Romney Economics; Fewer Teachers; Fewer Firefighters; Fewer Cops

[bigtree]

President Obama and Mitt Romney presented two very different views on America's teachers and first responders Friday. While the President urged Congress to pass a bill putting unemployed cops and firefighters back to work and preventing more layoffs, Mitt Romney argued that funding should continue to be cut.


http://www.barackobama.com/news/entry/they-deserve-our-support

[KansDem]

1. Did Mitt elaborate?

It's time for us to cut back on government and help the American people.

Privatized firefighters? Privatized police officers? Privatized teachers?

How will this "help the American people?"

[bigtree]

3. Romney was trying to make political hay out of President Obama’s earlier remarks

. . . about the private economy’s being “fine.”


“He wants another stimulus, he wants to hire more government workers,” Mr. Romney said of Mr. Obama. “He says we need more fireman, more policeman, more teachers. Did he not get the message of Wisconsin? The American people did. It’s time for us to cut back on government and help the American people.”

Democrats pounced on the comment, saying it proved that Mr. Romney would like to eliminate jobs for teachers, firefighters and police officers.

“Could Mitt Romney be any more disconnected from the concerns of middle-class Americans?” said R.T. Rybak, the vice chairman of the Democratic National Committee. “To suggest that police, firefighters and teachers aren’t helping the American people and aren’t vital to our communities shows that he has no clue what’s going on in the real world.”

Mr. Rybak added: “Mitt Romney’s assertion that the American people don’t benefit from firemen, policemen and teachers is so detached from reality I did a double take – I had to check twice to be sure he had actually said it.”

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/06/08/democrats-hit-romney-on-message-of-wisconsin-comments/#h[]

[SoutherDem]

7. I haven't heard the word Privatized yet

but, that usually is the answer to all that ills America according to Republicans.

Let the market place work for us they often say. Somehow adding a profit margin is suppose to solve all problems.

We do have privatized variations of Education, Police Department and the Fire Department.

Education - Proprietary Schools are all over the place, usually in old shopping centers, they under pay the instructors who most are adjunct they have no benefits, and work quarter to quarter. The students pay more than twice as to what they would pay at a public school, the executives make high salaries and usually a private equity firm is the owner. By the way they are usually accredited by a "trade" school accrediting organization and the education is often considers substandard and the students can't get jobs.

Police - We have private security companies, some of which do a good job, but others are like an entire force of Barney Fifes. We also have companies like used in Iraq I think Black Water was the name but they are a force of Rambos. I don't know about the pay structures but I would guess once again the employees are under paid while executives are over paid.

Fire - Growing up there was an area which most people would consider a city, it even showed up on maps, but it was unincorporated. Their police protection was provided by the county, but at that time the county didn't have any fire department and being unincorporated they couldn't tax themselves. Someone started a private fire department which was paid by fire dues. When you paid your dues you got a placard to post, if you house caught on fire they first looked for that placard before they would put the fire out. They also sent a bill if they assisted a traffic accident for anyone who wasn't a member. Today they are part of the county fire system so no more houses burning to the ground be cause they couldn't pay the fire dues.

Somethings do work fine privatized others do not.

For me one of the tests are is it for the common good. If it is it may/should be public.

I may be missing something but since the government can run these three groups without worrying about profit but privatizing would add a profit factor how can it be better than allowing the government to do it.

But, for Romney profit is all that matters. Our new national motto "In Profit We Trust"

[jmowreader]

13. The only "American people" Romney cares about have eight-figure incomes

And cutting taxes on them is Good--they'll have more money to donate to the GOP.

[bigdarryl]

2. And believe it or not when I was working for the New Jersey Department Of Corrections

There were several guys I worked with who were calling themselves republican most if not all voted for Chris Christy I'm betting most of them are voting for Romney regardless of what he said.Talk about voting against your interest a lot of it was just because they hated Obama and Corzine

[bigtree]

5. they regularly vote against their interests; these working-class folks voting republican

. . . dumbfounding. The simplest explanation may well be hate or dislike. That just throws all of the rest of their illogic out of the window, if they can't see past their personal, petty biases.

[Tennessee Gal]

4. Oxymoron or just a moron.

Mitt is a fool. The government does help the American people and when you cut back on government fewer people are helped.

What happens to Mitt's car elevator mansion if it were to catch on fire or if it were robbed? Is there a privatized fire department of police department in that location? I suppose he thinks that nothing like that could ever happen to him.

And when government spending is reduced and roads, bridges, etc. are in disrepair, where will Ann drive those two Cadillacs?

[TheKentuckian]

9. Nothing like that can happen to him.

He can maintain personal fire protection and sure as hell can pitch in with like minded neighbors for their own private service. Robme does much better on a fee for service model than a percentage of income which is why wealthy shitbags are always all about it.

They don't give a shit if you can't chunk in for fire protection or if it isn't a deal for you, if you can pay but they know any model that can hold up without beating the "small people" off the barricades means most people will have to be able to afford it, at least for now which means it will be very cheap for them.

Same reason (or one of the reasons, almost all avarice related) they love our shitty health care funding system. They couldn't get a better deal. The majority has to be able to afford at least mediocre coverage or they would turn on it, outside of the top 20% there is very little percentage of income or wealth which means they can buy the top shelf coverage for infinitely less to them than a tax funded set up.

Privatization always means fee for service which always means shifting the brunt of the cost to the many and that is that. It is always cheaper for the wealthy as long as most people have to be cut into the game.

[meow2u3]

6. Translation: more crime, more ignorance, more destruction of the country

eom

[lonestarnot]

8. Fewer federal workers, more prisons.

[Comrade_McKenzie]

10. I agree with one-third of that statement.

We could certainly do with less police. The occupy crackdown showcased that quite well.

When police outnumber crowds 3-to-1, something should be reexamined.

[bigtree]

12. I don't think that's a fair representation of their efforts around the country

. . . those occupy incidents, not withstanding. I think you can find much more than the occupy abuses to showcase their need and effectiveness in reducing crime in troubled areas around the nation.

[applegrove]

11. I think Romney would probably like to see a huge population of young males incarcerated for a long

time so the crime rate goes down, see kids taught via internet and only tutored by teacher aides. This must be what he is thinking.