Tag Archives: deferments

Support the Troops (and the Mormon Missionaries)

Posted on by

I must have missed the memo. Apparently “serving your country” now means both military service (where you risk your life) and pedaling around Paris on a bicycle, trying to sell Moroni and the planet Kolob to to unsuspecting people in Paris who answer their doors.

Raw Story reports on an exchange between Whoopi Goldberg and Lady Ann Romney when she appeared on The View yesterday. “The wife of Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney on Thursday said that her husband and sons had not joined the U.S. military but had found “different ways of serving” by going on religious missions in France, England, Australia and Chile as part of their obligation to the Mormon church.”

Whoopie Goldberg: “When I read about your husband, what I had read — and maybe you can correct this — is that the reason he didn’t serve in Vietnam was because it was against the religion.”

Ann Romney: “That’s not correct. He was serving his mission, and my five sons have also served missions. None served in the military, but I do have one son that feels that he’s giving back to his country in a significant way where he is now a doctor and he is taking care of veterans. So, you know, we find different ways of serving. And my husband and my five boys did serve missions, did not serve in the military.”

Goldberg: “So, when you’re facing these mothers whose children have not come back, how will you explain to them that your sons haven’t gone? Will you talk about the missions they’ve gone on?”

Romney: “I would say it’s probably the hardest thing that a president and a first lady probably do is to comfort those that have lost a love one and have gone in harm’s way. It is an amazing country, we have the most extraordinary fighting men and women, and we have to be so grateful for them. Of course, it’s hard, and I don’t think that any of us can understand the sacrifice [sic] that are being made by families.”

Oh, you people and your amazing sacrifices… got that, patriots? There’s absolutely no need to volunteer for military service — especially for that new Iran war that Romney and his neocon advisers are so excited about — just to say you served your country. Just sell Kolob door to door. It’s the same thing, it’s just a different way of “serving.”

###

Romney received a draft exemption – a deferment from the Vietnam draft — based upon his status as a “minister of religion” – basically, an exemption for having been a Mormon missionary. He received numerous deferments after that for educational reasons. Romney portrays his mission in Paris as a time of humbling poverty, but The Daily Telegraph has a different story…

Mitt Romney, August 8 2007 in Iowa: “The good news is that we have a volunteer Army and that’s the way we’re going to keep it. My sons are all adults and they’ve made decisions about their careers and they’ve chosen not to serve in the military and active duty and I respect their decision in that regard. One of the ways my sons are showing support for our nation is helping me get elected because they think I’d be a great president.” 

The Daily Mail: “A newly-unearthed photograph showing Mitt Romney demonstrating in favour of the Vietnam War draft might leave the presidential candidate feeling somewhat embarrassed. The veteran Republican, then 19, can be seen picketing an anti-war sit-in at Stanford University in Palo Alto, California, in 1966.”

Romney says he omitted troops from his RNC speech to talk about “important” things

Posted on by

Accidentally revealing: 

Fox’s Bret Baier queries Romney on why he didn’t mention the troops or the war in his speech at the Republican National Convention.

BAIER: A few more things, Governor. To hear several speakers in Charlotte – and I don’t think this is jump (?) – they were essentially saying you don’t care about the U.S. military because you didn’t mention U.S. troops and the war in Afghanistan in your nomination acceptance speech. (….) Do you regret opening up this line of attack, now a recurring attack, by leaving out that issue in the speech?

ROMNEY: I only regret you repeating it day in and day out. (LAUGHS)

BAIER: Well I mean, what just came from Charlotte -

ROMNEY: Because when you give a speech, you don’t give a laundry list. You talk about the things that uh you think are important.

I’ve cut him off right there, deliberately. Romney would go on to give the lamest of excuses, that he had indeed mentioned the military in his speech, that he’d visited an American Legion the day before, and that he absolutely opposed cuts in military spending, and so on. A better answer — and a better man– would have just owned up to this error, admitted it, and perhaps gotten some props for honesty. But that man wouldn’t be Willard Mitt Romney.

There are two potentially accidental revelations there: 1) that he regrets the media has picked up on this rather embarrassing (I would think) omission of his not mentioning the troops — INSTEAD of regretting he didn’t mention them! And 2) Romney thinks mentioning the troops would be like reading a laundry list instead of talking about important things.

Remember if you elect this guy, he’ll be more than happy to send the laundry list (i.e. YOUR sons and daughters) overseas to fight the GOP’s Forever Wars: Next Stop, Iran!

But honestly, if you support Romney, would you really expect anything less from a “fortunate son” who received years worth of deferments from the Vietnam draft to hide out in a mansion in France? You’ve picked yourselves a real winner there, Republicans.

If Mitt Romney can’t tell the truth about his living conditions in France, WHY believe him about taxes?

Posted on by

In December 2011, here’s how Romney described his living “conditions” in France — when he was a Mormon missionary (and when he obtained deferments from the Vietnam War draft):

“At a campaign event in New Hampshire on Sunday, he gave a rare account of his two and a half years from July 1966 as a missionary in France, which he described as “not exactly a Third World country”. He was forced to live off $110 a month. “So, I lived in a way that people of lower-middle income in France lived,” he said. Explaining that he often had no working lavatory, Mr Romney said: “We had instead the little pads on the ground There was a chain behind you with a bucket”.

“There were also no baths or showers, said Mr Romney. “If we were lucky, we actually bought a hose and we stuck it on the sink … and wash ourselves that way,” he said. “Most of the apartments I lived in had no refrigerators,” Mr Romney added. He remembered saying to himself: “Wow, I sure am lucky to have been born in the United States of America”.”

Wow, indeed. Especially when the house Romney stayed in is described SO DIFFERENTLY by everyone else who was there:

“…the Republican presidential hopeful spent a significant portion of his 30-month mission in a Paris mansion described by fellow American missionaries to The Daily Telegraph as “palace”. It featured stained glass windows, chandeliers, and an extensive art collection. It was staffed by two servants – a Spanish chef and a houseboy. Although he spent time in other French cities, for most of 1968, Mr Romney lived in the Mission Home, a 19th century neoclassical building in the French capital’s chic 16th arrondissement. “It was a house built by and for rich people,” said Richard Anderson, the son of the mission president at the time of Mr Romney’s stay. “I would describe it as a palace”.

“[...] “They were very big rooms,” said Christian Euvrard, the 72-year-old director of the Mormon-run Institute of Religion in Paris, who knew Mr Romney. “Very comfortable. The building had beautiful gilded interiors, a magnificent staircase in cast iron, and an immense hall.” [...]  Mr Anderson said that as well as a refrigerator, the mansion had “a Spanish chef called Pardo and a house boy, who prepared lunch and supper five days a week”.

“It was “well equipped” with all modern conveniences, including a combination washer-dryer machine, Mr Anderson said. “I never saw anything like it in another private home at that time.” [...]  The mission home in Paris was fully plumbed and central heated. “All of the missionary rooms had something like a bath or a shower attached to it,” said Mr Anderson. “The home had several”. This was in stark contrast to lodgings in working class areas given to other missionaries in Paris at the same time. “It was much better than the other places,” said one, Alan Eastman. “Most of us stayed in rented apartments quite a way from luxurious”.

“[...] Regarding spending money, Mr Romney “would have been on the same amount of money as the rest of us, about $125 per month,” said Mr Eastman – about $813 per month in today’s money.”

He suffered, y’all. Big time! They had only ONE houseboy.

The rules we live by are not the same rules that the Romneys (and the rest of the one percent) live by

Posted on by

IF YOU’RE ANN ROMNEY, being a stay at home mother is “hard work” — or so she and the pander-pundits tell us. But if you’re not wealthy like Ann Romney, well… sorry.

From Romney’s book “No Apology: The Case for American Greatness”: “Welfare without work erodes the spirit and the sense of self-worth of the recipient. And it conditions the children of nonworking parents to an indolent and unproductive life. Hardworking parents raise hardworking kids; we should recognize that the opposite is also true. The influence of the work habits of our parents and other adults around us as we grow up has lasting impact.”

THE SAME DISSONANCE APPLIES TO OUR VOLUNTEER MILITARY: If you’re a child of low or middle income parents, you volunteer to serve your country and hope you come out of it alive and undamaged, maybe to avail yourself of GI Benefits for college. But if you’re  the privileged child of wealth and / or power, you go on about your life. There’s no need to serve anything except for yourself, with your trust fund that the Republican Party has generously fought to tax at the lowest rates possible:

(Via: Operation Yellow Elephant) – Boston Herald (2005): Mitt backs war, but his boys are safe at home 

Gov. Mitt Romney, who has comforted the grieving loved ones of soldiers killed in Iraq and promoted National Guard recruitment, yesterday said he has not urged his own sons to enlist – and isn’t sure whether they would.

The Herald posed the question as Romney – a potential 2008 White House contender and backer of President Bush’s Iraq policy – was honored by the Massachusetts National Guard after he signed a bill extending pay for state workers on active duty.

“No, I have not urged my own children to enlist. I don’t know the status of my childrens’ potentially enlisting in the Guard and Reserve,” Romney said, his voice tinged with anger.

(See also: Five Not For Fighting)

Of course even when this country had a military draft, the sons of privilege got deferments – including Mitt, so he could do missionary work for his LDS church in France.

SO YOU’D EXPECT THAT WHEN THE PLUTOCRACY plans to enrich themselves even further than they have already (with Romney, Evangelical Leaders, and the Republican Party as their personal champions), it’s going to cost the rest of us dearly. Fairness, equality, shared effort, common good, decency… those kind of ‘idealistic rules’ only apply to plebeians. You deserve to pay higher tax rates — THEY DON’T. No one gets rich paying taxes, hahah!!

BILLIONAIRES FALL IN LINE – “If there’s a President Romney, donors want to see the best case scenario of a Speaker Boehner and a Senate Majority Leader [Mitch] McConnell, and if the president is somehow reelected, the last thing the country needs is a Speaker [Nancy] Pelosi and a Senate Majority Leader [Harry] Reid.” || If you think the $53 million Obama raised last month is good, you ought to see how many millions the likes of the Koch Brothers, Sheldon Adelson, Foster Friess, Bob Perry, Harold Simmons and Harlan Crow can throw around in a day — not to mention all the mystery donors. 

And right on schedule:

  • SENATE REPUBLICANS FILIBUSTER BUFFETT RULE – The Buffett Rule, a bill backed by President Obama that would ensure millionaires pay a comparable tax rate to middle-class Americans, fell to a Republican filibuster in the Senate this evening, despite a new poll showing it to be overwhelmingly popular. While the rule, named after billionaire investor Warren Buffett, earned a majority vote of 51-45, it didn’t get the 60 votes needed to overcome a GOP filibuster… A CNN poll released today found that 72 percent of Americans — including 53 percent of Republicans and almost 70 percent of independents — support the Buffett Rule.
  • FOOD STAMPS FOR NEEDY FAMILIES? GONE. Cash subsidies for rich farmers? Protected. – The Recovery Act boost in benefits is already phasing out and will be gone entirely by November 2013. But the package now, to be taken up by the House Agriculture Committee Wednesday, would end this abruptly summer, impacting families Sept. 1, and saving about $5.9 billion in 2012 and 2013. [...] the severity of the proposed House cuts could be an over reach for two reasons. First they are all coming from the Agriculture panel in a context where rich farm subsidies continue to be protected at a time of record income for producers. Even in the commodity lobby, there is broad consensus that the current system of cash payments to growers at a time of high farm profits can no longer be politically defended.

In case you haven’t figured it out yet, cutting programs and services to the rest of us, the unwashed masses, so the wealthy can slide by with lower tax rates should be our collective privilege. Jesus would have wanted it this way.

via: dasrosmeyez