Romney's $10,000 bet and why you should care - vote in poll!

[PaulConventionWV]

http://o5.aolcdn.com/dims-shared/dims3/PATCH/resize/600x450/http://hss-prod.hss.aol.com/hss/storage/patch/5f7b50f83ddb6ef0b13990fdaf8651d7


What’s more, it is hard to imagine anyone else, candidate or not making a statement such as that. Imagine Ron Paul, instead of debating the issues of liberty and arguing for the Constitution, defending himself by betting a million dollars in taxpayer money that he’s right. According to Mitt Romney’s senior advisor, that would be a perfectly acceptable practice considering how strong the argument is.

However, the real issue isn’t the money that Romney bet. It is really the individual mandates that is the problem, as Rick Perry concluded. Money will not and cannot effectively defend you from the attacks of your opponents. If you are in a court case, do you pay off the prosecution, or do you rather plead your case based on your conception of the law and the facts of the case?


The point is that Romney forced the people of his state, through a mandate, to purchase a product or service. If you want real liberty solutions, then individual mandates are not the way to go. People’s freedoms are being eroded ever day, and yet Romney feels quite comfortable defending the status quo by declaring it is acceptable for the government, in any instance, to force someone to buy something. The very idea of this role of government is antithetical to liberty because it permits the government to claim ownership over almost anything that the citizens claim as their property. If the government can force you to buy a certain product or service through coercion, then what can it not do through force?

more at link:

http://libertysolutions.org/2011/12/11/78/

[iamse7en]

I think this is stupid. People are talking about this too much. Big freaking deal. Let's talk about how Ron proved Newt is a serial hypocrite and profited at the expense of taxpayers. I'm so sick of the media whining about any little tiny gaffe Romney may have said when they give Newt a free pass and just say "Oh, he won this debate!"

[ShaneEnochs]

I think this is stupid. People are talking about this too much. Big freaking deal. Let's talk about how Ron proved Newt is a serial hypocrite and profited at the expense of taxpayers. I'm so sick of the media whining about any little tiny gaffe Romney may have said when they give Newt a free pass and just say "Oh, he won this debate!"

It's about image. Romney betting ten thousand dollars as a friendly wager in front of millions of Americans who are barely getting by is bad taste. It doesn't bother me personally, but I do think it was very poor judgment, especially after he repeated it.

[Lothario]

I think this is stupid. People are talking about this too much. Big freaking deal. Let's talk about how Ron proved Newt is a serial hypocrite and profited at the expense of taxpayers. I'm so sick of the media whining about any little tiny gaffe Romney may have said when they give Newt a free pass and just say "Oh, he won this debate!"

+1

[UtahApocalypse]

Mormons are not allowed to gamble at ALL. I heared from friends back in Utah today that THIS was the talk in church and Romney may have LOST Utah now to Huntsman

[Kregisen]

Mormons are not allowed to gamble at ALL. I heared from friends back in Utah today that THIS was the talk in church and Romney may have LOST Utah now to Huntsman

Eh this isn't gambling. Placing a bet over whether or not you put certain words into your book is not a risk because you already know the answer.

In terms of who would win the bet...it's sort of gray area. They're both wrong in a way. The words "We can accomplish the same thing for everyone in the country, and it can be done without letting government take over health care." were changed to "And it was done without government taking over health care.", but fact check sites are saying the context wasn't advocating a national mandate. I haven't read the book so I wouldn't know either.

[Aratus]

strictly speaking, UtahApocalypse is correct.
jon huntsman now has more of an edge here
in new england, even. mitt has his partisans.

[Lucille]

Eh this isn't gambling. Placing a bet over whether or not you put certain words into your book is not a risk because you already know the answer.

In terms of who would win the bet...it's sort of gray area. They're both wrong in a way. The words "We can accomplish the same thing for everyone in the country, and it can be done without letting government take over health care." were changed to "And it was done without government taking over health care.", but fact check sites are saying the context wasn't advocating a national mandate. I haven't read the book so I wouldn't know either.

Sounds like he backs the mandate.


At a GOP debate in Des Moines, Iowa, on Aug. 5, 2007, here's what Mitt Romney had to say about his preferred federal approach to health care policy (http://reason.com/archives/2011/10/19/mitt-romneys-lying-problem):


Look, it's critical to insure more people in this country. It doesn't make sense to have 45 million people without insurance. It's not good for them because they don't get good preventative care and disease management, just as these folks have spoken about. But it's not good for the rest of the citizens either, because if people aren't insured, they go to the emergency room for their care when they get very sick. That’s expensive. They don't have any insurance to cover it. [...]

We have to have our citizens insured, and we're not going to do that by tax exemptions, because the people that don’t have insurance aren’t paying taxes. What you have to do is what we did in Massachusetts. Is it perfect? No. But we say, let's rely on personal responsibility, help people buy their own private insurance, get our citizens insured, not with a government takeover, not with new taxes needed, but instead with a free-market based system that gets all of our citizens in the system. No more free rides. It works.


LOL @ "free market-based system."