Mitt Romney calls half of America freeloaders

[jms62]

Originally Posted by Clip-Clop

I am not so sure, I think other than a small number of true believers most of the populace is seeing these two for what the really are, the same.

I rather know how I am going to get screwed then to know I will get screwed but not how.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Thepaindispenser

I know what he said, he said people dependent on government would most likely vote for Obama. He never said anything about not working for them or that he wouldn't help them as President. He was talking about voting and he is right there are too many freeloaders in this country leeching off of us hardworking taxpayers. If you want to keep going towards Europe's culture of dependency which breeds malaise, no growth, a lower standard of living, laziness, no charity, selfishness, and an upper class which consists of politicians then go ahead and vote for Obama.

I would rather vote for the guy who has the guts to standby his comments of the problem of too many people being dependent on government than the one who runs away from his comment on hardworking people not building their businesses when you know he meant it.

yeah, he just said 'it's not my job to worry about them'.


and mitt romney doesn't give a rats ass about you or anyone. he wants to be president-the only people he will worry about helping are those like him. and that doesn't include you, or me, or anyone else who isn't a rich guy like him.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Thepaindispenser

Again I disagree with you. You are putting way too much trust in an incompetent and corrupt government to help people. If big government really helps people then why does every blighted and crime-ridden area in this country consistently vote Democrat and every single one of those areas, with the exception of the non-government phenomenon of gentrification, get poorer and more crime-ridden?

Like I said I don't think shrinking the pie and having an all powerful government decide who gets what is the answer.

It wasn't banks that got us into this mess, it was Democrats forcing banks to lend money for mortgages to people who never had a chance of repaying them. Who said banks shouldn't be regulated to some degree? However this current Dodd-Frank thing is a disaster, it leaves to-big-to-fail in there and it is designed to make the banks dependent on the politicians so that they can fatten their campaign coffers with cash.

that is absolutely not true. the problem was repealing glass/steagall, and removing the division between commercial and investment banks. you are completely mistaken on what caused everything to go downhill. go look up glass steagall on wiki, it'll tell you all about it.
and it was a bipartisan effort to get rid of those rules.

Stevie posted a great quote.

I can imagine a world where the people who do the most physical labor are the elite.

I pictured myself on my trusty horse going to the Ohio River to get a few days worth of water.

Things were much better then. Until I got a fever.

I watched my family put my body in an antique chest my paw found at one of the trash piles in Clarksville.

Things were better then because people worked hard and whatnot.

[Clip-Clop]

"Imagine," Tyler said, "stalking elk past department store windows and stinking racks of beautiful rotting dresses and tuxedos on hangers; you'll wear leather clothes that will last you the rest of your life, and you'll climb the wrist-thick kudzu vines that wrap the Sears Tower. Jack and the beanstalk, you'll climb up through the dripping forest canopy and the air will be so clean you'll see tiny figures pounding corn and laying strips of venison to dry in the empty car pool lane of an abandoned superhighway stretching eight-lanes-wide and August-hot for a thousand miles." ~Chuck Palahniuk, Fight Club

[pointman]

Originally Posted by Danzig

that is absolutely not true. the problem was repealing glass/steagall, and removing the division between commercial and investment banks. you are completely mistaken on what caused everything to go downhill. go look up glass steagall on wiki, it'll tell you all about it.
and it was a bipartisan effort to get rid of those rules.

You are wrong on this Zig. The Republican's raised concerns early on in Bush's Presidency and wanted tighter regulation, the Democrats, led by the incompetent Barney Frank, vigorously opposed it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMnSp4qEXNM

Here is Barney Frank in 2005 claiming that notions that reducing requirements for loans will lead to a financial collapse was fantasy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iW5qK...eature=related

Why people just blindly buy the Democrats spin on this is amazing to me, but this is just another example of the deception the Obama campaign uses to court the uninformed. Barney Frank is largely responsible for this mess and Clinton deserves his fair share of blame as well.

[Thepaindispenser]

Originally Posted by Dahoss

Let's try this again. YOU said all of the lazy freeloaders are voting for Obama, which is obviously not true.

So, in red dominated states, with those unemployment rates, wouldn't common sense lead you to think there is a decent number of freeloaders as well?

The point is there are (a lot) freeloaders on both sides. The right doesn't like talking about and you'll never see Fox News talk about it, but let's pretend it doesn't happen.

Dahoss, I am not sure why you are equating the unemployment rate with freeloaders. The unemployment rate only counts people who are actively looking for work. Lazy, freeloaders don't look for work.

[Thepaindispenser]

Originally Posted by Danzig

you do know that george bush also went on letterman? your complaint is ridiculous. i have no doubt that when bush was in office, you probably defended him when he took a vacation, or went golfing, when anyone of the opposite political persuasion griped. there are always issues to take care of-no one can stay 'on the job' 24-7, it would kill them.
and obama is the most divisive? based on what? many presidents have entered office without earning a sizable majority. for many, they barely squeaked into office, or it took bargaining.. it's not a recent, new thing going on.
go check out jefferson vs burr, john q adams vs clay and jackson. there are plenty of historical facts out there that would probably help you gain perspective.

Danzig, I never defended George Bush, he was a big government, big spending President, exactly what I am against.

In modern times, name another President who has purposely tried to divide the public like Obama? It is even worse because Obama ran as someone who could unite the people and he has done just the opposite.

[Thepaindispenser]

Originally Posted by Danzig

yeah, he just said 'it's not my job to worry about them'.


and mitt romney doesn't give a rats ass about you or anyone. he wants to be president-the only people he will worry about helping are those like him. and that doesn't include you, or me, or anyone else who isn't a rich guy like him.

That is not what he said. He said it wasn't his job to worry about getting them to vote for him, take another listen to it.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by pointman

You are wrong on this Zig. The Republican's raised concerns early on in Bush's Presidency and wanted tighter regulation, the Democrats, led by the incompetent Barney Frank, vigorously opposed it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMnSp4qEXNM

Here is Barney Frank in 2005 claiming that notions that reducing requirements for loans will lead to a financial collapse was fantasy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iW5qK...eature=related

Why people just blindly buy the Democrats spin on this is amazing to me, but this is just another example of the deception the Obama campaign uses to court the uninformed. Barney Frank is largely responsible for this mess and Clinton deserves his fair share of blame as well.

it's not democrat spin. bill clinton signed it into law.
and of course they aren't going to fess up about glass/steagall, since so many in congress now are who put it thru then!
i am neither uninformed or blindly buying anything. there's far, far more to the story than just some high-risk loans. you think high-risk loans, alone, accounted for the entire financial meltdown and crisis? hell no, it didn't. becase if you look, you will find that many of the companies who needed bailouts weren't commercial banks who did real estate loans. however, the collapse of huge banks and financial services companies had an effect on banks and mortgages. trying to tamp down on mortgages is akin to trying to put out a fire after the structure was already burned to the ground. it also explains why euro markets are having their issues; they were the first to open that can of worms. that's why our idiots in dc, both parties, peeled away the glass/steagall rules, because the big banks/financial services were crying the blues, saying they wouldn't be able to compete with european banks. repeal of glass/steagall came first-along with all the issues it caused. the burst bubble took a lot of stuff down with it, and caused a credit crisis. it's what also started causing arm's to raise rates, the banks were trying to start recouping lost money, so they went after loans on the books. it was all a big snowball effect, but g/s was the start of that avalanche.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Thepaindispenser

Danzig, I never defended George Bush, he was a big government, big spending President, exactly what I am against.

In modern times, name another President who has purposely tried to divide the public like Obama? It is even worse because Obama ran as someone who could unite the people and he has done just the opposite.

bushes famed quote of 'you're either with us or against us' demonstrates a divide.
i think reagan was the last president to actually enjoy a clear majority vote in his second election-quite often the country is divided on many things. it's why i said to go read your history. even in modern times there have been clear divisions on a variety of things.

and is obama divisive? sure, you kinda have to be. did you see the article i linked to the other day, where black church leaders are telling their congregants to stay home on election day? obama divided his own supporters with coming out in favor of gay marriage.
there are plenty of examples i could give on every president. it comes with the territory. you can't please everyone, so you just have to do your best. i doubt any of them make decisions just to see who they can piss off.

[geeker2]

Originally Posted by Thepaindispenser

That is not what he said. He said it wasn't his job to worry about getting them to vote for him, take another listen to it.

Zig after you see the actual words - what is so terrible about the way he answered a specific question ?


http://www.motherjones.com/politics/...y-secret-video

Audience member: For the last three years, all everybody's been told is, "Don't worry, we'll take care of you." How are you going to do it, in two months before the elections, to convince everybody you've got to take care of yourself?

Romney: There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe that 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 48, 49, 48—he starts off with a huge number. These are people who pay no income tax. Forty-seven percent of Americans pay no income tax. So our message of low taxes doesn't connect. And he'll be out there talking about tax cuts for the rich. I mean that's what they sell every four years. And so my job is not to worry about those people—I'll never convince them that they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives. What I have to do is convince the 5 to 10 percent in the center that are independents that are thoughtful, that look at voting one way or the other depending upon in some cases emotion, whether they like the guy or not, what it looks like. I mean, when you ask those people…we do all these polls—I find it amazing—we poll all these people, see where you stand on the polls, but 45 percent of the people will go with a Republican, and 48 or 4…

[Recording stops.]

[Riot]

The economy is steamrolling ahead - Did you get your 13% raise this year?

(Reuters) - The net worth of the richest Americans grew by 13 percent in the past year to $1.7 trillion, Forbes magazine said on Wednesday, and a familiar cast of characters once again populated the top of the magazine's annual list of the U.S. uber-elite, including Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, Larry Ellison and the Koch brothers.

The average net worth of the 400 wealthiest Americans rose to a record $4.2 billion, the magazine said.

Collectively, this group's net worth is the equivalent of one-eighth of the entire U.S. economy, which stood at $13.56 trillion in real terms according to the latest government data.

But the 13 percent growth in the wealth of the richest Americans far outpaced that of the economy overall, helping widen the chasm between rich and poor.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...88I0WA20120919

[pointman]

Originally Posted by Riot

The economy is steamrolling ahead - Did you get your 13% raise this year?

(Reuters) - The net worth of the richest Americans grew by 13 percent in the past year to $1.7 trillion, Forbes magazine said on Wednesday, and a familiar cast of characters once again populated the top of the magazine's annual list of the U.S. uber-elite, including Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, Larry Ellison and the Koch brothers.

The average net worth of the 400 wealthiest Americans rose to a record $4.2 billion, the magazine said.

Collectively, this group's net worth is the equivalent of one-eighth of the entire U.S. economy, which stood at $13.56 trillion in real terms according to the latest government data.

But the 13 percent growth in the wealth of the richest Americans far outpaced that of the economy overall, helping widen the chasm between rich and poor.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...88I0WA20120919

The gap between the rich and poor grew more between 2009-2010 than it did between 2002-2007, but you shockingly left that fact out. Now you are telling us it has grown even further this year.

The numbers point to the gap growing larger between the rich and poor to be the result of Obama's policies, not Republican's. How inconvenient for you.

[Clip-Clop]

Originally Posted by pointman

The gap between the rich and poor grew more between 2009-2010 than it did between 2002-2007, but you shockingly left that fact out. Now you are telling us it has grown even further this year.

The numbers point to the gap growing larger between the rich and poor to be the result of Obama's policies, not Republican's. How inconvenient for you.

This is one puppet in the oval office who knows who is pulling the strings! Strong work right there.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by geeker2

Zig after you see the actual words - what is so terrible about the way he answered a specific question ?


http://www.motherjones.com/politics/...y-secret-video

Audience member: For the last three years, all everybody's been told is, "Don't worry, we'll take care of you." How are you going to do it, in two months before the elections, to convince everybody you've got to take care of yourself?

Romney: There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe that 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 48, 49, 48—he starts off with a huge number. These are people who pay no income tax. Forty-seven percent of Americans pay no income tax. So our message of low taxes doesn't connect. And he'll be out there talking about tax cuts for the rich. I mean that's what they sell every four years. And so my job is not to worry about those people—I'll never convince them that they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives. What I have to do is convince the 5 to 10 percent in the center that are independents that are thoughtful, that look at voting one way or the other depending upon in some cases emotion, whether they like the guy or not, what it looks like. I mean, when you ask those people…we do all these polls—I find it amazing—we poll all these people, see where you stand on the polls, but 45 percent of the people will go with a Republican, and 48 or 4…

[Recording stops.]

i have an issue with someone saying that every voter for his opponent is on the govt teat. it's completely incorrect. and it shows his lack of understanding of the country in general, and the population in particular.

a lot of people who 'depend' on the govt are actually largely republican voters. the man was kowtowing to his audience. he already said in the past he's not worried about the poor, now he's not worried about anyone who he feels would vote for obama.
that doesn't leave very many people for him to worry about, does it?
personally, i don't think many politicians really give a damn about any of us. they only care about themselves.
i'm not anti mitt because of that speech. i won't vote for him because of his stance on things, which i've already posted about.
and i have no doubt everyone has seen my take on obama...so like i said elsewhere, i will be voting for a third party candidate.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by pointman

The gap between the rich and poor grew more between 2009-2010 than it did between 2002-2007, but you shockingly left that fact out. Now you are telling us it has grown even further this year.

The numbers point to the gap growing larger between the rich and poor to be the result of Obama's policies, not Republican's. How inconvenient for you.

If it were not for straw men you've have no friends but your Sockpuppet.

I didn't "leave anything out", considering I didn't write the article - I merely posted a newspaper article referencing current conditions with no comment.

The redistribution of income, the languishing pay and purchasing power of the middle class, while productivity has soared while money has concentrated among the wealthy, has been occurring since the late 1960's. And yes, there has been plenty published on Derby Trail about how that has happened.

Your comment about Obama's policies is interesting - which specific policies have done that? Do tell.

Originally Posted by Danzig

mitt romney doesn't give a rats ass about you or anyone. he wants to be president-the only people he will worry about helping are those like him. and that doesn't include you, or me, or anyone else who isn't a rich guy like him.

[Honu]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IWDJE...are_video_user



Interesting

[pointman]

Originally Posted by Riot

If it were not for straw men you've have no friends but your Sockpuppet.

I didn't "leave anything out", considering I didn't write the article - I merely posted a newspaper article referencing current conditions with no comment.

The redistribution of income, the languishing pay and purchasing power of the middle class, while productivity has soared while money has concentrated among the wealthy, has been occurring since the late 1960's. And yes, there has been plenty published on Derby Trail about how that has happened.

Your comment about Obama's policies is interesting - which specific policies have done that? Do tell.

Shocking that you would resort to insults when you attempt to mislead people reading here with a distortion of facts, just like you did with Clip earlier in the thread. As usual you resort to the sock puppet nonsense when you can't counter with facts. By the way, sock puppet is two words, not one genius. What next, are you going to infer I am a racist like you did with Clip?

You added your clear insinuation that a vote against Obama is a vote to increase the gap in income inequality, you didn't just post an article. You are a pathetic bully who is a fraud.