Associated Press
Romney at an Ohio photo-op this afternoon, where he ignored FEMA questions.
Between Hurricane Sandy, the presidential election, and Mitt Romney's 2011 talk about FEMA's future -- he wants to turn it over to states and the private sector -- it's not surprising that the reporters covering the Republican's campaign events today would ask Romney about his position on the federal agency overseeing disaster response.
As of a few hours ago, the candidate didn't want to talk about it.
Mitt Romney refused to answer reporters' questions about how he would handle the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), after a Tuesday "storm relief" event in Ohio for Hurricane Sandy.
According to the pool report, Romney was asked at least five times whether he intended to eliminate FEMA if elected. He heard the questions, and very easily could have said "of course not," but instead Romney simply ignored the reporters who asked.
It's not a trick question. The fact that the former governor, who has an unfortunate record when it came to natural disasters in Massachusetts, is so reluctant to talk about this isn't encouraging.
What's more, a Romney campaign spokesperson sketched out the candidate's apparent vision of how FEMA should function and be organized, apparently unaware of the fact that FEMA is already functioning and organized that way.
As for the bigger picture -- whether there's anything inappropriate about scrutinizing Romney's position on FEMA during an unfolding natural disaster -- there's a compelling case that this is the ideal time.
I can appreciate the initial hesitancy. This is a brutal and deadly hurricane, and the storm is still, as I type, slamming American communities. Politics is not the first order of business.
That said, Jon Chait makes a persuasive case that discussions over these issues during "moments of normality" simply don't occur, and it's too important to let the issues go by without scrutiny.
Funding for FEMA is something the parties wrangle over, with Republicans pushing to limit the agency's budget, and Democrats pushing back. FEMA has to fight for its share of a constricted pot of money for domestic non-entitlement spending, a pot of money that the Republicans propose to radically constrict. How radically? Romney's budget promises require shrinking domestic non-entitlement spending as a share of the economy by about two-thirds. [...]
[I]t is true that Republicans have no special animus against disaster response. They oppose domestic spending in general, and programs that either impinge upon business or redistribute income from rich to poor in particular. But the most concrete statement of Romney's view of disaster spending came in a Republican debate last summer. John King, the moderator, asked Romney whether FEMA needed to be devolved to the states. Romney agreed and went farther:
As he has on so many issues, Romney avoided any specific programmatic commitment here. But the clear point he conveyed was that he would not exempt FEMA from his general opposition to federal spending. The question was whether FEMA falls into the category of spending that Romney wants to return to the states, and his response was entirely in the affirmative.
Here, again, is the video Chait is referencing.
If this doesn't get scrutiny now, when will it? If we don't discuss the importance of FEMA and a forceful federal capacity to respond to disasters, when will that discussion happen?
Leave a Comment:
Why would Romney think anyone needs FEMA?? Don't people just move to one of their other houses and wait for the insurance payout?
<snark>
+1!
Bravo!
Real Americans don't need insurance. They cover losses out of petty cash.
Mitt Romney, "This is what the emergency room is for."
Mitt is on another photo op.....what ever happened to ryan????????
Today from a republican I know, I got a picture of mitt with two photos of the Two Dead American's from Bengazie and of corse using it for political purposes. Wow this man stoops lower and lower every day.!
Hi TMom, how are you?
Stellar Oncearepublican!!
Of course not. That's stupid to get rid of it. Of course Romney would get rid of FEMA and anything else that helps people. FEMA should be expanded and someone needs to put in charge that has unlimited power to get things done quickly in a natural disaster like this. This FEMA czar should have unlimited access to supplies and money so he does have to ask for the supplies. We know now what is needed in these disasters and if we know what will happen they should be in place to move as quickly as possible. There is no excuse. Absolutely none for what happen in New Orleans and we need to keep it from happening again.
Does the President of the United States qualify?
Depends on whether or not there is anyone from the Arabian Horse Association available
Awesome job, Dragoony!
More money to arms dealers, less to help people!
Dragoons got it. Sandy is letting us know loud and clear we can’t afford another President who will fill FEMA with cronies like Brownie. More than ever before our entire political process led by Republicans and Citizens United is polluted with money from outside influences and they are paying for influence and positions within the Mitt Romney administration. If we thought Bush was bad, we haven’t seen anything yet.
That typically does not fall under his list of job duties. That is why he has a cabinet. He needs another cabinet position directed to federal aid in disasters. The President just directs other people to do what needs to be done. The Federal Executive Branch has the least impact of the citizens. The true power lies in the Governors and senators of each of state. Did you not learn this school? It's funny people fight over the president like its everything but the Constitution really limits what the executive branch can do. A president's decision typically affect things on national or international scale but not on a local scale. It's hard for a president to do much since his power is so limited. That is why President Obama is so frustrated. He cannot do much of anything that helps the people because he is being stonewalled by hostage takers in Congress. His hands are literally tied. He sits in office and wonders what to do and no President wants that. He wants to be working for the people because they elected him not congress. Yet Congress holds all the power. It's not as bad as in the Federalism. In the Days of George Washington he complained he was nothing more than than what we call today a trophy bride. He complained he was nothing more than a figure head to a bunch of a cry babies who could not agree on a single issue. Sounds familiar? Some suggest that George Washington and John Adams hated being president. You get a different prospective if you look at from the person whose actually in office. A position that can make or break you. It's one of the worst jobs on the planet. Anyone who takes this position and looks after the people should be respected. A president is a thankless job and job with little personal satisfaction. I personally keep sending Barack Obama thank you notes. I don't know if it does any good but encouragement helps.
I'm sure all those Tea Party folks are loving Mitt for his courage on multiple issues, and his running mates reputation for never ducking questions. Remember those Town Halls a couple of years back...
If there is money to be made, why hasn't the private sector already moved into disaster relief?What a strange thought.
FEMA's response to Sandy has certainly shown how very absurd this idea is.
Jeb Bush is forming a for profit disaster relief company even as Sand continues to wreak havoc. Could this be why Mutt wants to do away with FEMA?
Well Gov. Romney did say it should go to the private sector if possible.
He sure did say that. The (R)'s want to privatize everything for profit. And everything they do privatize screws the little guy. Look at the private prisons. They throw teens in and then keep them longer than they were supposed to be there. They didn't belong there to begin with for that matter. Just what we need is incentive to imprison people, NOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
They're forming Disasters R Us thanks to trickle down FEMA. It's a GOP snoregasm!
When Romney can't lie he doesn't answer at all...
It wouldn't make any difference what he said, it would different tomorrow anyway depending which audiance he is talking to. Truth is he does not know what FEMA is or what they do. Were the republicans trying to cut disaser funding just yesterday?
If it is in anywise appropriate for Romney to discuss "Benghazi" and "it took 14 days" against "read the transcript"; then it is on the mark appropriate for the people of any coastal states, sp Florida, Virginia and New York to be confronting Romney on FEMA; just as the people of Ohio have a right and a duty to confront him on "JEEP."
Maybe they need to rephrase how they ask the question - "Is it worth borrowing the money from China to provide disaster relief to Americans, 47% of whom already see themselves as victims?" BTW, the answer is "yes" even if it means actually borrowing money from China (as opposed to the talking point of categorizing all borrowing as being from China).
And why aren't tax cuts for the rich phrased as "borrowing from China"? Or increased military spending?
Because they are creating Jobs...unlike you know "the Government".
92% of the borrowed debt is from non-Chinese institutions and individuals and is overwhelmingly from Americans. And the terms for US borrowing are really good for the borrowers, so yeah, borrow if needed, if that's the only money available right when needed for disaster rellief.
The sad thing is before 1981 the US was the worlds biggest lender country so every nation owed the US instead of where we find ourselves today. Thank you GOP for making the US the worlds greatest dead beats of the world. I now return you to the Mitt wits whines about how borrowing is only bad when democrats borrow.
Ronald Reagan is to thank for what @Whom is discussing. We went from the largest lender nation in the world to the largest debtor nation in the world in a single administration.
Cartoonthenews!
So which administration created the most debt?
Depends on your parameters. FDR would be number one, then Reagan and Wilson would be close seconds if you're talking about total debt. If you're talking about debt to GDP it goes Reagan, then Bush.
Really dragon? Well they have lower taxes than ever in history, so why aren't there billions of jobs, there should be a major surplus of jobs if it's the case that low taxes creates jobs, they've been this way for 12 years now, so where are all of the jobs?
Dragoon was being sarcastic.
I should also amend my above statement: it should read that Reagan and Bush are close seconds (meaning they are close to each other), not that either are close to FDR. In terms of total debt FDR will probably carry that record throughout our future unless we have another world war.
Cartoonthenews!
What I'm coming up with is Obama hit National Debt at 23.3%. Bush under 2 terms, first term 4.4%, second term 16.6%. Reagan hit 14.8. On other hand Clinton during his two terms was -16.8, which proves a balanced budget will work well for the people.
You're confusing debt with deficit.
You forget that Bush (W) also was paying for 2 wars that were "off the books", i.e. not in the budget, therefore weren't counted toward those Debt calculations.
Obama made a brave move to put the cost of those two wars "on the books" and include those costs in the budget. It was an honest thing to do - but probably not the most politically expedient.
Actually, considering that the Republicans are for "smaller government", it's amazing thatspending is actually consistently higher under Republican administrations.
The other thing that is counter intuitive is that Republicans preach smaller government and less regulation while wanting to legislate and take away a woman's right to choose, regulate availability of coverage for contraception, and insist on invasive unnecessary medical procedures before providing abortion services. They even want to control the operation of NGOs in foreign countries by 'unfunding' birth control.
So what's actually going on? It's the ultra-right social and political agenda disguised as Republicanism. It's not really about spending less, or smaller government, it's about cutting the programs they don't like and spending more on the ones they do. Cut all the small liberal programs (like PBS and NEA) that won't make a dent in the budget, but spend more on military infrastructure. Romney's "revenue neutral" tax plan will put money in the pockets of the ultra-wealthy, but doesn't address the National Debt. It creates a ceiling that will make it nearly impossible for middle class families to every reach the status of wealthy by increasing tax burdens on the upper middle class families that make high wages, but are still mostly generating income from wages rather than investments.
Romney/Ryan -omics (Reaganomics redeux) doesn't work to create jobs, it just lets the rich stuff their pockets. It's not about Jobs - it's about the "haves and have-nots". His focus on privatization will funnel even more tax dollars into the pockets of the wealthiest CEOs and investors in the form of corporate profits.
It's all about the money and the agenda -
Is it politically appropriate to ask about FEMA during a superstorm right before an election? Well, it was Romney who canceled his campaign rally in Ohio today (because of the storm), then decided to have it anyway in the guise of raising aid for victims of the disaster. And when you pull such a gimmick, you should be prepared to answer questions related to aiding victims of the storm. Duh!
And who dresses to help distribute canned goods in a low-cut black dress & pearls?
That's just her homage to Marie Antoinette.
Pushing disaster relief to the states would be a disaster in itself. A state devastated by a natural disaster is hardly in a position to fix itself since it is already suffering to the point of calling for help. A person who has been disabled is not capable of driving a relief truck or operating emergency equipment...just like a state that has been disabled is not capable of providing its own relief.
If Romney installs a balanced budget amendment then when disaster relief is desperately needed there would be no funds readily available. The mile wide tornado here in MO is just one glaring example...imagine if there were 2 or 3 mile wide tornados hitting at the same time...duh. We already have the best response we could have in place...FEMA which we could strengthen save for republicans blocking funding.
Some states don't have the money or the resources so yea your right moving disaster relief to the states would be a disaster. Some cities have gone bankrupt. Private sector companies would make money off the suffering people. Stuck in your house? They will come rescue your for $150 bucks. What if they don't have the money would they really just let them die? I cannot see running it this way. We would have the UN down our throats for Human Rights violations. Privatizing it just a bad idea.
So let's just let those deadbeat states go down the tube. After we don't live there./s
That is NOT what being an AMERICAN is all about. Survivor of the fittest has never been an American value no matter what the Republicans have to say about. That's not what we are about as a nation.
What folks who support Romney must understand is if he's elected, and FEMA is cut further (or pushed to states), it ABSOLUTELY means there will be a tax increase or a massive cut in other services. States must balance budgets and therefore, a state like NJ who's governor signed legislation capping property tax increases at 2% can only mean that other services will be eliminated. There's no other way around it. And for those states without a property tax cap, it has to mean either services get cut/eliminated, or there will be massive tax increases elsewhere. And given what you already know about the Romney "budget" plans, there's just no way in the world taxes - state, local, federal - don't go up. BUT, in Romney world, these taxes will be described as "fees", like he did in Mass.
If you're a staunch Republican who hates Obama, ok, I get it. You've looked at your T-Square and decided Obama lies more. Sure, they all bend the truth. But, the verascity and abundacy of lies coming from Romney and Republicans is off the charts. Bend is being generous. If his lips are moving, Romney is lying. It's that bad. If you think otherwise, you are not being objective. You can't possibly compare the two and think Romney is the more honest man. I have my T-Square, and it's not even close. There's plenty to disagree with Obama about, but this guy is off the charts. In light of the devastation here in NY/NJ, it's a truly scary thought having a Romney as President. Mark my words, if Romney wins, his presidency will be a disaster for everyone, including Republicans.
Amen.
Not answering this question at this critical time spells natural disaster for Romney.
What would be a real disaster is if Republicans like Eric Cantor decided now would be a good time to again insist that areas hit by disasters not receive a dime in federal aid until cuts to pay for it are found in other parts of the budget. That'd go down great right before an election. If only Congress were in session.
I thought we decided to be the United States of America, and not a loose confederation of States way back in the beginning, in part because we wanted to provide for the common defense and general welfare. In this case we are defending each other against natural disaster and providing for our general welfare.
Who would ever higher a CEO to lead a company or organization they don't believe in? Mitt Romney’s business experience is exactly the reason he doesn't have the experience to lead a government designed to promote the general welfare of all of its people. Entitled, personal responsibility, takers vs. makers, individualism, I built this not we built this, and government is the problem are the statements you hear over and over from Republicans, because they believe it and stand by it. Our founders included, “… Promote the general Welfare…” in the opening sentence framing the Constitution because they understood that lifting each other up, lifts us all up. Businesses cannot be expected to do this because they are designed for profit and government is designed to do the things we need to do together, that doesn't result in monetary profit.
Government is not the problem, its leaders serving special interests corrupting it through willful obstruction and abuse, instead of strengthening our evolving community organization designed to achieve the things a strong community requires. These things are always best achieved when we work together to defend our country, respond to community emergencies, care for the elderly, assist with healthcare, lift up the disadvantaged, protect our precious resources, educate our children and many other powerful expressions of a united community. When we talk about radically slashing government spending these are the causes we are affecting. It becomes evident after your company's been stripped for profit, your left jobless, without a pension, sick and without family healthcare what government is for. It becomes evident after a storm like Sandy what government actually is.
Mitt Romney has enthusiastically supported making FEMA a private operation despite the fact that in order for private industry to succeed in this venture it would have to charge people it's supposed to be giving assistance to. If you simply switch FEMA or any other government institution to a privately run operation funded by taxpayers the only thing you've done is taken our voting control away from determining how they would be run. He and many other Republicans have proposed eliminating the EPA which would turn over responsibility for the care of our environment to businesses who are once again solely responsible for developing profit and so many of them have proven over and over they will choose profit over stewardship every time. Same thing with the Education Department and on and on.
Well put.
The GOTP believes that we should again be a loose confederation of states. That's their entire platform.
The far right--regardless of historic party labels--believe that we never stopped being a loose confederation of states.
jst, thank you. I disagree that a candidate "must have business experience." Sorry to be a Democrat and all, but I want a president who can stand up to business on my behalf. Jeez, if you're running for a job in government, shouldn't you embrace the value of pooled resources, the strong fighting for the weak.. good government values?
When my town is hit with a natural disaster, I hope FEMA is there. Ideology isn't worth beans, bucko.
Which you proved with your GOP bull@!$%#. We had 2 business presidents the first gave us the great depression the second gave us the great recession.
Of COURSE it's a disaster relief event and not a campaign rally!
Why just look at Mr. Romney in his button-down shirt, with the sleeves rolled up to get to work... and Mrs. Romney in her pearls.
This bogus "relief event" campaign rally shows so clearly how disengaged Mr. Romney is from the reality of true disaster relief. He's providing un-needed forms of aid and trying to benefit from the misguided attempt (cold soup is what's needed in areas without power and damaged infrastructure.) He will place a burden on the Red Cross trying to handle the food donations when they could use the money. He won't provide food for the needy on a daily basis though. (Maybe poor people should move to disaster areas.) This is a situation where having that boat-load of money could do some good. If he encouraged people to donate to the Red Cross instead of his campaign, I'd applaud that gesture. I think it also goes to his and Mr. Ryan's theme that folks on the local level can pull you out of your troubles- no need to bring in big government or FEMA! We'll bring over a casserole and some hand-me-downs (maybe some boot straps!) and you'll be fine. I hope the donations get thru to people who can benefit, because I'm sure the people of Ohio had their best interests at heart, but I'd expect better vision and leadership from someone who wants to be President. Once the roads are clear enough to deliver these items and the aid workers find time to parse them out, and the power is on to prepare the food, the people these donations are meant to help will be buying their own soup. Thanks again, Mitt. (Oh, and vote early so I look good in the polls! I'd hate to have to lie about my chances.)
At Romney's "disaster rally" today they were selling T-shirts saying: OBAMA You're Fired.
Since neither FEMA nor the Red Cross can use their cans of soup and boxes of cereal, what are they realllllly going to do with all that stuff they disingenuously collected?
Are you kidding there are poor starving and homless people all over this country who need help
This is the modern compasionate conservative GOP, they will chuck it in a landfill and deduct it from their taxes (hey there is no way to prove they didn't donate it right?)
"What are the things we don't have to do?"
Romney says that at the end of the clip.
In a question about funding FEMA.
AFTER he seems to suggest that the responsibility could be given to the private sector.
Just how efficient is it for each state to lay in all the blankets, water, MREs, etc. that they might expect to need in a disaster, duplicating expenditures and storage?
What the heck do they put in that Koolaid anyway?
If Romney does push emergency response to the private sector I'm buying a fleet of those "Duck" amphibious vehicles, driven by a corps of Ferlinghetti's smiling morticians, and setting out for any NJ town with the word "bridge" in its name.
Have you SEEN what an ambulance charges for a simple transport on dry land in good weather?
That invisible hand of commerce will come in and do what it does best: exploit the vulnerable when they're at their worst.
LEVERAGE!
I agree with 718BKNYC. Disasters can strike anyone anywhere, whether Democrat or Republican. And it is completely unrealistic to ask or expect that people in the midst of disaster manage it on their own. If you can't get out of your house - or if it's even worse and you suddenly have lost a loved one and/or have no house, no food or water and no access to resources of any sort, including even power or a phone -- how likely is it you'll be able to find your way through without outside help? And when in such a weakened position how much of a resource and help would you have the ability to be to the others stuck in the same or similar situations? It's all made me remember the story about Romney touring Louisiana and telling the woman who told him she'd lost everything to the flooding that she should go home and call 211, and I looked back and that was just reported on September 1, 2012. All together it definitely suggests that Mitt Romney has no concept of how thoroughly and instantaneously life-altering a disaster can be... or what it would therefore take to be able to ensure people can come through them. And, worsening it, even his interest and/or willingness to try tending to such things seems completely questionable. With all of the threats there are to our safety and security... whether from mother nature and/or from would-be terrorists, and with only a parade of Bush-Cheney people to suggest what sort of handle he'd have in any sort of crisis... not to mention the fact that his interest in pursuing green energy remains completely iffy (a complete "no" as I remember it, at least until the first debate), so that we wouldn't even be trying to get any breaks from what might come... and people might honestly still be thinking this is the man they'd want looking out for us? I have to think they'll all now at least be giving it a second thought. Definitely continuing to hope so...
The reason Romney doesn't want to answer questions about FEMA is that he hasn't had the chance to ask his advisors what his opinion is supposed to be.
In other words: Romney hasn't spent sixty seconds of his precious life thinking about FEMA. He answered off the cuff in a debate with something that vaguely sounded like the usual Republican talking points. He doesn't know how FEMA actually operates. He doesn't know who actually directs disaster relief. He's never really had any issues with FEMA being a federal agency. He can't identify a single problem with FEMA that absolutely MUST be corrected, and which CAN be corrected by dissolving the agency and handing its powers over to the states or hopefully the private sector.
It's not that he's lying about his plans for FEMA. He's faking. He doesn't know a thing about FEMA, he's just assuming that because he's a CEO, he obviously must know much more than the rest of us.
He's thought as much about FEMA as he's thought about reproductive rights. In other words, it was never a priority with him and it isn't a priority today. He's just reverting to his backup plan: when in doubt, trash Obama. Even when Obama's done something indisputably brilliant. Romney thinks the Presidency is something you can prepare for as though you're cramming for the final.
Actually, that's not true. And although it's not true, the fact that it's not true is WORSE.
http://www.fema.gov/news-release/mass-disaster-aid-surpasses-70-million-may-floods
http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2012/10/30/governor-romney-refused-to-prepare-for-floods-then-told-flood-victims-theyre-on-their-own
In otherwords, he knows exactly how it works. He just doesn't give a damn.
That said, why the Obama campaign didn't focus like a laser on his record as Gov, is disturbing to me. Yeah, his CEO Bain-ness is very important, but if you want a peek inside how he will Govern, go ask the people who know best. The people of Massachusetts. Ask them about his response to their disaster. Ask them how much money they saved as a result. There should be a week of non-stop campaign ads with testimony from Massachusetts voters simply on Romney's tenure.
That's what everyone really needs to know.
Romney is a puke, and that is dismissive of puke
The GOP/RNC "Speculator and Chief" has no intention of keeping FEMA a Government Program. All disaster relief will be first given to the states in the form of "Private Vultures." The States will be able to buy a "Disaster Relief Vulture" from a corporation like Bain Capital. Now the incentive for profit will come first, and only a small amount of money for disaster relief will be permitted. Now each State will be given a life time limit on how much Disaster Relief Insurance that they can buy at a time. When they use up thier 'insurance?" That State will need to rebuild from their disaster on their own.
Come on! If you live near the coast, you should have been saving up for your own disaster relief. (If you live near a river, near a forest, near a fault line, near... well, you get my drift.) If you don't like your local disaster relief, you can shop around. Or ask your parents to rebuild your bridge or dig out your home. Silly people. You could start your OWN disaster relief company! Private enterprise! Think of the savings! ..because this debt is KILLING us!
This is not a hard one. Romney has said he wants to eliminate FEMA and hand its responsibilities to the states or the private sector.
Is the midst of a natural disaster, when FEMA is busy saving thousands of lives, an appropriate time to ask Romney if he still wants to take the axe to FEMA?
Hell, yes! If not now, when? It's only at times like this that most people even notice the existence of agencies like FEMA. Sure, they seem expendable, until it's your own hide that needs saving.
This would also be the best possible time to grill Ryan about his professed Ayn-Randian belief that helping others is counterproductive, because (Rand held) they should be left to their own rugged individualism to deal with something like Sandy.
Let's ask Ron Paul.
The picture reminds me of when I worked for the Red Cross in California back in the nineties and how difficult it was when people would show up with bags of clothes, food, etc that they wanted the Red Cross to ship to Florida! It was hard to explain that this wasn't the most cost-effective use of dollars. They just wanted to help and it was the only way they could.
Not sure how they do it now, but then Red Cross used to issue vouchers which people could use to buy items they really needed (including clothes that fit!) Not only did the vouchers help disaster survivors move on with their lives in a more efficient way, but they also helped the local economies which also take a beating. Unfortunately, you can see what kind of help you'll get from Mr. Romney. A can of chicken noodle soup and a lot of faux empathy.
Seeing Willard supposedly talked to the governors of states affected by Sandy, didn't he at least have a passing thought to ask what was needed most or does he expect us to believe those governors said "food"? With all the people hit by the storm, is he going to give one can per person? No. He's going to push it off on someone else and expect them to take the hit for his stupidity. He's running for president for pete's sake.
I can only imagine how that conversation must have gone.
Yeah, you gotta outsource the little stuff.
I'd like to outsource Mr. Romknee I'll tell ya.
Watching Romney run from his privatizing FEMA comments and being pretty much wrong on any other issue that he weighs in, I cant help but wonder if he would vote for himself if he were'nt running for office.
He would if it meant a tax cut for himself.
Hey Dawn I spoke to you on the other blog, but I guess you had left. How's it going?
Hey everyone
Hey Rachael, UGH, I just saw your post. I went back to see what was going on, X didn't come over yet. I hate the new format. I saw your post on the other blog 20 minutes after you posted it. I don't know if it's my computer or the new format but my computer keeps freezing saying something about not responding because it's running scripts.
Yeah--I here a lot of people complaining about it, so far I haven't had a problem with it. I guess everyone has moved to Maddow huh, I've been off and on lately, can't keep up with you guys.
I keep coming over hear but can't ever find anyone. I don't go on Ed's blog too often because it's a major hassle. I miss talking to everyone.
me too, I guess either we have to get used to it, or stay on the Maddow blog. I just can't leave Ed completely, so I guess I will go back and forth too.
Ugh, can we get a petition going. It's really bad, India, can't even stay on there because she said it hurts her eyes. I hope everyone is ok from the storm, fortunately I didn't lose power, and no damage really at all around here.
romwitt wants to cut medicare,, fema,,planned parenthood,etc,,what exactly will be left for middle class and poor peoples? and also trumpwitt ,is till thinking about that 5 mil for mr obama if he shows some papers that do not have any impact on the future of this country,,trumpwitt wants an other 15 min of fame when the victims of hurricane sandy are struggling,,today i went to the store and give money along my bill to help those peoples,,,mr obama is busy saving lives ,did not stop since yesterday,is always in touch with the offficials of those cities,,fema is helping and romney wants to get rid of fema if he become president,,,,,what is wrong with romwitt? dimwitt & company romney ,trump,cheney,ryan,mccain by association with dimwitt palin,,why is trump wasting air time to put himself on tv,,when with his money,he could help,,i help and i do not have money,,with all his bankruptcies,,this is all his creditors money anyway,,i do not even remember how many time trump went bankrupt,,too many ,,and he things he is smart ???? he is with romney,,what a surprise,dumb and dumber
not a thing, that's the plan. Joe wasn't joking when he said they wanted us all back in chains. These rich plutocrats want us working either as slaves or for slave wages. We all need to start voting for out own intersts.
Dawn....Obama has been President for the past 4 years.....Incomes have went down....energy costs are going up, fuel...going up, cost of food going up our debt going up....So how is voting for Obama in anyone's best interest?
.. In your case more in particular "TAP", I'll go with, pointing his attitude and general position regarding education. ... (How far "down", did your "income" "went", btw. ?)