Carla

Philadelphia, PA

#1 Oct 29, 2012
I'm not sure if Mitt Romney's true intentions are to get rid of organizations such as FEMA--but it seems that all that talk about less government is to get rid of anything that people benefit from and give it to the states. This is how they intend to balance a budget. The states and locals are already struggling, big time.

It is much the same concept that large corporations are using--they call it outsourcing. Save money by getting rid of jobs. In this case, save money by getting rid of programs.

Maybe they can do better by making certain the money is being spent efficiently and that there is no double dipping. I could be wrong but I do believe a lot of the aid is given in the form of interest-free loans.

I can't think of anything excluding death or serious illness, that would be as devastating as losing one's home and all worldly possessions as a result of a disaster. Where's the compassion? You mean we should just pretend it didn't happen and allow them to live on the street? Think of the hurricane that hit New Orleans--should we allow these people to die? It's kind of like a lot of things in life that we need and cannot afford--but we still gotta have it!

I have in the past, "kidded" about downsizing government by laying off congress. Sometimes it actually doesn't sound so crazy, especially when they are dysfunctional and unable to produce.
Independent

Overland Park, KS

#2 Oct 31, 2012
Carla, if the states and locals are already struggling big time, then why did Obama cut 716 billion dollars in medicare services for our seniors who are alive and breathing on this earth yet Obama is willing to allow the government to pay for abortions to get rid of unborn fetuses? Wouldnt birth control or morning after pills be cheaper? These are choices women have also. I dont believe in abortion but hey, you want one, go get one. But why does it have to be at the government's expense?

Also, while Obama has been running tv ads trashing Romney about Romney threatening to cut government funding for abortions if elected, Obama pulled security from all of the American Embassies in the Middle East and requests to reinstate the security in Benghazi was ignored and 4 Americans lost their lives as a result. Again, Obama thinks an abortion at the government expense is okay and more important but wont take care of people already existing, people who are protecting our national security. The least we can do is have their backs. Says alot about Obama, doesnt it?

There's 49% of people in America who receive government assistance. Some of these people are illegals who have never worked a day in their existence in this country and some others are freeloaders who do not want to work and have been collecting a check. I dont think that government programs should be gotten rid of but I do not think it is right that someone makes a life long career out of getting food stamps and a check every month and they have been at it before the economy took a nose dive. Government assistance should be there for those who are in needy, not for those who are greedy.
Carla

Philadelphia, PA

#3 Nov 1, 2012
Independent wrote:
Carla, if the states and locals are already struggling big time, then why did Obama cut 716 billion dollars in medicare services for our seniors who are alive and breathing on this earth yet Obama is willing to allow the government to pay for abortions to get rid of unborn fetuses? Wouldnt birth control or morning after pills be cheaper? These are choices women have also. I dont believe in abortion but hey, you want one, go get one. But why does it have to be at the government's expense?
Also, while Obama has been running tv ads trashing Romney about Romney threatening to cut government funding for abortions if elected, Obama pulled security from all of the American Embassies in the Middle East and requests to reinstate the security in Benghazi was ignored and 4 Americans lost their lives as a result. Again, Obama thinks an abortion at the government expense is okay and more important but wont take care of people already existing, people who are protecting our national security. The least we can do is have their backs. Says alot about Obama, doesnt it?
There's 49% of people in America who receive government assistance. Some of these people are illegals who have never worked a day in their existence in this country and some others are freeloaders who do not want to work and have been collecting a check. I dont think that government programs should be gotten rid of but I do not think it is right that someone makes a life long career out of getting food stamps and a check every month and they have been at it before the economy took a nose dive. Government assistance should be there for those who are in needy, not for those who are greedy.
Do you know of anyone that has lost medicare benefits? I don't and I am a member of AARP. In fact, a lot of seniors favor re-electing Obama.

I live on the east coast and was hit with the hurricane, in fact just got power restored today. Many trees were uprooted and minor flooding, especially basements but all in all, very lucky. When I look at the devastation in NY, NJ and CN, I cannot imagine not having FEMA there to help. When I heard Romney wanted to get rid of it, that really bothered me. You know Gov. Christie from NJ toured the state with the President and he vowed to cut red tape and work together with state and local government.

All that abortion talk is getting old. I myself, do not favor abortion but Romney first says he wants to see Roe vs. Wade overturned but then changes his mind and says OK to incest, rape and I do believe another circumstance. In past elections, as this comes up time and time again, the Republicans took a stance that there was no prochoice--you're either for or against it. Now they want it another way? To cloud the issue, now you're claiming it's an economic issue--that the government should not be funding abortions? Oh please, I have heard just about enough of this abortion hot potato issue--the potato is now cold. Move on.

As far as the embassy murders. We do not know what really happened there. Of course, it happened under his presidency and they do need to investigate to figure out where the breech occurred but to say he purposely let them stranded is ludicrous. That issue does concern me as it should everyone.

It is crazy, the way this 49% figure comes up. Even with the recession and unemployment? Freeloaders? They allowed the exportation of our industries (actually encouraged it) and now there is massive unemployment, how did that happened? Now everyone without a job is a lazy bumb? Do you realize what you say or are you really that naive? You cannot promise jobs unless we bring some of the jobs back and begin to take pride in the US and become less GREEDY! All this promise about job creation but nothing about bringing back some manufacturing is just hot air. I distictly recall George Bush saying we will retrain and educate our workers for good jobs. Oh please. Just go on and buy that bridge....

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Philadelphia Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Jill Stein raises over $5 million for election ... 14 min J Kotsch 55
What Republican can Replace Trump-Electors choose 11 hr American 2
Voter RECOUNTS are good. Electors Discretion al... 19 hr Electors DumpTrump 1
Philly Harm Reduction V (Apr '16) 20 hr Phillykidz 182
News Michelle Grossman - About NBC 10 News Story - W... (Mar '08) Dec 3 USS LIBERTY 813
News Act Up Philadelphia member arrested in D.C. pro... Dec 3 Panties Hurt In L... 2
Dear Black Grandmothers, Dec 2 snarky anarchy 4

Philadelphia Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Philadelphia Mortgages