Mitt Romney: We don’t need more cops, firefighters or teachers

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Fewer firemen mean a longer response time.

More police mean less crime.

Children do better with a smaller class size.

If Republicans can dispute these claims, go ahead. I dare you.

I double dare you!

LOL

Ps. I see no stats, just hyperbole.

 

[California Girl]

Well, let's just review the actual facts of what Romney said and why.... (the why part is quite important - it's called 'context'.... context is a good thing to fully understand anyone's remarks)....

He spoke in response to Obama's comment that the private sector was 'doing just fine'.... which anyone with an IQ over the new speed limit in Texas knows... admittedly, that does not include rdean. However, he said:

Romney made the comments in response to Obama’s presser today, at which the president claimed the “private sector is doing fine.” Per CNN:

Romney said of Obama, “he wants another stimulus, he wants to hire more government workers. 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.”

He's right.... we don't need more... we need less tenure, less collective bargaining at the taxpayers expense, less massive pensions for public employees, and less fucking waste. Cut the waste, curb the expense and you can hire more with the savings you make. Private sector thinking.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Mitt Romney Criticizes President Obama For Wanting To Hire More Police, Firemen and Teachers - YouTube

This time, however, Romney deserves points for honesty: He has forthrightly declared that the class of government workers holding back other Americans does include cops, firefighters and teachers. And in so doing, he has singlehandedly reframed the debate from one over despised government bureaucrats to one over whether we should hire more cops, firefighters and teachers to get the economy going. This is a debate the White House will be happy to have.

Mitt Romney: We don't need more cops, firefighters or teachers - The Washington Post

-----------------------------

Wow, the problem is policemen, firemen and teachers.

Now it's clear why Republicans worked so very hard to keep health care from the first responders. Now, the right wingers at USMB can't possibly say that's not true.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=241jxCN1AfQ"]"Doing Fine" - YouTube[/ame]

How many times have they taken six of his words and made them "talking points"? Considering what Republicans did to the private sector and where the private sector is now, they are doing much better. Republicans want to take the private sector back. At least that's what their policies will do.

Want to do some math to back him up?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qevbhsmKFOQ]Obama To 23 Million Struggling Americans: "The Private Sector Is Doing Fine" - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Conservative]

Well, let's just review the actual facts of what Romney said and why.... (the why part is quite important - it's called 'context'.... context is a good thing to fully understand anyone's remarks)....

He spoke in response to Obama's comment that the private sector was 'doing just fine'.... which anyone with an IQ over the new speed limit in Texas knows... admittedly, that does not include rdean. However, he said:

Romney made the comments in response to Obama’s presser today, at which the president claimed the “private sector is doing fine.” Per CNN:

Romney said of Obama, “he wants another stimulus, he wants to hire more government workers. 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.”

He's right.... we don't need more... we need less tenure, less collective bargaining at the taxpayers expense, less massive pensions for public employees, and less fucking waste. Cut the waste, curb the expense and you can hire more with the savings you make. Private sector thinking.

You know, I am beginning to think the reason the libtards don't want to do it that way, and would rather 'tax the rich', is because they simply are not smart enough to make it work, and 'taxing the rich' is just less complicated for them.

 

[DontBeStupid]

Well, let's just review the actual facts of what Romney said and why.... (the why part is quite important - it's called 'context'.... context is a good thing to fully understand anyone's remarks)....

He spoke in response to Obama's comment that the private sector was 'doing just fine'.... which anyone with an IQ over the new speed limit in Texas knows... admittedly, that does not include rdean. However, he said:

Romney made the comments in response to Obama’s presser today, at which the president claimed the “private sector is doing fine.” Per CNN:

Romney said of Obama, “he wants another stimulus, he wants to hire more government workers. 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.”

He's right.... we don't need more... we need less tenure, less collective bargaining at the taxpayers expense, less massive pensions for public employees, and less fucking waste. Cut the waste, curb the expense and you can hire more with the savings you make. Private sector thinking.

You know, I am beginning to think the reason the libtards don't want to do it that way, and would rather 'tax the rich', is because they simply are not smart enough to make it work, and 'taxing the rich' is just less complicated for them.

Please, explain to us all, how people having less money is good for the economy.

 

[Conservative]

More police mean less crime.

If Republicans can dispute these claims, go ahead. I dare you.

let's go with this one, shall we?

Do More Cops Equal Less Crime? - Reason.com

Leading the charge is Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del., who sponsored that bill and is pushing legislation to hire another 50,000 officers, at a cost of $3.6 billion over six years, under the Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) program. He says it was because of the last round of hiring that "murder and violent crime rates went down eight years in a row."

It's hard to find Democrats who differ. Among his co-sponsors are fellow presidential candidates Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and Christopher Dodd. The House has already passed a similar measure.

But anyone who expects this approach to work as promised should take a closer look at what actually happened the last time. In the first place, the 1994 bill didn't make good on its goal of adding 100,000 cops to the streets. A study commissioned by the National Institute of Justice estimated it produced a net increase of just 82,000, while allowing that it might have been as few as 69,000.

Those numbers aside, the retreat of lawlessness began before any of those new police were sworn in.

A study by John Worrall and Tomislav Kovandzic of the University of Texas at Dallas, published this year in the journal Criminology, concluded that "COPS grants had no discernible effect on serious crime."

We shouldn't be surprised that adding all those patrol officers would produce little or no improvement. Given the multiple shifts, vacation and sick days, the additional number of personnel on the street at any given moment is only about 10,000, spread across a nation of 300 million people. That's fewer than one extra cop per local police department.

As Worrall and Kovandzic note, the average COPS hiring grant was practically a rounding error, amounting to about one half of one percent of a typical department's annual budget. Expecting that amount of money to have a dramatic effect on crime is like losing a pound and thinking you'll need to have all your pants taken in.

If more cops really translate into safer streets, you would think local taxpayers would be more than willing to bear the expense. But if they don't think their safety is worth what it costs, why should the rest of us foot the bill? The idea that residents of one city can finance their police operations at someone else's expense is a fraud. Everyone gets federal money from the COPS program, but everyone also pays for it.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Well, let's just review the actual facts of what Romney said and why.... (the why part is quite important - it's called 'context'.... context is a good thing to fully understand anyone's remarks)....

He spoke in response to Obama's comment that the private sector was 'doing just fine'.... which anyone with an IQ over the new speed limit in Texas knows... admittedly, that does not include rdean. However, he said:

[/B]

He's right.... we don't need more... we need less tenure, less collective bargaining at the taxpayers expense, less massive pensions for public employees, and less fucking waste. Cut the waste, curb the expense and you can hire more with the savings you make. Private sector thinking.

You know, I am beginning to think the reason the libtards don't want to do it that way, and would rather 'tax the rich', is because they simply are not smart enough to make it work, and 'taxing the rich' is just less complicated for them.

Please, explain to us all, how people having less money is good for the economy.

Did you really just type that Mr Tax the Rich?

 

[Conservative]

Well, let's just review the actual facts of what Romney said and why.... (the why part is quite important - it's called 'context'.... context is a good thing to fully understand anyone's remarks)....

He spoke in response to Obama's comment that the private sector was 'doing just fine'.... which anyone with an IQ over the new speed limit in Texas knows... admittedly, that does not include rdean. However, he said:

[/B]

He's right.... we don't need more... we need less tenure, less collective bargaining at the taxpayers expense, less massive pensions for public employees, and less fucking waste. Cut the waste, curb the expense and you can hire more with the savings you make. Private sector thinking.

You know, I am beginning to think the reason the libtards don't want to do it that way, and would rather 'tax the rich', is because they simply are not smart enough to make it work, and 'taxing the rich' is just less complicated for them.

Please, explain to us all, how people having less money is good for the economy.

Please explain to us all how 'taxing the rich' will PAY for ALL your saviors programs and ideas.

 

[Conservative]

You know, I am beginning to think the reason the libtards don't want to do it that way, and would rather 'tax the rich', is because they simply are not smart enough to make it work, and 'taxing the rich' is just less complicated for them.

Please, explain to us all, how people having less money is good for the economy.

Did you really just type that Mr Tax the Rich?

the rich aren't 'really' people.

 

[DontBeStupid]

You know, I am beginning to think the reason the libtards don't want to do it that way, and would rather 'tax the rich', is because they simply are not smart enough to make it work, and 'taxing the rich' is just less complicated for them.

Please, explain to us all, how people having less money is good for the economy.

Please explain to us all how 'taxing the rich' will PAY for ALL your saviors programs and ideas.

Never said it would. Never said anything about raising taxes on the "rich".

Try again. Or, explain to us all, how people having less money is good for the economy.

 

[Rshermr]

OK, cons. You want to decrease taxes and decrease federal spending. Correct??
I have asked before, and gotten no response. So lets try again. Show me one time in history, say any time since 1920, where that has worked. Just name the date and the general description of what you are talking about.
I know you can insult, and make unsubstantiated statements, but can you name a date when this policy worked???

 

[brudder]

We don't need another hero either, all we want is life beyond Thunderdome!!!!

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

We don't need another hero either, all we want is life beyond Thunderdome!!!!

Good song. Sexy legs too. Well, not so much anymore but I still have the old video.

 

[Conservative]

Please, explain to us all, how people having less money is good for the economy.

Please explain to us all how 'taxing the rich' will PAY for ALL your saviors programs and ideas.

Never said it would. Never said anything about raising taxes on the "rich".

Try again. Or, explain to us all, how people having less money is good for the economy.

the rich are people. How is them having less money good for the economy, dumb ass?

 

[California Girl]

Please, explain to us all, how people having less money is good for the economy.

Please explain to us all how 'taxing the rich' will PAY for ALL your saviors programs and ideas.

Never said it would. Never said anything about raising taxes on the "rich".

Try again. Or, explain to us all, how people having less money is good for the economy.

Could you please quote Conservative's post where he claims that people having less money is good for the economy. Again, I must refer you to your username - please try that.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

If the libs are going this stir crazy now, I can't wait till November.

 

[rdean]

Mitt Romney Criticizes President Obama For Wanting To Hire More Police, Firemen and Teachers - YouTube

Are Republicans at the USMB really defending this?

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Mitt Romney Criticizes President Obama For Wanting To Hire More Police, Firemen and Teachers - YouTube

Are Republicans at the USMB really defending this?

Yes

 

[francoHFW]

Obama wants to cut spending- not by cutting teachers and police jobs or social programs- SMART stuff- military etc etc, look it up, and taxing the BLOATED rich. Pubs paralyze congress, refuse the usual jobs bills, everything! and lie. Obama did NOT have 2 years of supermajority, Romney plans no spending cuts in total but on Medicare, and tax cuts on the rich. Insanity...

 

[Peach]

Mitt Romney Criticizes President Obama For Wanting To Hire More Police, Firemen and Teachers - YouTube

Are Republicans at the USMB really defending this?

rdean, ONLY a particular city, county or district will understand the needs of that governmental entity. MY county needs more teachers, fire protection is well taken care of because of the national forest down the highway. A blanket "we need more" must define WE.