Post: #126

(09-20-2012 09:42 PM)Tbone Wrote:  I wanted to hear Romney out before making a choice in the election. I'm not a faithful supporter of anybody.

But his appearance recently on Meet The Press made up my mind. I watched the show, and here's an excerpt on what happened:

"In Mitt Romney's appearance on NBC's Meet the Press on September 9, he reiterated his promise of an across-the-board income tax cut for all Americans including those like himself in the top 1%. The Romney-Ryan tax plan actually would cut taxes on income from capital, as opposed to labor, from 15% to 0%.

Romney said those tax cuts would not add to the deficit because they would be offset by eliminating loopholes and deductions. But when asked by NBC's David Gregory which loopholes and deductions he would cut, Romney was unable to name a single one."

So Mitt tells us he won't add to the deficit while cutting taxes for everybody. But he can't tell us how he's going to offset those cuts...?

I'll take my chances with Obama over another Bush.

Mitt is also high on military spending.. He probably plans to take a absolute hatchet to social spending

I also love how incredulous Mitt was on that secret tape that there are people who believe health care is a right, just goes to show how different American politics are from other developed nations

Post: #127

(09-21-2012 03:33 AM)LoveBug Wrote:  Mitt is also high on military spending.. He probably plans to take a absolute hatchet to social spending

I also love how incredulous Mitt was on that secret tape that there are people who believe health care is a right, just goes to show how different American politics are from other developed nations

It's not a surprise that Romney wants to ramp up military spending. Mormons are very overrepresented in the defense contracting industry.

Post: #128

(09-21-2012 01:54 AM)P Dog Wrote:  

(09-20-2012 08:53 PM)Brian Wrote:  if you were to break up the US into two countries, one full of Romney supporters and one full of Obama supporters the one w/Obama voters would be a complete bankrupt clusterfuck whose themes centered on government control and wealth redistribution while Romney's half would be a thriving world power based on the principles of capitalism and the free market.

(09-20-2012 08:53 PM)Brian Wrote:  ]it amazes me that the overwhelming majority of people i meet who support Romney are successful in what they do while the overwhelming number of Obama supporters I meet are at best low level office drones who count on the Romney supporters for their paychecks.

Do you see a correlation here?



The darker it is, the more government benefits they recieve

Of course I see a correlation. For the most part, the darker the area the higher concentration of blacks and hispanics. Have you ever noticed that all the bankrupt cities/states, from Detroit to California to Illinois are overwhelmingly run by liberal Democratic majorities?

Post: #129

(09-21-2012 01:54 AM)P Dog Wrote:  Do you see a correlation here?

Nice, I was wondering where the term "Red State" came from.

It all makes sense to me now.

Post: #130

(09-21-2012 06:43 PM)portofmanteau Wrote:  

(09-21-2012 01:54 AM)P Dog Wrote:  Do you see a correlation here?

Nice, I was wondering where the term "Red State" came from.

It all makes sense to me now.

I checked G's Facebook after seeing the thread about him. His last status:

Mitt Romney's 47 Percent Disproportionately Live In Republican States


EDIT: Brian, how about all of Appalachia plus Arkansas, Oklahoma and the Little Dixie area of Missouri? The states with the poorest white populations are actually Red States, West Virginia & Mississippi. It doesn't take a genius to see what I mean.


Even in the Mid West the Blue States have higher HDI's

Post: #131

What G fails to point out is that those heavily Republican southern states also have the highest percentages of blacks. MS, SC, LA, GA, and AL are 5 of the top 6 states in terms of blacks per capita. but they are heavily segregated where the whites vote R and the blacks vote D. compare that to liberal bastions like CA where all the minorities vote D and many of the whites do as well.

You are completely correct about Appalachia though, those poor white trash areas will always vote R and many are dependent on government help.

Look, as far as what Mitt Romney said about the 47% I think he had his theory correct but he had his numbers wrong. There is certainly a percentage of the population that is exactly as he described, but I'd say its closer to 35-40% and the breakdown is probably 10-15% R and 25% D. Not everyone who votes R is living the good life and not everyone who votes D is poor and impoverished. But there certainly in a portion of the country who meets the description Romney gave and to ignore that is isnt being realistic. And all you need to do is look at simple statistics like percentage of the population on food stamps and disability to realize the number who is dependent on Govt has risen dramatically over the last 4 years.

Post: #132

(09-22-2012 10:44 AM)Brian Wrote:  And all you need to do is look at simple statistics like percentage of the population on food stamps and disability to realize the number who is dependent on Govt has risen dramatically over the last 4 years.

Nobodies saying that isn't true, obviously it will have increased during the recession.

Non-Hispanic White Poverty Rates: 2 blue (Oregon and Michigan) and 2 purple (Ohio and Missouri). The entire top 7 is solidly Republican. On every metric, HDI, income, poverty and exclusively white poverty Red States lag behind Blue States.

Post: #133

I'm actually surprised the white poverty rates are as low as they are in those states

Post: #134

(09-22-2012 10:44 AM)Brian Wrote:  Look, as far as what Mitt Romney said about the 47% I think he had his theory correct but he had his numbers wrong.

His theory was correct, you say? His theory relies on an assumption about 47% of the population-you can't disassociate it from the numbers, because his theory relies on the numbers and their main indication (the lack of income tax responsibility). That is the basis of his argument.

This guy is ALL wrong.

Quote:But there certainly in a portion of the country who meets the description Romney gave and to ignore that is isnt being realistic.

Nobody has done this. What Republicans seem too damn quick to do is assume that this portion of the population is much bigger than it is.
Your numbers are just as wonky-instead of writing off half of the American populace, you want to write of just over a third of it.

Of that 47%, 2/3 (that's 66%) pay some form of payroll tax. Of the rest, the majority consists of those on disability (up to and including many military veterans) and/or the elderly.

The number of flat out bums (intentionally live of benefits, pay no income or payroll taxes, on welfare like its a job, etc) in this society who really do live with the intent to leech is FAR smaller than you folks consistently portray. It isn't anywhere near half or even a third of the population. Any reasonable fact-check can confirm this.

And your candidate just put half the country in that bucket. That is your problem. This "everyone for themselves" mentality where EVERYONE who isn't up on their luck (like those working families of 4 or 5 making $40-50k annually who don't pay income tax, or disable vets, or the elderly, etc) and needs a little help is some sort of bum/leech with nothing to add to society, and this belief that it is entirely ok to just shit on them with reckless abandon.
Then there's the fact that half of the people shitting on them have gotten some help themselves, directly or indirectly-ancestors who took advantage of the GI Bill/FHA home loans and other post-WW2 benefits (that would be the vast majority of white Americans today, including the many Republicans among them) or, in the case of Romney, ancestors (his father) who were once on welfare. These people, who wouldn't be where they are without these historic benefits, now shit on everyone else who gets the help they once did.

They shit on themselves and don't even know it. Its pathetic and sickening to watch.

This mentality is illogical, it is unjust, and it is, I would contend, fundamentally un-american. Oh, and this quote from your candidate, which I assume is part of the "theory" you think is correct:

Quote:[M]y job is not to worry about those people. I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives."

Firstly, as I already mentioned, the vast majority of that 47% should not be characterized as people who "don't take personal responsibility for their lives" or care.

Secondly, as an American president, it is his job to worry about those people, regardless of how many of them there actually are. This is the same logic that we had to apply to Obama as someone who could not be a "black" president-he was president of all the people, not just the minorities, and many of his most staunch pro-black adherents (who figure that he hasn't done enough for black people) had to accept that.

Your guy only wants to work for half the American populace, and is willing to ignore a sizable portion of his own base (much of that 47% is on his side).

Romney has no business in the white house. You'd figure that even the bulk of Republicans could see that they've got a crappy candidate who is hopelessly out of touch with the people he needs to support him, but if they can't then they deserve what they get in November.

Post: #135

(09-22-2012 10:44 AM)Brian Wrote:  And all you need to do is look at simple statistics like percentage of the population on food stamps and disability to realize the number who is dependent on Govt has risen dramatically over the last 4 years.

As has the number of people who can't find consistent, benefitted work over the last 4 years...

Post: #136

Ben Swann is the best reporter on any mainstream tv station out there. Only one that even comes close to being fair and balanced.





Subscribe to his youtube channel.

Post: #137

I don't like Obama bit, but since Romney is a loser, he will lose again.

Post: #138

The Red State/Blue State gap is uncanny when it comes to income as well:


Rank State 2009 2008 2007 2004-2006
1 Maryland $69,272 $70,545 $68,080 $62,372
2 New Jersey $68,342 $70,378 $67,035 $64,169
3 Connecticut $67,034 $68,595 $65,967 $59,972
4 Alaska $66,953 $68,460 $64,333 $57,639
5 Hawaii $64,098 $67,214 $63,746 $60,681
6 Massachusetts $64,081 $65,401 $62,365 $56,236
7 New Hampshire $60,567 $63,731 $62,369 $60,489
8 Virginia $59,330 $61,233 $59,562 $55,108
District of Columbia $59,290 $57,936 $54,317 $47,221 (2005)[8] PDF
9 California $58,931 $61,021 $59,948 $53,770
10 Delaware $56,860 $57,989 $54,610 $52,214
11 Washington $56,548 $58,078 $55,591 $53,439
12 Minnesota $55,616 $57,288 $55,082 $57,363
13 Colorado $55,430 $56,993 $55,212 $54,039
14 Utah $55,117 $56,633 $55,109 $55,179
15 New York $54,659 $56,033 $53,514 $48,201
16 Rhode Island $54,119 $55,701 $53,568 $52,003
17 Illinois $53,966 $56,235 $54,124 $49,280
18 Nevada $53,341 $56,361 $55,062 $50,819
19 Wyoming $52,664 $53,207 $51,731 $47,227
20 Vermont $51,618 $52,104 $49,907 $51,622
United States $50,221 $52,029 $50,740 $46,242 (2005) [9] PDF
21 Wisconsin $49,993 $52,094 $50,578 $48,874
22 Pennsylvania $49,520 $50,713 $48,576 $47,791
23 Arizona $48,745 $50,958 $49,889 $46,729
24 Oregon $48,457 $50,169 $48,730 $45,485
25 Texas $48,259 $50,043 $47,548 $43,425
26 Iowa $48,044 $48,980 $47,292 $47,489
27 North Dakota $47,827 $45,685 $43,753 $43,753
28 Kansas $47,817 $50,177 $47,451 $44,264
29 Georgia $47,590 $50,861 $49,136 $46,841
30 Nebraska $47,357 $49,693 $47,085 $48,126
31 Maine $45,734 $46,581 $45,888 $45,040
32 Indiana $45,424 $47,966 $47,448 $44,806
33 Ohio $45,395 $47,988 $46,597 $45,837
34 Michigan $45,255 $48,591 $47,950 $47,064
35 Missouri $45,229 $46,867 $45,114 $44,651
36 South Dakota $45,043 $46,032 $43,424 $44,624
37 Idaho $44,926 $47,576 $46,253 $46,395
38 Florida $44,736 $47,778 $47,804 $44,448
39 North Carolina $43,674 $46,549 $44,670 $42,061
40 New Mexico $43,028 $43,508 $41,452 $40,827
41 Louisiana $42,492 $43,733 $40,926 $37,943
42 South Carolina $42,442 $44,625 $43,329 $40,822
43 Montana $42,322 $43,654 $43,531 $38,629
44 Tennessee $41,725 $43,614 $42,367 $40,676
45 Oklahoma $41,664 $42,822 $41,567 $40,001
46 Alabama $40,489 $42,666 $40,554 $38,473
47 Kentucky $40,072 $41,538 $40,267 $38,466
48 Arkansas $37,823 $38,815 $38,134 $37,420
49 West Virginia $37,435 $37,989 $37,060 $37,227
50 Mississippi $36,646 $37,790 $36,338 $35,261
[edit]States ranked by per capita income

Based on 2000 Census data for 1999 [10] . For a more recent list, see http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0104652.html .
Delaware – $28,766
District of Columbia – $28,659
New Jersey – $27,006
Massachusetts – $25,952
Connecticut – $25,614
Colorado – $24,049
Florida – $23,975
New Hampshire – $23,844
New York – $23,389
Maryland – $23,305
Minnesota – $23,198
Illinois – $23,106
Washington – $22,956
California – $22,711
Alaska – $22,660
Michigan – $22,168
Nevada – $21,989
Rhode Island – $21,688
United States of America – $21,587
Virginia – $21,557
Hawaii – $21,525
Wisconsin – $21,271
Georgia – $21,154
Ohio – $21,003
Oregon – $20,940
Pennsylvania – $20,880
Vermont – $20,625
Kansas – $20,506
Indiana – $20,397
North Carolina – $20,307
Arizona – $20,275
Missouri – $19,936
Iowa – $19,674
Texas – $19,617
Nebraska – $19,613
Maine – $19,367
Tennessee – $19,393
Wyoming – $19,134
South Carolina – $18,795
Alabama – $18,189
Utah – $18,185
Kentucky – $18,093
Idaho – $17,841
North Dakota – $17,769
Oklahoma – $17,646
South Dakota – $17,562
New Mexico – $17,261
Montana – $17,151
Louisiana – $16,912
Arkansas – $16,904
West Virginia – $16,477
Mississippi – $15,853

Almost all the red states are at the bottom by both metrics.

Post: #139

I just watched the whole 50 minute segment

It's really not that bad if you watch it end-to-end. He's not some demon come to persecute as all, nor does he really strike me as the epitome of hypocrisy...

Obama fires off plenty of stuff that is just as bad, and that can be, when taken out of context, equally reprehensible. [/u]

Post: #140

(09-23-2012 12:26 PM)ElJefe Wrote:  I just watched the whole 50 minute segment

It's really not that bad if you watch it end-to-end. He's not some demon come to persecute as all, nor does he really strike me as the epitome of hypocrisy...

I'm tired of watching conservatives and/or their sympathizers attempt to underplay the significance of these statements and/or behave as though they are being taken out of context.

Romney wrote off half of the American population and much of his own base. That is fact-his words cannot be taken any other way, and if this is unclear to you you can re-read the quotes themselves. He insulted them and claimed that he has no intention of working for them or worrying about them. This is a man who is asking to be president, blatantly writing off, mischaracterizing and insulting half of the American population.

That's not persecution, I'll agree, but it isn't something I'd be happy to see in the leader of our country-someone who shows visible contempt for and a total inability to relate to HALF of the nation he wants to run.

There is no sugarcoating his statements.

If he does not strike you as the epitome of hypocrisy, then you are clearly seeing what you would like to see. The facts are there: this is a man whose own father was a beneficiary of welfare, proceeding to shit on those who benefit from government help today.
As if that hypocrisy is not enough, he also shows that he does not understand his own base-he claims that this 47% is for Obama, when in fact a large chunk of them are pro-Romney. He also forgets that they pay other taxes, thus ensuring that most are not in fact the freeloaders he seems to think they are.

Sure, not every statement in that video was bad. Having listened to it, I'm sure he was much more agreeable on other aspects of his presentation.
But what he said about the 47% was inexcusable, and this absolutely deserves every bit of condemnation it is getting. Nobody is exaggerating that.

Quote:Obama fires off plenty of stuff that is just as bad, and that can be, when taken out of context, equally reprehensible.

So you're saying that if we take Obama out of context, we can get something about as bad?

Ignoring the fact that Romney has not been taken out of context here (we don't need to misinterpret his shit to know that it is shit), have you seen Obama write off and insult HALF of the electorate (including much of his own base) and explicitly state his own lack of concern for them?

If so, show me. I'm not buying your equivocation until you do.

Post: #141

Because Obama's never said anything stupid...

"We cannot, and will not, sustain deficits like these without end. Contrary to the prevailing wisdom, in Washington these few years, we cannot simply spend as we please, and defer the consequences to the next budget, next administration, or the next generation."

"That's why today, I'm pledging to cut the budget we inherited by half, by the end of my first term."

Post: #142

(09-23-2012 11:11 PM)Samseau Wrote:  Because Obama's never said anything stupid...

"We cannot, and will not, sustain deficits like these without end. Contrary to the prevailing wisdom, in Washington these few years, we cannot simply spend as we please, and defer the consequences to the next budget, next administration, or the next generation."

"That's why today, I'm pledging to cut the budget we inherited by half, by the end of my first term."

And I'm sure you'll find plenty more silliness from Obama (57 states, Hawaii is in Asia, etc) and a few more broken promises. Even his most loyal supporters have taken issue with his work. As an independent (one of those 5-10% Romney says he "must convince"), I can see Obama's flaws from a mile away. You don't have to inform me.

What we have from Romney is beyond merely "stupid". It goes beyond an unkept campaign promise or a silly gaffe.
We have him calmly, lucidly shitting on half of the population, and doing so without any factual basis (he uses total mischaracterizations, actually) or even a hint of compassion. We have him showing flat out contempt for HALF of the population he seeks to gain authority over, and for many of the people who've thrown their support behind him (poor/lower middle class whites, the elderly, etc). And, in the process, he confirmed nearly every stereotype that's out there about him (out of touch, elitist, etc).

You can search high and low, but I doubt you will find anything on that kind of damaging level. This is an epic clusterfuck, and no amount of attempted equivocation will change that.

And, again, if Republicans insist on ignoring this and defending such utter elitist insanity, then they fully deserve what they will get in November-a solid defeat. You have a shitty candidate who has made an awful, inexcusable speech-there are no ways around that.

Post: #143

back in 2004 it was bush vs john kerry both were multimillonaires that went to yale and part of skull and bones society. if that wasnt a cue that presidents are chosen not elected i dont know what is.
these idoits who love obama or romney need to accept the fact that all presidents have their top positions coming from 2 small organizations which are the council on foreign relations and or the trilateral commission. if the member of the white house are coming from the same two organizations consistently why would anyone think things will change

Post: #144

Quote:"That's why today, I'm pledging to cut the budget we inherited by half, by the end of my first term."

What he said was "deficit" not "budget." That refers to the annual shortfall, not the annual government spending "budget" or the total amount we owe to our creditors (mostly to ourselves, but I digress) AKA "debt"

Based on the numbers, it looks like we're not going to cut the deficit in half by the end of his first term. Realistically, it's going to be more like 1/3 (part of the reason for this is the temporary extension of the Bush tax cuts which helped kick the deficit reduction can down the road). But the bottom line is that we have to grow our way out of these deficits, not cut our way out of them. Romney knows how to drink your milkshake; he doesn't know how to make the milkshake bigger. Or if he does, his policy prescriptions certainly don't reflect it.

Post: #145

How do we grow our economy while simultaneously crippling our energy sector? If Iraq was about oil then was Afghanistan about rare earth metals?

Post: #146

I do not live in the US. But the US needs to work with its debt. It's astounding how it's bigger than its GDP.

Post: #147

(09-23-2012 06:05 PM)Athlone McGinnis Wrote:  I'm tired of watching conservatives and/or their sympathizers attempt to underplay the significance of these statements and/or behave as though they are being taken out of context.

Romney wrote off half of the American population and much of his own base. That is fact-his words cannot be taken any other way, and if this is unclear to you you can re-read the quotes themselves. He insulted them and claimed that he has no intention of working for them or worrying about them. This is a man who is asking to be president, blatantly writing off, mischaracterizing and insulting half of the American population.

That's not persecution, I'll agree, but it isn't something I'd be happy to see in the leader of our country-someone who shows visible contempt for and a total inability to relate to HALF of the nation he wants to run.

There is no sugarcoating his statements.

If he does not strike you as the epitome of hypocrisy, then you are clearly seeing what you would like to see. The facts are there: this is a man whose own father was a beneficiary of welfare, proceeding to shit on those who benefit from government help today.
As if that hypocrisy is not enough, he also shows that he does not understand his own base-he claims that this 47% is for Obama, when in fact a large chunk of them are pro-Romney. He also forgets that they pay other taxes, thus ensuring that most are not in fact the freeloaders he seems to think they are.

Sure, not every statement in that video was bad. Having listened to it, I'm sure he was much more agreeable on other aspects of his presentation.
But what he said about the 47% was inexcusable, and this absolutely deserves every bit of condemnation it is getting. Nobody is exaggerating that.

Quote:Obama fires off plenty of stuff that is just as bad, and that can be, when taken out of context, equally reprehensible.

So you're saying that if we take Obama out of context, we can get something about as bad?

Ignoring the fact that Romney has not been taken out of context here (we don't need to misinterpret his shit to know that it is shit), have you seen Obama write off and insult HALF of the electorate (including much of his own base) and explicitly state his own lack of concern for them?

If so, show me. I'm not buying your equivocation until you do.

Sure, the whole you didn't build that deal. And what difference does it make if you write of the whole electorate or just one individual? Injustice is injustice no matter what. Just because Obama likes to blame Wall St and Bush for everything when it's just as much Greenspan's or essentially democratic policies that is at the fault.

Oh by and large I agree with you. I also think condemning people for words is a mindless exercise, it's just words. What's the actual policy proposal?

I also think there's a fundamental philosophical divide - for instance, Ryan wants to reform Medicare and at his talk to AARP he was booed. Not good politics, of course, but it's undeniable that entitlement programs are the source of our demise unless we dramatically increase tax-levels. The baby-boomers are going to suck this country dry and either we raise taxes in the order of trillions to balance the budget, or we adjust the rate at which these entitlements are increasing to fix that.

Proposing this idea pisses old white people off. They did NOT have enough kids to support these programs, and now they are not prepared to pay the price. All that government is doing is decoupling responsibility from consequence. That is the essence of the Romney message, and it sounds tough and unkind when put in those stark terms.

Now as for his hypocrisy, he's not being too thoughtful. But who is thoughtful all the time on all occasions, huh? The same way pouncing on Obama for his redistribution comment was dumb, I think this 47 percent stuff is dumb. I think redistribution is somewhat necessary, and I also think entitlement mentailty is a real challenge.

Obviously, welfare is not always bad and low taxes not always good. But when elected, I doubt he'd demolish all welfare and entitlement. I haven't heard anyone propose completely abolishing welfare programs yet.

What Romney said was not too clever, but the other stuff he said at that talk was rather insightful, especially his campaign strategy. what's going on right now is that people are going beserk over words, but what does he really mean, and is what HE thinks that much worse than what Obama thinks? If you think policy is interesting, one can read his book and/or just look at his homepage, objectively review his suggestions and proposals, and make an assessment. I have, and I don't think it's too bad. And I grew up in Scandinavia!