Skip to main content

I'll let him speak for himself.

From June 13, 2011

John King: Governor Romney, you've been a Chief Executive. I was just in Joplin Missouri. I've been in Mississippi and Louisiana and Tennessee and other communities dealing with storms dealing with tornadoes, the flooding and worse. FEMA's about to run out of money and there's some people who say do it on a case-by-case basis, and some people who say, you know, maybe we're learning a lesson here that the States should take on more of this role. How do you deal with something like that?

That asshole Romney: Absolutely. Every time you have an occasion that takes something from the Federal government and sends 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 ourselves the opposite question. What should we keep? We should take all of what we're doing at the Federal level and say what are the things we're doing that we don't have to do? And those things we've got to stop doing, because we're borrowing $1.6 trillion dollars this year than we're taking in. We can not afford to do those things without jeopardizing the future for our kids. It is simply immoral, in my view. For us to continue to wrack 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.

Thank you for that, Mitt.

Meanwhile, our adult President is engaged and busy making plans for our useless Federal government to step in as soon as humanly possible to provide aid to the people sitting in harms' way. That includes those kids you were talking about. I don't think they'll be too preoccupied over the course of the next several days, worrying themselves sleepless over our debt and the opportunities this storm would present for the private sector in the government of your dreams.

Has there ever been a more disgusting American philosophy than this?

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  In a word? NO! (18+ / 0-)

    Romney wouldn't even have said "Heckuva job, Brownie." He would have said nothing and given Brown a job somewhere in Bain where Brown could hide out.

    -7.75, -8.10; All it takes is security in your own civil rights to make you complacent, and we are all Wisconsin.

    by Dave in Northridge on Sun Oct 28, 2012 at 06:36:21 PM PDT

  •  The thought of private sector profits (19+ / 0-)

    from a disaster is disgusting.

    Of course, a fair part of the population will not see the naked avarice of such a position, they'll just hear the echo of St. Reagan's "government is the problem" BS.

    •  Drown it in the bathtub indeed (6+ / 0-)

      These people are heartless.

    •  Right, and they won't care that things that NEED (8+ / 0-)

      to be done, but which cannot possibly be done profitably, won't be done.

      "The opposite of war isn't peace, it's CREATION." _ Jonathan Larson, RENT

      by BeninSC on Sun Oct 28, 2012 at 06:57:45 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  There is always profit in these situations (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      No matter who provides the service.

      If you need a service, you need to pay someone for that service. That person "makes a profit" on providing the service, whether the person is a public sector worker or a private contractor.

      Pay police overtime? Profit.
      Hire more ambulances to be on alert? Profit.
      Send search and rescue teams somewhere? Profit.

      All the equipment these guys use? Had to be built by someone. That person or company isn't going to do it for free or at cost.

      To me, it is less logical to ask "who is profiting from this?" and more logical to ask "what services do we need to deal with this disaster? Who can provide services on the scale we need and at the most cost effective price point?"

      Sometimes the answer is going to be a public entity. Sometimes it will be a private contractor. Responsible government entities (to me) should do the math here dispassionately with no bias in either direction. They are ethically obligated to use scarce resources in as efficient a manner as possible.

      (-5.50,-6.67): Left Libertarian
      Leadership doesn't mean taking a straw poll and then just throwing up your hands. -Jyrinx

      by Sparhawk on Sun Oct 28, 2012 at 08:35:02 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I don't think that word means what you think (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        mindara, nikilibrarian, Van Buren, Ahianne

        "Profit" is what you have left over from the sale of goods or services AFTER the costs of those goods or services have been paid.

        A police officer being paid for 16 hour shifts is not making a profit -- he is being paid the COST of his service, an hourly wage.

        Hiring more ambulances to be on alert doesn't make anyone money.  Those crews are being paid for their time and their skills.  Wages.

        Search and rescue teams are often filled out by volunteers, but of all the services, this is probably the one that operates at a dead loss.  Those people hired for search and rescue get paid a wage that may or may not compensate them for the tremendous danger they have to put themselves into getting someone out of danger.  Some will pay with their lives -- the ultimate "net loss" equation.

        A helicopter manufacturer is not a rescue service.  An ambulance assembly line is not a trained EMT.  Separate the goods -- the equipment -- from the services.  Emergencies are responded to by SERVICES, not equipment.  The departments pay for the equipment out of their budgets, the individuals pay for the equipment out of their salaries -- exchanging money for goods.  Sure the equipment provider makes a profit on that sale, and sure some of the equipment or supplies need to be replaced regularly, but one simply doesn't buy ambulances, rescue helicopters or fire trucks on even a yearly budget.  These are big ticket capital expenditures.

        In almost every case, the economy of scale and the LACK of a need to MAKE a profit is what makes the government the provider of choice in a disaster.  Even the Red Cross can be constrained by the need to raise money -- FEMA doesn't have to.  

        We need to do a BETTER job of disaster management; there's no question of that.  In any given year we MUST be prepared for hundreds of tornadoes, several hurricanes, at least three or four severe winter storms, spring flooding, major forest fires, and the potential of volcanic eruption out west and in Hawaii and earthquakes almost anywhere.  Global climate change is only making things worse, and we are really not ready for the magnitude of fun and games Mother Nature has in store for us.

        Putting ANYONE in charge of that whose primary motivator is profit is, forgive me, a recipe for disaster.  There's a reason we have laws against price-gouging in a disaster (think $8.00/gallon gasoline after Katrina, and $6.00/bottle water).  How could we possibly enforce such laws if we've given someone carte blanche to handle that disaster and make a profit?

        We don't need to replace what the government does.  We need to improve it and fine tune it.  The helicopter will do just fine for another year; we don't need a new one just because it's got some nifty new display.

        "There isn't a way things should be. There's just what happens, and what we do." — Terry Pratchett (A Hat Full of Sky)

        by stormicats on Sun Oct 28, 2012 at 10:23:58 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Obviously, you just don't get it (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          WakeUpNeo, Ahianne

          Everything is profit if you do it in the private sector and charge a percentage for the former public services that now get done by the private sector (read top 1%).  If a policeman get paid overtime, you charge 50% extra over those wages for your profit.  It is very clear that the private sector can fill most of the rolls while taking the 1%'s 50%.  So there is profit for the 1% for every private sector policeman, fireman, teacher, what have you.  And when things get rough, you just take your profit home and let the company go bankrupt.  Never mind the fact that a bankrupt fire station doesn't put out many house fires.  But who cares about houses, the important thing are the businesses.  We need to protect those small (1 million employees) businesses that ship all those jobs to China (what are a few million over there after all).  

          I hope you can tell I'm a little cynical and snarky.  My wife is a school teacher and today''s brilliant mouth movement by Princess Ann of Rmoney about closing down the public schools has got to be almost as stupid as Akin saying that women that get legitimately raped don't get pregnant.  Since all Ann every has experienced is private education (there's that private sector again), she can't see any purpose for those people getting an education.  After all, what does it take to take hamburgers out of the microwave and put it in a bun.  I doubt you even need to be able to read.  

          My wife actually said that if Rmoney gets elected, we should consider moving to Australia.  I would have never imagined that a true California girl would think such things, but desperate times call for desperate measures.  I'm ready, but I'm sure hoping we don't need to.  

          "War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength", George Orwell, "1984" -7.63 -5.95

          by dangoch on Mon Oct 29, 2012 at 12:42:49 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Oh, I get it all right (0+ / 0-)

            But Sparhawk seems to be saying there is profit NOW in those situations -- profit for the firefighter, for the EMT, for the police personnel.

            Those people aren't making a "profit."  They're being paid a wage for services rendered.

            Now do I see that there COULD be profit in those services?  Certainly.  That takes us into the good old days of the subscription fire service and similar jolly times.  Charging 50% more for the same service-- to whom?  The individuals?  The city?  The state?  Now you get into the problems that Florida town had, outsourcing their lifeguards and putting restrictions on where they could save people and where they were required by the terms of their contracts to look the other way or lose their jobs.  

            Faced with higher prices, the cities and states have two alternatives:  pass the costs along to the citizens, or cut the services.  Remember, they HAVE to balance their budgets, unlike the Feds.  They can't print money; they can't employ deficit spending.  

            So we have fewer services, and we have better services only in areas where people can afford to pay for them.  And the 1% take their cut and continue on their merry way.  And this works until we have something like Katrina, or the current threat of Sandy, and a city drowns.  And the floodwaters don't care what tax bracket you are in.

            You and I are in violent agreement.  What I was taking issue with (and maybe misreading) was the idea that since someone is already making a profit on those services, then it doesn't really matter if they are private or public.

            I'm sure your wife doesn't feel she's "making a profit" when being paid too little for the incredibly important work she does.  I have two cousins who are firefighters (one a brigade commander) in the DC area, probably on-call until this is over, ready for whatever may come their way.  They aren't "making a profit," either.

            "There isn't a way things should be. There's just what happens, and what we do." — Terry Pratchett (A Hat Full of Sky)

            by stormicats on Mon Oct 29, 2012 at 11:32:28 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  Heh. Remember Cheney/Halliburton? (0+ / 0-)

        And countless "private contractors" who have served us so well and efficiently while making war in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere?

  •  I would just like everyone to know that I'm going (6+ / 0-)

    to run in the gop primaries as a conservative in 2016. I'm going to set my brother up with a super pac.
    We should do pretty well, apparently there's a lot of rich idiots in America who are looking for someone  on whom to throw their money.

    You can't make this stuff up.

    by David54 on Sun Oct 28, 2012 at 06:41:53 PM PDT

  •  In a word? YES! (6+ / 0-)

    Running a Federal deficit to send troops and drones around the world to kill people is even worse.

    Using tax dollars to rebuild areas that are going to flood agian in the next (new normal) storm isn't too clever either.

    But disaster relief coupled with forward looking "avoid and prevent" is one of the things that government is for.  And "privatizing" such obvious government "emergency preparedness and relief" functions is every bit as stupid as "privatizing" health care and "privatizing" social security, so no surprise that Mr. Mitt is for it . . .

    Fake Left, Drive Right . . . not my idea of a Democrat . . .

    by Deward Hastings on Sun Oct 28, 2012 at 06:50:34 PM PDT

  •  What a turd! Go fuck yourself Mittens. Thankfully (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Steveningen, jakedog42, Plu, mindara, WakeUpNeo

    i'm in a blue state with a blue governor (CT) and  a Blue president and we will receive state and federal help.

    "Say little; do much." (Pirkei Avot: 1:15)

    by hester on Sun Oct 28, 2012 at 06:51:34 PM PDT

  •  States Can't Do the Job (12+ / 0-)

    Because they can't print money, states must balance their budgets annually, which means they have no capacity to respond to emergencies like Sandy or Katrina. Only the Feds have that capacity. And some states, virtually all of whom are "red states" (think Mississippi, Louisiana, Arkansas, Oklahoma, Alabama or South Carolina) lack even the ability to pay for basic services. Until they vote Democrat, they will always need the help from the other better managed states. Under Romney I guess the feds would just let them sink in their own poverty when disaster strikes.

  •  The follow up question should have been ... (7+ / 0-)

    ... if you shift these costs from the federal government to the state governments, how are the state governments supposed to pay for it???

    Love one another

    by davehouck on Sun Oct 28, 2012 at 07:02:13 PM PDT

  •  Everyone is Sandy's path needs to see this. Those (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Steveningen, jayden, Shippo1776, mindara

    kids he pretends to be so concerned about? Is he concerned that they could be in harm's way with no help?

    There are NO words to explain how much I despise this man.

    202-224-3121 to Congress in D.C. USE it! You can tell how big a person is by what it takes to discourage them. "We're not perfect, but they're nuts."--Barney Frank 01/02/2012

    by cany on Sun Oct 28, 2012 at 07:19:52 PM PDT

  •  I agree with Mitt, to a degree (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Steveningen, myrealname, stormicats

    That is, to the degree that we could balance the budget and keep the economy strong by raising taxes on the rich, I totally agree with Mitt that it's immoral not to do so.

    Let us all have the strength to see the humanity in our enemies, and the courage to let them see the humanity in ourselves.

    by Nowhere Man on Sun Oct 28, 2012 at 07:33:46 PM PDT

  •  Someone call Naomi Klein. If this isn't a (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    dharmafarmer, Steveningen, Ckntfld

    "Shock Doctrine" ideology, I don't what is.

  •  Too bad he feels that way. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jayden, Steveningen, page394

    I bet he knows a good dressage guy he could appoint to head up FEMA.

  •  Taxes are "Immoral" (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Steveningen, stormicats, mindara

    Won't show us his returns, because he used every dodge in the crooked book.

    Government is "Immoral"

    That's why he wants to run it?


    Or with a "secret-plan" to undermine government and privatize it "for our own good?"

    Perhaps one day the Fourth Estate will take their jobs seriously. Or not..

    by Anthony Page aka SecondComing on Sun Oct 28, 2012 at 09:47:56 PM PDT

  •  I'm in Annapolis, MD about 6 miles from the (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    WakeUpNeo, Ahianne, Steveningen

    Chesapeake Bay waiting for the wrath of the Frankenstorm that's expected to really start pounding us this afternoon. I am fighting the urge to vomit (literally) after listening to that fucking clueless, heartless and wholly unqualified douchebag basically telling the American people that we are completely fucked in the event of a natural disaster on his watch. That he made these statements just after the devestating tornado's flattened Joplin last year is a testament to his total lack of character, compassion and leadership yet again.

    He is a failure on a epic scale in his response to the attack on our Consulate and the deaths of Ambassador Stephens and his colleagues in Benghazi and as of yesterday he was still exploiting and politicizing this for his own personal gain despite having been asked numerous times by the families of the victims to stop. Yesterday he was also making jokes while in Ohio about how this storm could end up being favorable to him in picking electoral votes. And that was after he lied AGAIN about Chrysler sending Jeep manufacturing jobs to China. I hope Chrylser's CEO slaps him with a cease & desist order and threatens to file suit against him for continuing to perpetuate a falsehood that could potentionally damage Chrysler's reputation and cost them financially.

    What a greedy, fucking douchebag. No amount of money will ever be enough to satisfy a sociopath like him.  

    "The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice. We must put our hands on it and we must bend it in the direction of justice." MLK

    by mindara on Sun Oct 28, 2012 at 11:05:42 PM PDT

  •  Great video - Please proceed, Governor... n/t (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site