Romney comments criticized but true.

[Sinfix_15]

Everyone on the news analyzing and criticizing Romney's comments this week and saying he's out of touch with the common man. Even though these comments are being viewed as a mistake, they were true. I've been making the same comments on here for months. There's a group of people who will vote for Obama no matter what he does. Obama could fertilize his lawn with a bag of puppies and orphans that he ran thru a wood chipper and black people will still vote for him. Obama could drop a nuclear bomb on Oakland because he's a Browns fan and people on welfare would still vote for him. Obama could lower the national credit rating and build the highest debt in american history while going on the largest government spending spree in history and people will still vote for him.

Romney just said what we're all thinking.......................................... .......................................

Dumbasses are going to vote for Obama no matter what he does. Black people are going to vote for Obama no matter what. People on food stamps and welfare are going to vote for Obama no matter what. People on section 8 housing are going to vote for Obama no matter what.

​Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day, teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime. Romney wants to hand america a fishing pole, Obama wants to have all you eat fish dinners every night of the week and just put the bill on america's credit card. Some people are too lazy to pick up that fishing pole, i hope those people are not the ones who decide the election.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F4PdzUwTozo&feature=player_embedded#t=37s

[Sinfix_15]

Media lap dogs in hot pursuit of the wrong story (http://redalertpolitics.com/2012/09/19/media-lap-dogs-in-hot-pursuit-of-the-wrong-story/)

Media lap dogs in hot pursuit of the wrong story
What we are in the midst of witnessing right now is a complete, Fukushima-style meltdown of the mainstream media.

Without these slobbering lap dogs, President Obama never would have been elected in the first place. And now they are his only hope for staying in office amid all the global violence, a morbidly paralyzed economy and a national crisis of confidence so profound that the American Dream has become nothing more than quaint fiction for millions.

Nearly four years after President Obama promised to ease Arab hatred of America, the Middle East burns hotter than ever. Polls show America has never been more deeply despised.

Respected newspapers around the world report that the Obama administration was explicitly warned days before the attack on the American Consulate in Libya in which our ambassador was brutally killed. But officials did nothing to stop the worst terrorist attack on the U.S. since 9/11.

Four years after promising to cut the deficit in half, President Obama has exploded the debt to a record $16 trillion. Welfare rolls have ballooned to levels once unimaginable in America and you are actually paying for campaigns to recruit more people onto welfare.

[Sammich]

i havent heard the clip of what he said, neither will i take the time, but from the jist of what i've heard he says...there are those that need govt assistance, to those that TAKE ADVANTAGE of it, should be those who take offense to what he said, period.

[CptWitwiki]

ive heard idiots say " just wait to see what he can do when he doesnt have to worry about getting re-elected" ... if he did a good job there wouldnt be any worry at all...

[Sinfix_15]

ive heard idiots say " just wait to see what he can do when he doesnt have to worry about getting re-elected" ... if he did a good job there wouldnt be any worry at all...

I listen to black people praise him all day long. I swear the other day when they were criticizing Romney's latest comments, the black people were jumping and cheering like it was a football game and their team just got an interception.

Romney's comments were very insensitive, but damn were they accurate. There is absolutely NOTHING.......... that would sway an Obama supporter, even though most Obama supporters cant tell you the reason they support him.

[Sammich]

i just want to know what human can correct the fukery that the US was in when Obama took office in under 4 years? dont worry i'll wait.

[Vteckidd]

Obama calls me a bible toting gun loving redneck - no big deal
Romney calls people who use govt assistance as viewing themselves as victims- riot in the streets


I mean he's expressing exactly what democrats are preaching. You didn't build that, the system is rigged, etc that's all classifying people as victims

[Sinfix_15]

i just want to know what human can correct the fukery that the US was in when Obama took office in under 4 years? dont worry i'll wait.

This question has been answered a dozen times over on this website........................................... .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. ................



Let me know how making excuses and blaming everything on Bush is going to correct the fukery that Obama created............ dont worry, i'll wait.

[Sammich]

SN: black people or possible Obama electors?

[Sammich]

This question has been answered a dozen times over on this website........................................... .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. ................



Let me know how making excuses and blaming everything on Bush is going to correct the fukery that Obama created............ dont worry, i'll wait.

didnt mention names, i was solely talking what HUMAN could correct the fukery that the US was in, in the same length of time (when i mentioned a name) Obama's been in office. that's all i'm asking..

in under 4 years, what human can correct the nonsense that's been culminating in the years prior to?

like i said, dont worry, i'll wait.

[Sinfix_15]

didnt mention names, i was solely talking what HUMAN could correct the fukery that the US was in, in the same length of time (when i mentioned a name) Obama's been in office. that's all i'm asking..

in under 4 years, what human can correct the nonsense that's been culminating in the years prior to?

like i said, dont worry, i'll wait.

Obama has done nothing but make it worse.... all his supporters do is say he needs more time. HES MAKING IT WORSE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Sinfix_15]

SN: black people or possible Obama electors?

Everyone knows that black people are unconditional Obama supporters..... deny it, complain about it, get mad about it..... it is what it is. Black people are either going to vote for Obama or not vote.

[Sammich]

Obama calls me a bible toting gun loving redneck - no big deal
Romney calls people who use govt assistance as viewing themselves as victims- riot in the streets


I mean he's expressing exactly what democrats are preaching. You didn't build that, the system is rigged, etc that's all classifying people as victims

shots are being thrown back and forth. as a PERSON looking from both sides, i could still see siding w/ Obama, because i do know of the struggle adn that SOME people are actually in a state in which they cannot help and are still struggling to make it, the right way and not turn to crime and resort to government assistance until they are able to do better. is that wrong of them or make them victims because they are in an unfortunate state of life that they are having a hard time getting out of? sometimes people have a helluva time making a better situation because of where they are, and it's even harder to make moves because their current state of living doesnt allow them to save the money they would like, or any money period, to move to an area taht would afford them a better opportunity to live a better life. some areas are more fukd up than others at providing people w/ a job/career that they can make a decent living, take care of necessities and enjoy life as well.

i dont like that basically Romney is looking at all those that are less fortunate, EITHER by chose or by unfortunate circumstance 'leeches' in essence.

being that i dont vote period, fuk the whole govt, it'll never be perfect, so i dont care to vote for w/e. i'm just giving an outsider looking in.

[Sammich]

Obama has done nothing but make it worse.... all his supporters do is say he needs more time. HES MAKING IT WORSE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

question has still not been answered. *waiting*


Everyone knows that black people are unconditional Obama supporters..... deny it, complain about it, get mad about it..... it is what it is. Black people are either going to vote for Obama or not vote.

or vote for Romney. i know a couple of 'black people' that are voting for Romney.

i also know of white people voting for Obama. people that give a shit enough about politics and actually what they themselves stand for are going to vote for whose closest to the things that concern them.

[MachNU]

My only two cents...

IF for some reason Obama actually manages to win in November, dooming this nation or putting the final nail in the coffin, I feel bad for the mess he is going to inherit. That asshole over the last 4 years is really going to pass this mess on too the winner in November.

[Sinfix_15]

question has still not been answered. *waiting*



or vote for Romney. i know a couple of 'black people' that are voting for Romney.

i also know of white people voting for Obama. people that give a shit enough about politics and actually what they themselves stand for are going to vote for whose closest to the things that concern them.

No answer would ever be good enough for you because you already fail to realize that your question comes from false pretenses. The economy wasnt bad just because of Bush. Obama has done a worse job than Bush. Obama has done a worse job than anyone......... ever.

Who could do a better job than Obama and running the country after Bush???? anyone.... everyone...... any other candidate.... John Kerry...... John Mccain.... Tim Tebow.... Kanye West........... Madonna... anyone.




and to the highlighted part.... you aint gotta lie to kick it.

[Matt300ZXT]

Who could turn it around in 4 years with the mess he inherited? During the RNC, Ronald Regan's son comes on for a small interview, and him and the newscaster showed numbers how Reagan turned around Carter's mess in 3 years with numbers that are very very similar to today's when the inflation that's occurred since is factored in.

[Sinfix_15]

Who could turn it around in 4 years with the mess he inherited? During the RNC, Ronald Regan's son comes on for a small interview, and him and the newscaster showed numbers how Reagan turned around Carter's mess in 3 years with numbers that are very very similar to today's when the inflation that's occurred since is factored in.

Obama has made it worse. I'm sick and tired of hearing this same propaganda over and over that Obama hasnt had enough time.

[Sammich]

No answer would ever be good enough for you because you already fail to realize that your question comes from false pretenses.

if you say so


Who could turn it around in 4 years with the mess he inherited? During the RNC, Ronald Regan's son comes on for a small interview, and him and the newscaster showed numbers how Reagan turned around Carter's mess in 3 years with numbers that are very very similar to today's when the inflation that's occurred since is factored in.

as i said i'm not big into politics, period. if that's the case i stand corrected

[MachNU]

Who could turn it around in 4 years with the mess he inherited? During the RNC, Ronald Regan's son comes on for a small interview, and him and the newscaster showed numbers how Reagan turned around Carter's mess in 3 years with numbers that are very very similar to today's when the inflation that's occurred since is factored in.

But its simply the fact that even if Bush was not the best, Obama did worse. Think of it as a fire.....Bush made a perimeter and sprayed some water on some areas to keep it from spreading, but did not put out the fire. Obama came in on the premise of putting out the fire, rebuilding the house and selling it for twice what it is worth. Instead he came in, bowed to the fire, apologized for too/for the fire, replaced the water with gasoline and made the perimeter that was containing the fire to an area 5x wider allowing the fire to spread further. Then says, I need 4 more years to fix it.

Simply school age adage, "If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, looks like a duck, then it must be a duck."

[Sinfix_15]

as i said i'm not big into politics, period. if that's the case i stand corrected

Most Obama supporters arent. If they were, they wouldnt be Obama supporters.

[Sammich]

Most Obama supporters arent. If they were, they wouldnt be Obama supporters.

obviously you didnt read my above statements stating the main reason why i would if i were into politics and voted. also you didnt read that i dont vote.

i guess you're one of the ones who skim over the jist of what's said and take out the bad, i guess like a politician or media

[Sinfix_15]

obviously you didnt read my above statements stating the main reason why i would if i were into politics and voted. also you didnt read that i dont vote.

i guess you're one of the ones who skim over the jist of what's said and take out the bad, i guess like a politician or media

You're an Obama apologist, whether you vote or not.

[MachNU]

obviously you didnt read my above statements stating the main reason why i would if i were into politics and voted. also you didnt read that i dont vote.

i guess you're one of the ones who skim over the jist of what's said and take out the bad, i guess like a politician or media

What he is trying to say is that its impossible to support Obama unless your head is buried in the sand. Logically, Obama has done nothing worth supporting. Base it off the past, present or future, giving him 4 more years would only simply dig us a bigger hole and most likely, hell, almost a definite calapse of this nation.

Basically if you got a tattoo from someone and they did a bad job 4 times(years) in a row, would you really give them more chances(years)?

[Sammich]

You're an Obama apologist, whether you vote or not.

all i'm saying is what he's spoken OF is what i support. being an "Obama apologist" is nothing that i am and i support nothing in politics. Lesser of the 2 evils, is Obama, because of the lack of concern for the 'little man' or the 'struggling people' in the states. not everyone comes from wealth and are able to reach into a trust fund/massive savings acct/etc to make their dreams come true. Obama could take it and do a good job at making the states better or Romney could, still gona be a host of fukd up situations going on, period. And there's nothing none of those candidates or anyone else can do about it, guess that's what you're failing to realize

your defenses have been ignorant. i'm being straight up and looking at the broad aspect of the entire situation.

[bu villain]

Dumbasses are going to vote for Obama no matter what he does. Black people are going to vote for Obama no matter what. People on food stamps and welfare are going to vote for Obama no matter what. People on section 8 housing are going to vote for Obama no matter what.


Of course not everyone is a swing voter but that wasnt what was controversial about Mitt's statement. It was that the 47% of the population who don't pay income tax are all Obama voters, have no personal responsibility, and believe they are victims. It's such a ridiculous over generalization. Many people who don't pay income tax vote republican. Many people who don't pay income taxes are students, retirees, the disabled, and full time workers. To say all those groups take no responsibility for their lives and consider themselves victims is mind boggling.

[bu villain]

i'm being straight up and looking at the broad aspect of the entire situation.

Good luck. For many people on here there is only black and white. No grey. You are either with them or against them. Their values are the only valid ones. Information can only be interprested in one way. etc. etc.

[Vteckidd]

My only two cents...

IF for some reason Obama actually manages to win in November, dooming this nation or putting the final nail in the coffin, I feel bad for the mess he is going to inherit. That asshole over the last 4 years is really going to pass this mess on too the winner in November.

while I personally believe it will get worse , I caution against the Doomsday Apocalypse talk, because if Obama wins, GOP will still hold the House, maybe the SEnate. He will not be able to get anything done, and vice versa. We will see 4 more years of gridlock and excessive spending.

I also would warn SinFIx against the excessive use of black people =obama voters. While its true, you arent winning anyone over by continuing to bring it up. The same thing could be said about "rednecks vote for GOP" both are true, but neither wins any support.

[Vteckidd]

Of course not everyone is a swing voter but that wasnt what was controversial about Mitt's statement. It was that the 47% of the population who don't pay income tax are all Obama voters, have no personal responsibility, and believe they are victims. It's such a ridiculous over generalization. Many people who don't pay income tax vote republican. Many people who don't pay income taxes are students, retirees, the disabled, and full time workers. To say all those groups take no responsibility for their lives and consider themselves victims is mind boggling.

Thats not what he said. he generalized, they do it all the time, what he said is FACTUALLY TRUE.


There are 47% of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47% 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.

“And I mean the President starts off with 49, 49…he starts off with a huge number. These are people who pay no income tax. 47% of Americans pay no income tax. So our message of low taxes doesn’t connect.

Ok so lets actually look and dissect his statement, hes talking about 2 different things, POLL NUMBERS and PERCENTAGES OF TAX PAYERS. Dont MIX the 2.

1) Obama has consistently polled around 47-50% of the voters.
Daily Presidential Tracking Poll - Rasmussen Reports™ (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll)
RealClearPolitics - Election 2012 - General Election: Romney vs. Obama (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/general_election_romney_vs_obama-1171.html)

So, despite 8+% in UE, Gas prices 100% more than they were 4 years ago, 23 million people out of work and climbing, 49-50% of the country still supports Obama. WHY? Record number of people on foodstamps, in poverty. Hes done nothing to help them, nothing to improve their situation. All he has done is extend UE benefits over and over again.

So it doesnt really make any sense , one would conclude "they are supporting him because they will always support him not matter the data".

Going even further, you have to also deduce that the majority of these people like his programs which amount to spending money on social programs like Unemployment Benefits and removing the work requirement for Welfare, etc. He was describing the faction of people in that 47%, not ALL people who vote Obama are govt leeches, but i think its fair to say that a fair portion of them receive govt help, programs, welfare, UE, etc. They believe they are entitled to healthcare, food, housing, living wages, etc. Newsflash, THAT IS GOVT DEPENDANCE.


Secondly,
PolitiFact | John Cornyn says 51 percent of American households pay no income tax (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/jul/08/john-cornyn/john-cornyn-says-51-percent-american-households-pa/)

50%+ DO NOT PAY FEDERAL INCOME TAXES in the USA. is it fair to say ALL those people are Obama supporters? No. But, i would bet the majority are and theres a reason for it. His point was that the GOP is talking about tax cuts for both the middle and upper class so A) businesses hire B) middle class has more money in their pocket to spend in the economy.

The problem is that if 50+% of the voters DONT EVEN WORK OR PAY INCOME TAX, TAX TALK MEANS SHIT TO THEM. They dont care. a 5% cut in taxes for someone that pays 0%, is well, meaningless.

His statements were generalizations, but factually correct.

Anyone with a brain or 5th grade reading comprehension skills knows what he was saying.

[Vteckidd]

Romney was 10000% correct that no matter what he says, that faction of people will NOT vote for him. They view him as a wealthy businessman who doesnt want to do anything but make more money.

The problem to me is this, if you are unemployed right now, how does the president help you?

Obama claims that Taxing the Rich will solve the problem. Pay their fair share, and economic prosperity will happen. He will INVEST (CODE WORD FOR SPEND) in Clean Energy (CODE WORD FOR DUMP MONEY TO WEALTHY DONORS WHO INVEST IN STARTUP COMPANIES AND BLEED THEM DRY STICKING TAX PAYERS WITH THE BILL), and Teachers, Fire Fighters, Police. Well i dont know about you, but i dont want to be a teacher, fire fighter, or policeman. I want a job.

Tell me how taxing the RICH , which EVEN IF HE GOT HIS WAY letting bush era tax cuts expire, he would net around 60-100 billion dollars. How does that directly translate to helping YOU, the person out of work? Is Obama going to just give you a check? Create more govt jobs? Why not just abolish income taxes altogether if hes going to redistribute the upper income taxes anyway? wouldnt that be more direct? Instead of taxing the rich 4% more, why not just let the lower bracket not pay income taxes? (remember that 50% number from the previous post). Its because he knows his voting block doesnt pay taxes anyway so it does them no good. By demonizing the "RICH" he gains points with the poor who are envious, and he can keep trying to buy their votes through social programs (UE, Welfare, Healthcare, SS, MC, etc).

Romney, knows that sitting there talking about complex economic issues wont reach the average voter. They dont get it, and they dont want to. How does he want to help you? He wants to lower the expenses of the top 10% income bracket so you get hired. SO they invest in their companies, so they buy another ferrari, or yacht, or jet, or office building. Raise your wages.

Heres a really easy thing to understand, Obama and the US GOVT only collect taxes from people earning WAGES. The way to grow revenue is not to take bigger portions, its to get more people working , so more people are in the tax paying groups. you end up killing 2 birds with 1 stone (people back to work, and more revenue coming in)



You can choose to believe whatever you want, but if i tax you more, are you going to spend more money? probably not. Just take it at face value, the same happens for a guy making 100 million a year. If you take 10% more from him in taxes, can he survive, SURE, but how does that HELP YOU? That money is not going DIRECTLY into your pocket, Obama knows that. Its going in HIS (and other politicians).

The evil rich arent evil , they are the only ones who can put you into a job and pay you.

[Echonova]

How many people here are employed by a poor person?

[Vteckidd]

youll lose that argument because its a talking point people are conditioned to respond to. You have to break it down simpler than that.

People see that and dismiss it as a GOP talking point.

Even though its not, i find walking people through the problem and letting them understand how taxing the rich does nothing for them is the fastest approach.

[Echonova]

You may be right, although I've found "walking" people through only ends up as a tremendous waste of my time. Until they figure it out for themselves, the words fall on deaf ears.


http://i1253.photobucket.com/albums/hh592/Commanch3/503A26A4-D69E-4D95-9D88-5B4B93504913-132-000000087B454EE7_zps0188757f.jpg

[BanginJimmy]

i dont like that basically Romney is looking at all those that are less fortunate, EITHER by chose or by unfortunate circumstance 'leeches' in essence.

"Less fortunate" is PC code for too fucking lazy and/or stupid to support themselves. It is also forcing you into the assumption that if you are successful it is because you are lucky. It has nothing to do with hard work or smart decisions. Just pure, blind luck.



all i'm saying is what he's spoken OF is what i support.

So you support lower quality health care? You support redistribution of wealth?

What did Obama say that was actually true?

He was going to close Gitmo in his first year? 4 years later and nothing.
Cut the deficit in half during his first term? Actually he tripled it.
Pass the stimulus and UE wouldnt go over 8%? He hasnt seen below 8% since a couple months after it was passed.


Oh wait. He got bin Laden. Yes, but the info that was used to locate him would have never been uncovered if he was in office when Khalid Sheikh Muhammad was captured. Remember when he banned the use of enhanced interrogation? KSM didnt give up everything he knew because he was asked nicely.


Lesser of the 2 evils, is Obama, because of the lack of concern for the 'little man' or the 'struggling people' in the states.

There are plenty of programs in place for the "little man". They dont need any more concern, they need a kick in the ass.




your defenses have been ignorant. i'm being straight up and looking at the broad aspect of the entire situation.

Until you show you understand the situation, its kind of hard to put any value on your opinion.

[Sinfix_15]

Romney was 10000% correct that no matter what he says, that faction of people will NOT vote for him. They view him as a wealthy businessman who doesnt want to do anything but make more money.

The problem to me is this, if you are unemployed right now, how does the president help you?

Obama claims that Taxing the Rich will solve the problem. Pay their fair share, and economic prosperity will happen. He will INVEST (CODE WORD FOR SPEND) in Clean Energy (CODE WORD FOR DUMP MONEY TO WEALTHY DONORS WHO INVEST IN STARTUP COMPANIES AND BLEED THEM DRY STICKING TAX PAYERS WITH THE BILL), and Teachers, Fire Fighters, Police. Well i dont know about you, but i dont want to be a teacher, fire fighter, or policeman. I want a job.

Tell me how taxing the RICH , which EVEN IF HE GOT HIS WAY letting bush era tax cuts expire, he would net around 60-100 billion dollars. How does that directly translate to helping YOU, the person out of work? Is Obama going to just give you a check? Create more govt jobs? Why not just abolish income taxes altogether if hes going to redistribute the upper income taxes anyway? wouldnt that be more direct? Instead of taxing the rich 4% more, why not just let the lower bracket not pay income taxes? (remember that 50% number from the previous post). Its because he knows his voting block doesnt pay taxes anyway so it does them no good. By demonizing the "RICH" he gains points with the poor who are envious, and he can keep trying to buy their votes through social programs (UE, Welfare, Healthcare, SS, MC, etc).

Romney, knows that sitting there talking about complex economic issues wont reach the average voter. They dont get it, and they dont want to. How does he want to help you? He wants to lower the expenses of the top 10% income bracket so you get hired. SO they invest in their companies, so they buy another ferrari, or yacht, or jet, or office building. Raise your wages.

Heres a really easy thing to understand, Obama and the US GOVT only collect taxes from people earning WAGES. The way to grow revenue is not to take bigger portions, its to get more people working , so more people are in the tax paying groups. you end up killing 2 birds with 1 stone (people back to work, and more revenue coming in)



You can choose to believe whatever you want, but if i tax you more, are you going to spend more money? probably not. Just take it at face value, the same happens for a guy making 100 million a year. If you take 10% more from him in taxes, can he survive, SURE, but how does that HELP YOU? That money is not going DIRECTLY into your pocket, Obama knows that. Its going in HIS (and other politicians).

The evil rich arent evil , they are the only ones who can put you into a job and pay you.

http://h3.abload.de/img/joelclapo7exj.gif

[bu villain]

Thats not what he said. he generalized, they do it all the time, what he said is FACTUALLY TRUE.

Please show polls that show half the population considering themselves victims. Unless you can do that, it is his opinion and not a fact.


Ok so lets actually look and dissect his statement, hes talking about 2 different things, POLL NUMBERS and PERCENTAGES OF TAX PAYERS. Dont MIX the 2.

Mathematics forces us to mix them. Romney states these three things:
1) There are 47% of the people who will vote for the president no matter what
2) the President starts off with 49, 49…he starts off with a huge number. These are people who pay no income tax.
3) 47% of Americans pay no income tax.

The only possible conclusion is that nearly all of Obama's support comes from people who pay no income tax. This is simply not true. If you have evidence to show otherwise, please present it because this is quite an outrageous claim.


So, despite 8+% in UE, Gas prices 100% more than they were 4 years ago, 23 million people out of work and climbing, 49-50% of the country still supports Obama. WHY? Record number of people on foodstamps, in poverty. Hes done nothing to help them, nothing to improve their situation. All he has done is extend UE benefits over and over again.

So it doesnt really make any sense , one would conclude "they are supporting him because they will always support him not matter the data".

Whether you agree or not there are other possible explanations:
1) People believe Romney will do worse
2) People believe Obama softened the economic crash
3) People believe his tax cuts and extending UE benefits helped them


Going even further, you have to also deduce that the majority of these people like his programs which amount to spending money on social programs like Unemployment Benefits and removing the work requirement for Welfare, etc.

Actually most republicans support social programs too. Is Romney calling to end SS, Medicare, UE Benefits etc? If not, that means he supports them too. I'm really surprised you are bring up the welfare work requirement. He gave that power to the states. I thought you were a states rights guy and would support that.


50%+ DO NOT PAY FEDERAL INCOME TAXES in the USA. is it fair to say ALL those people are Obama supporters? No. But, i would bet the majority are and theres a reason for it.

You might think so but you need data to back that up. The Tax Foundation has tallied the states that had the highest percentages of non-income-tax-paying residents. The 10 states with the highest rates of non-tax-payers are mostly ones that Romney has in the bag — Texas, Idaho, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia and South Carolina. And several states with the lowest rates are solidly in Obama's camp, including Minnesota, Maryland and Massachusetts.


Anyone with a brain or 5th grade reading comprehension skills knows what he was saying.

Yes, basically that half of Americans suck. Brilliant campaign slogan I must say.

[Vteckidd]

Please show polls that show half the population considering themselves victims. Unless you can do that, it is his opinion and not a fact.



Mathematics forces us to mix them. Romney states these three things:
1) There are 47% of the people who will vote for the president no matter what
2) the President starts off with 49, 49…he starts off with a huge number. These are people who pay no income tax.
3) 47% of Americans pay no income tax.

The only possible conclusion is that nearly all of Obama's support comes from people who pay no income tax. This is simply not true. If you have evidence to show otherwise, please present it because this is quite an outrageous claim.



Whether you agree or not there are other possible explanations:
1) People believe Romney will do worse
2) People believe Obama softened the economic crash
3) People believe his tax cuts and extending UE benefits helped them



Actually most republicans support social programs too. Is Romney calling to end SS, Medicare, UE Benefits etc? If not, that means he supports them too. I'm really surprised you are bring up the welfare work requirement. He gave that power to the states. I thought you were a states rights guy and would support that.



You might think so but you need data to back that up. The Tax Foundation has tallied the states that had the highest percentages of non-income-tax-paying residents. The 10 states with the highest rates of non-tax-payers are mostly ones that Romney has in the bag — Texas, Idaho, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia and South Carolina. And several states with the lowest rates are solidly in Obama's camp, including Minnesota, Maryland and Massachusetts.



Yes, basically that half of Americans suck. Brilliant campaign slogan I must say.

normally i would argue back, but its really a waste of time, especially when you use the Tax Foundation liberal chart that is making internet rounds on the forums. "OOO Romney insulted his own voters" bullshit rhetoric that requires no thinking .

Read the statement, i posted it, its pathetically clear what he was saying. Here let me use it in a similar fashion

"Obama has people that are going to vote for him no matter what, these are african americans, women who want free birthcontrol, entitlements, living wages".

Do you think i just said
1) That all Obama voters are blacks, women who want free birth control, and living wages
2) or was as generalizing that a substantial portion of his voting block are those demographics

IM guessing youll say #1, which proves my point, im wasting my time arguing with you

[C230K]

Video: John Stewart Calls Bullsh*t On Mitt Romney & Fox News (http://www.worldstarhiphop.com/videos/video.php?v=wshh0a8v30U2KZ99904f)

Chaos On Bullshit Mountain

[BanginJimmy]

Yes, basically that half of Americans suck. Brilliant campaign slogan I must say.

We would be in much better shape as a nation and as a culture if more people were held accountable for this uselessness.

I am willing to bet that 99% of the able bodied on the govt tit would not need welfare if there was no welfare.

[BanginJimmy]

Video: John Stewart Calls Bullsh*t On Mitt Romney & Fox News (http://www.worldstarhiphop.com/videos/video.php?v=wshh0a8v30U2KZ99904f)

Chaos On Bullshit Mountain


Still waiting on my ban powers. You are first on the list though.

[C230K]

Still waiting on my ban powers. You are first on the list though.

I though you would of gotten that power by now, but oh well, go ahead and ban me. Im not on here as much as I used to anyway, you would be doing me a favor:)

[Sinfix_15]

I feel like every media outlet wants Obama to win because it gives them 4 more years of drama and attention. "traditional" presidents are boring. Obama, good or bad.... is always news worthy.

[Elbow]

I feel like every media outlet wants Obama to win because it gives them 4 more years of drama and attention. "traditional" presidents are boring. Obama, good or bad.... is always news worthy.

I dunno I think if Romney wins there will be far more to cover than with Obama.

[Sinfix_15]

I dunno I think if Romney wins there will be far more to cover than with Obama.

explain.

[bu villain]

normally i would argue back, but its really a waste of time, especially when you use the Tax Foundation liberal chart that is making internet rounds on the forums. "OOO Romney insulted his own voters" bullshit rhetoric that requires no thinking .

I actually haven't seen that chart you are talking about but instead of simply dismissing my evidence because it is a "liberal chart", you could provide counter evidence of your own. Where the evidence comes from doesn't matter unless you are unwilling to dig deeper to see if it's true or not. If you present some heritage foundation evidence, I will not dismiss it out of hand like you are doing.


Read the statement, i posted it, its pathetically clear what he was saying. Here let me use it in a similar fashion

"Obama has people that are going to vote for him no matter what, these are african americans, women who want free birthcontrol, entitlements, living wages".

Do you think i just said
1) That all Obama voters are blacks, women who want free birth control, and living wages
2) or was as generalizing that a substantial portion of his voting block are those demographics

IM guessing youll say #1, which proves my point, im wasting my time arguing with you

Neither 1 nor 2. You didn't say anything about percentages of his total voting block, only about the makeup of "people who are going to vote for him no matter what". You didn't say how big that group is compared to the rest of his voting block so I can't draw as many conclusions. Romney on the other hand used very specific numbers to describe the groups he was talking about. While 47% of people not paying income tax is a fact, many of the other statements Romney made are not backed up by facts. They are merely opinions and insulting ones at that. I'm not planning to vote for Obama but I still think it's funny when politicans make ridiculously insulting statements that are not backed up by fact. Kind of like Todd Akin's statements about rape.

[Sinfix_15]

I actually haven't seen that chart you are talking about but instead of simply dismissing my evidence because it is a "liberal chart", you could provide counter evidence of your own. Where the evidence comes from doesn't matter unless you are unwilling to dig deeper to see if it's true or not. If you present some heritage foundation evidence, I will not dismiss it out of hand like you are doing.



Neither 1 nor 2. You didn't say anything about percentages of his total voting block, only about the makeup of "people who are going to vote for him no matter what". You didn't say how big that group is compared to the rest of his voting block so I can't draw as many conclusions. Romney on the other hand used very specific numbers to describe the groups he was talking about. While 47% of people not paying income tax is a fact, many of the other statements Romney made are not backed up by facts. They are merely opinions and insulting ones at that. I'm not planning to vote for Obama but I still think it's funny when politicans make ridiculously insulting statements that are not backed up by fact. Kind of like Todd Akin's statements about rape.

This is the problem.......... you're playing politics to avoid a common sense statement. Who cares what the actual number is or whether or not his number was accurate.....

you know what he was saying and you know its true.

A LARGE PORTION OF AMERICA WILL VOTE FOR OBAMA NO MATTER WHAT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1 NO MATTER WHAT HE SAYS, WHAT HE DOES, THEY HAVE HIS VOTE AND NOTHING CAN CHANGE IT. THIS IS EVEN MORE TRUE WHEN APPLIED TO BLACK VOTERS.

[BanginJimmy]

A LARGE PORTION OF AMERICA WILL VOTE FOR OBAMA NO MATTER WHAT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1 NO MATTER WHAT HE SAYS, WHAT HE DOES, THEY HAVE HIS VOTE AND NOTHING CAN CHANGE IT. THIS IS EVEN MORE TRUE WHEN APPLIED TO BLACK VOTERS.

The same is true about the 47% of voters that will vote Romney no matter what he says or does.


This is a non issue and anyone trying to make it into an issue is simply playing politics.



BTW, on average 80% of US voters vote the party, not the person. The numbers are higher this time around because the US is more polarized than ever.

[Sinfix_15]

The same is true about the 47% of voters that will vote Romney no matter what he says or does.


This is a non issue and anyone trying to make it into an issue is simply playing politics.



BTW, on average 80% of US voters vote the party, not the person. The numbers are higher this time around because the US is more polarized than ever.

however you want to look at it, that's a problem.


How do you win a vote of someone on welfare by telling them you can create a job for them, when theyre ok with staying on welfare? People voting for Obama does not validate his policies in my opinion. Not every Obama voter is a freeloader, but every freeloader will vote for Obama.

[.blank cd]

Everything said in this thread can also, and probably more so be applied to "Romney voters". The people who vote based on facts will vote accordingly.
Anyone with a brain or 5th grade reading comprehension skills knows what he was saying.Funny, I tried to say the same thing about something Obama said.

[Sinfix_15]

Everything said in this thread can also, and probably more so be applied to "Romney voters". The people who vote based on facts will vote accordingly. Funny, I tried to say the same thing about something Obama said.

Some people will vote for Romney simply because they dont want a black president.
Some people will vote for Obama simply because they do want a black president.
Around 50% of white people will vote for a black president when given the option.
Around 95% of black people will vote for a black president when given the option.

You can excuse this comment by saying " Romney has people who will vote for him no matter what too ", but you know youre ignoring the truth. The problem with the 1% is that theyre only 1%. There's way more "baby daddies" living in project housing, collecting food stamps and welfare than there are successful well off businessmen in america. Obama wants to stick his bill to the successful businessmen in america when he should be creating a path for everyone to become successful. Obama's policies are contradictory, he claims to be a great job creator and that he can save the economy, but the entire premise of his support his based around safety net programs. His message caters to the weak, the lazy and the unintelligent. When Romney says "i can create you a job", Obama says "if you cant find a job, i'll take care of you with the people who have job's money"

If a teenager asks his/her parents for a new pair of shoes and the mother says "cut the grass and earn money for a new pair of shoes" and the father says "here's my credit card, go get some shoes", that teenager would vote for his/her father even though what his/her father did is not the best thing for him/her. That is what is happening in this election. Obama continues to hand over the creditcard to win votes.

You say, "the people who look at the facts will vote accordingly", the facts show that Obama is the worst economic president in the history of our country, yet people still support him in a time when the economy is biggest issue threatening our livelihood. I agree with Obama on a lot of things. I support gay rights. I support a woman having the choice to carry a child or not. But more importantly than either, people need to be able to take care of themselves and have a future. A future with Obama is 4 more years of the last 4 years. This president is awful.

If you had to take an IQ test prior to voting, Romney would win with 75-80% of the vote.

[BanginJimmy]

however you want to look at it, that's a problem.

I agree. I think the ballots should be revamped to only list the names of those running for a particular office in alphabetical order. No mention of party or incumbency.



How do you win a vote of someone on welfare by telling them you can create a job for them, when theyre ok with staying on welfare? People voting for Obama does not validate his policies in my opinion. Not every Obama voter is a freeloader, but every freeloader will vote for Obama.


You dont. Oh well. As a dem, you arent getting the vote of the redneck in backwoods GA either. Thats just the way it goes.

[BanginJimmy]

Funny, I tried to say the same thing about something Obama said.


Not at all. You, and every dem pundit in the country, changed what he said. On top of that, what he actually said falls right in line with many other things he has said about redistribution of wealth.

[.blank cd]

The facts show that Obama is the worst economic president in the history of our country, yet people still support him in a time when the economy is biggest issue threatening our livelihoodIve never seen any facts that support this, ever. I've seen a lot of opinions, but no facts.


If you had to take an IQ test prior to voting, Romney would win with 75-80% of the vote.I'm about to board a plane, but I'm sure I've seen actual data supporting the exact opposite. And I'm sure I've seen data saying people higher "IQ" lean traditionally left. IQ is not necessarily an accurate measure of political intelligence or actual intelligence. I'll show you all the data when I get home.

[Sinfix_15]

Ive never seen any facts that support this, ever. I've seen a lot of opinions, but no facts.

I'm about to board a plane, but I'm sure I've seen actual data supporting the exact opposite. And I'm sure I've seen data saying people higher "IQ" lean traditionally left. IQ is not necessarily an accurate measure of political intelligence or actual intelligence. I'll show you all the data when I get home.

Intelligent people lean left on social issues. Intelligent people tend to lean away from religion and the right is clearly the religious side. Romney vs Obama, not republican vs democrat. There is no explanation for an intelligent person believing that Obama is a good president. Honestly, i respect you and think you are intelligent person............ it absolutely baffles me that you're an Obama supporter. I cant explain it.

Please........ honest request..... convince me to vote for Obama without blaming anything on George Bush.



On the facts supporting Obama's failure, what more do you need? Highest spending ever, highest debt ever, only credit downgrade ever, high unemployment, high gas prices, healthcare cost rising with no end in sight............ what "fact" would convince you Obama was doing a bad job?

[sport_122]

Ive never seen any facts that support this, ever. I've seen a lot of opinions, but no facts.



The facts are all over the place, but they are based on what a person thinks a president is supposed to do. What do you think his job is? Im sure its easy to tell you how he has done very poorly. This has been the most scandalous presidential term I can remember and the most blatantly dishonest.

[.blank cd]

Intelligent people lean left on social issues. Intelligent people tend to lean away from religion and the right is clearly the religious side. Romney vs Obama, not republican vs democrat. There is no explanation for an intelligent person believing that Obama is a good president. Honestly, i respect you and think you are intelligent person............ it absolutely baffles me that you're an Obama supporter. I cant explain it.Im not necessarily an "Obama Supporter"


Please........ honest request..... convince me to vote for Obama without blaming anything on George Bush.

On the facts supporting Obama's failure, what more do you need? Highest spending ever, highest debt ever, only credit downgrade ever, high unemployment, high gas prices, healthcare cost rising with no end in sight............ what "fact" would convince you Obama was doing a bad job?I need a fact that shows the president is 100% directly responsible for any and all of those. All I hear is "Gas prices are sky high. Obamas fault", "Healthcare costs rising, Obamas fault", "Highest spending ever, Obamas fault (despite actual numbers saying otherwise)" "UE high, Obamas fault (despite the fact that its been slowing falling for the past 3.5 years)" Do the supermajors, big pharma, CEOs, congress, lobbyists now have zero responsibility for any of this? I think people give the office of the presidency entirely too much credit and too much blame, and I think the office of the presidency carries with it a much deeper job description than just an economic, or a superficial one.


The facts are all over the place.Can you cite one indisputable fact that Obama is the worst president in history? All I want is one. If anyone can give me concrete proof that Obama is the worst president in US history, I'll vote R across the board in November

[.blank cd]

Not at all. You, and every dem pundit in the country, changed what he said. On top of that, what he actually said falls right in line with many other things he has said about redistribution of wealth.
Hmm. So which sounds more logical....

At the $50,000/plate dinner/fundraiser, Romney actually meant he doesnt care about poor people and he'll screw anyone and everyone over and distort any and every fact and number to get more money and power

OR

Both this AND(not or) Obamas "You didnt build that" statement QUITE POSSIBLY could be taken out of context by someone who didnt read/watch the rest of the speech?

[Sinfix_15]

Im not necessarily an "Obama Supporter"

I need a fact that shows the president is 100% directly responsible for any and all of those. All I hear is "Gas prices are sky high. Obamas fault", "Healthcare costs rising, Obamas fault", "Highest spending ever, Obamas fault (despite actual numbers saying otherwise)" "UE high, Obamas fault (despite the fact that its been slowing falling for the past 3.5 years)" Do the supermajors, big pharma, CEOs, congress, lobbyists now have zero responsibility for any of this? I think people give the office of the presidency entirely too much credit and too much blame, and I think the office of the presidency carries with it a much deeper job description than just an economic, or a superficial one.

Can you cite one indisputable fact that Obama is the worst president in history? All I want is one. If anyone can give me concrete proof that Obama is the worst president in US history, I'll vote R across the board in November

You've already stated that you do not accept the facts that most people usually judge presidents on. Seems like you acknowledge that things are bad and this president has done nothing to fix it, yet you refuse to place any of the blame on him. We blamed Bush for the last 4 years, lets try something new for the next 4.

If you dont blame Obama for healthcare cost rising, then you wont blame him for anything.

[.blank cd]

If you dont blame Obama for healthcare cost rising, then you wont blame him for anything.So you believe he is 100% responsible for rising healthcare costs?

[Sinfix_15]

So you believe he is 100% responsible for rising healthcare costs?

Nobody is 100% responsible for anything. If a football coach calls a triple option reverse flea flicker hook and ladder tight end throw back on a 4th down and 26, technically.......................... he's not 100% responsible for that failure, the players had a chance to execute that play. What you could say is that it's the coach's fault for not calling a play that was more likely to be executed properly.

Obama is not 100% responsible for everything because nobody is, but he's the one setting everyone else up for failure.

[bu villain]

This is the problem.......... you're playing politics to avoid a common sense statement. Who cares what the actual number is or whether or not his number was accurate.....

you know what he was saying and you know its true.

A LARGE PORTION OF AMERICA WILL VOTE FOR OBAMA NO MATTER WHAT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1 NO MATTER WHAT HE SAYS, WHAT HE DOES, THEY HAVE HIS VOTE AND NOTHING CAN CHANGE IT. THIS IS EVEN MORE TRUE WHEN APPLIED TO BLACK VOTERS.

I think the problem is that you think I am talking about something else. I agree with your bolded statement but that is not the controversial one I'm talking about. Your last statement is not something he even said and based on many of your posts, you seem to have an obsession with black voters and Obama. It's a little creepy how you bring it into almost every thread.

[BanginJimmy]

Hmm. So which sounds more logical....

At the $50,000/plate dinner/fundraiser, Romney actually meant he doesnt care about poor people and he'll screw anyone and everyone over and distort any and every fact and number to get more money and power

Where did he say this? I remember the one about not caring about poor people because there are enough programs already in place. I believe he also said he wasnt worried about the rich because they have the means to take care of themselves.





Both this AND(not or) Obamas "You didnt build that" statement QUITE POSSIBLY could be taken out of context by someone who didnt read/watch the rest of the speech?

please link to both of the statements. You will see they are VASTLY different. I'm paraphrasing because I dont rememebr the exact quote but Romney said the olympic athletes were there on their own. There were there because of their coaches and familys who helped them.

The is much different than you didnt build that, SOMEONE DID IT FOR YOU. It wasnt really the you didnt build that that makes his remarks so telling to me, it was the next line. It was the "someone did it for you".

[Slow Motion]

I like this thread. It's fun to read...lol. Since I have been in school, I have come to the realization that unless you have peer reviewed information or actual fully quoted information it is bullshit. When I see a video that says ".....I believe in redistribution....." I often wonder what came before and after that statement. Could words possibly be taken out of context in that example? (SN: I didn't even watch the vid.) Why talk about politics when the numbers are so skewed that they don't convey the truth. When you come from different places in life you tend to view the world based on how and where you grew up. You can't ignore these facts of life. Just think if you were raised in an area where you had the best of everything until you were out of high school would that make a difference on how you view the world? What about the other end of the spectrum? If you grew up without the best of things until you were out of high school, would that make a difference on how you view the world? Don't forget the middle ground.....I'm sure many can picture this, neither good nor bad, a little of both til' the end high school. These factors eventually help to define who we are and what our station in life is. Now you can't say this without mentioning the outliers. There will be those who make there way up the ladder and those who fall to the bottom but they are just outliers compared to the majority of Americans, about 300million. (SN: I did not quote my sources properly, but my information can be found in "American Democracy Now," Harrison, Harris, Tolchin & "The Study of Society," I had a book written by a professor from Yale U. but I can't find it.)

Time for opinion. Most people are so out of touch with people from other walks of life that they make generalized statements based on ideas that they grew up with. These ideas tend to be so skewed left or right that the information tends [to be] biased one way or another. When it comes to politics neither side is right. You can only hope that what these people, who want to become leaders, say is even half of the truth or what is in their heart. If Americans really felt how much other countries really envied and hated us, [We are under threat every single day. Their are people out there that would love to see America demolished] we would really be up in arms fighting together to make ourselves better rather than trying to point fingers at a single person [or group of people]. The people who voted for Obama have their reasons and those who vote for Romney have there's. Which side is right, only time tells who is right and wrong cause the truth always comes to light in politics, eventually. You say one thing to get elected, but do you come through, even when its hard?

~fin~

[.blank cd]

The is much different than you didnt build that, SOMEONE DID IT FOR YOU. It wasnt really the you didnt build that that makes his remarks so telling to me, it was the next line. It was the "someone did it for you".The passage you're referring to was "If you have a business, you..you didn't build that. Someone along the line...gave you some help" (direct quote). He never said "Someone did it for you" through that whole hour long speech.

[.blank cd]

~fin~classy as fuck

[Vteckidd]

I dont know i just dont think its that inflammatory when both instances are writing off a section of the voting population they know they will never win. I mean its not rocket science.

Romney doesnt care about Poor people.......ok.........so?

Obama doesnt care about Rich people........ok......so?

they are both filthy rich politicians, do you believe anything they say?

If you actually look at the whole video of Obama claiming he believes in redistribution, he says something along the lines of "building a coalition of " welfare recipients. He basically backs up exactly what Romney said. There are people dependent on govt that Obama will get their votes , AND PROBABLY ANY DEMOCRAT RUNNING FOR OFFICE.

I mean can we agree

Democrats buy "poor people" votes
GOP buy "rich people" votes

Blank?

[Sinfix_15]

I think the problem is that you think I am talking about something else. I agree with your bolded statement but that is not the controversial one I'm talking about. Your last statement is not something he even said and based on many of your posts, you seem to have an obsession with black voters and Obama. It's a little creepy how you bring it into almost every thread.

As much as youre tired of me talking about black people, i promise you i'm 10x more tired of having black people to talk about.

[.blank cd]

I dont know i just dont think its that inflammatory when both instances are writing off a section of the voting population they know they will never win. I mean its not rocket science.

Romney doesnt care about Poor people.......ok.........so?

Obama doesnt care about Rich people........ok......so?

they are both filthy rich politicians, do you believe anything they say?

If you actually look at the whole video of Obama claiming he believes in redistribution, he says something along the lines of "building a coalition of " welfare recipients. He basically backs up exactly what Romney said. There are people dependent on govt that Obama will get their votes , AND PROBABLY ANY DEMOCRAT RUNNING FOR OFFICE.

I mean can we agree

Democrats buy "poor people" votes
GOP buy "rich people" votes

Blank?
Guess I cant really disagree with you here.

[Vteckidd]

Guess I cant really disagree with you here.

We agree! High five LOL :P

[.blank cd]

We agree! High five LOL :P

http://www.wired.com/images/article/magazine/1607/st_howto_f.jpg

[Sinfix_15]

Ok, not confirming or denying the above statement, just repeating......

so Romney wants to help rich people, Obama wants to help poor people.

From which of these would everyone benefit the most? If we lower taxes on poor people, are they going to start hiring people and rebuilding america? If we lower taxes on poor people, are they going to start investing and stimulating the economy?

trying to understand this. correct me if i'm wrong, but one method seems like it has a chance of working and the other seems aimed at manipulating a group of voters.

[.blank cd]

Ok, not confirming or denying the above statement, just repeating......

so Romney wants to help rich people, Obama wants to help poor people.

From which of these would everyone benefit the most? If we lower taxes on poor people, are they going to start hiring people and rebuilding america? If we lower taxes on poor people, are they going to start investing and stimulating the economy?Poor people are the job creators. When middle class people have money, they buy things, they pay utilities. This creates demand for things. When people buy things, you need more people to make more things. This is economics 099. Rich people can create all the jobs they want, but if middle class and poor people don't have money to buy things, then they're dead in the water. This is why Regans supply-side economics model is a collossal one-sided failure. When rich people get more money, they save it and/or hide it off shore, or they invest it in companies that people aren't buying from. Sitting money does nothing. When you give rich people more money in the form of tax breaks, it gets saved.

Let's say you took TARP and let's say half of funds spent on hostilities and just gave it to everyone who pays fed taxes(maybe 150m people). Lets call it $2T. That works out to roughly $10-15k What would you do with it? Buy groceries? Car parts? Clothes? Pay bills? If a million more people are buying these things, you think another grocery store or car parts store or clothing store would have to pop up, full of employees?

[stillaneon]

Poor people are the job creators. When middle class people have money, they buy things, they pay utilities. This creates demand for things. When people buy things, you need more people to make more things. This is economics 099. Rich people can create all the jobs they want, but if middle class and poor people don't have money to buy things, then they're dead in the water. This is why Regans supply-side economics model is a collossal one-sided failure. When rich people get more money, they save it and/or hide it off shore, or they invest it in companies that people aren't buying from. Sitting money does nothing. When you give rich people more money in the form of tax breaks, it gets saved.

Let's say you took TARP and let's say half of funds spent on hostilities and just gave it to everyone who pays fed taxes(maybe 150m people). Lets call it $2T. That works out to roughly $10-15k What would you do with it? Buy groceries? Car parts? Clothes? Pay bills? If a million more people are buying these things, you think another grocery store or car parts store or clothing store would have to pop up, full of employees?

But that doesn't mean that 'Poor People are creating the jobs'. It means that they are a high percentage of the people creating the demand. Someone still has to put up the capital to create the supply for the demand. This is where the job creation comes from. Not the consumer...

[.blank cd]

But that doesn't mean that 'Poor People are creating the jobs'. It means that they are a high percentage of the people creating the demand. Someone still has to put up the capital to create the supply for the demand. This is where the job creation comes from. Not the consumer...

Semantics. The current political debate incorrectly labels only rich people as job creators. Both rich and poor have an equal share in job creation but the current economic model favors rich people.

[stillaneon]

Semantics. The current political debate incorrectly labels only rich people as job creators. Both rich and poor have an equal share in job creation but the current economic model favors rich people.

The current economic model favors both the rich and the poor. The rich being that they have the money to fall-back on and the ppor due to government assistance. The middle class is still the only class that seemingly get screwed either way. Luckily (for liberals) the middle class is dwindling...

[.blank cd]

The current economic model favors both the rich and the poor.Hmmm. Don't know about all that...


Luckily (for liberals) the middle class is dwindling...Got that right. I can't wait to live in a society where you're either filthy rich or dirt poor.

[bu villain]

The economy is a circular flow of money.

-----> people get paid from jobs ----> people buy products from companies -----v
^------------companies hire people to make products <--------------------------

From that basic model, either giving money to consumers (demand side) or to businesses (supply side) could theoretically stimulate the economy. The biggest debate is what is the most efficient way to do that. On the demand side, you could give money directly to the consumers (eg., that check you got from Bush in 2008 or the lower payroll taxes you got from Obama as part of the stimulus). On the supply side, you could provide tax cuts for hiring and investing but that also requires their faith in the stability of the market environment (ie., no huge tax changes in the near future). There is not universal agreement on which is better (although I believe more economists are Keynsians) so a combination of both is probably the most agreeable course of action.

Since poor people spend almost all of any additional income they receive, giving them a check would probably be the most effective way to stimulate the economy but obviously that is not a politically viable option.

[bu villain]

i promise you i'm 10x more tired of having black people to talk about.

Haha, that doesn't sound right.... anyways back to the main point.

Uncontroversial: Most Obama voters will vote for Obama no matter what (Romney can't convince them)
Controversial: Most Obama voters believe they are victims and the government owes them food, shelter, healthcare, you name it.

[Vteckidd]

Poor people are the job creators. When middle class people have money, they buy things, they pay utilities. This creates demand for things. When people buy things, you need more people to make more things. This is economics 099. Rich people can create all the jobs they want, but if middle class and poor people don't have money to buy things, then they're dead in the water. This is why Regans supply-side economics model is a collossal one-sided failure. When rich people get more money, they save it and/or hide it off shore, or they invest it in companies that people aren't buying from. Sitting money does nothing. When you give rich people more money in the form of tax breaks, it gets saved.

Median Family income increased every year, until IIRC last year of bush and 1st year of Obama. That, by definition, means trickle down works. Its not perfect and could always use improvement, but the fact that society as a whole benefited from largely conservative economic principles via Reagan, Bush, Clinton , Bush proves that model is the best.

More people owned made more money, invested, went to school, bought cars, etc

Let's say you took TARP and let's say half of funds spent on hostilities and just gave it to everyone who pays fed taxes(maybe 150m people). Lets call it $2T. That works out to roughly $10-15k What would you do with it? Buy groceries? Car parts? Clothes? Pay bills? If a million more people are buying these things, you think another grocery store or car parts store or clothing store would have to pop up, full of employees?
Your scenario would not work, it would lead to massive inflation and price hikes. If everyone was just given $15,000, prices of good would double triple, etc to keep up with the inflation you just created.

Its what happened in the
housing market - Give everyone loans regardless of if they can pay, Housing prices skyrocket
College tuition- give everyone college loans, tuition skyrockets

Traditionally you can give small amount back in rebates or something and it has little to no effect. But massive amounts like you are talking about isnt feasible. The money has to be created and generated from the private sector and transferred to the people or it cannot be created at all.

We are in agreement that TARP did little to nothing to the economy if not just make it worse

[David88vert]

I suggest everyone read: HowStuffWorks "Is it true that only 53 percent of Americans pay income tax?" (http://money.howstuffworks.com/only-53-percent-pay-income-tax.htm)

[Slow Motion]

Hmmm... I still believe my statement to be true.

[.blank cd]

Median Family income increased every year, until IIRC last year of bush and 1st year of Obama.You think this might have a little to do with inflation/volatile housing market?


We are in agreement that TARP did little to nothing to the economy if not just make it worseI would say it was the worst idea that probably had to happen. It might have made things worse, but not as bad as it could have been if it didn't happen.

[.blank cd]

I suggest everyone read: HowStuffWorks "Is it true that only 53 percent of Americans pay income tax?" (http://money.howstuffworks.com/only-53-percent-pay-income-tax.htm)Without reading the article, I can believe it. I mean, just look at all these people that don't pay FEDERAL income tax....
http://www.time2jamm.com/Artists_files/playground.jpg

http://www.nocaptionneeded.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/elderly-audience.jpg

http://truth-media.info/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/marines-lcpl-j-cropped.jpg

http://www.brandchannel.com/images/Home/271_home_img1_ge_ecomag.jpg


Bunch of freeloaders if you ask me

[Vteckidd]

You think this might have a little to do with inflation/volatile housing market?

Inflation sure, housing market i dont know if that really effects median income unless you mean like the plethora of people who became real estate agents (and made tons of money).

Id like to see figures on true corporate middle income jobs and their salaries compared to 20-30 years ago. The data that DIck Morris published in a book (which was pulled from bipartisan sources) showed that the people in poverty in the 80s over a 20 year gap gained significant wealth. And the the entry level worker now, makes more than they did then. People in poverty NOW own far more than what they did in the 70-80s. Some of that is minimum wage being higher, some of that is better education, better jobs, etc.

How else do you measure standards to say trickle down doesnt work? Typically in any society the people with the most money as a percentage get wealthier, that doesnt mean a system doesnt work. It just means their gains are higher.


I would say it was the worst idea that probably had to happen. It might have made things worse, but not as bad as it could have been if it didn't happen.

I think it gave us an artificial bump for 1-2 years that we are dealing with now

[BanginJimmy]

Without reading the article, I can believe it. I mean, just look at all these people that don't pay FEDERAL income tax....
http://www.time2jamm.com/Artists_files/playground.jpg

http://www.nocaptionneeded.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/elderly-audience.jpg

http://truth-media.info/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/marines-lcpl-j-cropped.jpg

http://www.brandchannel.com/images/Home/271_home_img1_ge_ecomag.jpg


Bunch of freeloaders if you ask me


You forgot these people

http://www.wsws.org/images/2009sep/s25-util-480.jpg

Notice how many are on cell phones? This is a line for home heating assistance in Michigan in '09. They can find the money for a cell phone, but not their own heat.
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2009/oct2009/heat-o06.shtml



You are also wrong in most cases. Kids would pay federal income taxes if they had an income. Military does pay federal income taxes when their income reaches 90k (just senior officers are affected). Seniors do pay federal income taxes if they are still earning an income.

These are also not the people that Romney was talking about, but I wouldnt expect you to admit that. That would be way too non partisan of you and Obama would never agree with that.

[.blank cd]

Notice how many are on cell phones? This is a line for home heating assistance in Michigan in '09. They can find the money for a cell phone, but not their own heat.
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2009/oct2009/heat-o06.shtmlIs it within the realm of possibility the man has a cell phone looking for work? Or possibly for a job he already has?



You are also wrong in most cases.Not in these cases :)


Military does pay federal income taxes when their income reaches 90k (just senior officers are affected).Active combat duty pay.


These are also not the people that Romney was talking about, but I wouldnt expect you to admit that. That would be way too non partisan of you and Obama would never agree with that.These are precisely the people he's talking about. There's no question about that. Unless you think he's talking about illegal aliens, in which case he's wrong again. Illegal aliens aren't Americans. He's talking condescendingly about people who make less than the minimum taxable income. What he doesn't realize in his little tirade is that some of his golf buddies happen to fall in that non-tax-paying 47%

[David88vert]

Without reading the article, I can believe it. I mean, just look at all these people that don't pay FEDERAL income tax....

Bunch of freeloaders if you ask me

That's exactly what the article talks about - and you would like it.

[bu villain]

You forgot these people...

Notice how many are on cell phones? This is a line for home heating assistance in Michigan in '09. They can find the money for a cell phone, but not their own heat.


You are right that those people are probably part of the 47% who don't pay income taxes but what percentage of the 47% do you think they are? What percentage are seniors, students, wealthy people who don't work, etc? How do you know the people in that line consider themselves victims?

[Elbow]

My mom fits that category. She got laid off after getting cancer and isn't allowed to work.