Mitt Romney calls half of America freeloaders

[Thepaindispenser]

Originally Posted by jms62

You then are the one that needs to go back and read what Mitt said. They are included in the 47% along with someone working 2 minimum wage jobs and receiving food stamps trying to feed their family cause they lost thier job of 40 years to line Mitts pockets because Bain came in and inflicted their Pain and outsourced their entire division to India.

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.

[jms62]

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.

Dude Guys like Mitt borrowing at low rates from banks which borrow at even lowernrates from the Fed which is my and your tax dollars buying companies and setting themselves up wit huge managment fees, firing people and shipping jobs overseas which means less money going into our economy and taxes and more money spent in unemployment for them is the problem. He is a Vampire sucking capital out our economy for himself. Does not sound presidential to me.

[Thepaindispenser]

Originally Posted by jms62

Dude Guys like Mitt borrowing at low rates from banks which borrow at even lowernrates from the Fed which is my and your tax dollars buying companies and setting themselves up wit huge managment fees, firing people and shipping jobs overseas which means less money going into our economy and taxes and more money spent in unemployment for them is the problem. He is a Vampire sucking capital out our economy for himself. Does not sound presidential to me.

I think you are giving a bit of exaggerated view of what companies like Bain Capital actually do. There are plenty of private equity firms who buy companies in my business and keep them here. Cory Booker knows it, companies like this are needed to clean up inefficient companies and keep them floating, it doesn't always work.

[jms62]

Originally Posted by Thepaindispenser

I think you are giving a bit of exaggerated view of what companies like Bain Capital actually do. There are plenty of private equity firms who buy companies in my business and keep them here. Cory Booker knows it, companies like this are needed to clean up inefficient companies and keep them floating, it doesn't always work.

No I am not at all. You are stuck in the 80's Michael Douglas movie where "Greed is Good"; Where "Trickle Down" didn't mean PISS on. Now it is all about clear cutting and strip mining the American Economy for the benefit of a privliged few and leaving a vast barren wasteland in your swath. If that wasn't the case then WHY THE **** ARE WE Here right now? And you want to put someone in Office that was a CHIEF Engineer of that methodology, Someone who thinks Banks are Overregulated even after they gutted us?? Are you serious?

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics...pital-20120829

[Thepaindispenser]

Originally Posted by jms62

No I am not at all. You are stuck in the 80's Michael Douglas movie where "Greed is Good"; Where "Trickle Down" didn't mean PISS on. Now it is all about clear cutting and strip mining the American Economy for the benefit of a privliged few and leaving a vast barren wasteland in your swath. If that wasn't the case then WHY THE **** ARE WE Here right now? And you want to put someone in Office that was a CHIEF Engineer of that methodology, Someone who thinks Banks are Overregulated even after they gutted us?? Are you serious?

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics...pital-20120829

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.

[jms62]

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.

Oh Really!!!???
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GkAtUq0OJ68

Oh My.... http://www.hark.com/clips/wspcywglfn-down-goes-frazier

[Thepaindispenser]

Originally Posted by jms62

Oh Really!!!???
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GkAtUq0OJ68

Oh My.... http://www.hark.com/clips/wspcywglfn-down-goes-frazier

You are right Bush was behind it at some point, but when he did call from some accountability for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the likes of Barney Frank ignored it.

Bill Clinton and his HUD Secretary Andrew Cuomo are the ones who started the push. Barney Frank and organizations like ACORN are the ones who really forced it on the banks.

By the way, that also shows you what a phony liar Bill Clinton is when he goes on TV hawking for Obama by saying the Romney's policies are the ones that got us in the mess. Clinton started this ridiculous push for home ownership by people who couldn't afford it and he signed the repealing of Glass-Steagel. Just like Clinton, never let those pesky facts get in the way of his rhetoric.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[geeker2]

Originally Posted by Danzig

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.

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