama for his support of what he described as a "government-centered society"—a phrase Romney first debuted Friday in a speech that was heavy on general election themes.

"President Obama believes in a government-centered society," Romney said Saturday. "He doesn't call it that precisely, but you listen to his speeches, there's no question he believes government guiding our lives will do a better job in doing so than individuals pursuing their own freedoms in their own ways."

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/r...183301675.html

Not a bad assessment there Mitt!!!! Oddly enough, there are many who think just like that even though our country was founded by men who wanted to avoid EXACTLY that at all costs.

I believe Mr. Romney just received the endorsement of George W. Bush.
I believe if you look at the escalation of govt under Bush you might be shocked at that growth.
Could Mr. Romney be another of those Republican hypocrities? Yep.


GOP Hearts Big Government
Posted: 01/10/12 04:49 PM ET
Fox News commentator Bill O'Reilly recently asked Mitt Romney if President Obama is a "socialist." "I consider him a big government Liberal Democrat," Romney replied, reinforcing the mantra that Republicans are the party of limited government.

But are they?

Romney, who shamelessly courts the ultra-Right GOP base by claiming in speech after disingenuous speech that "conservative principles of smaller government are what I am fighting for," has a long history as a "champion of big government." And he's promised to increase the size of the Federal government in a number of ways, should he worm his way into the Oval Office.

Let's take two:

1. Defense spending. Romney wants to add around 100,000 active duty military personnel and build lots of expensive new ships and aircraft. How does he justify this massive spending spree? He'll eliminate waste! (Consider this: if Super-Mitt really rolls up his sleeves and goes after "fraud and abuse," he could presumably add enough new troops and equipment to wage three wars at a time instead of just two.)

2. Immigration. Romney denies that he wants to deport millions of undocumented Americans, many of whom have been solid, tax paying members of society for decades. But that doesn't square with his insistence that they "get in line" behind millions of other potential citizens, which would, one way or another, involve astronomical costs. And what about that triple fence along the Mexican border, not to mention all those new patrol officers to stop itinerant farmworkers from, um, itinerating?

The Mittsterizer claims he'll save billions by running government like a business. But what kind of business? He pledges to decrease government employment by 10 percent, eliminating hundreds of thousands of jobs -- the kind of cookie cutter cost-cutting that made him mega-rich at Bain Capital, the vulture capital firm he ran for many years. Bain's penchant for buying companies, "downsizing" and then "flipping" them for huge profits is documented here and here. The Wall Street Journal reports that "22% of the companies bought under Romney's leadership either filed for bankruptcy reorganization or closed their doors by the end of the eighth year after Bain first invested, sometimes with substantial job losses. An additional 8% ran into so much trouble that all of the money Bain invested was lost." (Politico calls the accumulation of these revelations "The Bain Bomb.")

Romney's campaign to brand himself a limited government hero veers from the implausible to the absurd when he argues that the mandated health insurance he instituted as governor of Massachusetts is based on a "conservative principle," while a similar plan at the Federal level is an unconstitutional catastrophe. Influential conservative blogger Erick Erickson notes, "If Romneycare is built on such inviolable conservative principles; if Romneycare has been such an auspicious healthcare reform plan, then what is so terribly offensive about Obamacare?"

But wait, you say. Romney isn't an authentic "movement conservative" like Rick Santorum, the latest would-be non-Romney. (The half life of the non-Romney is such that the so-called "Santorum surge" went from headline to footnote in the time it took to type this sentence.) Santorum, an unabashed earmarker when he was in Congress, is itching to expand government in so many ways it's hard to keep track; for starters, check out Erickson's helpful laundry list.

If that's not enough big government for you, Santorum is panting to attack Iran and favors a government-run industrial policy. (In fairness, we must admit that the man they call Rooster has a plan to pay for his plans that rivals Romney's roadmap: "Eliminate outdated, ineffective and wasteful programs"!)

Leave it to Rush Limbaugh to tell the Right how to pontificate about the virtues of small government while pushing for its opposite. When government does stuff conservatives like, Rush instructs, it's not big government at all. It's "responsible government."

Both major parties support big government. The question isn't whether government should be big, but whom big government is for.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michae...b_1193765.html

By msnbc.com staff

Presidential candidate Rick Santorum appeared on MSNBC's "Morning Joe" Monday morning where he responded to Mitt Romney's assertions that Santorum is a "lightweight" when it comes to economic issues. "If I am a lightweight, I agree he is a heavyweight, he is a big government heavyweight, that's what his record was."
Santorum listed the Massachusetts health care law, tax increases under Romney as governor of that state and his overall jobs record, saying, "if that's the kind of heavyweight that Mitt Romney thinks that we need, then we should probably just stick with Barack Obama."


P.S. My quess is he will change the subject from Romney now that he has been embarassed
by the hypocrite politician who will spout any talking point just to win the Presidency. LOL.

Obama Blasts GOP 'You're On Your Own Economics'

By Devin Dwyer | ABC OTUS News – Fri, Mar 30, 2012

President Obama today delivered an impassioned attack on what he called Republicans' "cramped narrow conception" of liberty, during a fiery speech at a campaign fundraiser in Vermont.

Before an electrified crowd of 4500 - his largest of the campaign to date - Obama framed the 2012 campaign as a stark choice between two diametrically opposed political and economic philosophies.

"Their philosophy is simple: you're on your own," Obama said of the GOP.

"You're on your own if you're out of work, can't find a job. Tough luck you're on your own. You don't have health care: That's your problem. You're on your own. If you're born into poverty, lift yourself up with your own bootstraps, even if you don't have boots. You're on your own. They believe that's how America is advanced," he said.

"That's the cramped narrow conception they have of liberty, and they are wrong," he said. "They are wrong."

Obama said his vision was of an inclusive America - one where "we are greater together than we are on our own" - that affirmed a role of government in helping the poor and the middle class.

He said his policies have spurred an economic recovery that's "accelerating," bolstered by a host of new consumer protections, from new financial regulations, health insurance overhauls, and investments in clean energy technology.

"We have always understood that we wouldn't win the race for new jobs and businesses and middle class security if we were just applying some 'you're on your own economics,'" he said. "What they're peddling has been tried - it did not work."

Obama appealed to supporters - who each paid $100 or more to attend the event on an indoor soccer field at the University of Vermont - to "work harder in this election," opening their wallets and organizing on the ground and over the phone.

"I promise you change will come. We will finish what we started in 2008. Fight with me," he said.

The event was the second stop for Obama in Vermont on Friday during what is the first presidential visit to the Green Mountain State since 1995. Obama will spend the evening at two fundraisers in Portland, Maine

Read the rest of this garbage here: http://news.yahoo.com/obama-blasts-g...-politics.html

Yessireee.... we need the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT to help us.

I think Romney did in fact characterize Obama very well.

And by the way Barack, it has worked. Very well in fact.

Obama: If We Lose in 2012, Government Will Tell People ‘You’re on Your Own’

Oct 26, 2011 6:29pm

At a million-dollar San Francisco fundraiser today, President Obama warned his recession-battered supporters that if he loses the 2012 election it could herald a new, painful era of self-reliance in America.

“The one thing that we absolutely know for sure is that if we don’t work even harder than we did in 2008, then we’re going to have a government that tells the American people, ‘you are on your own,’” Obama told a crowd of 200 donors over lunch at the W Hotel.

“If you get sick, you’re on your own. If you can’t afford college, you’re on your own. If you don’t like that some corporation is polluting your air or the air that your child breathes, then you’re on your own,” he said. “That’s not the America I believe in. It’s not the America you believe in.”

Obama and Democrats have been emphasizing what they see as the costly consequences of the Republicans’ agenda in an effort to stir up support, in part by touching on emotional nerves.

Last week, Obama supporters pounced on comments by Republican presidential frontrunner Mitt Romney that the solution to the nation’s housing crisis is “don’t try and stop the foreclosure process. Let it run its course and hit the bottom.”

Today, Obama cast Republicans’ hands-off approach as harmful to middle class families, who he says deserve government help.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics...e-on-your-own/

Say it long enough, and it becomes accepted. Fear is a potent motivator, but staying on topic, it appears that Obama truly believs that the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT MUST HAVE A PRIMARY ROLE IN OUR LIVES. That's not what the founders envisioned.

It should be very clear that his economic and societal philosphy is extremely left. Can you say "central planning"? Look at the examples. They are right there above.

Do you think this guy (SeriouslyWrong) has any idea who Posner is? Nah.
Just like with Jon Meachem and Paul Volcker. Ignorance is bliss.
When you share the same economic theories and get your economic
advice from Mr. Schiff we can understand why he says some of the things
he does.



Criticism of George W. Bush

"The book is significant in Posner's criticism of President George W. Bush and his administration's policies and the response to the fiscal crisis.[25] Part of the shock is due to Posner's longtime "conservative" views.[3][7] Judge Posner was nominated to the Seventh Circuit by Ronald Reagan, but is "no party man."[7]
Posner starts his criticism of Bush with a broad attack on his behavior in his final months as President:
The lame-duck president seemed uninterested and uninformed about economic matters and was unable to project an image of leadership and instead spent his final months in office in frequent trips abroad and in legacy-polishing while the domestic economy melted away.
—Richard Posner[26]
Posner blames Bush for pushing policies, such as the "ownership society",[27] a $10 trillion national debt and "the huge budget deficits run by the Bush administration,"[28], "prop[ping] up stock prices by keeping interest rates low,"[7] which were underlying causes of the crisis, as well as "Dithering" in late 2008.[29] By the ownership society, Posner referred to the American Dream Down Payment Act of 2003 and other laws that made ownership easier.
Posner points out that Bush's proposed privatization of Social Security would have made the depression even more harmful.[30] Posner states that one of the "lessons learned" is that the "blurred" line between "the government and the private sector ... in the Bush Administration" contributed to a lack of insight into the underlying problems.[31] Even more so, "the emphatically pro-business philosophy of the Bush administration made the SEC too trusting of the securities industry."[32] The bottom line is that "there might not have been a depression had it not been for the Bush administration's mismanagement of the economy."[33]
[edit]Criticism of capitalism and mainstream economists

Posner, famous for his advocacy of free markets, turns on free-market capitalism in this book: "the financial crisis is indeed a crisis of capitalism rather than a failure of government."[34] Posner explicitly states that he has changed his mind, that in the words of economist Robert Lucas, "that macroeconomics in this original sense has succeeded."[35] Posner states that:
What Bernanke and Greenspan and the academy can be blamed for is overconfidence in their understanding of how to prevent a depression and, as a result, a failure to attend to warning signs and a lack of preparedness."

"This is the second and most powerful shock.[6] The New York Times points out that:
It comes as something of a surprise that Posner, a doyen of the market-oriented law-and-economics movement, should deliver a roundhouse punch to the proposition that markets are self-correcting. It might also seem odd that a federal appellate judge (and University of Chicago law lecturer) would be among the first out of the gate with a comprehensive book on the financial crisis — if, that is, the judge were any other judge. But Posner is the late Daniel Patrick Moynihan’s successor as the country’s most omnivorous and independent-minded public intellectual.
—Jonathan Rauch, New York Times[3"

I quess Posner, like President Obama and Paul Volcker too, must by implication be a Marxist. Unbelieveable talking point zombie (Govt is evil).

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/02/op...economics.html


OP-ED COLUMNIST
Pink Slime Economics
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: April 1, 2012

The big bad event of last week was, of course, the Supreme Court hearing on health reform. In the course of that hearing it became clear that several of the justices, and possibly a majority, are political creatures pure and simple, willing to embrace any argument, no matter how absurd, that serves the interests of Team Republican.

But we should not allow events in the court to completely overshadow another, almost equally disturbing spectacle. For on Thursday Republicans in the House of Representatives passed what was surely the most fraudulent budget in American history.

And when I say fraudulent, I mean just that. The trouble with the budget devised by Paul Ryan, the chairman of the House Budget Committee, isn’t just its almost inconceivably cruel priorities, the way it slashes taxes for corporations and the rich while drastically cutting food and medical aid to the needy. Even aside from all that, the Ryan budget purports to reduce the deficit — but the alleged deficit reduction depends on the completely unsupported assertion that trillions of dollars in revenue can be found by closing tax loopholes.

And we’re talking about a lot of loophole-closing. As Howard Gleckman of the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center points out, to make his numbers work Mr. Ryan would, by 2022, have to close enough loopholes to yield an extra $700 billion in revenue every year. That’s a lot of money, even in an economy as big as ours. So which specific loopholes has Mr. Ryan, who issued a 98-page manifesto on behalf of his budget, said he would close?

None. Not one. He has, however, categorically ruled out any move to close the major loophole that benefits the rich, namely the ultra-low tax rates on income from capital. (That’s the loophole that lets Mitt Romney pay only 14 percent of his income in taxes, a lower tax rate than that faced by many middle-class families.)

So what are we to make of this proposal? Mr. Gleckman calls it a “mystery meat budget,” but he’s being unfair to mystery meat. The truth is that the filler modern food manufacturers add to their products may be disgusting — think pink slime — but it nonetheless has nutritional value. Mr. Ryan’s empty promises don’t. You should think of those promises, instead, as a kind of throwback to the 19th century, when unregulated corporations bulked out their bread with plaster of paris and flavored their beer with sulfuric acid.

Come to think of it, that’s precisely the policy era Mr. Ryan and his colleagues are trying to bring back.

So the Ryan budget is a fraud; Mr. Ryan talks loudly about the evils of debt and deficits, but his plan would actually make the deficit bigger even as it inflicted huge pain in the name of deficit reduction. But is his budget really the most fraudulent in American history? Yes, it is.



Keep reading by clicking on link.