The Real Mitt Romney

[Cyber Wolf]

One of the 47% Romney isn't concerned about...

http://news.yahoo.com/slammed-using-...XBhZ2U-;_ylv=3

Nerger said the reason she and her family - she is married with a daughter - must rely on food stamps is because her husband's carpentry business isn't profitable enough to support the family.

Meanwhile, Nerger must devote 12 hours every night to a dialysis treatment to combat her kidney disease, which she's struggled with since the age of 11. She's been on a kidney transplant list for five years and hopes that someday, after a successful transplant, she can become a working member of society. She would like to attend college to major in child psychology.

"There's just so much stigmatism put on people on food stamps. They're just some losers who don't want to work. That isn't the case in every situation," she said.

[Adak]

Originally Posted by Sheldonrs

Yup, that would be bad. Luckily, as EVERY investigation has shown, it hasn't.

List your "investigations", because it's common in So. CA, and infamous in Nevada and Illinois.

Bottom line is, nearly EVERYONE has a valid photo ID. You need it to get a checking account, driver a car, travel out of the country, I need it when I withdraw cash from my bank, get a library or video store card, sometimes, even to cash a check.

And all those who don't have a valid photo ID, can get one from the state, for free.

So WHAT'S the *BIG PROBLEM* in showing it, when we vote?

Name another country where you vote, without showing an ID (either a card or a thumb/finger print, or both).

Not Mexico, not Canada! Here's the requirements for Canada:

Option 1
Show one original piece of identification with your photo, name and address. It must be issued by a government agency.

Example: driver's licence.


Option 2

Show two original pieces of authorized identification. Both pieces must have your name and one must also have your address.

Example: health card and hydro bill.

or

Option 3

Take an oath and have an elector who knows you vouch for you. This person must have authorized identification and be from the same polling division as you. This person can only vouch for one person.

Examples: a neighbour, your roommate.

WHY do we need NOTHING in order to vote? What possible reason could there be for that?

Voter F-R-A-U-D.

[Adak]

Your statement is not factual. You need to re-read Romney's recorded statement, or listen to it more carefully.

By tagging 47 percent of America as irresponsible, Obama-supporting government dependents, Romney showed again that his politics are grounded in false liberal premises.

Romney's statement at a closed-door fundraiser reflected the mistaken liberal view that the growth of government mostly redistributes wealth downward -- it doesn't. He also implicitly bought into the Left's narrow view that both tax cuts and welfare programs mostly benefit the immediate recipients. Finally, Romney conflated tax cuts with government aid, reflecting the perverse mindset that all wealth originally belongs to the state.

Mitt was talking about political estimates of his supporters, and estimates of Obama's supporters, for the upcoming Fall election.

He wasn't discussing economic, welfare, or monetary theories.

You're implying a great deal about his talk at the fundraiser last May, that simply was not included.

Listen to his talk again, keeping in mind the setting - a political fundraiser, and this was back in May. It's not a talk about theories. It's a talk about political realities that he expected to see, in the Fall.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by Adak

Mitt was talking about political estimates of his supporters, and estimates of Obama's supporters, for the upcoming Fall election.
...
Listen to his talk again, keeping in mind the setting - a political fundraiser, and this was back in May. It's not a talk about theories. It's a talk about political realities that he expected to see, in the Fall.

Part of it was about political realities:

Originally Posted by Romney's political realities

"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, ...
And they will vote for this president no matter what…
[M]y job is not to worry about those people.

And part is about his political theories on why he can't get them:

Originally Posted by Romney's theories

...who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it.
...
These are people who pay no income tax.

Neither the theories nor the "realities" are patricularly laudable, or accurate.

I expect that Romney's right that at least 47% won't vote for him, but it's not particularly correlated with the set of people who don't pay Federal income tax.

[Cyber Wolf]

Originally Posted by Adak

Your statement is not factual. You need to re-read Romney's recorded statement, or listen to it more carefully.



Mitt was talking about political estimates of his supporters, and estimates of Obama's supporters, for the upcoming Fall election.

He wasn't discussing economic, welfare, or monetary theories.

You're implying a great deal about his talk at the fundraiser last May, that simply was not included.

Listen to his talk again, keeping in mind the setting - a political fundraiser, and this was back in May. It's not a talk about theories. It's a talk about political realities that he expected to see, in the Fall.

You didn't mention whom this is directed to, but since you quoted my post, I'll assume it's me.

In case you didn't notice, those were not my statements. I had directly quoted and linked conservative editor Timothy Carney out of the Washington Examiner. Maybe you should talk to him about listening (and reading) more closely.

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by Adak

It's a talk about political realities that he expected to see, in the Fall.

No it isn't. There is so much wrong with what Romney said that it is difficult to even start. I don't have time or motivation to go into detail so here the basic points.

1) The income tax only accounts for 30% (I think...) of all government revenue. In fact, around 67% of this 47% do pay payroll tax. The people who are not are largely made up of the elderly, students, soldiers, and people making under 20 grand a year. While many of these people will vote democrat, the income tax has nothing to do with it.

2) The vast majority of this 47% lives in states that vote conservative. So that means some of these 47%ers are actually voting Republican or their votes don't actually mean much since their state is going Republican anyways.

3) Receiving benefits does not automatically equal dependency.

4) Only someone who makes decisions based on data points would ever believe that 47% of the US population is automatically against him. This was the year that Obama was supposed to lose. If you want a reason why people are supporting Obama, listen to the Republican primary debates. Republicans fell off the deep end a while ago and they are still falling.

[Sheldonrs]

President Obama is not a socialist. Never has been, except on Fox.

If you want to talk about the profit the Utah Olympics made, good luck backing it up with proof since Romney had all his records destroyed.

If you want to talk about what a great job he did as Governor, good luck backing that up with proof. He had those records sealed.

If you want to talk about how much he gives to charities, good luck backing that up with proof. He hasn't even released ONE full year of his tax records.

If you want to talk about his support of gay rights, there's plenty of proof on video from when he was Governor.

If you want to talk about his opposition to gay rights, including gay marriage (and yes, it IS a marriage - GOD never created that word. It was invented by humans. Gays are human and can use the word as well. Don't like it, tough shit!) There's plenty of proof on video since he officially started running for President.

If you want to talk about his support for Universal health care, there's plenty of proof on video from when he was governor.

If you want to talk about his opposition to universal health care, there's plenty of proof on video since he started running for President.

If you want to vote for Romney for President, that's your right.
And it is my right to believe, with all my heart, that you are a fucking moron.

[Ibby]

The very fact that Romney believes that ANY American is NOT entitled to not starve to death - the fact that he DOESN'T believe that we are all entitled to food, in one of the richest countries on the planet - is alone enough to damn him, in my view.

[Ibby]

It's that socialism would actually be adjusting the way the class is taught in such a way as to give the failing student a better chance at being able to learn the material and to pass.

[DanaC]

It would also work better as an analogy if the teacher changed the relationship of the students to the teaching and setting of the test (the means of production).

Socialism isn't about making everything and everybody even :P

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by DanaC

Socialism isn't about making everything and everybody even :P

But the target audience are people that do believe that! They don't care what socialism actually is (that would involve facts and critical thinking), they just care about what they believe socialism is. You know, their gut feeling.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Romney says no to "Net Neutrality".

Romney thinks the FCC’s rules promoting “net neutrality” are the fulfillment of a campaign promise that was made to “special interests.” Obama reiterates his support for an open internet, while listing all the issues that compete for regulatory attention–from protection of intellectual property to cybersecurity to privacy.

Romney Cites Energy Report That Advocates Carbon Price.

In his answer to the question on “Research and the Future” Romney writes:

I am a strong supporter of federally funded research… [yet] President Obama spent $90 billion in stimulus dollars in a failed attempt to promote his green energy agenda. That same spending could have funded the nation’s energy research programs at the level recommended in a recent Harvard University study for nearly twenty years.

Yet I was curious about this Harvard study. How would a President Romney focus energy research funding if not on clean energy?

A little Googling later, I discovered “Transforming U.S. Energy Innovation,” a 338-page report published in November 2011 by the Energy Technology Innovation Policy research group at Harvard’s John F. Kennedy School of Government. (Romney’s domestic policy advisor Oren Cass confirms that the candidate was referring to this study.) Its recommendations are at once completely anodyne—they echo, to varying extent, the opinions of the great majority of policy experts who think seriously about technology, energy security, economics and climate change—and totally surprising, in that they resemble very little of what Romney has been saying on the campaign trail.

Perhaps the most glaring difference is that the report calls for the U.S. federal government to put a “substantial price” on carbon emissions, either through a cap-and-trade system or a carbon tax. The experts argue that a price on carbon will prod private business into developing new energy technologies. Private-sector innovation is a policy theme that the Romney camp extols, but in another question Romney states that he would “oppose steps like a carbon tax or a cap-and-trade system that would handicap the American economy and drive manufacturing jobs away.”

[Happy Monkey]

And even this plan, a grab bag of Republican proposals, is deemed "highly socialistic".

[Adak]

What's with all the racism, Bruce? You must be a Democrat!

Where did Reagan describe this "welfare" belief? I just ask, because you're full of shit.

When Reagan was running for re-election, he had a commercial with the theme of:

"Morning in America"

And in it, his accomplishments over the last four years were listed:
lower unemployment, lower interest rates, more jobs, etc.

Like Obama, Reagan took over when the economy was in a serious recession. Still, after less than four years, he had a very substantial recovery underway, and a stronger country, overall -- by any measure.

Now we see Obama, in a similar situation. Except he has NOTHING but cherry picked numbers to talk about, and almost NOTHING substantial in a recovery - despite spending Trillions of dollars on his plans. By his OWN statements, earlier in his term, his economic plans have been a failure, in every way possible.

1) Our unemployment rate is a failure, according to Obama.

2) Our job creation number (a negative net number, btw), is an obvious failure, according to Obama.

3) Our national debt and balance of trade, is a failure and "unpatriotic" according to Obama.

What ARE his successes?

1) Gays allowed to serve in the military -- long overdue, but Bush wouldn't have done it, so well done, Obama.

2) Michelle's better eating campaign - although I note that HER child goes to a private school - and serves Pizza (cheese or pepperoni), in the school cafeteria. (true, but just a bit of humor)

     Reagan:                            Obama:
"Morning in America"               "Mourning in America"

All I hear from Obama is cherry picked numbers, and platitudes about what he WILL do! But I've already SEEN what he will do -- and it's just more of the same crap that hasn't worked for the last 3 1/2 years!

Do you REALLY want four more years of these failures?

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by Adak

Where did Reagan describe this "welfare" belief? I just ask, because you're full of shit.

Is that so, well I'm old enough to remember it well, but that's not good enough so;
CNN
Anita
Womenslawproject
Junkland
Theroot
Friedman
Blackyouthproject
ionproject
And when you're done with those I've got a whole lot more.

When Reagan was running for re-election, he had a commercial with the theme of:

"Morning in America"

And in it, his accomplishments over the last four years were listed:
lower unemployment, lower interest rates, more jobs, etc.

Last four? What about the first four if you're going to compare Reagan with Obama... Mr cherry picker.

Like Obama, Reagan took over when the economy was in a serious recession. Still, after less than four years, he had a very substantial recovery underway, and a stronger country, overall -- by any measure.

Yes he did, raising taxes in 1982, 1984, 1985, 1986 and 1987.
Sure makes it a lot easier when you can raise taxes 5 times AND the loyal opposition actually cared about America instead of their rich Patróns.

Now we see Obama, in a similar situation. Except he has NOTHING but cherry picked numbers to talk about, and almost NOTHING substantial in a recovery - despite spending Trillions of dollars on his plans. By his OWN statements, earlier in his term, his economic plans have been a failure, in every way possible.

Thank you for the view of the uninformed.

1) Our unemployment rate is a failure, according to Obama.

2) Our job creation number (a negative net number, btw), is an obvious failure, according to Obama.

3) Our national debt and balance of trade, is a failure and "unpatriotic" according to Obama.

I'm sure you're shaken to the roots hearing a politician speak honestly, candidly, about the progress of recovery. You certainly don't from Romney, Boehner, or Ryan.
You seem to have trouble distinguishing between Obama's plans and what Congress actually enacted. Like mom making a balanced meal and the spoiled brats only eating dessert.

What ARE his successes?

1) Gays allowed to serve in the military -- long overdue, but Bush wouldn't have done it, so well done, Obama.

2) Michelle's better eating campaign - although I note that HER child goes to a private school - and serves Pizza (cheese or pepperoni), in the school cafeteria. (true, but just a bit of humor)

For starters, we could add;
Getting out of Iraq.
Improving America's image abroad.
Passing health-care reform.
Getting Osama bin Laden.
Preventing a depression.
Won the Nobel Peace Prize. (true, but just a bit of humor)
And here's a list of a couple hundred more.

All I hear from Obama is cherry picked numbers, and platitudes about what he WILL do! But I've already SEEN what he will do -- and it's just more of the same crap that hasn't worked for the last 3 1/2 years!

Liar, liar, pants on fire! I've never, ever, heard Obama say HE was going to do any of those things. I've heard him say His/Democrats, plans/goals are such and such, but since you were sleeping in high school civics, the president really can't do much because congress makes laws and controls the purse strings.

Do you REALLY want four more years of these failures?

HELL NO, BOEHNER MUST GO!

Honestly, I've been disappointed in Obama's first term. I did know he was more center-left than most of his supporters believed. I'm glad he didn't go crazy trying to jam a whole lot of change at once, which would never fly.
My gut feeling, and it's just that, is after the last campaign whipped the public into such a frenzy almost 62% bothered to vote, he felt he would get more help from the public pressuring Congress to support his plans. Like I said, it's just my gut feeling, but if that's true, he hadn't seen the mid-season TV schedule. I mean who cares about government when Superstars of Dance or American Idol is on.

From the depression to Reagan, the tri-lateral commission (government, labor, and the 1%) kept everything in balance, not letting power swing too far in any direction. But since 1980 I've seen labor decimated causing real wages to decline, Congress bought by K Street, lock, stock, and barrel, and the 1% play the "Global Economy" card to put themselves back in power.

I honestly believe this election is the last stand against a power grab that we peons may never recover from. Mainly because unlike the Robber Barons of old, the current 1% don't give a shit about the country.

And it's not Romney so much, he's just a hey-look-over-here, the Congressional elections is where karl Rove & Co is directing their efforts. Well that and electronic voting machines. haven't heard much about them but I doubt they are any more secure than they have been.

So that's why Moi, a lifelong independent who even voted for Nixon and Bush (first terms only), is strongly supporting Obama...


and maybe Hillary in '16.