Rose Launches Campaign Talking About Fairness
Bobbie Rose held a campaign kick-off event at the International Longshoremen's Hall on Morrison Drive focusing on fairness and promising to put South Carolina's First District first.
Though she's been on the campaign trail since April, Democrat Bobbie Rose spent Sunday afternoon in Charleston for an official campaign kick-off event.
Speaking to assembled supporters and Democratic activists, Rose spoke about fairness, and contrasted her positions with those of Rep. Tim Scott, her opponent in November for the S.C. District 1 seat in the U.S. House.
Rose said passing the Violence Against Women Act without protections included for Native American women, immigrant women and women in the lesbian, gay bi-sexual and trans-gender community was unfair, and she voiced support for the Fair Pay Act. She called the most recent budget passed by the U.S. House unfair for cutting nearly $100 million from Veterans' programs without mentioning veterans. She called cutting food programs for the poor in the latest Farm Bill while supporting subsidies for oil companies unfair and called out Scott for supporting $70 billion in subsidies for those companies after the top three oil companies in the U.S. reported $35 billion in profits for the first quarter of 2011.
"A reporter asked my opponent 'Is this fair?' My opponent, 'TimPAC' Scott, answered 'Fairness is a relative word,'" Rose said. "Apparently he doesn't know the meaning of fair or relative."
Rose also laid out her platform to put the First District first. She wants to fully fund veteran services, fully fund public education and universal pre-K programs and raise teacher salaries. Rose said she supports implementing an infrastructure plan to improve roads, bridges, ports and schools as a way to increase American jobs.
She said she supports responding to environmental challenges by supporting legislation that promotes clean air, clean water and clean energy. She also said she would support and sponsor legislation like the Fair Pay Act and the Violence Against Women Act.
Greg Tompkins
9:59 am on Monday, July 23, 2012
This doesn't sound like leadership to me. In today's tough economy, the age-old political act of promising to fully fund every government program you think will lead to votes is not leadership. In today's world we need leaders that are willing to make tough decisions on what we can and cannot afford. And we need to stop spending other people's money!
Richard Hayes
10:38 am on Monday, July 23, 2012
On the contrary, this is STRONG leadership that we need to represent the Low Country in Congress. The issue of funding is a matter of priority -- Tim Scott's priority is to say no to public education support, to say no to the Low Country harbor dredging and jobs, to say no to medical care for children not insured and to say to no Veteran Benefits. Bobbie Rose will make a great Congresswoman for the Low Country, supporting the people -- Democrats, Independents, and common sense Republicans!
Hobby
10:55 am on Monday, July 23, 2012
Another politician promising everything, but not how it will be paid for. It's so easy and popular to campaign on "fairness", but fairness is not having only 50% of the population (taxpayers) pay for 100% of the costs. Gov Haley at least made the tougher choice to not fund certain programs, and said she was not running a popularity contest. We've tried that in a President for the last four years, and that hasn't worked so well...
reg
5:22 pm on Monday, July 23, 2012
oh, i just love it. The same people who supported giving millionaires a temporary tax break - during the middle of a damn war, mind you - are now complaining that there's not enough money to pay for basic needs. And they also keep using the same fluff stats they're fed. "50%" and all that. Of course, when you subtract children, seniors and the like, yup - only 50% of the population pays taxes, alright. Now go ask your pal Tim Scott for more made-up numbers for me to quickly cut through.
Greg Tompkins
11:21 am on Monday, July 23, 2012
Couldn't disagree with you more Mr. Hayes. I have yet to look into Mr. Scott's platform, but if it contains similar "promises" I will say the same thing. What we need is a promise of fiscal responsibility that gets honored.
SDR
4:58 pm on Monday, July 23, 2012
Most legislation includes language that can be cause for action. This sounds like a legal make work act.
RoguElephant
5:36 pm on Monday, July 23, 2012
Tim Scott is what the first dist. has needed for a long time. A strong conservative leader.
reg
6:09 pm on Monday, July 23, 2012
In my opinion, and of 96% of everyone else I know, Tim Scott has been nothing but a toy for lobbyists. Name one thing he's done - one bill he's sponsored/cosponsored - one vote he's made - that did anything for citizens. Everything he's done so far has only been to the benefit of his corporate campaign donors.
Greg Tompkins
6:33 pm on Monday, July 23, 2012
Um, Reg, I am relatively new to Charleston (What a grand place, eh?) and don't know a lot about the political landscape yet, so I will look to see what Tim Scott has done. But from your previous post I have to ask: If he hasn't sponsored a bill or made a vote how is he benefiting his campaign sponsors? Are you making the argument that his sponsors want him to do nothing? Also, aren't the "corporate campaign donors" citizens also?
reg
11:56 pm on Monday, July 23, 2012
I'm not claiming he didn't sponsor a bill or make a vote - I'm stating the only bills he's sponsored are ones done as favors to corporate sponsors. And NO - corporations are NOT people too - no matter what Romney says. This is a country of people, by people, for people - and to let corporations have preference over people is unAmerican.
Greg Tompkins
6:42 pm on Monday, July 23, 2012
OK Reg, I looked up his voting record and bill sponsorship. Very simple to do BTW. There were too many votes to count and he sponsored 47 bills. One of those bills was H.Res. 679: Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 436) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the excise tax on medical devices, and providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 5882) making appropriations for the Legislative Branch
Sponsor: Rep. Tim Scott [R-SC1]
Introduced: Jun 06, 2012
Passed (Simple Resolution): Jun 07, 2012
Now I won't pretend to understand all that's in it but wouldn't you agree that removing the excise tax on medical equipment is good for ALL citizens? Except maybe the tax man?
I've concluded that you are one of those folks that care a lot about the letter after a politician's name. I find this scary myself. It would sure be nice to meet people on these blogs that actually looked things up instead of just spew their venom, but such is the state of America today.....
reg
12:16 am on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
I don't care about the letter after the name; I do care that the letter R is, for the last 30 years, only in representation of companies, though. Like in the very same example you cite - its very generic text was written to remove not taxes paid by consumers at time of sale, but excise taxes paid by companies on very specific earnings. Those specific excise taxes, in this particular case, and which are found in the laws/bills it cites, pertain to very particular OTC medical devices that need no prescription or medical recommendation. It does NOT pertain to hospital gear, bandages, disabled/senior goods, OTC medicines or anything covered by Medicare - it applies to things like massage devices, cosmetic appliances...some vaccines are also included for the excise tax (that's been applied since 1987), but only those not covered by Medicare, Medicaid or most insurance. Again, that was only done as a favor to companies, and had nothing to do with constituent needs.
Greg Tompkins
6:48 pm on Monday, July 23, 2012
One last thing. Not to let actual facts get in the way of a political rant, but according to this website, http://taxfoundation.org/article/tax-equity-and-growth-nonpayers (which includes references) the amount of folks with no income tax liability was approximately 41% in 2010 and growing. And the more wealthy you are the more likely you are to pay taxes and the more taxes you are likely to pay. That don't seem fair to me, but that is my position,I understand some would thinnk it fair if only corporations paid taxes. It takes all kinds.
Just because you don't like a fact doesn't make it any less a fact.
reg
11:51 pm on Monday, July 23, 2012
That depends on how much 'fact' is present in that fact, Greg. Your source is widely regarded to partisan and misinforming. http://www.ctj.org/taxjusticedigest/archive/2008/08/tax_foundation_state_rankings.php http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=515 Just consider the wordage of your own link: "41 percent of all tax returns filed had no income tax liability" - that means nothing else was owed; doesn't mean they got full refund. It's also using data from the year when a temporary tax reduction was awarded to all due to economic recession. it's also attempting to overlook SSI/Medicare deductions that all pay. it is quite true that the more you make, the more taxes you pay - but the US has the lowest tax on wealth of all developed nations, and is the only nation on earth that taxes people who live under its own definition of poverty.
Greg Tompkins
7:32 am on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
I think you've proved my point Reg. No matter what evidence you are presented you refuse to see anything other than negative. You are an all or nothing kinda guy (or gal). Thanks for your responses. Gotta get to work and pay those taxes so this candidate will have money to fully fund everything except businesses. LOL Take care.
JoSCh
7:56 am on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
"No matter what evidence you are presented you refuse to see anything other than negative."
This is like the pot calling the bathtub black.
You countered regs assertion that the "50%" of the population doesn't pay taxes" is b.s. with a link from a conservative group that said the 41 percent of all tax returns filed had no income tax liability. And then don't bother to address that the US has the lowest tax on wealth of all developed nations, and is the only nation on earth that taxes people who live under its own definition of poverty.
I get that hyperbole ideally with some good old fear inducing hysteria is the preferred method for communicating your stances but it's really not necessary. Just the facts, please.
Nadia
9:00 pm on Friday, August 31, 2012
Blessed are we ALL in America. We have the priceless gift and protected rights to freedom and to serve our God. Shouldn't we all contribute some money for those protected rights that we receive as an American citizen? Our convenient way of life, from our clean water, electricity, paved roads, cars, hospitals, police protection, shopping malls, etc. is virtually taken for granted. We ALL have the opportunity to prosper in the land of the free but there must be a contribution to the whole that speaks, "I am a part of this great nation." So whether to pay taxes, even if you meet the poverty standard, should not even be an arguement. What a FAIR TAX is, is another topic. It is FAIR to cut taxes to the millionaire who creates thousands of jobs in America, is responsible for thousands of employees and their families, allows for millions of dollars to be used towards and within our economy, and is responsible for providing goods to Americans. That is a great American who is providing more for this country than money can buy. That is what I think is meant by, "Fair is relative." I know that Tim Scott seeks God for guidance and I trust his choices and agree with his views. Bobbie Rose wants to contribute to good causes but has a narrow perspective.
reg
9:20 pm on Friday, August 31, 2012
Nadia, there are programs like that for companies - tax incentives for new employment, new facilities, new developments.... those tax incentives shouldn't be applied to the personal income of the executives of those companies, though, because that's an entirely different ball game. If that's what you were referring to, let me remind you why the first settlers came to the US - to get away from the same circumstances you're now referring to positively: an extreme upper class that got preferable treatment from authorities simply because they had money. Forget the fact that they made that money at the expense of everyone else, who were treated like garbage....