Pensacola Discussion Forum
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

This is a forum based out of Pensacola Florida.


You are not connected. Please login or register

FOR NEKOCHAN: One of the most prominent conservative republican voices in America calls Romney's remarks "stupid and arrogant".

+5
Nekochan
Sal
TEOTWAWKI
2seaoat
Hospital Bob
9 posters

Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

Go down  Message [Page 3 of 5]

Nekochan

Nekochan

2seaoat wrote:Stereotypes.......you know those folks who voted for Obama because he would make their car payments.....really? Do I really even have to say anything.

This campaign has simply become stupid. Romney is just being honest. He represents those who want to steal America and redistribute the middle class among the 1%.....totally sacking this country. Obama and others.....including good Republicans have not been happy with the median income trend......and now they are accused of redistribution of wealth......The truth is simple. The median income is the entire indicator of where we have to go........and you can call it anything you want, but the 1% are not going to steal this country. Romney will lose.....taxes will go up, and Obama will think he has a mandate, and will grow government.....not my first choice, but Romney could not get elected to Dog Catcher, and Ann Coulter was correct from the beginning.

My statement was in direct response to Yella's comment that Romney followers are dangerous. Of course, you probably agree with Yella.

Guest


Guest

Nekochan wrote:I have to respectfully disagree, Yella.
back in 2008, there were Obama supporters who really thought that Obama was going to take care of paying for their housing, their car payments, their food and everything else for them. They thought that the whole world would love us if we elected Obama. Now that's a crazy and dangerous "worship" sort of mentality.

Brings a tear to your eye doesn't it? From laughing at their stupidity. Like this moron:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P36x8rTb3jI

Nekochan

Nekochan

Bob wrote:
Nekochan wrote:

You've been listening to Romney at every campaign stop? Then you should know that he says he wants to preserve Social Security.
The soundbites at every campaign stop are played on television.

EVERY presidential candidate who ever lived says they want to preserve social security. Except the ones who said they didn't and their 15 minutes ran out in less than 15 minutes. lol

Well Bob, you have to decide what you're going to believe. Maybe you believe that Romney wants to throw granny over the cliff and tax her social security and that Romney is evil incarnate (like Seaoat thinks) or maybe you think Obama needs another 4 years to save the country or maybe you don't like either of them. It's for you to decide.
As for myself, I neither think that Obama is evil or that Romney is going to create jobs for everyone and save the world. But I do know that I do not agree with Obama's ideas about the forceful distribution of wealth. I believe in a safety net for those who need it, but I don't believe success should be punished. I think Romney knows more about policies that support job creation than Obama does. And so given an imperfect world with imperfect candidates--I choose Romney. It's either Romney or 4 more years of Obama and I choose against 4 more years of Obama.

So, try to muddle through all the crap from both sides and decide what you think is best for yourself and for our country. Only you can decide for yourself.

knothead

knothead

Bob wrote:William Kristol says this in his Weekly Standard...


A Note on Romney’s Arrogant and Stupid Remarks

9:16 AM, Sep 18, 2012 • By WILLIAM KRISTOL

So we have in 2012 two presidential candidates who—when they thought they were speaking privately to their fellow 1 percenters—have shown contempt for fellow Americans.

Here's Barack Obama, on April 6, 2008, in San Francisco:

"You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton Administration, and the Bush Administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

It's worth recalling that Obama was speaking about Democrats who were voting in the primary for Hillary Clinton. So Obama seems to have contempt not just for the Republicans who oppose him, but for millions of Americans who ended up voting for him in November 2008.

And here's Mitt Romney, on May 17, 2012, in Boca Raton:

"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 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. That that’s an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what….These are people who pay no income tax.... [M]y job is is not to worry about those people. I’ll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives."

It's worth recalling that a good chunk of the 47 percent who don't pay income taxes are Romney supporters—especially of course seniors (who might well "believe they are entitled to heath care," a position Romney agrees with), as well as many lower-income Americans (including men and women serving in the military) who think conservative policies are better for the country even if they're not getting a tax cut under the Romney plan. So Romney seems to have contempt not just for the Democrats who oppose him, but for tens of millions who intend to vote for him.

It remains important for the country that Romney wins in November (unless he chooses to step down and we get the Ryan-Rubio ticket we deserve!). But that shouldn't blind us to the fact that Romney's comments, like those of Obama four years ago, are stupid and arrogant.

Indeed: Has there been a presidential race in modern times featuring two candidates who have done so little over their lifetimes for our country, and who have so little substance to say about the future of our country?


Bob, Am posting Obama's complete statement so his comments will be ead in context just as we have heard Romney's complete comments, fair and balanced.

Full transcript:

OBAMA: So, it depends on where you are, but I think it's fair to say that the places where we are going to have to do the most work are the places where people feel most cynical about government. The people are mis-appre...I think they're misunderstanding why the demographics in our, in this contest have broken out as they are. Because everybody just ascribes it to 'white working-class don't wanna work -- don't wanna vote for the black guy.' That's...there were intimations of that in an article in the Sunday New York Times today - kind of implies that it's sort of a race thing.

Here's how it is: in a lot of these communities in big industrial states like Ohio and Pennsylvania, people have been beaten down so long, and they feel so betrayed by government, and when they hear a pitch that is premised on not being cynical about government, then a part of them just doesn't buy it. And when it's delivered by -- it's true that when it's delivered by a 46-year-old black man named Barack Obama (laugher), then that adds another layer of skepticism (laughter).

But -- so the questions you're most likely to get about me, 'Well, what is this guy going to do for me? What's the concrete thing?' What they wanna hear is -- so, we'll give you talking points about what we're proposing -- close tax loopholes, roll back, you know, the tax cuts for the top 1 percent. Obama's gonna give tax breaks to middle-class folks and we're gonna provide health care for every American. So we'll go down a series of talking points.

But the truth is, is that, our challenge is to get people persuaded that we can make progress when there's not evidence of that in their daily lives. You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. So it's not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.

Um, now these are in some communities, you know. I think what you'll find is, is that people of every background -- there are gonna be a mix of people, you can go in the toughest neighborhoods, you know working-class lunch-pail folks, you'll find Obama enthusiasts. And you can go into places where you think I'd be very strong and people will just be skeptical. The important thing is that you show up and you're doing what you're doing.

2seaoat



My statement was in direct response to Yella's comment that Romney followers are dangerous. Of course, you probably agree with Yella.

I see three kinds of supporters of Romney. I find friends who are making over 200k in their family who are intelligent and successful who do not want to be paying more taxes, and believe that the tax rate has become to great, and they see Romney is a conduit for them to make more money. This group is extremely intelligent and very pragmatic in their support of Romney.

The second group, are socially conservative and have very strong opinions based on their religious beliefs, and find the Republican platform to be more consistent with their beliefs.

The third group is xenophobic and racist and even though the policies which have made their lower middle class existence plunge to the working poor, their hate for a black man supercedes their own economic interests. They resent government, and think that black people are voting for President Obama because he will make their car payment.

I think the first two groups above are rational. I think the third group is extremely dangerous and history has shown that this group can easily be manipulated by propoganda, and history is replete with examples where nations and the world have been harmed by the manipulation of basic human nature where fear and prejudice can be manipulated.

I was in the first group and wanted less taxes, and candidates who improved my business interests, and then I got sick in 2008.....I began to ask questions, and by 2012 I realized my business interests and America's very survival depend on the median income improving for Americans, and that the party I have supported for my entire life has been hijacked by the third group who hates government and wants to destroy the union and revert back to stupid times. Romney has captured the third group, but he could care less about them, or America......he wants to make it easier for the wealthy to simply pick the bones of America. Fiscal conservative Republicans who are businessmen are beginning to realize this third group is in fact dangerous to America, and that if getting nominated requires to kowtow to this evil, we are doomed, or we must make other choices.

Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob

Nekochan wrote:

Well Bob... maybe you think Obama needs another 4 years to save the country
I think Jon Stewart spoke for me when O'Reilly told him last night "Obama is your idol".

Stewart replied: "you must have him confused with Elvis".

lol

By the way, as much as I mostly hate the cable news channel content, that exchange last night between Stewart and O'Reilly was very entertaining to watch. They have good chemistry with each other on camera. And they're going to do a debate with each other which will be televised on the internet. Although they're charging $4.98 pay-per-view to see it live so I'll wait for the free youtube if there is one. lol



Last edited by Bob on 9/19/2012, 12:45 pm; edited 1 time in total

Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob

Here it is. See what the rest of you think. I thought both O'Reilly and Stewart were equally entertaining...

http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/oreilly/index.html#/v/1848034849001/stewart-and-oreilly-rumble-in-no-spin-zone/?playlist_id=86923

2seaoat



Love the clip......these are two intelligent people who are confident in themselves and are genuine. Mr. O does not get great ratings by accident, and Mr. S has young people flocking to him for news because he is funny, but more importantly he has integrity.... America likes both of these people, and I cannot wait to see the utube, and I have really enjoyed their exchanges in the past.

Yella

Yella

It is my view that Mitt Romney should not accuse anyone of not paying taxes until he produces his last ten years of returns and put his own issues to rest or faces the consequences for not paying taxes.

http://warpedinblue,blogspot.com/

Nekochan

Nekochan

2seaoat wrote:My statement was in direct response to Yella's comment that Romney followers are dangerous. Of course, you probably agree with Yella.

I see three kinds of supporters of Romney. I find friends who are making over 200k in their family who are intelligent and successful who do not want to be paying more taxes, and believe that the tax rate has become to great, and they see Romney is a conduit for them to make more money. This group is extremely intelligent and very pragmatic in their support of Romney.

The second group, are socially conservative and have very strong opinions based on their religious beliefs, and find the Republican platform to be more consistent with their beliefs.

The third group is xenophobic and racist and even though the policies which have made their lower middle class existence plunge to the working poor, their hate for a black man supercedes their own economic interests. They resent government, and think that black people are voting for President Obama because he will make their car payment.

I think the first two groups above are rational. I think the third group is extremely dangerous and history has shown that this group can easily be manipulated by propoganda, and history is replete with examples where nations and the world have been harmed by the manipulation of basic human nature where fear and prejudice can be manipulated.

I was in the first group and wanted less taxes, and candidates who improved my business interests, and then I got sick in 2008.....I began to ask questions, and by 2012 I realized my business interests and America's very survival depend on the median income improving for Americans, and that the party I have supported for my entire life has been hijacked by the third group who hates government and wants to destroy the union and revert back to stupid times. Romney has captured the third group, but he could care less about them, or America......he wants to make it easier for the wealthy to simply pick the bones of America. Fiscal conservative Republicans who are businessmen are beginning to realize this third group is in fact dangerous to America, and that if getting nominated requires to kowtow to this evil, we are doomed, or we must make other choices.

Well, there you go, Seaoat. I don't fit into any of those groups. But I can see why you're so sure that Obama will win.

Nekochan

Nekochan

Yella wrote:It is my view that Mitt Romney should not accuse anyone of not paying taxes until he produces his last ten years of returns and put his own issues to rest or faces the consequences for not paying taxes.

Would you vote for him then? I bet not!

Sal

Sal

Nekochan wrote:
Yella wrote:It is my view that Mitt Romney should not accuse anyone of not paying taxes until he produces his last ten years of returns and put his own issues to rest or faces the consequences for not paying taxes.

Would you vote for him then? I bet not!

No one would. That's the problem.

Nekochan

Nekochan

salinsky wrote:
Nekochan wrote:
Yella wrote:It is my view that Mitt Romney should not accuse anyone of not paying taxes until he produces his last ten years of returns and put his own issues to rest or faces the consequences for not paying taxes.

Would you vote for him then? I bet not!

No one would. That's the problem.

Ha, ha...so says you and Seaoat.

Guest


Guest

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/19/veterans-mitt-romney_n_1897200.html?utm_hp_ref=fb&src=sp&comm_ref=false

Floridatexan

Floridatexan

Yella wrote:Islam and those dedicated to it is the scariest thing in the world.

Romney and his followers would be next

I completely disagree. Religious zealots are the problem; not the mainstream religion, whatever it is. I don't believe that Muslims in general are jihadists. I think many of them live in impoverished parts of the world and are easily led because of their circumstances.

Guest


Guest

I don't think anybody w/ any sense ever thought Obama was going to pay their car payments.

Guest


Guest

Nekochan wrote:
Bob wrote:
Nekochan wrote:

You've been listening to Romney at every campaign stop? Then you should know that he says he wants to preserve Social Security.
The soundbites at every campaign stop are played on television.

EVERY presidential candidate who ever lived says they want to preserve social security. Except the ones who said they didn't and their 15 minutes ran out in less than 15 minutes. lol

Well Bob, you have to decide what you're going to believe. Maybe you believe that Romney wants to throw granny over the cliff and tax her social security and that Romney is evil incarnate (like Seaoat thinks) or maybe you think Obama needs another 4 years to save the country or maybe you don't like either of them. It's for you to decide.
As for myself, I neither think that Obama is evil or that Romney is going to create jobs for everyone and save the world. But I do know that I do not agree with Obama's ideas about the forceful distribution of wealth. I believe in a safety net for those who need it, but I don't believe success should be punished. I think Romney knows more about policies that support job creation than Obama does. And so given an imperfect world with imperfect candidates--I choose Romney. It's either Romney or 4 more years of Obama and I choose against 4 more years of Obama.

So, try to muddle through all the crap from both sides and decide what you think is best for yourself and for our country. Only you can decide for yourself.

I don't think success should be punished either but I don't think Romney has the interests of people like you and me.When Obama said "we need to share the wealth" he was not literally talking about taking away wealth from people but distributing the opportunity for people to have a higher standard of life. When the middle class is burdened w/ most of the taxes it is difficult to achieve that.

Nekochan

Nekochan

Dreams, that attitude presumes that there is only so much money, that there is a limited amount of money and so the government should "help" divide it up.

The middle class is not burdened with most taxes, at least not most federal income taxes. You keep saying that, but it is not true. Where are you getting this? I'd like to see your source on that.

Nekochan

Nekochan

Now it's being reported that the part of the video where Romney talked about the Palestinians was heavily edited. He went on to say that eventually the Palestinians will want peace. But that's not what was reported.

And reports are still saying that there is a minute or two missing from the 47% part. Just because Mother Jones released a transcript of everything heard on the video doesn't mean that the transcript OR the video was a complete report of what Romney said on the subject that day.

Guest


Guest

Nekochan wrote:Dreams, that attitude presumes that there is only so much money, that there is a limited amount of money and so the government should "help" divide it up.

The middle class is not burdened with most taxes, at least not most federal income taxes. You keep saying that, but it is not true. Where are you getting this? I'd like to see your source on that.

At a Senate Finance Committee hearing in May 2011, Senator Charles Grassley said, “According to the Joint Committee on Taxation, 49 percent of households are paying 100 percent of taxes coming in to the federal government” (meaning that the other 51 percent pay no federal tax whatsoever). At the same hearing, Cato Institute Senior Fellow Alan Reynolds asserted, “Poor people don’t pay taxes in this country.” In 2010, Fox Business host Stuart Varney said on Fox and Friends, “Yes, 47 percent of households pay not a single dime in taxes.”[13]

None of these assertions are correct. As the Tax Policy Center’s Howard Gleckman noted regarding a TPC estimate that almost half of Americans owed no federal income tax in 2009, “rarely has a bit of data been so misunderstood, or so misused.” Gleckman wrote:

Let me explain — repeat actually — what [the figure] means: About half of taxpayers paid no federal income tax last year. It does not mean they paid no tax at all. Many shelled out Social Security and Medicare payroll taxes. [….] Some paid property taxes and, it is fair to say, just about all of them paid sales taxes of one kind or another. So to say they pay no taxes is flat wrong.[14]

The reality is that the income tax is one of a number of types of taxes that individuals pay, both over the course of their lifetimes and in a given year, and it makes little sense to treat it as though it were the only tax that matters. Some 82 percent of working households pay more in payroll taxes than in federal income taxes.[15] In fact, low- and moderate-income people pay a much larger share of their incomes in federal payroll taxes than high-income people do: taxpayers in the bottom 20 percent of the income scale paid an average of 8.8 percent of their incomes in payroll taxes in 2007, compared to 1.6 percent of income for those in the top 1 percent of the income distribution (see Figure 2).[16]
At a Senate Finance Committee hearing in May 2011, Senator Charles Grassley said, “According to the Joint Committee on Taxation, 49 percent of households are paying 100 percent of taxes coming in to the federal government” (meaning that the other 51 percent pay no federal tax whatsoever). At the same hearing, Cato Institute Senior Fellow Alan Reynolds asserted, “Poor people don’t pay taxes in this country.” In 2010, Fox Business host Stuart Varney said on Fox and Friends, “Yes, 47 percent of households pay not a single dime in taxes.”[13]

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3505

Nekochan

Nekochan

Bob, about that video-this is straight from the horse's mouth. Corn admits a minute or more of the video is missing.

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2012/09/corn-kudlow-report-supposedly-missing-two-minutes-romney-video

Nekochan

Nekochan

Dreams--the people who pay payroll taxes get all their money, and more, back.

As for federal income taxes, the system is very progressive, meaning that those who make the most pay the most. And those people who pay high income taxes also pay payroll taxes.

Personally, I don't think it would be a bad idea if the cut off for payroll taxes was put at a higher level. But if you count the income tax PLUS the payroll tax that higher income people pay, it's going to be more than the bottom 47% pay.

Nekochan

Nekochan

Here you go, Dreams. And for Knot, too, because he was focusing on the total tax burden. The rich STILL pay a higher percentage in taxes when all the taxes --federal income tax , federal payroll tax, state and local taxes are all added up.

http://www.ctj.org/pdf/taxday2012.pdf

Guest


Guest

Dreamsglore wrote:
Nekochan wrote:Dreams, that attitude presumes that there is only so much money, that there is a limited amount of money and so the government should "help" divide it up.

The middle class is not burdened with most taxes, at least not most federal income taxes. You keep saying that, but it is not true. Where are you getting this? I'd like to see your source on that.

At a Senate Finance Committee hearing in May 2011, Senator Charles Grassley said, “According to the Joint Committee on Taxation, 49 percent of households are paying 100 percent of taxes coming in to the federal government” (meaning that the other 51 percent pay no federal tax whatsoever). At the same hearing, Cato Institute Senior Fellow Alan Reynolds asserted, “Poor people don’t pay taxes in this country.” In 2010, Fox Business host Stuart Varney said on Fox and Friends, “Yes, 47 percent of households pay not a single dime in taxes.”[13]

None of these assertions are correct. As the Tax Policy Center’s Howard Gleckman noted regarding a TPC estimate that almost half of Americans owed no federal income tax in 2009, “rarely has a bit of data been so misunderstood, or so misused.” Gleckman wrote:

Let me explain — repeat actually — what [the figure] means: About half of taxpayers paid no federal income tax last year. It does not mean they paid no tax at all. Many shelled out Social Security and Medicare payroll taxes. [….] Some paid property taxes and, it is fair to say, just about all of them paid sales taxes of one kind or another. So to say they pay no taxes is flat wrong.[14]

The reality is that the income tax is one of a number of types of taxes that individuals pay, both over the course of their lifetimes and in a given year, and it makes little sense to treat it as though it were the only tax that matters. Some 82 percent of working households pay more in payroll taxes than in federal income taxes.[15] In fact, low- and moderate-income people pay a much larger share of their incomes in federal payroll taxes than high-income people do: taxpayers in the bottom 20 percent of the income scale paid an average of 8.8 percent of their incomes in payroll taxes in 2007, compared to 1.6 percent of income for those in the top 1 percent of the income distribution (see Figure 2).[16]
At a Senate Finance Committee hearing in May 2011, Senator Charles Grassley said, “According to the Joint Committee on Taxation, 49 percent of households are paying 100 percent of taxes coming in to the federal government” (meaning that the other 51 percent pay no federal tax whatsoever). At the same hearing, Cato Institute Senior Fellow Alan Reynolds asserted, “Poor people don’t pay taxes in this country.” In 2010, Fox Business host Stuart Varney said on Fox and Friends, “Yes, 47 percent of households pay not a single dime in taxes.”[13]

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3505

agreed on some degree... but that same logic has to be used on the entire scenario. obamacare will tax/penalize and by "allowing" the federal reserve to print another stimulus it hits/taxes those that can least afford too. just because something isn't called a tax doesn't change it's effect. so truthfully... obama is raising taxes on the working poor and middle class... right?

Sal

Sal

I think that this is very well put ...

Still, for my money, the worst of Romney’s comments were these: “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.”

When he said this, Romney didn’t just write off half the country behind closed doors. He also confirmed the worst suspicions about who he is: an entitled rich guy with no understanding of how people who aren’t rich actually live.

The thing about not having much money is you have to take much more responsibility for your life. You can’t pay people to watch your kids or clean your house or fix your meals. You can’t necessarily afford a car or a washing machine or a home in a good school district. That’s what money buys you: goods and services that make your life easier.

That’s what money has bought Romney, too. He’s a guy who sold his dad’s stock to pay for college, who built an elevator to ensure easier access to his multiple cars and who was able to support his wife’s decision to be a stay-at-home mom. That’s great! That’s the dream.

The problem is that he doesn’t seem to realize how difficult it is to focus on college when you’re also working full time, how much planning it takes to reliably commute to work without a car, or the agonizing choices faced by families in which both parents work and a child falls ill. The working poor haven’t abdicated responsibility for their lives. They’re drowning in it.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-09-18/what-mitt-romney-doesn-t-get-about-responsibility.html

Sponsored content



Back to top  Message [Page 3 of 5]

Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum