Full Transcript of the Mitt Romney Secret Video

[Heilige]

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/09/full-transcript-mitt-romney-secret-video


He almost sounds Libertarian at times when talking about debt and deficits.


This is the first Romney piece that makes him look intelligent.

[Droid101]

This is the first Romney piece that makes him look intelligent.
So, when did the word "intelligent" start to mean a self-absorbed, out of touch, elitist, hateful, racist blowhard who is only looking out for people with hundreds of millions of dollars in the bank and a few more in a bank in the Cayman islands?


47% not paying taxes?
The Census Bureau broke the data down like this:

26.4% of U.S. households had someone enrolled in Medicaid (the health-care program for low-income Americans)
16.2% of households had at least one member receiving Social Security.
15.8% lived in a household receiving food stamps
14.9% had a member with Medicare benefits
4.5% of households received assistance with their rent
1.7% had a member receiving unemployment benefits.

Romney hates US Military Servicemen and the Elderly.

[Rasheed1]

He sounds like a plutocrat.... Not a good look for someone running for the presidency in this society...

He's doing all Obama's work for him... Obama is just sitting back back watching Mitt chase his own tail like a dog...

http://p.twimg.com/A3FHQSeCAAAir0n.jpg

https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc6/198647_10102368656724810_1533956412_n.jpg
^Props to rezznor for that one :oldlol:

[Real Men Wear Green]

I was seriously surprised by his 47 tax comments. I would expect a political figure at his level to know which voters do and do not support his opponent. There are plenty of McCain voters in that 47 percent that will still most likely vote Romney in spite of him directly insulting them. And that's not even addressing the fact that a number of those people do/did work. He unknowingly insulted combat troops, seniors on SSI, college kids and low-income working families.

[Sarcastic]

Trickle down economics is complete utter bullshit, and him admitting his tax breaks for the wealthy won't help "them" proves that he knows it's complete utter bullshit as well.

[Real Men Wear Green]

Trickle down economics is complete utter bullshit, and him admitting his tax breaks for the wealthy won't help "them" proves that he knows it's complete utter bullshit as well.
There is a case to be made for conservative economic policy possibly helping the poor. The astonishing thing about Romney is that here we have this alleged business genius that can fix the economy and he's not making that case. It was supposed to be his strength, a big advantage in a weak economy and he's blowing it.

[stallionaire]

lol got carried away here. Romney sucks.

[boozehound]

There is a case to be made for conservative economic policy possibly helping the poor. The astonishing thing about Romney is that here we have this alleged business genius that can fix the economy and he's not making that case. It was supposed to be his strength, a big advantage in a weak economy and he's blowing it.
not to say there is no merit to trickle down, but those bush era tax cuts did what exactly? They were in place for most of a decade before the biggest economic collapse since the 30s.

Romney never would have said any of this if he thought it would get out. Besides, when the audience is paying 50k a plate (basically my annual salary), he knows who they are and what they want to hear, which is basically that the average american is a lazy sob, welfare queen while they got filthy rich because they are better people.

[no pun intended]

"And if the Hispanic voting bloc becomes as committed to the Democrats as the African American voting bloc has in the past, why we're in trouble as a party and, I think, as a nation."

:eek:

[Real Men Wear Green]

not to say there is no merit to trickle down, but those bush era tax cuts did what exactly? They were in place for most of a decade before the biggest economic collapse since the 30s.

Romney never would have said any of this if he thought it would get out. Besides, when the audience is paying 50k a plate (basically my annual salary), he knows who they are and what they want to hear, which is basically that the average american is a lazy sob, welfare queen while they got filthy rich because they are better people.
I'm not actually for trickle-down, I'm just saying it's something that can and has been argued. Reagan and Bush both used it to get some votes from people that weren't so wealthy. Romney has chosen not to make the case and instead just write off poor voters. The quote would indicate he doesn't realize that there are a lot of poor Republicans. It's just dumb strategy if you're trying to win the Presidency. If that 47% really did uniformly turn on him he'd be losing something like 70-30 instead of the current 50-45 numbers we're seeing. He's lucky he's so completely wrong.

[BrickingStar]

not voting anyway

[KevinNYC]

"And if the Hispanic voting bloc becomes as committed to the Democrats as the African American voting bloc has in the past, why we're in trouble as a party and, I think, as a nation."

:eek:

He also claimed things would be easier for him, if his father was ethnically Mexican and not just born in Mexico.

[Sarcastic]

The irony of the whole thing is that we haven't seen Mitt Rmoney's tax returns for the last 10 years, so we don't even know how much he paid. For all we know, he is part of the 47% himself.

[miller-time]

The irony of the whole thing is that we haven't seen Mitt Rmoney's tax returns for the last 10 years, so we don't even know how much he paid. For all we know, he is part of the 47% himself.

how does releasing tax returns work? why does mitt have to release them, wouldn't they be on file somewhere? even if he isn't paying taxes surely he would have to declare his income?

[Freedom Kid7]

I don't know what's worse, his dumb and borderline biggoted comments or the fact the nominees are just aiming to bash one another and not discuss serious, actual issues.

It's a shame really. Politics is a game. He who plays it best wins. And Romney is playing it like an idiot.

[Patrick Chewing]

So, when did the word "intelligent" start to mean a self-absorbed, out of touch, elitist, hateful, racist blowhard who is only looking out for people with hundreds of millions of dollars in the bank and a few more in a bank in the Cayman islands?


47% not paying taxes?
The Census Bureau broke the data down like this:

26.4% of U.S. households had someone enrolled in Medicaid (the health-care program for low-income Americans)
16.2% of households had at least one member receiving Social Security.
15.8% lived in a household receiving food stamps
14.9% had a member with Medicare benefits
4.5% of households received assistance with their rent
1.7% had a member receiving unemployment benefits.

Romney hates US Military Servicemen and the Elderly.


You sound dumb. Romney's racist too?

[KevinNYC]

:facepalm

One donor wanted Romney to go after the Obama administration's "corruption"


You have Eric Holder who is probably the most corrupt attorney general that we had ever in American history.

Even if Holder did not get cleared by the Inspector General today, he would still have a long way to go to match this guy

http://www.backgroundcheck.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/John-Mitchell.jpg


On February 21, 1975, Mitchell was found guilty of conspiracy, obstruction of justice, and perjury and sentenced to two and a half to eight years in prison for his role in the Watergate break-in and cover-up,

Somebody need to watch All The President's Men

[Droid101]

You sound dumb. Romney's racist too?
Until 1978 (I think) the Mormon church literally thought of African Americans as sub human. So, for most of his upbringing, he was taught that Black people = bad.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_people_and_early_Mormonism

[dude77]

Until 1978 (I think) the Mormon church literally thought of African Americans as sub human. So, for most of his upbringing, he was taught that Black people = bad.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_people_and_early_Mormonism

did you vote for obama ?

[dunksby]

You are right, which is a nuclear Iran is an unthinkable outcome, not just for our friends in Israel and our friends in Europe, but also for us. Because Iran is the state sponsor of terror in the world, has Hezbollah now throughout Latin America, Hezbollah with fissile material. If I were Iran, and a crazed fanatic, I'd say let's get a little fissile material to Hezbollah, have them carry it to Chicago or some other place, and then if anything goes wrong or if America starts acting up, we'll just say, "Guess what, unless you stand down, why we're gonna let off a dirty bomb." This is where we head, where American can be held up and blackmailed by Iran, by the mullahs, by crazy people. So we really don't have any option but to keep Iran from having a nuclear weapon.
Dude has been watching too many TV shows :lol

[Patrick Chewing]

Until 1978 (I think) the Mormon church literally thought of African Americans as sub human. So, for most of his upbringing, he was taught that Black people = bad.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_people_and_early_Mormonism

I don't see how you can correlate the very beginnings of the LDS Church to Mitt Romney's beliefs some 175 years later or so. In fact, the church had many black members, and up until 1978, the Church was aversed to having black members as actual priests.

Plus, if we want to look at history as guidance, if you are going to start up a church during the 1800's, then you've got to know that the sentiment towards black people wasn't the best. In fact, they were looked at as "sub-human" because they had been slaves and so had their ancestors.


Racism is an ugly word and it's quickly becoming a thing of the past, but it's people like you who keep racism at the forefront. You should heed Morgan Freeman's words.

[Real Men Wear Green]

Until 1978 (I think) the Mormon church literally thought of African Americans as sub human. So, for most of his upbringing, he was taught that Black people = bad.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_people_and_early_Mormonism
Up until 1964 racism was part of the legal code across the entire country. I'm not for Mormonism but a lot of white people of a certain age or older grew up with racist views being perfectly acceptable. Almost every religion has something embarrassing in it's history.

[Blue&Orange]

Just downloaded the daily show 18/09, video of Mitt Romney mom telling how Mitt Romney father was at one point on welfare

:roll:

Obviously in any non-third world country this dude would have ZERO chance by now, but hey you guys elected Bush... twice :lol

[SCREWstonRockets]

Mitt got it by default, Rick perry is a dumb ass, Herman Cain was busy molesting broads, Rick santorum is too damn crazy with religion

[miller-time]

Mitt got it by default, Rick perry is a dumb ass, Herman Cain was busy molesting broads, Rick santorum is too damn crazy with religion

Don't forget Michele Bachmann lol. The republicans need to lose this election simply so they can look at themselves in the mirror and sort out their shit. They need to get out of the religious and fox news game and go back to playing it straight (well.. straighter). They are simply backing into a smaller and smaller corner to retain certain voters.

[KevinNYC]

You are right, which is a nuclear Iran is an unthinkable outcome, not just for our friends in Israel and our friends in Europe, but also for us. Because Iran is the state sponsor of terror in the world, has Hezbollah now throughout Latin America, Hezbollah with fissile material. If I were Iran, and a crazed fanatic, I'd say let's get a little fissile material to Hezbollah, have them carry it to Chicago or some other place, and then if anything goes wrong or if America starts acting up, we'll just say, "Guess what, unless you stand down, why we're gonna let off a dirty bomb." This is where we head, where American can be held up and blackmailed by Iran, by the mullahs, by crazy people. So we really don't have any option but to keep Iran from having a nuclear weapon.
Dude has been watching too many TV shows :lol

He's also ignorant on how a dirty bomb works. You don't need fissile material. (http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/nuclear/dirtybomb.html)

You can use certain types of medical waste or other commercially available isotopes.

[boozehound]

I don't see how you can correlate the very beginnings of the LDS Church to Mitt Romney's beliefs some 175 years later or so. In fact, the church had many black members, and up until 1978, the Church was aversed to having black members as actual priests.

Plus, if we want to look at history as guidance, if you are going to start up a church during the 1800's, then you've got to know that the sentiment towards black people wasn't the best. In fact, they were looked at as "sub-human" because they had been slaves and so had their ancestors.


Racism is an ugly word and it's quickly becoming a thing of the past, but it's people like you who keep racism at the forefront. You should heed Morgan Freeman's words.
well, hes not talking about joseph smith. hes talking about the 1970s, when mitt was already an adult and had been raised in that culture. besides, "In 1997, there were approximately 500,000 black members of the LDS Church, accounting for about 5% of the total membership; most black members live in Africa, Brazil and the Caribbean". so, thats a lot of black members? how many black mormons live in Utah? I live in utah and Ill tell you, not very many.

[rufuspaul]

how many black mormons live in Utah? I live in utah and Ill tell you, not very many.


I thought all of the black people in Utah played for the Jazz. :confusedshrug:

[Patrick Chewing]

well, hes not talking about joseph smith. hes talking about the 1970s, when mitt was already an adult and had been raised in that culture. besides, "In 1997, there were approximately 500,000 black members of the LDS Church, accounting for about 5% of the total membership; most black members live in Africa, Brazil and the Caribbean". so, thats a lot of black members? how many black mormons live in Utah? I live in utah and Ill tell you, not very many.


How many African-Americans live in Utah, period?

Mitt was raised in an era where the Church had black members, but a majority of African-Americans who attend Church are either baptist or some other denomination that's not LDS. So to insinuate Mitt grew up with racist beliefs is untrue. Mitt was raised by a church that was not even 150 years old yet and that was changing with the times. I don't think Mitt even wasted any thought about the issue of black membership.

Any type of correlation with the Church's past and Mitt Romney and racism is grasping at straws. The issue isn't about membership, the issue is about removing the stupid race card from the political equation. We have a black president. Give it up already.

[TheMan]

Romney is seriously treading Dubya territory on idiotics things being said:facepalm

'Bama just sitting back watching the moron implode:lol

[Rasheed1]

how does releasing tax returns work? why does mitt have to release them, wouldn't they be on file somewhere? even if he isn't paying taxes surely he would have to declare his income?


His taxes are probably paid (or circumvented legally)... But presidential candidates have a tradition of showing multiple years of tax returns to the public in order to show economic transparency...

Mitt has decided he doesnt want anybody to see his taxes.. He doesnt have to show them, but it puts him under a pall of suspicion because everyone knows that he would show them if he had nothing to hide..

He could have paid zero in taxes for all the public knows. Not paying taxes and having multiple accounts over seas is not a good look for the potential president of the USA. It makes you look like a hypocrite when you try and talk about how much you believe in America and the American system..

That issue is there anytime Obama (or any democrat) decides they wanna hit it... it remains because Mitt wont show his taxes, and there really is no other way to put the issue to rest

[rufuspaul]

He released a partial view of his 2010 return. Why won't he go back to 2009?

Because Mitt Romney is a criminal who took the IRS's one time Amnesty for using offshore accounts to hide money from taxation (and probably paid a big ass fine for it, to boot).

If Mitt releases his 2009 returns, he can put this whole mess behind him with the American public. Until then, he's a criminal who was lucky to get a fine instead of jail time.


This might be the case but like Obama's college transcripts it's all conjecture at this time.

[Rasheed1]

This might be the case but like Obama's college transcripts it's all conjecture at this time.


Nobody wants to see Obama's college records except Trump and the idiot birthers ..

Thats not the same as a the tradition of showing your taxes to the people (which was started by Romney's own dad ironically)

[stallionaire]

lmao comparing college transcripts to tax returns

[Droid101]

This might be the case but like Obama's college transcripts it's all conjecture at this time.
Tell me when this sounds logical.

One side is demanding to see college transcripts, for no reason. It will prove nothing, and will add nothing to any debate. Also, releasing college transcripts isn't something a presidential candidate usually does.

Another side is demanding to see tax returns from the candidate who has publicly stated that he wants to lower taxes on the rich ("job creators can't create jobs with all these taxes") and raise them on the middle class and poor (say goodbye to the mortgage deduction). Also, every presidential candidate for 50 years has released them.

One is relevant to this election. The other isn't.

Mitt Romney is a criminal until he proves to America he isn't by releasing those returns.

[rufuspaul]

My my my aren't we a little testy? Jesus Christ calm down already. My point was you don't know that Romney broke the law because you haven't seen his returns. In the same way we don't know if Obama attended Columbia as a foreign exchange student. Until there is conclusive evidence it is only conjecture. I wasn't equating the two in any other way.

[RedBlackAttack]

This might be the case but like Obama's college transcripts it's all conjecture at this time.
The problem with putting the tax returns and "college transcripts" on equal footing is...

A. I'm struggling to think of a way Obama's college transcripts would be of any benefit in deciding who to vote for in a presidential election. Is it seeing which classes he took? Or knowing what his GPA was? If you are not voting for a guy based on those kinds of miniscule details, you would likely not have voted for him anyway.

Knowing whether or not a filthy rich person paid his fair share of taxes, which is -- in large part -- how our society is able to function, does seem like a completely valid sticking point to being president. I mean, if you don't believe enough in the American Experience to pay into the system, why are you vying for employment as head of said system?

B. No other presidential candidate in recent memory has ever been asked to release their college transcripts. Romney hasn't released his. McCain released his class rank, not his transcripts. And, no one hounded those guys. George W. Bush refused to release his college transcripts... They were leaked by The New Yorker, which is the only reason they became available to the public and, still, no one much cared about them.

On the other hand, every presidential candidate of the last 30 years, with the lone exception of John McCain, has released more than two years of their tax returns. That includes Obama, who has released seven years of his returns. Even McCain, who released the least amount of returns of any candidate in three decades prior to Romney, released two years of returns. Bob Dole released 30 years of his returns.

Hell, George Romney released 12 years of tax returns prior to the Republican primary when he was going against Nixon. His quote was, "one of them could be a fluke."


This is a modern tradition in presidential politics -- and even congressional and local politics -- as a gesture of good faith to show the public that, yes, you do believe in the American system and you aren't afraid to pay your fair share. Romney is bucking that trend... And the biggest question is, "why?"

College transcripts? Not much of a tradition there and, really, why would there be? I couldn't care less what Romney did in college. He graduated, which is all I need to know.

Not attacking you, rufuspaul... just addressing the apparent correlation.

[rufuspaul]

B. No other presidential candidate in recent memory has ever been asked to release their college transcripts.


No other president spent his childhood in Indonesia and might have registered as a foreign exchange student either.

Hey, I don't think he should release his transcripts. I'm just playing devil's advocate.

[RedBlackAttack]

No other president spent his childhood in Indonesia and might have registered as a foreign exchange student either.

Hey, I don't think he should release his transcripts. I'm just playing devil's advocate.
Actually, George Romney was born and spent his childhood in Mexico. I can't find a single example of opponents using that to claim that he was somehow 'foreign' or not American during his run as the Republican nominee.

To me, if you are still fighting the battle of Obama being disqualified from running for president because he is somehow "foreign" and that is the reason you want the transcripts released? I completely understand why he wouldn't release them... Because it is insulting and you are never going to satisfy those wingnuts anyway.

[rufuspaul]

Actually, George Romney was born and spent his childhood in Mexico. I can't find a single example of opponents using that to claim that he was somehow 'foreign' or not American during his run as the Republican nominee.

To me, if you are still fighting the battle of Obama being disqualified from running for president because he is somehow "foreign" and that is the reason you want the transcripts released? I completely understand why he wouldn't release them... Because it is insulting and you are never going to satisfy those wingnuts anyway.


That's completely true and I agree with you. Yet there's still that element of doubt because we just don't know.

[RedBlackAttack]

That's completely true and I agree with you. Yet there's still that element of doubt because we just don't know.
Doubt about what?

[KevinNYC]

My my my aren't we a little testy? Jesus Christ calm down already. My point was you don't know that Romney broke the law because you haven't seen his returns. In the same way we don't know if Obama attended Columbia as a foreign exchange student. Until there is conclusive evidence it is only conjecture. I wasn't equating the two in any other way.

Wow. I thought you were talking seeing his performance in college. I didn't expect any birtherism.

[rufuspaul]

Doubt about what?

The whole "foreign exchange student" thing. 99.9% sure it's just right wing conspiracy nonsense but without the transcripts there's not 100% surety.

Hey, I used "surety" in a sentence. :D

Anyway, people can call Romney a criminal all day long but where's the proof? I personally despise the guy but until there's indisputable proof I'm not calling him a crook. Yet.

[Deuce Bigalow]

Why is this a big deal?

Is it worse than Obama's "You didn't start that business" or "I believe in spreading the wealth"?

[rufuspaul]

Wow. I thought you were talking seeing his performance in college. I didn't expect any birtherism.

To me that would be the only reason to see his transcripts. I'm sure his grades were great. He got into Harvard Law without any powerful relatives to pull some strings.

[Real Men Wear Green]

Why is this a big deal?

Is it worse than Obama's "You didn't start that business" or "I believe in spreading the wealth"?
Because he incorrectly insulted almost half the population. He's been a bad Nominee, guys like him are supposed to get weeded out by the primaries.

[KevinNYC]

Why is this a big deal?

Is it worse than Obama's "You didn't start that business" or "I believe in spreading the wealth"?

You do understand that Governor Romney also supports a progressive tax code, just like Presidents Obama, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan, Carter, Ford, Nixon, Johnson, Kennedy, Eisenhower, Truman......do I need more evidence or are you getting the picture?

[Deuce Bigalow]

Because he incorrectly insulted almost half the population. He's been a bad Nominee, guys like him are supposed to get weeded out by the primaries.
And Obama's better?

What did he do the past 4 years?

[Rasheed1]

Why is this a big deal?

Is it worse than Obama's "You didn't start that business" or "I believe in spreading the wealth"?


"You didn't start that business" is something Obama never said :lol so that takes care of that one


"I believe in spreading the wealth" and "I believe in redistribution" is a nice try by the republicans, but it is still a losing argument because redistribution didnt start with Obama.... Not even his healthcare plan originated with him.. It came from Mitt romney and the heritage foundation...

The redistribution argument is another lame attempt by Romney and the republicans to hang the SOCIALIST tag on Obama. It wont work because the policies and protocols favored by Obama are not new... He didnt create them, so to try and frame him as the problem is dishonest... all the stuff republicans complain about existed before Obama did

Republicans actually love 'redistribution' & 'spreading the wealth' when it flows upward to the top 1%. The just don't like to see the middle class or the poor getting any of their wealth...

[Real Men Wear Green]

You do understand that Governor Romney also supports a progressive tax code, just like Presidents Obama, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan, Carter, Ford, Nixon, Johnson, Kennedy, Eisenhower, Truman......do I need more evidence or are you getting the picture?
The entire Republican Party seems to have intentionally unlearned what taxes do. They just call everything the government does that they disagree with "socialism." They don't know what any of these words mean.

[Deuce Bigalow]

"You didn't start that business" is something Obama never said :lol so that takes care of that one


"I believe in spreading the wealth" and "I believe in redistribution" is a nice try by the republicans, but it is still a losing argument because redistribution didnt start with Obama.... Not even his healthcare plan originated with him.. It came from Mitt romney and the heritage foundation...

The redistribution argument is another lame attempt by Romney and the republicans to hang the SOCIALIST tag on Obama. It wont work because the policies and protocols favored by Obama are not new... He didnt create them, so to try and frame him as the problem is dishonest... all the stuff republicans complain about existed before Obama did

Republicans actually love 'redistribution' & 'spreading the wealth' when it flows upward to the top 1%. The just don't like to see the middle class or the poor getting any of their wealth...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=YKjPI6no5ng#t=46s

"If you got a business, you didn't build that, somebody else made that happen."

[Real Men Wear Green]

And Obama's better?

What did he do the past 4 years?
As a politician? Definitely. Obama won the Presidency at the age of 48. Romney on the other hand has run a terrible campaign. Between him and his superpac they're raising something like a half-billion dollars and yet are on pace to lose by over a hundred electoral votes.

I would think that you'd know (not like, but know) what Obama's done: Affordable health care act, stimulus, repeal of DODT, etc. You don't have to like what has happened to understand that they've passed a bit of legislation.

[Rasheed1]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=YKjPI6no5ng#t=46s



"If you got a business, you didn't build that, somebody else made that happen."


:facepalm

you didnt listen to his whole comment... If you did? you would already know that he wasnt talking about businesses...

He said "you didnt build that" referring to the roads and bridges and highways that businesses transport their goods on... He was talking about cops and firemen who protect your business from harm...

He was talking about how businesses benefit from the society in which they are built... and his point was that the businesses need to pay back into the community that helped them become successful.. they didnt do it all alone.... nobody ever did anything all by themselves

He never said "you didnt build your own business" the GOP and Romney sold you that lie and you bought it...

:facepalm

[Scoooter]

And Obama's better?

What did he do the past 4 years?
A Long List of President Obama's Accomplishments, with Citations. (http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/09/01/a-long-list-of-president-obamas-accomplishments-with-citations/) And you should take time to remember the record amount of Republican obstructionism he's had to deal with.

[Deuce Bigalow]

:facepalm

you didnt listen to his whole comment... If you did? you would already know that he wasnt talking about businesses...

He said "you didnt build that" referring to the roads and bridges and highways that businesses transport their goods on... He was talking about cops and firemen who protect your business from harm...

He was talking about how businesses benefit from the society in which they are built... and his point was that the businesses need to pay back into the community that helped them become successful.. they didnt do it all alone.... nobody ever did anything all by themselves

He never said "you didnt build your own business" the GOP and Romney sold you that lie and you bought it...

:facepalm
He's saying that the government is the reason why. Those things the gov't do are good no doubt, but the people build their business, not the gov't.

[Scoooter]

Those people couldn't build their business without help or government support, somewhere along the line.

[King Crossover]

A Long List of President Obama's Accomplishments, with Citations. (http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/09/01/a-long-list-of-president-obamas-accomplishments-with-citations/) And you should take time to remember the record amount of Republican obstructionism he's had to deal with.
"He worked to provide affordable, high-quality child care to working families."

lot of these are just stupid. how is that an accomplishment :oldlol:

[Droid101]

He's saying that the government is the reason why. Those things the gov't do are good no doubt, but the people build their business, not the gov't.
Are you ****ing kidding me? That point has been debunked like, twenty times, and once by President Obama himself.

Read the whole ****ing quote. It's painfully obvious to anyone with a brain what he's saying.

"If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you

[Rasheed1]

He's saying that the government is the reason why. Those things the gov't do are good no doubt, but the people build their business, not the gov't.


He never said the government built other people's businesses :oldlol: he was specifically talking about the roads and the bridges and the society that surrounds the business and makes it thrive..

He got the theme from Elizabeth Warren who stated it much better

you should watch it.. the whole thing

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hOyDR2b71ag

^Same idea Obama mentioned

[rezznor]

He's saying that the government is the reason why. Those things the gov't do are good no doubt, but the people build their business, not the gov't.


did you go to public school? did you get financial aid for college? do you drive on public streets?

[Scoooter]

"He worked to provide affordable, high-quality child care to working families."

lot of these are just stupid. how is that an accomplishment :oldlol:
How is it not? :biggums:

[Deuce Bigalow]

[QUOTE=Droid101]Are you ****ing kidding me? That point has been debunked like, twenty times, and once by President Obama himself.

Read the whole ****ing quote. It's painfully obvious to anyone with a brain what he's saying.

"If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you

[Droid101]

He never said the government built other people's businesses :oldlol: he was specifically talking about the roads and the bridges and the society that surrounds the business and makes it thrive..

He got the theme from Elizabeth Warren who stated it much better

you should watch it.. the whole thing

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hOyDR2b71ag

^Same idea Obama mentioned
Elizabeth Warren will be president in 2016 if this country has the balls to take the Government back from being bought and paid off by Wall Street and its interests.

[King Crossover]

How is it not? :biggums:
He "worked to do this". He didn't do it but he worked to do it. Seems more like a whole lot of nothing to me

The biggest scrub works to be the GOAT basketball player. That does not make him a good basketball player

[Scoooter]

Are you kidding me?

Someone still needs to start and build the business and make it successful, and that person is you, not the government or your teacher, or a ****ing road.
Please just be trolling now. No one is this thick.

[Deuce Bigalow]

did you go to public school? did you get financial aid for college? do you drive on public streets?
I'm not saying that those things are bad or are not helpful. I'm just saying that the government did not start that business. :confusedshrug:

[Scoooter]

He "worked to do this". He didn't do it but he worked to do it. Seems more like a whole lot of nothing to me
So you didn't check the citation is what you're saying. Here, I'll do it for you because your irrational fear of facts has apparently kept you from a single additional click of the mouse.

Stimulus provided $2 billion in new funding for child care (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/promise/244/provide-affordable-high-quality-child-care/)


During the presidential campaign, Barack Obama said that his administration "will provide affordable and high-quality child care to ease the burden on working families."

The broadest interpretation of this statement would be that Obama intended to create a federal child-care entitlement. However, Obama didn't indicate during the campaign that he would pursue such a sweeping program, so we'll assume that he actually intended to promise something more modest -- to promote policies that expand affordable child care to working families.

He did just that in the economic stimulus bill passed in February 2009. That bill included $2 billion for Child Care and Development Block Grants to states, to "supplement, not supplant, state general revenue funds for child care assistance for low-income families."

The fiscal year 2010 amount -- which is roughly in line with the administration's budget request -- was almost the same as was spent on the program for fiscal year 2009. In other words, the block grants were "flat-funded" outside of the stimulus allocation.

So, it remains to be seen whether the administration will continue increasing the amount spent on child care block grants in future years where there is no stimulus. Even so, an additional $2 billion -- roughly double the program's annual amount -- is a significant allocation. We'll re-evaluate this promise when future years' budgets are drawn up, but for now we'll give him credit for a Promise Kept.

Please don't let people like Sean Hannity get between you and reality.

[Droid101]

Are you kidding me?

Someone still needs to start and build the business and make it successful, and that person is you, not the government or your teacher, or a ****ing road.
So, let me break what you just said down so I understand it correctly (forgive me, I may be a bit slow).

This fictional business owner was home schooled.

This fictional business owner didn't take one of those nice, government-insured business loans or grants (http://www.grants.gov/aboutgrants/eligibility.jsp) to get things started.

This fictional business owner won't be hiring anyone who has gotten public education or any kind of government college education loan or grant.

This fictional business owner won't be using the internet for any kind of transaction.

This fictional business owner built his business in some remote desert without roads, lights, sewage, power, or any other type of government built or subsidized infrastructure.

Should I go on? Or are you sufficiently embarrassed by your completely incorrect and invalid opinion yet?

[Rasheed1]

Elizabeth Warren will be president in 2016 if this country has the balls to take the Government back from being bought and paid off by Wall Street and its interests.


I wish she was running right now.... She'd have my vote :cheers:

[rezznor]

I'm not saying that those things are bad or are not helpful. I'm just saying that the government did not start that business. :confusedshrug:
would you have started a business without these things? damn you are thick :facepalm

[Deuce Bigalow]

Look at drugs. Tons of business with people making tons of dollars. Does the govt help in any way? No lol. People make business. But whatever, keep misunderstanding what I'm saying.
Al Capone when alcohol was illegal, he made millions from his business. Did the gov't make it happen?
What about pre- modern govt era? No such thing as a business? Nobody started a business before a modern govt?

[Real Men Wear Green]

Look at drugs. Tons of business with people making tons of dollars. Does the govt help in any way? No lol. People make business. But whatever, keep misunderstanding what I'm saying.
Al Capone when alcohol was illegal, he made millions from his business. Did the gov't make it happen?
What about pre- modern govt era? No such thing as a business? Nobody started a business before a modern govt?
Have no fear, no one is going to have any idea what you're talking about in this post.

[Sarcastic]

Look at drugs. Tons of business with people making tons of dollars. Does the govt help in any way? No lol. People make business. But whatever, keep misunderstanding what I'm saying.
Al Capone when alcohol was illegal, he made millions from his business. Did the gov't make it happen?
What about pre- modern govt era? No such thing as a business? Nobody started a business before a modern govt?


:facepalm

Al Capone needed the government to make alcohol illegal to make his money. He never would have made that money without prohibition.

[Scoooter]

Holy Christ.

[Deuce Bigalow]

So are you guy's saying, that if there was no "modern" government, there would no businesses? "You didn't build that"

I'm pretty sure there were businesses when there were no bridges, roads, financial aid, college, school, ect.

[Dictator]

I understand what you're saying. ^^^

[Droid101]

So are you guy's saying, that if there was no "modern" government, there would no businesses? "You didn't build that"

I'm pretty sure there were businesses when there were no bridges, roads, financial aid, college, school, ect.
You're right, there were businesses.

But now, in this day and age, you will be using something government provided to start your business guaranteed. Like roads, power lines, phone/internet lines, public education for yourself and/or employees, government loans, laws regarding zoning, etc.

Here are some of the things the government didn't bring to the table:

Your good business idea.

Your determination to create the business.

Your sticking with the business during startup and hardship.

Your ability to find some item or service that creates demand.

[Real Men Wear Green]

So are you guy's saying, that if there was no "modern" government, there would no businesses? "You didn't build that"

I'm pretty sure there were businesses when there were no bridges, roads, financial aid, college, school, ect.
You can't have a business without some kind of currency and you can't have currency without some kind of government. You certainly can't do business on a large scale like the monopolies that span whole countries.

[Scoooter]

So are you guy's saying, that if there was no "modern" government, there would no businesses? "You didn't build that"

I'm pretty sure there were businesses when there were no bridges, roads, financial aid, college, school, ect.
At this point you're actively refusing to get it. Willful cognitive dissonance. You're sticking your fingers in your ears and repeating something you want to think is right.

Is that really a productive exercise? Is that the behavior of a mature adult?

:no:

[TheMan]

He's saying that the government is the reason why. Those things the gov't do are good no doubt, but the people build their business, not the gov't.
Jesus H Christ, you are slow:facepalm

[Deuce Bigalow]

You're right, there were businesses.

But now, in this day and age, you will be using something government provided to start your business guaranteed. Like roads, power lines, phone/internet lines, public education for yourself and/or employees, government loans, laws regarding zoning, etc.

Here are some of the things the government didn't bring to the table:

Your good business idea.

Your determination to create the business.

Your sticking with the business during startup and hardship.

Your ability to find some item or service that creates demand.
Yes. And all I'm saying is that the government didn't build that business up. Sure the govt can help that business with all sort of things. I never denied that.

[Droid101]

Yes. And all I'm saying is that the government didn't build that business up.
Okay. Neither did President Obama. Glad we cleared all this up.

[miller-time]

You can't have a business without some kind of currency and you can't have currency without some kind of government. You certainly can't do business on a large scale like the monopolies that span whole countries.

why are you arguing this? wasn't the whole "claim" taken out of context in the first place?

[Balla_Status]

He never said the government built other people's businesses :oldlol: he was specifically talking about the roads and the bridges and the society that surrounds the business and makes it thrive..

He got the theme from Elizabeth Warren who stated it much better

you should watch it.. the whole thing

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hOyDR2b71ag

^Same idea Obama mentioned

So basically oil and gas companies built everything...got it.

[miller-time]

That issue is there anytime Obama (or any democrat) decides they wanna hit it... it remains because Mitt wont show his taxes, and there really is no other way to put the issue to rest

but my question is why is he the one who releases them? wouldn't the IRS or some state department have the same information? why can't they just release them?

[Real Men Wear Green]

why are you arguing this? wasn't the whole "claim" taken out of context in the first place?
Boredom.

[Balla_Status]

but my question is why is he the one who releases them? wouldn't the IRS or some state department have the same information? why can't they just release them?

Probably because it's not their business.

[Jailblazers7]

Yeah, I'm guessing the issue of his tax returns is a matter of privacy and the IRS can't just release the info.

[KevinNYC]

Yeah, I'm guessing the issue of his tax returns is a matter of privacy and the IRS can't just release the info.

Yeah, they can only release the information to folks who are authorized. The release of a presidential candidate's returns is voluntary, I believe.

You can see the actual returns here.
http://www.taxhistory.org/www/website.nsf/web/presidentialtaxreturns

and it's a fairly recent thing. (http://www.nationaljournal.com/pictures-video/how-many-years-of-tax-returns-have-presidential-candidates-released-in-the-past-pictures-20120719) It's because Nixon's Vice President was convicted of tax evasion

[rufuspaul]

Elizabeth Warren will be president in 2016 if this country has the balls to take the Government back from being bought and paid off by Wall Street and its interests.


If that happens she will be bought and paid for just like Obama, part of the Democratic machine. Look, Romney is a hypocritical asshole who is going to lose big but to believe that anyone on the other side is somehow a savior and not just another piece of the political pie is naive. Government won't be taken back from anyone as long as this farce of a 2 party system exists.

[RedBlackAttack]

Why is this a big deal?

Is it worse than Obama's "You didn't start that business" or "I believe in spreading the wealth"?
Sorry, been at work for the last 12 hours, so I had to end our discussion abruptly, but to respond to this...

Is it worse than Obama's 'You didn't start that business?'

Yes, far worse... Mainly because that isn't at all what Obama said. Didn't insinuate that, either. The only way you can interpret his words as being what you stated is if you blindly accept the chopped up, blatantly flagrant video being shown on FoxNews and some Romney ads. You can't even say that his words were taken out of context, because they purposely changed the context in order to make the words have an entirely different meaning than they did originally when you listen to the entire statement.

You don't actually believe that is what he said... Do you?


There is no way to take these Romney comments out of context.... Unless, just before the camera was turned on, Romney stated to the $50k a plate crowd, "The rant I'm about to go on about taxpayers, Mexicans, etc.... I don't believe any of it."

So, you are comparing apples and oranges.

[RedBlackAttack]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=YKjPI6no5ng#t=46s

"If you got a business, you didn't build that, somebody else made that happen."
Yikes... Do you realize how manipulated you've been? Doesn't that bother you? Even if you are a right-winger or whatever... No one likes to be manipulated, I assume.

Or, is it you attempting to do the manipulating?

Either way, it is now common knowledge that the Republicans' attempts to turn this into a "You didn't build that business" statement is null and void... Totally inaccurate and manipulative.

______________________________________

Furthermore, even if Obama did say what you are attempting to put on him -- he absolutely didn't, but for arguments sake, let's say he did -- it isn't even close to being as politically catastrophic as this Romney video.

Why?

Well, first and foremost, because he's saying that he "isn't going to bother" with the 47-percent of people who don't pay federal income tax because "they are voting for Obama."

The fact of the matter is large portion of these 47-percent are a major Republican voting bloc... FoxNews' No. 1 demographic is seniors. As you probably know, seniors who collect Social Security and Medicare make up the largest portion of the 47-percent who don't pay income taxes.

Then, you have the most poverty stricken southern states which are ALWAYS red.

So, not only were Romney's comments completely insulting and unimaginable for a guy running for public office... They were factually incorrect. He NEEDS those 47-percent maybe more than he needs the other 53-percent. The guy f#cking insulted the Republicans' most important voting bloc (seniors).

Just dumb... All the way around.

[TheMan]

FOX News aren't even trying anymore:facepalm

Some of their hosts were making a big deal about how Obama was too busy to meet with Isreali PM Netanyahu but did have time to meet with a pirate and they ran with it all day, nevermind the photo was from 2009:lol

They desperate and mad:roll:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mobileweb/2012/09/20/fox-and-friends-obama-pirate_n_1900945.html?utm_hp_ref=media

To those FOX viewers out there, you guys really enjoy being treated like idiots, don't ya?:rolleyes:

[JaggerCommaMick]

So, when did the word "intelligent" start to mean a self-absorbed, out of touch, elitist, hateful, racist blowhard who is only looking out for people with hundreds of millions of dollars in the bank and a few more in a bank in the Cayman islands?


47% not paying taxes?
The Census Bureau broke the data down like this:

26.4% of U.S. households had someone enrolled in Medicaid (the health-care program for low-income Americans)
16.2% of households had at least one member receiving Social Security.
15.8% lived in a household receiving food stamps
14.9% had a member with Medicare benefits
4.5% of households received assistance with their rent
1.7% had a member receiving unemployment benefits.

Romney hates US Military Servicemen and the Elderly.



Honestly as long as gay people like you arent allowed to get married the way normal people are, I dont really care who wins.

[TheMan]

Honestly as long as gay people like you arent allowed to get married the way normal people are, I dont really care who wins.
You should vote Democrat, we always try to help mentally challenged people, you guys have rights, too!

[Droid101]

You should vote Democrat, we always try to help mentally challenged people, you guys have rights, too!
Please, save those of us who have that idiot on ignore by NOT quoting him.

Thanks!

[TheMan]

Please, save those of us who have that idiot on ignore by NOT quoting him.

Thanks!
great point, I don't ignore posters but I'll bust my cherry with that jackass.

[Sarcastic]

http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/backstage/backstage/fox-friends-corrections-2/

[JtotheIzzo]

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/09/full-transcript-mitt-romney-secret-video


He almost sounds Libertarian at times when talking about debt and deficits.


This is the first Romney piece that makes him look intelligent.

I applaud Mitt for being honest, because I think this is how the hard right truly feels and he was throwing them some red meat.

They have basically become a one issue party, not much different than the Bloc Quebecois in Canada, except instead of separation, their only 'raison d'etre' is now getting rid of as many taxes and benefits as possible.

One issue parties are not fit to govern the masses, they are by design fringe elements whose whole purpose is to lobby for their desired goal with the hopes of moving the needle in their direction.

The Republican Party needs to focus on governing the US in its entirety, not just the 53% who pay taxes (though tax breaks for mothers, military etc...were Republican initiatives, so they do have a responsibility for the 47% number). Unfortunately they are so tuned into Grover Norquist, Fox News and all the other stooges who distract the angered masses with their pledges and scare speech that the Republicans won't recover if they continue down this path, they will no longer be a mainstream party and will continue to be less and less of a factor and more and more of a fringe element as their members die off and the spooky banter gets more and more laughable as time proves it wrong over and over again.

Mass governor Mitt Romney would be an acceptable candidate to many people and could even win the Presidency, but this new go for broke, flip floppy, play to the angriest sector of the base Mitt Romney is kind of a joke, pity, the guy had potential, now, not even Mormons claim him.

[Patrick Chewing]

FOX News aren't even trying anymore:facepalm

Some of their hosts were making a big deal about how Obama was too busy to meet with Isreali PM Netanyahu but did have time to meet with a pirate and they ran with it all day, nevermind the photo was from 2009:lol

They desperate and mad:roll:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mobileweb/2012/09/20/fox-and-friends-obama-pirate_n_1900945.html?utm_hp_ref=media

To those FOX viewers out there, you guys really enjoy being treated like idiots, don't ya?:rolleyes:


Umm he still found time for Letterman, no? Funny how you left that part out.

[JaggerCommaMick]

I applaud Mitt for being honest, because I think this is how the hard right truly feels and he was throwing them some red meat.

They have basically become a one issue party, not much different than the Bloc Quebecois in Canada, except instead of separation, their only 'raison d'etre' is now getting rid of as many taxes and benefits as possible.

One issue parties are not fit to govern the masses, they are by design fringe elements whose whole purpose is to lobby for their desired goal with the hopes of moving the needle in their direction.

The Republican Party needs to focus on governing the US in its entirety, not just the 53% who pay taxes (though tax breaks for mothers, military etc...were Republican initiatives, so they do have a responsibility for the 47% number). Unfortunately they are so tuned into Grover Norquist, Fox News and all the other stooges who distract the angered masses with their pledges and scare speech that the Republicans won't recover if they continue down this path, they will no longer be a mainstream party and will continue to be less and less of a factor and more and more of a fringe element as their members die off and the spooky banter gets more and more laughable as time proves it wrong over and over again.

Mass governor Mitt Romney would be an acceptable candidate to many people and could even win the Presidency, but this new go for broke, flip floppy, play to the angriest sector of the base Mitt Romney is kind of a joke, pity, the guy had potential, now, not even Mormons claim him.


Well mate it is federal ponzi schemes and redistribution programs that post real threats to the future of the nations economy. The economy is always a primary focus, and in theory Republicans want small federal government anyhow (which I agree with) so what other issues should they be harping on?

American Democrats are trying to artificially hoist up an ever growing number of people who require more than what they produce, as a result of lacking education or a particular set of values (typically the younger and middle aged crowd) or they've simply gotten old (a fast growing segment). You're asking a shrinking group of people to support not only themselves but a growing group of non-producers. That's a problem Democrats are simply ignoring. I aint seen a better example than when Joe and KevinNYC were havin a back and forth discussion, and joe put it to him point blank and he flatly changed the subject. Democrats won't cop to the fact that many Americans are putting a strain on their country because typically the ones who are comprise their base. Ya know the sayin, mate, "if it weren't for bad luck I wouldn't have luck?" Well the Democratic motto has become "if it weren't for government, I wouldn't have a job." Again, look at KevinNYC. His father was a government union shmuck, retired early and took handouts, and passed along them same 'values' to a son who collected years of welfare because of a quote "pretty serious mobility issue" as if there aint handicapped Americans all over the country who can and do find work. He literally loafed around and collected years of taxpayer money. How bout Lamar Doom, who indicated he and hoards of Los Angelinos will work for a few months, then collect unemployment for a few months, then go and work again for a few months, then collect unemployment for a few months. And this is an economic model Democrats are proud of. Of course it's something that Republicans will focus on, it's a path that will drive the country to ruin as MORE people decide it's just simply too easy of an opportunity to pass up to be like KevinNYC or Lamar Doom. Not to mention the social security and medicare guillotine hanging above the country's budget.

It's just bollocks, mate. Democrats are just spoiled kids, and their numbers are growing too quickly for the economy to keep up. America has so much equity and momentum from its past prosperity that just because it aint collapsed today, doesn't mean the current model won't result in a Mediterranean-esque collapse. It absolutely will. Democrats literally do not care. They want that handout TODAY. They don't care about 10 years from now. They aint got principles. They aint got restraint. They want that handout TODAY.

[JtotheIzzo]

Well mate it is federal ponzi schemes and redistribution programs that post real threats to the future of the nations economy. The economy is always a primary focus, and in theory Republicans want small federal government anyhow (which I agree with) so what other issues should they be harping on?

American Democrats are trying to artificially hoist up an ever growing number of people who require more than what they produce, as a result of lacking education or a particular set of values (typically the younger and middle aged crowd) or they've simply gotten old (a fast growing segment). You're asking a shrinking group of people to support not only themselves but a growing group of non-producers. That's a problem Democrats are simply ignoring. I aint seen a better example than when Joe and KevinNYC were havin a back and forth discussion, and joe put it to him point blank and he flatly changed the subject. Democrats won't cop to the fact that many Americans are putting a strain on their country because typically the ones who are comprise their base. Ya know the sayin, mate, "if it weren't for bad luck I wouldn't have luck?" Well the Democratic motto has become "if it weren't for government, I wouldn't have a job." Again, look at KevinNYC. His father was a government union shmuck, retired early and took handouts, and passed along them same 'values' to a son who collected years of welfare because of a quote "pretty serious mobility issue" as if there aint handicapped Americans all over the country who can and do find work. He literally loafed around and collected years of taxpayer money. How bout Lamar Doom, who indicated he and hoards of Los Angelinos will work for a few months, then collect unemployment for a few months, then go and work again for a few months, then collect unemployment for a few months. And this is an economic model Democrats are proud of. Of course it's something that Republicans will focus on, it's a path that will drive the country to ruin as MORE people decide it's just simply too easy of an opportunity to pass up to be like KevinNYC or Lamar Doom. Not to mention the social security and medicare guillotine hanging above the country's budget.

It's just bollocks, mate. Democrats are just spoiled kids, and their numbers are growing too quickly for the economy to keep up. America has so much equity and momentum from its past prosperity that just because it aint collapsed today, doesn't mean the current model won't result in a Mediterranean-esque collapse. It absolutely will. Democrats literally do not care. They want that handout TODAY. They don't care about 10 years from now. They aint got principles. They aint got restraint. They want that handout TODAY.

All taxes are 'redistribution', the military, the foreign service, NASA etc... are all redistribution schemes, modern society was founded on redistribution, poisoning and vilifying the word to have it fit your ideological talking points is akin to calling the president a socialist.

Americans on benefits need to be treated like smack addicts. You gotta wean them off it slowly or more costly societal breakdowns will occur. Mass austerity doesn't work.

The Republicans who scream for less handouts aren't morons, they have a legitimate gripe, my beef is with how to go about fixing it. Signing pledges and drawing lines int he sand is not pragmatic and to be frank, counter productive to them achieving their goals, let alone correcting the deficit.

What people fail to realize is that when you have a robust overseas reach, when you are paying to keep countries afloat and in your sphere of influence (Egypt for example), when you're funding two wars and other deterrents in global flashpoints (full size army bases in Korea, Japan, Germany, Guam etc...) that all needs to be paid for, and cutting taxes doesn't make sense during these times. The solution lies in the middle, but cutting funding when funds are lacking is counter productive.

Personally I think a small tax hike across the board and trimming (not cutting) various programs is the only logical solution, and it seems like the Democrats are more willing to do this. While your characterizations of them all being lazy and shiftless is warranted in some regards, it is not the case for the majority, so a more pragmatic approach needs to be sought after. The GOP has no interest in finding this approach because the leadership is tied to fringe elements within its own party who are too stubborn to deal.

[JaggerCommaMick]

All taxes are 'redistribution', the military, the foreign service, NASA etc... are all redistribution schemes, modern society was founded on redistribution, poisoning and vilifying the word to have it fit your ideological talking points is akin to calling the president a socialist.

Indeed, mate, but there is a difference between creating programs out of legitimate public necessity/demand, and creating them as 'fronts' to give out jobs and money to loyal party voters. Democrats are always trying to add more programs, more agencies, more beaurocratic positions not out of a general demand for the services themselves, but rather a misguided general demand for more jobs. Obviously ya need a military, and ya even need to understand the activity of the sun, and comets, as those can greatly influence life on Earth. Ya don't need to pay meter maids a bloated salary with full benefits. But that's the thing, mate, the bigger you make these government employee unions, the more Democrat votes you ensure. That is the exact reason California is in crisis right now. Democrats over-taxed businesses to artificially beef up the income and benefits of its voting base. Now many businesses have left California, and all these government workers still want the pensions and benefits and salary they were promised. Oops. Most of 'em probably work jobs there's barely even a demand for, and even if there is, their qualifications do not match their compensation.

I mean when the manor just starts to collect everything and arbitrarily decide where it goes... that's called a fiefdom, mate. Those were popular in the middle ages. I don't know bout you, but I aint ready to crown King Obama.



What people fail to realize is that when you have a robust overseas reach, when you are paying to keep countries afloat and in your sphere of influence (Egypt for example), when you're funding two wars and other deterrents in global flashpoints (full size army bases in Korea, Japan, Germany, Guam etc...) that all needs to be paid for, and cutting taxes doesn't make sense during these times. The solution lies in the middle, but cutting funding when funds are lacking is counter productive.

Personally I think a small tax hike across the board and trimming (not cutting) various programs is the only logical solution, and it seems like the Democrats are more willing to do this. While your characterizations of them all being lazy and shiftless is warranted in some regards, it is not the case for the majority, so a more pragmatic approach needs to be sought after. The GOP has no interest in finding this approach because the leadership is tied to fringe elements within its own party who are too stubborn to deal.


Well again mate it goes back to 'what is the value of the redistribution?' The military has a value, incentiving business his a value, even some government positions have a value. What doesn't have a value is paying for a new medical procedure every month that old people start to need. When social security and medicare were started, nature was still doin its job on the elderly. Now we can keep them all alive till they're 95, but allllllll the treatments and hospitalization and care they need along the way is burying the economy. This is the big issue everyone is A.F.R.A.I.D. to speak out loud. Republicans fear to tread for political reasons, Democrats fear to tread because they're so worked up in a tizzy about being insensitive. Truth is mate, old people are an enormous burden on the working class. An enormous one. And it aint always been that way, because old people used to die. Now they don't go without a very expensive fight. This is somethin the country has to face and adjust to and ultimately decide where it stands. But I tell ya somethin, so long as people wanna ignore it, they have no right to talk about a poor economy, deficits, a lack of jobs etc. If you took all that social security and medicare money and put it towards ANYTHING with value, the improvement to the economy would be substantial. But as is so often the case, political correctness retards American progress.