Skip to main content

View Diary: Romney in primary: Federal disaster relief 'immoral' (150 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  let's see: (4+ / 0-)

    it's immoral to increase the federal budget deficit. federal funding of disaster relief efforts like FEMA increase the federal budget deficit. ergo, it's immoral.

    This is not twisting his word. It's CONNECTING THEM.

    We need to stop being a bunch of wusses. If he doesn't want to be quoted as believing FEMA and other such things are IMMORAL than he shouldn't say them. This is what happens when you live in the world of absolutes the right wing inhabits.

    If he starts with the premise that anything that increases the deficit is immoral to begin with and that everything OUGHT to be filtered through that criterion (which he clearly said - "We ought to be asking what IS necessary"), then it's the only LOGICAL way to interpret what he's said. basically anything that increases the deficit is immoral. That include, apparently big bird and planned parenthood. But also apparently (though erroneously) includes shit like medicare, medicaid, obamacare, fema, the FDA and a whole host of other shit where there's not profit being made.

    How else can you read it? And in fact, it's consistent with his "tax policy". This is why he want to gut everything BUT defense. Apparently that's the only thing that doesn't "add to the deficit". Or something.

    For the record, I am not a member of Courtesy Kos. Just so you know. Don't be stupid. It's election season. My patience is short.

    by mdmslle on Mon Oct 29, 2012 at 08:18:30 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Absolutism has no place in governance (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      Whether it comes from them or us.

      We don't need to go into the "all things that raise the the deficit... ergo all things immoral," fallicy.  Isn't it enough that he wants to send it to the states or privatize it?  We simply don't need the hyperbole to make our point.  If we do, then we open ourselves up to the counter attack that we are taking his words out of context (which we would be in this case -- not severely, but out of context nevertheless).  

      In my line of work, I have to think strategically -- If I take position A, then what are the defenses to that position and what is the likely response?  Do I have an answer for that response?  In this case, what is the response to "You took my statement out of context?"  Aren't there going to be a number of media outlets that take the position that the statement is being taken out of context?  Doesn't that just muddy the waters?  Why isn't it better to simply take Romney's position at face value and point out how responses for various disasters would have been affected if his proposal were official policy?  Politics is chess, not paintball.

      I do not feel obligated to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use -- Galileo Galilei

      by ccyd on Mon Oct 29, 2012 at 08:58:24 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  well we just disagree. this is not a courtroom. (0+ / 0-)

        its politics and sadly much of what happens in politics is different than what happens in a courtroom.

        The bttom line is he believes that anything that adds to the deficit is immoral. HE SAID THAT.

        Here’s what the Republican candidate had to say when asked whether FEMA should be shut down:

        “Absolutely. 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 the opposite question, what should we keep?”

        When moderator, John King, responded “Including disaster relief, though?”, Mitt Romney had this to say—

        “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.

        Let him defend it. I don't care. Let HIM defend it. We have nothing to defend. HE SAID IT. I can't see how else to read this. How one earth do you read an answer to the direct question: "Even including disaster relief?" with this answer "We cannot afford to do those things without jeopardizing our kids is simply immoral."

        There's no other way to read that. Sorry. KISS = anything that would increase the deficit is immoral, including disaster relief (which was the subject of the entire line of questioning).

        Fuck it. Let HIM defend that statement. Oh! Wait. Seems he IS being forced to defend it now. Heh. Carry on.

        For the record, I am not a member of Courtesy Kos. Just so you know. Don't be stupid. It's election season. My patience is short.

        by mdmslle on Mon Oct 29, 2012 at 02:39:53 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site