Seriously? Those that voted yes need to stop drinking the Kool-Aid. While we are tossing around ridiculous thoughts and statements, how about chewing on this one...Do you live in the United States? Well, you are dependent on the government...from federal on down to local, they provide you police/fire/military protections, Roads/Infrastructure, Water/Sewers, Courts, etc etc etc...
If you pay no income tax, and collect money from the same government that collects no tax from you in order to pay for food and living expenses, then you are dependent on that government. That being said there a a myriad of circumstances under which that occurs. Some have legitimate reasons beyond their control (the purpose it was meant for) and some fall under the category of generational recipients (what it was not meant for) but nonetheless all are dependent on the government for their survival. Now take those same people and convince them via the Presidential bully pulpit and an all too willing accomplice media that if they vote for anyone but the incumbent all those benefits will cease and they will find themselves living on the streets, then the politics of false fear have won the day. I love how the media is treating this as a "gotcha" moment for Romney. That somehow they infiltrated the behind closed doors secret meetings of rich people and what they say when they think the little people are not around. I am glad that Romney did not apologize for the comments, only conceded that he could have phrased it better, because bottom line is he told a hard truth.
What's the difference? If either Romney or Obama get elected in November there will still be a huge number of people sucking off the taxpayers, it's just a matter of whom. Believing either will change that is drinking the real Kool-Aid.
For Instance: If Romney drops the Corporate Tax Rate as he is promising, what does anyone think the chances are that Xerox or the other companies who have done this will re-instate health coverage for their retirees over 65? All my life I've been told that I shouldn't expect to have my cake and eat it too, and I've also tried to not be envious, but it's getting a lot harder.
Tim, who do you suppose is paying for Obama's ads? Please don't tell me all the "grassroots" $5 and $10 donations from the working people. They are paid for by billionaires, SuperPac donors and bundlers who just happen to have different names than those contributing to Romney's campaign. And as in his first term, they will expect the same payback through contracts, subsidies, legislative favors, bailouts and crony capitalism if he is re-elected.
Just who is included in that 47%? Our elderly parents living on SS? Our disabled veterans and actual fighting men and women who are exempt through military differential pay? How about the single working parent whose income falls below the poverty level? Is it anyone receiving the EITC enacted by President Ronald Reagan? Is it the college student who is receiving a Pell grant? I guess it's all of the above since Romney lumped all the 47%.
And how many out there who voted yes can honestly say they haven't at one time or another received some kind of assistance? I am not in the 47%, but when my husband was serving in the Corp in the early 80's we fell way below the poverty level. WIC and Reagan's EITC fed and clothed my kids. Were we "takers"? Was my husband a "moocher" as he deployed in the North Atlantic on Cold War exercises?
I can't say for sure, but I would say about 47% of the time the person in front of me at Tops or Walmart is using a benefits card....about 1/2 are elderly people that most likely need/deserve government assistance to survive.....I can't say as to why the other 1/2 receive services
Per Mr. Romney's own words at the fund-raiser where today's daily dose of media distraction from reality is being conjured up: “There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That that’s an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what…... Forty-seven percent of Americans pay no income tax......."
Lorie, you missed the point by allowing the emotional argument to supercede the logical argument. All of those whom you mention are deserving recipients of assistance but they also make up a VERY small percentage of the 47%. The point that Romney was making is that the President and the left have successfully played on the fear of those recipients by dangling the benefits over their heads and falsely claiming that Republicans hate them and want to take their benefits away. They have in essence locked up their vote by virtue of extortion by perception. It is the swayable independent vote who may or may not look at the facts and not the fiction who he is talking about.
Lyndon Johnson understood the concept well and phrased it in a way that perhaps he had hoped would never get published.
In context Laurie, his statements did not imply or suggest anything of the kind.
He is absolutely correct in his context and his math
46-47% will vote for President Obama no matter what
46-47% will vote for Governor Romney no matter waht
And the Battle is for the 5-6% who do not fall in that category.
That is all that he was saying, that is all the pundits were saying, and no matter how much partisan BS either way it doesn't change the fact that that is pretty much the truth
Let's look at it this way then Lorie, take that 47% and make it 100% for all you mentioned above, including those abusing the system, I would confidently say that the "abusers" would then make up more then 47% of that 100% ! That is what is making people upset and whom the "yes" votes are fed up with. If welfare was made up of only those that really and truly needed it, we would NOT even be having this discussion! Sadly the "abusers" outnumber those truly in need and it needs to change now!
Oh and at 42 years of age I can loudly state I have NEVER received a check from the goverment that I hadn't already paid to them in taxes!
The fact of the matter is that the 47% that Romney spoke about (remember, he's talking about the 47% of Americans who are set on voting for Obama) are not all non-tax paying government leeches. It's statistically improbable.
I'm not even going to argue about why or why not people should be "entitled", or why or why not they should all pay taxes.
In order for 47% to work, you would have to look past the fact that as of last year, only 45% didn't owe income tax ( http://money.cnn.com/2011/04/14/pf/taxes/who_pays_income_taxes/index.htm ). Even assuming that in the year since that article that the number grew from 45 to 47%, you need to some how deduce that ALL of the people who didn't pay, are Obama supporters. And since I personally know people who don't support Obama, but make low enough wages to pay little to no Income Tax, the 47% stat is defeated.
Jeff, Romney used arithmetic in his donor speech. I just added my personal story. Emotional only because it was personal but very factual.
Here's some more arithmetic -- From the Brookings Institute
61% of the people paying no Fed Income tax are low wage workers
22% are elderly
17% are students, people with disabilities and the unemployed.
Another analysis breakdown --
A separate TPC analysis categorized people who do not owe federal income tax in 2011 in a different way.* It found that of the filers who don’t owe federal income tax for 2011:
50 percent are in this category because their incomes are so low that they are less than the sum of the standard deduction and personal and dependent exemptions for which the household qualifies. As TPC Senior Fellow Roberton Williams has noted, “the basic structure of the income tax simply exempts subsistence levels of income from tax.”** Some 62 percent of the households who will owe no federal income tax in 2011 have incomes under $20,000.
Another 22 percent do not owe federal income tax because they are elderly people who benefit from tax provisions to aid senior citizens, such as the exemption of Social Security benefits from income tax for beneficiaries who have incomes below $25,000 for single filers and $32,000 for joint filers and the higher standard deduction for the elderly.
Another 15 percent (of the households who don’t owe federal income tax) don’t owe the tax because they are low-income working families with children who qualify for the child tax credit, the child and dependent care tax credit, and/or the earned income tax credit, and the credit(s) eliminate their income tax liability.*** http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3505
"47 percent of voters will chose Obama “no matter what” because they are people who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That that’s an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what…These are people who pay no income tax.”
“My job is not to worry about those people,” Romney says in the video. “I’ll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives.”
I am very active in Democratic politics. This is not an accurate description of the people I know who support the President. In fact most of the people I know pay a higher percentage of income taxes than Romney.
You'll have to explain that bit of vaguery. I've contributed to two pension plans, SSI and Medicare all my adult life. I have no interest in putting money into some investment bankers kitty, to be whimsically frittered away. I have no control over how my pension is invested, but I will not voluntarily participate in Wall Street hoodwinkery. Occupy!
Lorie,
The military pay federal income tax on their base pay. They do not pay it on other payments such as for travel or housing. And under most circumstances, do not pay taxes on what is commonly called combat pay.
The hypocrisy charge was leveled at Twit Wobbly. I haven't made any personal charges against you or anyone else on this site. If you CHOOSE to make any of this personal that is your privilege, but don't assert that I led the argument in that direction. YOU are the one who translated this argument into an analysis of MY personal finances. How you handle your personal finances is your business, HOWEVER you are NOT running for president AND challenging the ethics of 47% of America's voters.
CM. He didn't challenge the ethics of the 47%, he simply stated that about 47% believe that government is responsible for caring for them, there is a huge difference.
And that is precisely the argument in this election, just how much should we look to government for our well being.
Because you bel;ive differently, does not make him a hippocrite, nor does it mean that those that believe as you are somehow unethical.
Mitt Romney has IRA's some held off shore well here is a news flash
IRA Contributions are deductible (subject to conditions). When deducted, contributions are pre-tax, otherwise, they are post-tax. Distributions are taxed as ordinary income (except any non-deducted principal).
There is absolutely nothing Hypocritical about it except when used as means of class envy, which in my opinion is the root not only of all evil, but the root in any governments demise.
You can agree or disagree with me, with Romney with George Washington Carver.... Mitt Romney may or may not be a lot of things, but not a hypocrite, he makes no apology for earning his wealth, and he did earn his wealth, the inhertitance that he received from his father came long after he made it on his own, and 100% of it was donated to Sanford University.
Sure his parents paid for his college, well My parents paid for mine, sure his parents helped him buy his first house, well my parenst helped my wife and I with our first house as well.
You can post links to anto Romneyt campaigns all that you want, you can post to op eds that are anti Romney all that you want. It does not make him any more a Hypocriote as it does Barack Obama or anyone else.
If all you have is class envy, may I suggest that you retool
I'm sorry you don't like Obama. I'm sorry that the GOP selected a dead opossum as its presidential candidate. Look at the bright side: there are at least 28 other options.
Constitution Virgil Goode Jr.
Green Jill Stein
Libertarian Gary Johnson
Reform Andre Nigel Barnett
America's Party Ted Hoefling
American Independent Edward C. Noonan
American Third Position Merlin Miller
Grassroots Jim Carlson
Boston Tea Party dissolved 2012
Citizens Lou Dobbs
Independence
Justice Party Rocky Anderson
Objectivist Tom Stevens
Peace And Freedom Roseanne Barr
Prohibition Party Jack Fellure
Socialism and Liberation Peta Lindsay
Socialist Equality Jerry White
Socialist Party USA Stewart Alexander
Socialist Workers Party James Harris
Federalist Party Joseph Felix Leonaitis
Independence
Independent Christian
Independent Republican
Independent Candidates Randall Terry,
Terry Jones, Joe Schriner, Randy Blythe, Robert
Burke
Mike's Party Michael J. Moloney
Freedom Socialist Stephen Durham
Modern Whig T. J. O’Hara
Priorities Party
AAIUP
Absolute Dictator Party Caesar Buonaparte
After Party
America's Third Party
Bullmoose Progressive Party Randal Trackwell
Caucasian Conscience Movement
Common Sense
Division
Eco-Green
Mitt Romney says he misspoke. I think he meant to say that 47 percent will vote for Obama because they believe in taking money from one group of folks and giving it to another group of folks. Now whether you believe that such social engineering is good policy or bad, that's been the progressive platform since Teddy Roosevelt (a Republican) was president. Does anybody deny Obama is a progressive?
Six percent will not decide the election. Perhaps three percent. A good percentage of that vote in the middle will pick "none of the above" when it comes to Marack O'Romney. I'll be among them who choose not to waste my vote on either of these guys.
Between the firm's founding in 1983 and Romney's 1999 departure, Bain Capital became one of the top leveraged buyout firms in the country, acquiring more than 115 companies and averaging a spectacular 88% annual returns, according to a 2000 prospectus obtained by the LA Times.
Here are some of Romney's most notable deals:
Staples: Bain Capital's first success was in 1986, when Romney agreed to a $650,000 investment in an office supply store, which eventually turned into an $18 billion company. When Bain sold its stake a few years later, it saw a nearly sevenfold return on its investment.
Accuride: Bain Capital's focus quickly shifted away from VC loans to leveraged buyouts, with the 1986 purchase of Firestone's wheel-making division. The firm renamed the company Accuride, revamped production, and restructured executive pay, according to the Boston Globe. Bain Capital sold the company to a mining conglomerate 18 months later, reaping $120 million from its $5 million investment.
Damon Corp.: Under Romney, one of Bain Capital's more questionable deals was the firm's 1989 purchase of Damon, a medical testing company that ended up pleading guilty to defrauding the government and paying a $119 million fine. Although he sat on the company's board, Romney was never implicated, and Bain tripled its investment returns before selling the company in 1993. Romney personally got $473,000 from the deal, according to the Boston Globe.
Experian: In a rare quick flip, Bain Capital partnered with another private equity firm to buy Experian, a consumer credit reporting company in 1996, selling two months later for a $200 million profit.
DDI Corp.: When Romney touts his private-sector job record, his opponents are quick to point out Bain Capital's 1997 acquisition of electronic circuit board manufacturer DDI Corp. According to Politico, Bain took the company public in 2000, reaping $36 million — but by 2003, DDI had filed for bankruptcy protection and laid off 2,100 workers.
Domino's Pizza: Bain Capital's largest acquisition under Romney's tenure was its $188.8 million buyout of Domino's in 1999. The firm eventually reaped a fivefold return, according to the LA Times.
By most accounts, Romney is largely credited as the brains — and discipline — behind these deals. And the 2012 candidate has clearly profited handsomely — according to recent disclosures, a significant chunk of Romney's portfolio is tied up in Bain investments, and he continues to receive millions from his retirement package.
No Howard, I do not agree a 78% success rate in any business is phenominal'
And you do realize that Talkingpoints Memo is a Liberal Biased site do you not
UPDATE: I just scanned over 172 titles on Talkingpointsmemo.com NOT ONE questioned either a statement or policy of Obama or anyother Democrat. However, 168 of the 172 titles criticized Romney, Ryan and other GOP candidates for Senate. NO ONE in a serious face can tell me that there is anything fair, trusted or gospel truth from that site.
Whether he was referencing the 47% that did not pay income taxes (which included people on SocSec) or the 47% who support President Obama is irrelevant.
If it was the 47% who do not pay income taxes, he was making a derogatory remark about folks who busted their asses their whole adult lives and are now collecting Social Security, and those who are on disability, and those who don't make enough to pay taxed. A pretty piss-poor way to treat people.
If it was the 47% who support the President, he's making some pretty wild and erroneous accusations (also derogatory in nature). With the exception of a few folks on SocSec, EVERY SINGLE OBAMA SUPPORTER I KNOW WORKS. Dependent? Hardly.
Either way, he's either calling a large group of people who have worked their whole lives slackers, or a large group of people who are working slackers. Ironic for a person whose only "work" for the past few years has been sitting on his ass or giving a few overpaid speeches...
I know what you mean, those lazy bastards... For example, my neighbor was close to 60 years old when the guy who owned the small business he worked for blew his brains out (the owner's own brains, not my neighbor's). So, this lazy sack, who has only worked 39 of the past 42 years for real employers (he was a gov't employee those other three years...) is out of a job. He *says* he tried to find work, and even filled out the requisite forms and submitted the requisite applications to collect his socialistic unemployment benefits - but he didn't get a job. Nope, just didn't work - and this was in the heyday of full employment under Lord W. He had all sorts of excuses... nobody is hiring; the companies he applied to this week were out of business (unbelievable under Lord W's reign); they wanted somebody younger (like an employer is ever going to hire somebody younger and cheaper than a person with decades of experience). Nope - the guy just didn't bother working....
Another example - must be another lazy guy, or at least he must not try hard enough.... says he's a contractor who just hasn't been able to get jobs lately. Blames everybody but himself - the president, the economy, the government... even claims the government has controlled his life for the past 25 years and will for another 5... always complaining about not working to his full potential, but always laying blame at other people's feet.....
Justin seriously? What does the police, military, fire services have to do with people getting a job? You are so off the mark here. What you need is to educate yourself because, obviously you are clueless. Or you are one who takes from society and does not contribute back to society. Romney was speaking about the Americans who have given up trying to find jobs, those who would rather take tax dollars aka Welfare, rather than get a job. Why try if, the government is going to hold your hand and do everything for you? I rather work cleaning toilets than being lazy cllecting welfare.
Seriously Justin, Kool-Aid is not the problem here. Obama-Aid is and obviously you have been consuming a lot of it. Again Justin tell me or educate me on how exactly the police/fire/military services have anything to do with Romney's statement. Right now I think you went up in smoke with your thoughts here.
Here is what I believe Romney meant by his statement. Far too many Americans take from taxpaying Americans because, they are just lazy, unmotivated to work, figure why work when Obama-Aid gives them everything they need. Just so I am clear Justin; Obama uses taxpayer dollars to help the lazy, unmotivated and those who have no pride or goals for themself.
Explained to me how our economy is going to get better if, we have more people taking from our society rather than giving. Obama-Aid keeps dragging us into deeper debt. Explain to me why anyone would work if, Obama-Aid keeps filling their cup? Justin it is called LAZINESS. Less and less Americans are taking initiative to help themselves and more and more keep drinking Obama-Aid.
Just so you know Police/Fire/Military services are not the government’s way of controlling you. They are services that protect you. So, I suggest you drink what is meant to drink like Kool-Aid and stay away from the poisons such as Obama-Aid.
Interesting thing about this article from the Stone Howard, they railed for five pages about the evil capitalist or as you say Shyster.
The funny thing is in that entire 5 page diatribe, they site two examples of Romney and Bain profiteering, KB Toys and Dunkin Donuts,
Romney left Bain in 1999, Bain aquired KB Toys in 2000... Hmmmmm a little inaccuraccy by Rolling Stone.
Now Dunkin Donuts
Since Romney was long-gone from Bain Capital in 2010 when the investment firm became a partial owner of the company. I find yet another claim by rolling stone laughable.
Now their other claim, the $30 Million the Romneys hold in the Caymans, actually, romney holds stock in Bain, who in turn has investments in the Caymens, not unlike 100's of other companies, not illegal, not even immoral in that it is permissable under the tax code.
It is well within your rights to have an opinion of Mitt Romney, his politics and what not, I agree with you totally about the progressive platform of Teddy Roosevelt.
I have no pretense that discussions on this blog will change anyone's mind, but what I will always rebut, is when facts are muddled and spun that basically portray spin as facts.
The root of the website one basis their facts on largely determines whether they are facts at all
I love watching you sheep fight it out! All of you spouting off your craptacular party lines.
What Romney, the ever politically stupid, did was paint a nice broad paintbrush, and even though many of you claim that Lorie was being emotional, she is right when she said he included such groups as disabled veterans and senior citizens.
You see there are over 100 million Americans on welfare, roughly 31%. So where does Romney get 47%? Well Social Security of course! So according to Romney, paying into a benefit your whole life means you are a waste.
Does that sound over the top? We so does he. It doesn't matter if you agree with him or not, it just shows that Republicans endorsed a bland, politically moronic, fool. Congrats! I hope you can't wait for another four years of Obama, because you failed.
Next time, grow a pair and demand a good candidate. Stop allowing yourselves to be force fed.
Hmmm,not surprised that there is alot of resentment in Genesee County. Afterall Genesee County has a significant amount of the 47%. Truth is truth! One of the few places in the US that you can collect welfare without having to be a resident for a period of time before you can collect. I am taxpayer like many of the others and I am sick and tired having to paid for those who feel they do not have to work. There are some who have real ailments but, more scam and/or take advantage of the system. Not to mention the government's abuse of its own system. Without mention names there once was an member of the Batavian who claimed welfare because, they could not be on their feet for long periods of time. So, instead of paying him a full welfare check, why did not the system find him a job where he could sit? Afterall the individual could ride a bike all day.
"47 percent of voters will chose Obama “no matter what” because they are people who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That that’s an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what…These are people who pay no income tax.”
The operative phrase was "47 percent of voters will chose Obama “no matter what”
Where did he get the 47% FROM, 31% on welfare and 47% who pay no Federal income tax. which include that 31% -
He also said in the same talk, "So our message about reducing taxes will not connect with them"
There is absolutely nothing that is not factual or innaccurate about what he said.
Your disdain for Romney, does not change the accuracy of his statement, has nothing to do with sheep, more to do with common sense.
Which again, Mark is broad stroked piece of stupidity!
Are you telling me that NO ONE on Social Security is going to vote for Romney, like he assumes?
It is factually inaccurate because he is using an objective argument to make a subjective, and frankly unproven statement.
People are upset because he put people in real need with the scumbag that abuses the system, then said that these were Obama's people.
It was sincerely a beautiful piece of political buffoonery! I am honestly impressed with how profoundly stupid he is, but even more amused listening to people defend it.
Justin what is there to comprehend? LMAO! How do you connect public services with governmental dependency. How does a policeman make you dependent on the government? How does a fireman make you dependent on the government? How does a soldier make you dependent on the government? Really, there is no comprehending your statement because, it is based on nonsense and BS! So, how do you make the connection. Educate me on your thought process. I damn curious on this. Hopefully bath salts are not involved with your statement. These are public services I understand that but, how does connect with Romney statement? He is talking about people who collect welfare or other social services. He is talking about how 47% of Americans who constantly take from society and not contribute back.
Phil come on you are smartere than that. You bet your sweet bippie that the 47% that are never going to vote for him will come right back with that statement you just made.
The other 47%, some on social security and mnedicare will stick with him becaus ethey understand exactly what he meant.
You have a prejudice against Romney, I am well aware of that I remember discussions we had back in the primary, but believe it or not, there are many on social secuirty, medicare and and even poor that inderstand what he meant and feel exactly the same way as he.
Another thing lost in this, he made those statements and the video released was made in May, fresh from the Primary when pretty much every candidate said the same thing.
It is a non starter, it will whip up the hyper partisan Democrats and liberals, but I predict it may actually help him with his base and a far number of independents that feel the same way.
I asked you in another thread and you never answered so I will ask you again, if not Romney, and not Obama, who of the remaining candidates now running do you think is better for the country right now in this election cycle?
Don't forget many on Social Security pay federal income tax. And many of them don't expect the government to take care of them (they paid in and want their money back). But 53% of the people do pay federal income taxes and are carrying the rest. And when you don't pay, you don't care as much were the money is coming from.
This entire excercise today exemplifies the what is at stake this fall.
Howard actually said it best;
"Mitt Romney says he misspoke. I think he meant to say that 47 percent will vote for Obama because they believe in taking money from one group of folks and giving it to another group of folks. Now whether you believe that such social engineering is good policy or bad, that's been the progressive platform since Teddy Roosevelt (a Republican) was president. Does anybody deny Obama is a progressive?"
Right now approximately 47% of the population leans toward the more progressive, and approximately 47% leans more toward the conservative side.
After some thought, I suggest that Howard was also correct in his assertion that a mere 3% will decide the election, as clearly all polls suggest 3% want neither political party.
Through the name calling by some, we see the passion on all sides. There is no denial that both sides have been spinning facts, the degree with which we judge this is pretty much a result of which side of the argument we sit on, statistics and such can say pretty much anything one wants them to say or more accurate what they want to hear.
This election however, is not about he said this and he said that, it is about what direction we want this country to go. Further, no candidate will give you 100% of which way you want to go, no matter who they are.
So the true question still remains, are we going to be more like the European model of Government as the provider, or more of our nations original principle of personal liberty and the associated risk that goes with that.
There is a middle ground for those who reason, which morphs the question to which of all the candidates is the best choice right now to acheive closest to your personal view. About 3% of the electorate is going to decide that.
I am smarter than that. My Father in law is a 100% disabled vet and on SS, and he is voting for Romney. I absolutely love how one tracked you are. It's fascinating. I think generalizing a whole group of people is asinine and shows ignorance. You want to defend that? Fine, but I think it shows an incredible lack of sense.
You know I was for Paul then. Gary Johnson is a great man who deserves a chance to debate, but cowards like Obama and Romney will never let that happen.
What Romney said was nothing more than the rhetoric his handlers felt was appropriate for the crowd at the fundraiser. Who the hell knows what he actually believes, and who cares, it's not like he is going to follow some internal moral compass or anything. Same for Obama.
Ok, Romney believes we have too many freeloaders. Now what does he want to do about it? He needs to put his cards on the table and tell all of us how he intends on balancing the budget in two years. I'm not falling for vague generalities.
Is definately going to make the debates interesting anyway Charlie, at tyhe same time we can hear some of those specifics from Mr. Obama, which frankly are a bit lacking as well
I think the first thing that needs to change is the way money is spent. If everyone had the same dollars, then I don't think you would have the same spreads.
To answer your question directly. I think that you're able to get on a majority of the states ballots than you should be allowed to debate.
Phil, so you are saying that you would like to see debates like the 2008 Democratic primary or more recently the 2012 GOP primary with possibly 12 or 14 people answering maybe one or two 60 second questions?
Or a deluge of debates over several weeks that in all probability would bore the average voter.
Or even possibly a sudden death debate with voters eliminating candidates after each debate?
Seriously, in this age how could you possibly manage that
The last thing Romney is is a capitalist. Capitalists actually create and grow businesses, not not enrich themselves by manipulating markets. Andrew Carnegie was a capitalist. Vanderbilt was a capitalist. Rockafeller was a capitalist. Steve Jobs was a capitalist. Bill Gates was a capitalist. Romney is a shyster. The whole equity investment game is a con designed to destroy capitol, not build it.
The Rolling Stone article contains a lot of truth -- having worked for a company being destroyed by the equity capitol game, I've seen how this works.
Equity investment companies such as Bain destroy jobs. They don't create them.
These are the same firms in the 1980s that instituted the M&A frenzy, leading to lost jobs, failed companies and a major downturn in the U.S. economy during Reagan's first term.
The idea that Romney will do anything to fix the economy, create jobs, help working Americas is as foolish as expecting Obama to do the same.
BTW: I'm well aware of everything there is to know about TPM, having followed Josh Marshall from his earliest blogging days, but I also know all about David Brooks and Matt Welch (a good friend for close to a decade now), which are the writers quoted in the piece. They speak truth.
Mark, Republicans are too hung up on Obama. If Romney wants to be president, he needs to tell us what he's going to do. Obama bashing isn't going to win. We need to know exactly what the goal is and how we get there. The cats out of the bag, we all know how Romney really feels, there is no excuse now. He's not getting 47% of the vote not matter what he says. If he wants the people in the middle, it's time to lay it all on the table.
I'm with Phil, at least half the states (and even that may be too restrictive).
Of course, it should be much easier to get on the ballot in each state. Ballot access laws should be ruled unconstitutional. If you know how to write your name on a piece of paper and want to run for office, you should be on the ballot.
Well I actually agree with you there Charlie with regard to spelling things out. Where I disagree is that Obama spelled it out.
That isn't bashing Obama, just like you aren't in essence bashing Romney but asking where is the beef, so far not a single candidate left standing has shown me that beef.
Phil, I actually agree with you that there should be more candidates, my question is sincere though, managing that actually may have more limitation than one might expect.
How do you do have debates of that magnitude and still give fair weight to any of the candidates positions?
There is a way you say, there perhaps is, but how in this age of tweets and blogs could you keep the attention of 260,000,000 voters for an hour or for that matter 3 hours and perhaps 15 candidates?
I don't disagree that Obama should also come clean with his plans to balance the budget. He did make it clear he intended to raise taxes.
What I heard in Romneys back room speech was a guy who wants to lay it on the table and isn't afraid of losing votes. That guy has a chance. The Romney we all know doesn't so, I want to hear that guy in the back room tell me what his plan is to fix the budget. If there isn't a plan, I'm going to vote for the devil I know.
If you're voting for one of the 3rd party candidates, great. And there are a lot to pick from.
If you're voting for one of the major party candidates, you have to decide if your voting for the guy who after almost 4 years has not been able to turn the economy around, maybe made it much worse, and probably will not improve it in another 4 years.
Or vote for the other guy who just maybe will turn it around. If not, replace him in 4 years.
If you think they are really just the same, then give the other guy a shot.
There is some truth in every position or article, I do not deny that. There is also perspective and perception.
The Bain of today is pretty much as you say, however, the bain of 1988-1999 was a little different.
1) Romney pushed to invest in Staples against the advice of his partners, the first store opening Romney actually stocked shelves and ran a cash register for the first three weeks the store opened, It was not sold until it grew to an 18 billion dollar company and had 90,000 employees.
2) GST steel which the dems rail and romney critics so spout about, however, the tell of the plant in Kansas city that closed and 750 jobs lost, not the other plants of GS industries that were bought in that deal and still operate today.
3) And the start up Bain invested in in the early 90's in Indiana, The firm touts innovative technology and a nonunion workforce. It today reports $6.3 billion in revenue—25 times what it claimed in its 1996 IPO—and employs 6,000.
Investment capital in itself is not anti capitalist, while there were turn arounds, there was growth and innovation as well.
A piece from a WSJ article states with regard to GST,
"The Kansas City plant was itself dying. At its 1970 height it employed 4,500; by the late 1980s it was down to 1,000. A year before acquisition, Armco had laid off another 75. Its equipment was old; it faced fierce competition at home and abroad.
B.C. Huselton, a vice president of the business at the time, tells me that in 1990 the Armco CEO held a meeting. "He told us, 'Look, we either try to sell it, or we've got to shut it down.'" Armco had shut down another Kansas City facility, Union Wire Rope, only a few years before. "
Mark, everything tells me that this will be the last time we see that straight talking Romney. The real guy will stuff him back in the closet. We will see.
Wow, as we speak, a new recording of Barack Obama is being released in which he states that we need to find a way to redistribute wealth, it's 12 years old, but hey, he said it
Mark, I just heard Mitt give terrorists advice on how to set off a dirty bomb in Chicago. (for real on that leaked video) This he said, she said stuff is stupid. Ill wait for a plan.
Here's what Conservatives are saying about Mitt Romneys little divide and conquer event with his big donors.
1.
"The overall impression of Romney at this event is of someone who overheard some conservative cocktail chatter and maybe read a conservative blog or two, and is thoughtlessly repeating back what he heard and read." — Rich Lowry, National Review (conservative magazine)
2.
"Who are these freeloaders? Is it the Iraq war veteran who goes to the V.A.? Is it the student getting a loan to go to college? Is it the retiree on Social Security or Medicare? ... The people who receive the disproportionate share of government spending are not big-government lovers. They are Republicans. They are senior citizens. They are white men with high school degrees. " — David Brooks (conservative columnist), New York Times
3.
"It remains important for the country that Romney wins in November (unless he chooses to step down and we get the Ryan-Rubio ticket we deserve!). But that shouldn't blind us to the fact that Romney's comments ... are stupid and arrogant." — Bill Kristol, The Weekly Standard (conservative magazine)
4.
"I found the presser not horrible, which is about as much praise as I can muster right now." — Daniel Foster, National Review
5.
“I disagree with Gov. Romney’s insinuation that 47 percent of Americans believe they are victims who must depend on the government for their care. ... I know that the vast majority of those who rely on government are not in that situation because they want to be.” — Linda McMahon, Republican candidate for U.S. Senate in Connecticut
6.
"He said he has a terrific campaign. Actually he doesn't. He says that the campaign workers are working well together, well, actually, no, they're not working well together, and that his campaign's going in the right direction. No, it's not. And this is not being said by liberals ... these are conservatives. ... Savannah, I'm going to go put a bag over my head now, so I will talk to you soon." — Joe Scarborough, conservative pundit and former Republican congressman
Uh oh -- another revelation. Mitt's father,George was a 47 percenter. Yes, sad to report that George Romney was on public assistance. I wonder how he was perceived in the grocery store line when he whipped out the food stamps. http://www.opposingviews.com/i/politics/2012-election/video-mitt-romney…
Mitt Romney himself admitted that he paid a 12% tax rate on his income. I am no millionaire and I pay triple that rate. I find this to be a far bigger problem than welfare recipients.
Wow Mark, 30 + comments, are you working for Romney?
MittWit has shown his true colors, and his disdain for the less fortunate.Sounds like presidential material to me.
Obama cannot come clean on his plans for increasing our economy because, he has no plan ideas. If, he did his campaign would be less dirty and more informative. You think people would get tired of this name calling politics and demand a more detail solutions for our country's issues at hand. For those who think Romney has a disdain for the less fortunate. I do not see that as the case. I think Romney like many other Americans are sick and tired of paying for those that, one are just plain lazy and believe the government needs to take care of their ever need. Second, those who have given up looking for employment because, Obama-Aid is giving them everything for free. Third, the abuse of our welfare system by many. Heck, Obama informed welfare recipients that, they do not need a job to subsidize their welfare. Which by the way was established by President Clinton.
John W.,
Obama has a plan and submitted it in his budget. It was so bad that no Democrat will support it or even let it come to a vote in the US Senate. And of course, the Democrats have not passed a budget in years, just "continuing resolutions".
This fixation with Obama is overwhelming. We all get it, Obama is pure evil. Now can anyone on the right pull it together long enough to tell us what Romney wants to do about half the country being freeloaders?
I'm pretty sure they are not all Democrats, the stats show
28% are working but, do not pay anything
10% are elderly
7% are people with income under 20K
1% are not worth the air they breath
4,000 are millionaires
Yeah he may have budget plan but, what are his realistic ideas to boost the economy? Why is his budget bad because, he has no bloody clue on what he is doing.
Charlie viewing Obama as evil is not the point. The point is he is not capable of leading this country. Really are there any candidates worth two S _ _ _s? No!
What do we possibly gain from Romney over Obama? An individual who understands business and the economy over an individual who study law. In order to bring this country back, we need to reestablish are work force and economy.
John, if you were better off by not working a min. wage job, would you give that up to make less and have less?
If it cost more to work, than to stay home and collect all these freebies I hear about, what motivation is there for these people to get off the system?
Some folks would have to pay for child care, add that to the price of gas and its easy to see why people give up.
When someone with a clue as to how to fix these problems comes along, I would be first in line to vote for that person, until then, and as usual,I'll vote for anyone except the 2 stooges representing the 2 parties.
Seriously? Those that voted
Seriously? Those that voted yes need to stop drinking the Kool-Aid. While we are tossing around ridiculous thoughts and statements, how about chewing on this one...Do you live in the United States? Well, you are dependent on the government...from federal on down to local, they provide you police/fire/military protections, Roads/Infrastructure, Water/Sewers, Courts, etc etc etc...
If you pay no income tax, and
If you pay no income tax, and collect money from the same government that collects no tax from you in order to pay for food and living expenses, then you are dependent on that government. That being said there a a myriad of circumstances under which that occurs. Some have legitimate reasons beyond their control (the purpose it was meant for) and some fall under the category of generational recipients (what it was not meant for) but nonetheless all are dependent on the government for their survival. Now take those same people and convince them via the Presidential bully pulpit and an all too willing accomplice media that if they vote for anyone but the incumbent all those benefits will cease and they will find themselves living on the streets, then the politics of false fear have won the day. I love how the media is treating this as a "gotcha" moment for Romney. That somehow they infiltrated the behind closed doors secret meetings of rich people and what they say when they think the little people are not around. I am glad that Romney did not apologize for the comments, only conceded that he could have phrased it better, because bottom line is he told a hard truth.
So why should only half the
So why should only half the people in the nation pay for those services?
Don't give me the pay roll tax argument either, payroll taxes are for social security and medicare NOT federal income tax.
There is nothing that Romney said that isn't true and hasn't been said by all the pundits
'Drinking the Kool Aide" is believing that you are entitled to all these services that you mention with out paying for them
Oh - the irony of this claim
Oh - the irony of this claim by Romney when he has billionaires paying for ads to get him elected so that they pay lower taxes.
What's the difference? If
What's the difference? If either Romney or Obama get elected in November there will still be a huge number of people sucking off the taxpayers, it's just a matter of whom. Believing either will change that is drinking the real Kool-Aid.
No more ironic than people
No more ironic than people making $30K sending $10 and $25 to Obama so that someone else can pay their taxes, wouldn't you say?
Mostly true Dave, it is just
Mostly true Dave, it is just a question of who will garner more teat suckers.
Removed Double Post
Removed Double Post
For Instance: If Romney drops
For Instance: If Romney drops the Corporate Tax Rate as he is promising, what does anyone think the chances are that Xerox or the other companies who have done this will re-instate health coverage for their retirees over 65? All my life I've been told that I shouldn't expect to have my cake and eat it too, and I've also tried to not be envious, but it's getting a lot harder.
http://www.democratandchronicle.com/article/20120918/BUSINESS/309180017…
Tim, who do you suppose is
Tim, who do you suppose is paying for Obama's ads? Please don't tell me all the "grassroots" $5 and $10 donations from the working people. They are paid for by billionaires, SuperPac donors and bundlers who just happen to have different names than those contributing to Romney's campaign. And as in his first term, they will expect the same payback through contracts, subsidies, legislative favors, bailouts and crony capitalism if he is re-elected.
Just who is included in that
Just who is included in that 47%? Our elderly parents living on SS? Our disabled veterans and actual fighting men and women who are exempt through military differential pay? How about the single working parent whose income falls below the poverty level? Is it anyone receiving the EITC enacted by President Ronald Reagan? Is it the college student who is receiving a Pell grant? I guess it's all of the above since Romney lumped all the 47%.
And how many out there who voted yes can honestly say they haven't at one time or another received some kind of assistance? I am not in the 47%, but when my husband was serving in the Corp in the early 80's we fell way below the poverty level. WIC and Reagan's EITC fed and clothed my kids. Were we "takers"? Was my husband a "moocher" as he deployed in the North Atlantic on Cold War exercises?
You can't pick and chose here folks.
I can't say for sure, but I
I can't say for sure, but I would say about 47% of the time the person in front of me at Tops or Walmart is using a benefits card....about 1/2 are elderly people that most likely need/deserve government assistance to survive.....I can't say as to why the other 1/2 receive services
Per Mr. Romney's own words at
Per Mr. Romney's own words at the fund-raiser where today's daily dose of media distraction from reality is being conjured up: “There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That that’s an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what…... Forty-seven percent of Americans pay no income tax......."
Look at the shiny thingy! Isn't it pretty?
Lorie, you missed the point
Lorie, you missed the point by allowing the emotional argument to supercede the logical argument. All of those whom you mention are deserving recipients of assistance but they also make up a VERY small percentage of the 47%. The point that Romney was making is that the President and the left have successfully played on the fear of those recipients by dangling the benefits over their heads and falsely claiming that Republicans hate them and want to take their benefits away. They have in essence locked up their vote by virtue of extortion by perception. It is the swayable independent vote who may or may not look at the facts and not the fiction who he is talking about.
Lyndon Johnson understood the concept well and phrased it in a way that perhaps he had hoped would never get published.
In context Laurie, his
In context Laurie, his statements did not imply or suggest anything of the kind.
He is absolutely correct in his context and his math
46-47% will vote for President Obama no matter what
46-47% will vote for Governor Romney no matter waht
And the Battle is for the 5-6% who do not fall in that category.
That is all that he was saying, that is all the pundits were saying, and no matter how much partisan BS either way it doesn't change the fact that that is pretty much the truth
Let's look at it this way
Let's look at it this way then Lorie, take that 47% and make it 100% for all you mentioned above, including those abusing the system, I would confidently say that the "abusers" would then make up more then 47% of that 100% ! That is what is making people upset and whom the "yes" votes are fed up with. If welfare was made up of only those that really and truly needed it, we would NOT even be having this discussion! Sadly the "abusers" outnumber those truly in need and it needs to change now!
Oh and at 42 years of age I can loudly state I have NEVER received a check from the goverment that I hadn't already paid to them in taxes!
The fact of the matter is
The fact of the matter is that the 47% that Romney spoke about (remember, he's talking about the 47% of Americans who are set on voting for Obama) are not all non-tax paying government leeches. It's statistically improbable.
I'm not even going to argue about why or why not people should be "entitled", or why or why not they should all pay taxes.
In order for 47% to work, you would have to look past the fact that as of last year, only 45% didn't owe income tax ( http://money.cnn.com/2011/04/14/pf/taxes/who_pays_income_taxes/index.htm ). Even assuming that in the year since that article that the number grew from 45 to 47%, you need to some how deduce that ALL of the people who didn't pay, are Obama supporters. And since I personally know people who don't support Obama, but make low enough wages to pay little to no Income Tax, the 47% stat is defeated.
Jeff, Romney used arithmetic
Jeff, Romney used arithmetic in his donor speech. I just added my personal story. Emotional only because it was personal but very factual.
Here's some more arithmetic -- From the Brookings Institute
61% of the people paying no Fed Income tax are low wage workers
22% are elderly
17% are students, people with disabilities and the unemployed.
Another analysis breakdown --
A separate TPC analysis categorized people who do not owe federal income tax in 2011 in a different way.* It found that of the filers who don’t owe federal income tax for 2011:
50 percent are in this category because their incomes are so low that they are less than the sum of the standard deduction and personal and dependent exemptions for which the household qualifies. As TPC Senior Fellow Roberton Williams has noted, “the basic structure of the income tax simply exempts subsistence levels of income from tax.”** Some 62 percent of the households who will owe no federal income tax in 2011 have incomes under $20,000.
Another 22 percent do not owe federal income tax because they are elderly people who benefit from tax provisions to aid senior citizens, such as the exemption of Social Security benefits from income tax for beneficiaries who have incomes below $25,000 for single filers and $32,000 for joint filers and the higher standard deduction for the elderly.
Another 15 percent (of the households who don’t owe federal income tax) don’t owe the tax because they are low-income working families with children who qualify for the child tax credit, the child and dependent care tax credit, and/or the earned income tax credit, and the credit(s) eliminate their income tax liability.***
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3505
http://www.dailykos.com/story
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/09/18/1133265/-Mitt-Romney-I-was-rig…
That would be a nice retort
That would be a nice retort if it dealt with what the Governor actually said and the point he was making.
Anyway you cut it I will say again
It was a true stement by Romney
47% will vote Obama no matter what
47% will vote Romney No matter what
and the 6% will decide the election, that was his context, that was the intent of his staement, and that is absolutely the truth
http://www.motherjones.com/po
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/09/romney-secret-video-israeli…
...More reality-challenging babble from GOP village idiot2.
...A context embellished with
...A context embellished with about four tons of deranged garnish (BS).
CM, village idiot would in my
CM, village idiot would in my opinion more likely apply to the Utopic Day Dreams of Jill Stein
Thanks, Mark, but GOP village
Thanks, Mark, but GOP village idiot2 is the sequel to GOP village idiot1: George W. Bush. I'll take dreams over nightmares any day.
This is the transcript
This is the transcript Mark
"47 percent of voters will chose Obama “no matter what” because they are people who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That that’s an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what…These are people who pay no income tax.”
“My job is not to worry about those people,” Romney says in the video. “I’ll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives.”
I am very active in Democratic politics. This is not an accurate description of the people I know who support the President. In fact most of the people I know pay a higher percentage of income taxes than Romney.
I am sure that you would CM,
I am sure that you would CM, but remember, one's dreams are another's nightmare, so it is all relavent.
And 5-6% of the voter's dreams will determine the election any way you cut it
http://www.facebook.com/photo
http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=420401648016067&set=a.2652941235…
Laurie, that transcript says
Laurie, that transcript says nothing different than the entire debate this cycle.
It doesn't change what point he was trying to make,
Somewhat typical response CM,
Somewhat typical response CM, who cares if Romney has his IRA in LEGAL according to the tax code Cayman Island accounts.
My IRA's are in tax sheltered accounts as well, would gladly trade the shelters for a FLAT tax though
Look at it this way: "It is
Look at it this way: "It is more blessed to give than to receive" So 53% of America has that going for us.
Hypocrisy is not illegal;
Hypocrisy is not illegal; it's frowned upon.
You had better check your IRA
You had better check your IRA
What IRA? Did you open one
What IRA? Did you open one for me?
Well that pretty much sums it
Well that pretty much sums it up then doesn't it, CM.
You'll have to explain that
You'll have to explain that bit of vaguery. I've contributed to two pension plans, SSI and Medicare all my adult life. I have no interest in putting money into some investment bankers kitty, to be whimsically frittered away. I have no control over how my pension is invested, but I will not voluntarily participate in Wall Street hoodwinkery. Occupy!
Lorie, The military pay
Lorie,
The military pay federal income tax on their base pay. They do not pay it on other payments such as for travel or housing. And under most circumstances, do not pay taxes on what is commonly called combat pay.
" I've contributed to two
" I've contributed to two pension plans, SSI and Medicare all my adult life"
Well so have I CM, so has everyone in this country with a job.
Does that mean that I am a Hypocrite because my wife has a 401(k) or that I take 5% of my income and place it into an IRA?
The hypocrisy charge was
The hypocrisy charge was leveled at Twit Wobbly. I haven't made any personal charges against you or anyone else on this site. If you CHOOSE to make any of this personal that is your privilege, but don't assert that I led the argument in that direction. YOU are the one who translated this argument into an analysis of MY personal finances. How you handle your personal finances is your business, HOWEVER you are NOT running for president AND challenging the ethics of 47% of America's voters.
http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=526924570667528&set=a.2243219475…
CM. He didn't challenge the
CM. He didn't challenge the ethics of the 47%, he simply stated that about 47% believe that government is responsible for caring for them, there is a huge difference.
And that is precisely the argument in this election, just how much should we look to government for our well being.
Because you bel;ive differently, does not make him a hippocrite, nor does it mean that those that believe as you are somehow unethical.
Mitt Romney has IRA's some held off shore well here is a news flash
IRA Contributions are deductible (subject to conditions). When deducted, contributions are pre-tax, otherwise, they are post-tax. Distributions are taxed as ordinary income (except any non-deducted principal).
There is absolutely nothing Hypocritical about it except when used as means of class envy, which in my opinion is the root not only of all evil, but the root in any governments demise.
You can agree or disagree with me, with Romney with George Washington Carver.... Mitt Romney may or may not be a lot of things, but not a hypocrite, he makes no apology for earning his wealth, and he did earn his wealth, the inhertitance that he received from his father came long after he made it on his own, and 100% of it was donated to Sanford University.
Sure his parents paid for his college, well My parents paid for mine, sure his parents helped him buy his first house, well my parenst helped my wife and I with our first house as well.
You can post links to anto Romneyt campaigns all that you want, you can post to op eds that are anti Romney all that you want. It does not make him any more a Hypocriote as it does Barack Obama or anyone else.
If all you have is class envy, may I suggest that you retool
I'm sorry you don't like
I'm sorry you don't like Obama. I'm sorry that the GOP selected a dead opossum as its presidential candidate. Look at the bright side: there are at least 28 other options.
Constitution Virgil Goode Jr.
Green Jill Stein
Libertarian Gary Johnson
Reform Andre Nigel Barnett
America's Party Ted Hoefling
American Independent Edward C. Noonan
American Third Position Merlin Miller
Grassroots Jim Carlson
Boston Tea Party dissolved 2012
Citizens Lou Dobbs
Independence
Justice Party Rocky Anderson
Objectivist Tom Stevens
Peace And Freedom Roseanne Barr
Prohibition Party Jack Fellure
Socialism and Liberation Peta Lindsay
Socialist Equality Jerry White
Socialist Party USA Stewart Alexander
Socialist Workers Party James Harris
Federalist Party Joseph Felix Leonaitis
Independence
Independent Christian
Independent Republican
Independent Candidates Randall Terry,
Terry Jones, Joe Schriner, Randy Blythe, Robert
Burke
Mike's Party Michael J. Moloney
Freedom Socialist Stephen Durham
Modern Whig T. J. O’Hara
Priorities Party
AAIUP
Absolute Dictator Party Caesar Buonaparte
After Party
America's Third Party
Bullmoose Progressive Party Randal Trackwell
Caucasian Conscience Movement
Common Sense
Division
Eco-Green
Is it so difficult for you to
Is it so difficult for you to debate on merit rather than sarcasm and cute little scoffs at reality CM?
Your last post rest my case.
But in defense of your imagination, you wrote an excellent novel, both my wife and daugther loved it
Thank you for the feedback.
Thank you for the feedback. It is sincerely appreciated.
Roseann Barr is running for
Roseann Barr is running for President? That should be an interesting platform
Cindy Sheehan is her running
Cindy Sheehan is her running mate
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/08/08/roseanne-barr-why-you-…
Mitt Romney says he misspoke.
Mitt Romney says he misspoke. I think he meant to say that 47 percent will vote for Obama because they believe in taking money from one group of folks and giving it to another group of folks. Now whether you believe that such social engineering is good policy or bad, that's been the progressive platform since Teddy Roosevelt (a Republican) was president. Does anybody deny Obama is a progressive?
Mark, Romney earned his wealth?
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/greed-and-debt-the-true-story…
If shysterism is earning, then I guess he did.
Six percent will not decide the election. Perhaps three percent. A good percentage of that vote in the middle will pick "none of the above" when it comes to Marack O'Romney. I'll be among them who choose not to waste my vote on either of these guys.
Really Howard, A rolling
Really Howard, A rolling Stone Article (Fair & Balanced?)
From http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011-12-14/politics/30515127_1_mitt…
Between the firm's founding in 1983 and Romney's 1999 departure, Bain Capital became one of the top leveraged buyout firms in the country, acquiring more than 115 companies and averaging a spectacular 88% annual returns, according to a 2000 prospectus obtained by the LA Times.
Here are some of Romney's most notable deals:
Staples: Bain Capital's first success was in 1986, when Romney agreed to a $650,000 investment in an office supply store, which eventually turned into an $18 billion company. When Bain sold its stake a few years later, it saw a nearly sevenfold return on its investment.
Accuride: Bain Capital's focus quickly shifted away from VC loans to leveraged buyouts, with the 1986 purchase of Firestone's wheel-making division. The firm renamed the company Accuride, revamped production, and restructured executive pay, according to the Boston Globe. Bain Capital sold the company to a mining conglomerate 18 months later, reaping $120 million from its $5 million investment.
Damon Corp.: Under Romney, one of Bain Capital's more questionable deals was the firm's 1989 purchase of Damon, a medical testing company that ended up pleading guilty to defrauding the government and paying a $119 million fine. Although he sat on the company's board, Romney was never implicated, and Bain tripled its investment returns before selling the company in 1993. Romney personally got $473,000 from the deal, according to the Boston Globe.
Experian: In a rare quick flip, Bain Capital partnered with another private equity firm to buy Experian, a consumer credit reporting company in 1996, selling two months later for a $200 million profit.
DDI Corp.: When Romney touts his private-sector job record, his opponents are quick to point out Bain Capital's 1997 acquisition of electronic circuit board manufacturer DDI Corp. According to Politico, Bain took the company public in 2000, reaping $36 million — but by 2003, DDI had filed for bankruptcy protection and laid off 2,100 workers.
Domino's Pizza: Bain Capital's largest acquisition under Romney's tenure was its $188.8 million buyout of Domino's in 1999. The firm eventually reaped a fivefold return, according to the LA Times.
By most accounts, Romney is largely credited as the brains — and discipline — behind these deals. And the 2012 candidate has clearly profited handsomely — according to recent disclosures, a significant chunk of Romney's portfolio is tied up in Bain investments, and he continues to receive millions from his retirement package.
Read more: http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011-12-14/politics/30515127_1_mitt…
Mark, your comment rather
Mark, your comment rather supports the accusation of shysterism.
Also, here's a round up of conservative reaction to Romney's statement.
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/09/romney-47-percent-rankles-co…
Additionally, most of the
Additionally, most of the claims in the Rolling Stone Story spawn from Newt Gingrich's campaign film
Here is what Fact Check had to say about that, the Fact Checkers at the Washington times have simular rebuttals
http://www.factcheck.org/2012/01/facts-strained-in-king-of-bain/
No Howard, I do not agree a
No Howard, I do not agree a 78% success rate in any business is phenominal'
And you do realize that Talkingpoints Memo is a Liberal Biased site do you not
UPDATE: I just scanned over 172 titles on Talkingpointsmemo.com NOT ONE questioned either a statement or policy of Obama or anyother Democrat. However, 168 of the 172 titles criticized Romney, Ryan and other GOP candidates for Senate. NO ONE in a serious face can tell me that there is anything fair, trusted or gospel truth from that site.
Whether he was referencing
Whether he was referencing the 47% that did not pay income taxes (which included people on SocSec) or the 47% who support President Obama is irrelevant.
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-KwHcg0WdoQs/UFemiSYOc3I/AAAAAAAAGwo/rJnDY2XuO…
If it was the 47% who do not pay income taxes, he was making a derogatory remark about folks who busted their asses their whole adult lives and are now collecting Social Security, and those who are on disability, and those who don't make enough to pay taxed. A pretty piss-poor way to treat people.
If it was the 47% who support the President, he's making some pretty wild and erroneous accusations (also derogatory in nature). With the exception of a few folks on SocSec, EVERY SINGLE OBAMA SUPPORTER I KNOW WORKS. Dependent? Hardly.
Either way, he's either calling a large group of people who have worked their whole lives slackers, or a large group of people who are working slackers. Ironic for a person whose only "work" for the past few years has been sitting on his ass or giving a few overpaid speeches...
I know what you mean, those
I know what you mean, those lazy bastards... For example, my neighbor was close to 60 years old when the guy who owned the small business he worked for blew his brains out (the owner's own brains, not my neighbor's). So, this lazy sack, who has only worked 39 of the past 42 years for real employers (he was a gov't employee those other three years...) is out of a job. He *says* he tried to find work, and even filled out the requisite forms and submitted the requisite applications to collect his socialistic unemployment benefits - but he didn't get a job. Nope, just didn't work - and this was in the heyday of full employment under Lord W. He had all sorts of excuses... nobody is hiring; the companies he applied to this week were out of business (unbelievable under Lord W's reign); they wanted somebody younger (like an employer is ever going to hire somebody younger and cheaper than a person with decades of experience). Nope - the guy just didn't bother working....
Another example - must be another lazy guy, or at least he must not try hard enough.... says he's a contractor who just hasn't been able to get jobs lately. Blames everybody but himself - the president, the economy, the government... even claims the government has controlled his life for the past 25 years and will for another 5... always complaining about not working to his full potential, but always laying blame at other people's feet.....
Justin seriously? What does
Justin seriously? What does the police, military, fire services have to do with people getting a job? You are so off the mark here. What you need is to educate yourself because, obviously you are clueless. Or you are one who takes from society and does not contribute back to society. Romney was speaking about the Americans who have given up trying to find jobs, those who would rather take tax dollars aka Welfare, rather than get a job. Why try if, the government is going to hold your hand and do everything for you? I rather work cleaning toilets than being lazy cllecting welfare.
Seriously Justin, Kool-Aid is
Seriously Justin, Kool-Aid is not the problem here. Obama-Aid is and obviously you have been consuming a lot of it. Again Justin tell me or educate me on how exactly the police/fire/military services have anything to do with Romney's statement. Right now I think you went up in smoke with your thoughts here.
Here is what I believe Romney meant by his statement. Far too many Americans take from taxpaying Americans because, they are just lazy, unmotivated to work, figure why work when Obama-Aid gives them everything they need. Just so I am clear Justin; Obama uses taxpayer dollars to help the lazy, unmotivated and those who have no pride or goals for themself.
Explained to me how our economy is going to get better if, we have more people taking from our society rather than giving. Obama-Aid keeps dragging us into deeper debt. Explain to me why anyone would work if, Obama-Aid keeps filling their cup? Justin it is called LAZINESS. Less and less Americans are taking initiative to help themselves and more and more keep drinking Obama-Aid.
Just so you know Police/Fire/Military services are not the government’s way of controlling you. They are services that protect you. So, I suggest you drink what is meant to drink like Kool-Aid and stay away from the poisons such as Obama-Aid.
John I'm not going to argue
John I'm not going to argue with you, If you can't comprehend the connections...it's NOT worth it.
Interesting thing about this
Interesting thing about this article from the Stone Howard, they railed for five pages about the evil capitalist or as you say Shyster.
The funny thing is in that entire 5 page diatribe, they site two examples of Romney and Bain profiteering, KB Toys and Dunkin Donuts,
Romney left Bain in 1999, Bain aquired KB Toys in 2000... Hmmmmm a little inaccuraccy by Rolling Stone.
Now Dunkin Donuts
Since Romney was long-gone from Bain Capital in 2010 when the investment firm became a partial owner of the company. I find yet another claim by rolling stone laughable.
Now their other claim, the $30 Million the Romneys hold in the Caymans, actually, romney holds stock in Bain, who in turn has investments in the Caymens, not unlike 100's of other companies, not illegal, not even immoral in that it is permissable under the tax code.
It is well within your rights to have an opinion of Mitt Romney, his politics and what not, I agree with you totally about the progressive platform of Teddy Roosevelt.
I have no pretense that discussions on this blog will change anyone's mind, but what I will always rebut, is when facts are muddled and spun that basically portray spin as facts.
The root of the website one basis their facts on largely determines whether they are facts at all
I love watching you sheep
I love watching you sheep fight it out! All of you spouting off your craptacular party lines.
What Romney, the ever politically stupid, did was paint a nice broad paintbrush, and even though many of you claim that Lorie was being emotional, she is right when she said he included such groups as disabled veterans and senior citizens.
You see there are over 100 million Americans on welfare, roughly 31%. So where does Romney get 47%? Well Social Security of course! So according to Romney, paying into a benefit your whole life means you are a waste.
Does that sound over the top? We so does he. It doesn't matter if you agree with him or not, it just shows that Republicans endorsed a bland, politically moronic, fool. Congrats! I hope you can't wait for another four years of Obama, because you failed.
Next time, grow a pair and demand a good candidate. Stop allowing yourselves to be force fed.
Hmmm,not surprised that there
Hmmm,not surprised that there is alot of resentment in Genesee County. Afterall Genesee County has a significant amount of the 47%. Truth is truth! One of the few places in the US that you can collect welfare without having to be a resident for a period of time before you can collect. I am taxpayer like many of the others and I am sick and tired having to paid for those who feel they do not have to work. There are some who have real ailments but, more scam and/or take advantage of the system. Not to mention the government's abuse of its own system. Without mention names there once was an member of the Batavian who claimed welfare because, they could not be on their feet for long periods of time. So, instead of paying him a full welfare check, why did not the system find him a job where he could sit? Afterall the individual could ride a bike all day.
I love you Phil But to
I love you Phil
But to recap
"47 percent of voters will chose Obama “no matter what” because they are people who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That that’s an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what…These are people who pay no income tax.”
The operative phrase was "47 percent of voters will chose Obama “no matter what”
Where did he get the 47% FROM, 31% on welfare and 47% who pay no Federal income tax. which include that 31% -
He also said in the same talk, "So our message about reducing taxes will not connect with them"
There is absolutely nothing that is not factual or innaccurate about what he said.
Your disdain for Romney, does not change the accuracy of his statement, has nothing to do with sheep, more to do with common sense.
Which again, Mark is broad
Which again, Mark is broad stroked piece of stupidity!
Are you telling me that NO ONE on Social Security is going to vote for Romney, like he assumes?
It is factually inaccurate because he is using an objective argument to make a subjective, and frankly unproven statement.
People are upset because he put people in real need with the scumbag that abuses the system, then said that these were Obama's people.
It was sincerely a beautiful piece of political buffoonery! I am honestly impressed with how profoundly stupid he is, but even more amused listening to people defend it.
Justin what is there to
Justin what is there to comprehend? LMAO! How do you connect public services with governmental dependency. How does a policeman make you dependent on the government? How does a fireman make you dependent on the government? How does a soldier make you dependent on the government? Really, there is no comprehending your statement because, it is based on nonsense and BS! So, how do you make the connection. Educate me on your thought process. I damn curious on this. Hopefully bath salts are not involved with your statement. These are public services I understand that but, how does connect with Romney statement? He is talking about people who collect welfare or other social services. He is talking about how 47% of Americans who constantly take from society and not contribute back.
Phil come on you are smartere
Phil come on you are smartere than that. You bet your sweet bippie that the 47% that are never going to vote for him will come right back with that statement you just made.
The other 47%, some on social security and mnedicare will stick with him becaus ethey understand exactly what he meant.
You have a prejudice against Romney, I am well aware of that I remember discussions we had back in the primary, but believe it or not, there are many on social secuirty, medicare and and even poor that inderstand what he meant and feel exactly the same way as he.
Another thing lost in this, he made those statements and the video released was made in May, fresh from the Primary when pretty much every candidate said the same thing.
It is a non starter, it will whip up the hyper partisan Democrats and liberals, but I predict it may actually help him with his base and a far number of independents that feel the same way.
I asked you in another thread and you never answered so I will ask you again, if not Romney, and not Obama, who of the remaining candidates now running do you think is better for the country right now in this election cycle?
Don't forget many on Social
Don't forget many on Social Security pay federal income tax. And many of them don't expect the government to take care of them (they paid in and want their money back). But 53% of the people do pay federal income taxes and are carrying the rest. And when you don't pay, you don't care as much were the money is coming from.
This entire excercise today
This entire excercise today exemplifies the what is at stake this fall.
Howard actually said it best;
"Mitt Romney says he misspoke. I think he meant to say that 47 percent will vote for Obama because they believe in taking money from one group of folks and giving it to another group of folks. Now whether you believe that such social engineering is good policy or bad, that's been the progressive platform since Teddy Roosevelt (a Republican) was president. Does anybody deny Obama is a progressive?"
Right now approximately 47% of the population leans toward the more progressive, and approximately 47% leans more toward the conservative side.
After some thought, I suggest that Howard was also correct in his assertion that a mere 3% will decide the election, as clearly all polls suggest 3% want neither political party.
Through the name calling by some, we see the passion on all sides. There is no denial that both sides have been spinning facts, the degree with which we judge this is pretty much a result of which side of the argument we sit on, statistics and such can say pretty much anything one wants them to say or more accurate what they want to hear.
This election however, is not about he said this and he said that, it is about what direction we want this country to go. Further, no candidate will give you 100% of which way you want to go, no matter who they are.
So the true question still remains, are we going to be more like the European model of Government as the provider, or more of our nations original principle of personal liberty and the associated risk that goes with that.
There is a middle ground for those who reason, which morphs the question to which of all the candidates is the best choice right now to acheive closest to your personal view. About 3% of the electorate is going to decide that.
I am smarter than that. My
I am smarter than that. My Father in law is a 100% disabled vet and on SS, and he is voting for Romney. I absolutely love how one tracked you are. It's fascinating. I think generalizing a whole group of people is asinine and shows ignorance. You want to defend that? Fine, but I think it shows an incredible lack of sense.
You know I was for Paul then. Gary Johnson is a great man who deserves a chance to debate, but cowards like Obama and Romney will never let that happen.
But I am not one tracked
But I am not one tracked Phil, I am a Romney supporter yes, and unapoligtically so.
And I actually agree with you about Gary Johnson should be in the debates, It' a wonderful season election years isn't it
What Romney said was nothing
What Romney said was nothing more than the rhetoric his handlers felt was appropriate for the crowd at the fundraiser. Who the hell knows what he actually believes, and who cares, it's not like he is going to follow some internal moral compass or anything. Same for Obama.
Ok, Romney believes we have
Ok, Romney believes we have too many freeloaders. Now what does he want to do about it? He needs to put his cards on the table and tell all of us how he intends on balancing the budget in two years. I'm not falling for vague generalities.
Phil, If you want Johnson in
Phil,
If you want Johnson in the debate, fine, but then what about all the others? What should the criteria be for who gets invited?
Is definately going to make
Is definately going to make the debates interesting anyway Charlie, at tyhe same time we can hear some of those specifics from Mr. Obama, which frankly are a bit lacking as well
Fine with me John. I think
Fine with me John.
I think the first thing that needs to change is the way money is spent. If everyone had the same dollars, then I don't think you would have the same spreads.
To answer your question directly. I think that you're able to get on a majority of the states ballots than you should be allowed to debate.
Phil, so you are saying that
Phil, so you are saying that you would like to see debates like the 2008 Democratic primary or more recently the 2012 GOP primary with possibly 12 or 14 people answering maybe one or two 60 second questions?
Or a deluge of debates over several weeks that in all probability would bore the average voter.
Or even possibly a sudden death debate with voters eliminating candidates after each debate?
Seriously, in this age how could you possibly manage that
The last thing Romney is is a
The last thing Romney is is a capitalist. Capitalists actually create and grow businesses, not not enrich themselves by manipulating markets. Andrew Carnegie was a capitalist. Vanderbilt was a capitalist. Rockafeller was a capitalist. Steve Jobs was a capitalist. Bill Gates was a capitalist. Romney is a shyster. The whole equity investment game is a con designed to destroy capitol, not build it.
The Rolling Stone article contains a lot of truth -- having worked for a company being destroyed by the equity capitol game, I've seen how this works.
Equity investment companies such as Bain destroy jobs. They don't create them.
These are the same firms in the 1980s that instituted the M&A frenzy, leading to lost jobs, failed companies and a major downturn in the U.S. economy during Reagan's first term.
The idea that Romney will do anything to fix the economy, create jobs, help working Americas is as foolish as expecting Obama to do the same.
BTW: I'm well aware of everything there is to know about TPM, having followed Josh Marshall from his earliest blogging days, but I also know all about David Brooks and Matt Welch (a good friend for close to a decade now), which are the writers quoted in the piece. They speak truth.
Mark, Republicans are too
Mark, Republicans are too hung up on Obama. If Romney wants to be president, he needs to tell us what he's going to do. Obama bashing isn't going to win. We need to know exactly what the goal is and how we get there. The cats out of the bag, we all know how Romney really feels, there is no excuse now. He's not getting 47% of the vote not matter what he says. If he wants the people in the middle, it's time to lay it all on the table.
I'm with Phil, at least half
I'm with Phil, at least half the states (and even that may be too restrictive).
Of course, it should be much easier to get on the ballot in each state. Ballot access laws should be ruled unconstitutional. If you know how to write your name on a piece of paper and want to run for office, you should be on the ballot.
There's a way, Mark to make
There's a way, Mark to make it work and be effective. The point is choice.
Of course we could just keep doing what we've been doing...cause that seems to be working grrrrrrreat!
Well I actually agree with
Well I actually agree with you there Charlie with regard to spelling things out. Where I disagree is that Obama spelled it out.
That isn't bashing Obama, just like you aren't in essence bashing Romney but asking where is the beef, so far not a single candidate left standing has shown me that beef.
Phil, I actually agree with
Phil, I actually agree with you that there should be more candidates, my question is sincere though, managing that actually may have more limitation than one might expect.
How do you do have debates of that magnitude and still give fair weight to any of the candidates positions?
There is a way you say, there perhaps is, but how in this age of tweets and blogs could you keep the attention of 260,000,000 voters for an hour or for that matter 3 hours and perhaps 15 candidates?
I don't disagree that Obama
I don't disagree that Obama should also come clean with his plans to balance the budget. He did make it clear he intended to raise taxes.
What I heard in Romneys back room speech was a guy who wants to lay it on the table and isn't afraid of losing votes. That guy has a chance. The Romney we all know doesn't so, I want to hear that guy in the back room tell me what his plan is to fix the budget. If there isn't a plan, I'm going to vote for the devil I know.
If you're voting for one of
If you're voting for one of the 3rd party candidates, great. And there are a lot to pick from.
If you're voting for one of the major party candidates, you have to decide if your voting for the guy who after almost 4 years has not been able to turn the economy around, maybe made it much worse, and probably will not improve it in another 4 years.
Or vote for the other guy who just maybe will turn it around. If not, replace him in 4 years.
If you think they are really just the same, then give the other guy a shot.
There is some truth in every
There is some truth in every position or article, I do not deny that. There is also perspective and perception.
The Bain of today is pretty much as you say, however, the bain of 1988-1999 was a little different.
1) Romney pushed to invest in Staples against the advice of his partners, the first store opening Romney actually stocked shelves and ran a cash register for the first three weeks the store opened, It was not sold until it grew to an 18 billion dollar company and had 90,000 employees.
2) GST steel which the dems rail and romney critics so spout about, however, the tell of the plant in Kansas city that closed and 750 jobs lost, not the other plants of GS industries that were bought in that deal and still operate today.
3) And the start up Bain invested in in the early 90's in Indiana, The firm touts innovative technology and a nonunion workforce. It today reports $6.3 billion in revenue—25 times what it claimed in its 1996 IPO—and employs 6,000.
Investment capital in itself is not anti capitalist, while there were turn arounds, there was growth and innovation as well.
A piece from a WSJ article states with regard to GST,
"The Kansas City plant was itself dying. At its 1970 height it employed 4,500; by the late 1980s it was down to 1,000. A year before acquisition, Armco had laid off another 75. Its equipment was old; it faced fierce competition at home and abroad.
B.C. Huselton, a vice president of the business at the time, tells me that in 1990 the Armco CEO held a meeting. "He told us, 'Look, we either try to sell it, or we've got to shut it down.'" Armco had shut down another Kansas City facility, Union Wire Rope, only a few years before. "
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100014240527023033605045774105736518458…
Becareful what you wish for
Becareful what you wish for Charlie, I have a feeling that the next few weeks will be telling.
Mark, everything tells me
Mark, everything tells me that this will be the last time we see that straight talking Romney. The real guy will stuff him back in the closet. We will see.
Yes, Charlie indeed we shall
Yes, Charlie indeed we shall see
Wow, as we speak, a new recording of Barack Obama is being released in which he states that we need to find a way to redistribute wealth, it's 12 years old, but hey, he said it
Republicans have a
Republicans have a preoccupation with Obama. The rest of us want to see the plan.
Mark, I just heard Mitt give
Mark, I just heard Mitt give terrorists advice on how to set off a dirty bomb in Chicago. (for real on that leaked video) This he said, she said stuff is stupid. Ill wait for a plan.
Here's what Conservatives are
Here's what Conservatives are saying about Mitt Romneys little divide and conquer event with his big donors.
1.
"The overall impression of Romney at this event is of someone who overheard some conservative cocktail chatter and maybe read a conservative blog or two, and is thoughtlessly repeating back what he heard and read." — Rich Lowry, National Review (conservative magazine)
2.
"Who are these freeloaders? Is it the Iraq war veteran who goes to the V.A.? Is it the student getting a loan to go to college? Is it the retiree on Social Security or Medicare? ... The people who receive the disproportionate share of government spending are not big-government lovers. They are Republicans. They are senior citizens. They are white men with high school degrees. " — David Brooks (conservative columnist), New York Times
3.
"It remains important for the country that Romney wins in November (unless he chooses to step down and we get the Ryan-Rubio ticket we deserve!). But that shouldn't blind us to the fact that Romney's comments ... are stupid and arrogant." — Bill Kristol, The Weekly Standard (conservative magazine)
4.
"I found the presser not horrible, which is about as much praise as I can muster right now." — Daniel Foster, National Review
5.
“I disagree with Gov. Romney’s insinuation that 47 percent of Americans believe they are victims who must depend on the government for their care. ... I know that the vast majority of those who rely on government are not in that situation because they want to be.” — Linda McMahon, Republican candidate for U.S. Senate in Connecticut
6.
"He said he has a terrific campaign. Actually he doesn't. He says that the campaign workers are working well together, well, actually, no, they're not working well together, and that his campaign's going in the right direction. No, it's not. And this is not being said by liberals ... these are conservatives. ... Savannah, I'm going to go put a bag over my head now, so I will talk to you soon." — Joe Scarborough, conservative pundit and former Republican congressman
I was being fiticious Charlie
I was being fiticious Charlie
What was the question?
What was the question?
Uh oh -- another revelation.
Uh oh -- another revelation. Mitt's father,George was a 47 percenter. Yes, sad to report that George Romney was on public assistance. I wonder how he was perceived in the grocery store line when he whipped out the food stamps.
http://www.opposingviews.com/i/politics/2012-election/video-mitt-romney…
Mitt Romney himself admitted
Mitt Romney himself admitted that he paid a 12% tax rate on his income. I am no millionaire and I pay triple that rate. I find this to be a far bigger problem than welfare recipients.
Wow Mark, 30 + comments, are
Wow Mark, 30 + comments, are you working for Romney?
MittWit has shown his true colors, and his disdain for the less fortunate.Sounds like presidential material to me.
Obama cannot come clean on
Obama cannot come clean on his plans for increasing our economy because, he has no plan ideas. If, he did his campaign would be less dirty and more informative. You think people would get tired of this name calling politics and demand a more detail solutions for our country's issues at hand. For those who think Romney has a disdain for the less fortunate. I do not see that as the case. I think Romney like many other Americans are sick and tired of paying for those that, one are just plain lazy and believe the government needs to take care of their ever need. Second, those who have given up looking for employment because, Obama-Aid is giving them everything for free. Third, the abuse of our welfare system by many. Heck, Obama informed welfare recipients that, they do not need a job to subsidize their welfare. Which by the way was established by President Clinton.
12% taxes is better than 0%
12% taxes is better than 0% taxes. At least something goes in the pot.
John W., Obama has a plan and
John W.,
Obama has a plan and submitted it in his budget. It was so bad that no Democrat will support it or even let it come to a vote in the US Senate. And of course, the Democrats have not passed a budget in years, just "continuing resolutions".
This fixation with Obama is
This fixation with Obama is overwhelming. We all get it, Obama is pure evil. Now can anyone on the right pull it together long enough to tell us what Romney wants to do about half the country being freeloaders?
I'm pretty sure they are not all Democrats, the stats show
28% are working but, do not pay anything
10% are elderly
7% are people with income under 20K
1% are not worth the air they breath
4,000 are millionaires
http://money.cnn.com/2012/09/18/pf/taxes/romney-income-taxes-millionair…
Yeah he may have budget plan
Yeah he may have budget plan but, what are his realistic ideas to boost the economy? Why is his budget bad because, he has no bloody clue on what he is doing.
Charlie viewing Obama as evil is not the point. The point is he is not capable of leading this country. Really are there any candidates worth two S _ _ _s? No!
What do we possibly gain from Romney over Obama? An individual who understands business and the economy over an individual who study law. In order to bring this country back, we need to reestablish are work force and economy.
This is really amazing, but
This is really amazing, but in the end
47% will not vote for Obama
47% will not vote for Romney
2-3% will not vote for either
In less than two weeks the debates begin, pretty much we will all see who's argument wins after that.
John, if you were better off
John, if you were better off by not working a min. wage job, would you give that up to make less and have less?
If it cost more to work, than to stay home and collect all these freebies I hear about, what motivation is there for these people to get off the system?
Some folks would have to pay for child care, add that to the price of gas and its easy to see why people give up.
When someone with a clue as to how to fix these problems comes along, I would be first in line to vote for that person, until then, and as usual,I'll vote for anyone except the 2 stooges representing the 2 parties.