Mitt Romney is only against bad socialism

Mitt Romney launched his attack on socialism yesterday at a farm that had received a $1 million federal bailout. Any questions?

25 thoughts on “Mitt Romney is only against bad socialism

  1. Rick Peterson

    DK, perhaps he figured that since Stratham was the home of Congressman Josiah Bartlett (namesake for Martin Sheen’s character in “The West Wing”), he could steal some progressive mojo?

  2. Bill Duncliffe

    One pertinent question is why you would equate a grant from a Federal Farm and Ranch Land Protection program with the term “bailout” which you surely know is an entirely different connotation.

    A second question would be why you would overlook that distinction when you have lamented on this blog previously the plight of the small farmer.

    1. Dan Kennedy

      @Bill: By that measure, the loans extended to the auto and financial industries were not bailouts, either. I have no problem with properly targeted federal bailouts. Romney does. He calls them “socialism.”

  3. Stephen Stein

    @Dan – American Motors didn’t get a bailout. To Romney that means no other auto manufacturer deserves one either. Especially Chrysler. Mitt probably holds a grudge.

  4. Mike Benedict

    The small farmer in America has long since gone the way of the dodo bird and the generous Republican. There’s no such thing anymore. So let’s just stop worrying about things that don’t exist, shall we?

    1. Dan Kennedy

      @Mike: Small farmers are here, they’re growing in number and they play an important role in supplying us with local, non-toxic food.

  5. Peter Sullivan

    I find it humorous that your post about the New York Times top editorial person resigning garnered six comments, the largest daily in the region potentially getting sold got two and one sentence about Mitt Romney gets fifteen in one day.

    Maybe it’s time to rename this blog something less misleading like Down with Republicans or Yea Obama!!!

  6. Bill Duncliffe

    I think the difference between a federal grant program in place since 1996 and the Paulsonian/Geithnerian machinations of 2007 and 2008 is pretty clear but perhaps that’s just me.

    It is clear that the term bailout in the current lexicon is a perjorative term applied to the above referenced machinations and is definitely a mis-characterization of a long-existing grant program.

    That mis-characterization is, of course, in furtherance of an agenda. I doubt the term “bailout” used in the context of this post would have passed editing at a major publication.

    1. Dan Kennedy

      @Bill: Can’t say for sure, but I know for a fact that calling Hamas a terrorist organization and waterboarding torture would definitely not pass muster at most major news organizations.

  7. Mike Benedict

    Giving billions to Israel each year is a taxpayer bailout. I fully expect the GOP to distance themselves from this ridiculous and unprofitable subsidy, especially given that Israel has made it a point to “reinvest” its subsidies in attempts to steal American nuclear secrets.

  8. Christian Avard

    @ Mike and Dan The number of small farmers are growing including the organics market. I think it will get much much bigger in years to come. Dairy farmers on the other hand are struggling. Many are going out of business or getting swallowed up by bigger companies, especially in Vermont. Some family farms/dairy farmers are banding together and becoming cooperatives to stay in business. Of course there’s a lot more to explain why this is occurring but unfortunately it is a problem.

    Yesterday in Brattleboro, VT there was the annual Strolling of the Heifers. It’s Brattleboro’s version of the Running of the Bulls in Pamplona, Spain … except spectators aren’t running away from cows.

    1. Dan Kennedy

      @Christian: Unfortunately for the farmers, one of the factors is that people are starting to realize they should consume very few dairy products.

  9. Rick Peterson

    @aaron: once again, it’s a question of whose ox is gored.

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43179684/ns/business-eye_on_the_economy/

    There are about 1000 HJ Heinz employees who won’t be paying taxes this year either, having just lost their jobs to fuel a dividend and profit increase for the corporation. I don’t begrudge Sen.and Mrs. Kerry a return on their investments or second guess their portfolio weighted towards tax-free bonds. Capital seeks a return. If we don’t like the rules, we should change them. IGNORING the rules, OTOH, buys you bad PR (at the very least) as the good senator discovered with the purchase of his yacht.

  10. Mike Benedict

    @Rick: What makes you think Senator or Mrs. Kerry benefited materially from any such layoffs? Take a look at who owns anything nearing a substantial share of Heinz Co. It’s not the Kerrys. Nor do they sit on the board of the company or make any management decisions.

    http://finance.yahoo.com/q/mh?s=HNZ+Major+Holders

    But once again, don’t let the facts get in the way of a good smear.

  11. Dan Storms

    Sorry, late to the game. “There are about 1000 HJ Heinz employees who won’t be paying taxes this year either, having just lost their jobs.” Actually, since the verdammt 1986 tax reform bill, unemployment benefits are fully taxable. So you get to lose your job, lose your health insurance, and still pay federal, state, and FICA taxes. Just sayin’.

Comments are closed.