Just in case people don't notice it.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...721267002.html





.

True, but I always find it distasteful that they say people 'don't pay any taxes' rather than that 'they don't pay any federal income taxes.' Those two statements are very different, as even poor people pay state sales tax, payroll taxes, etc... and those small amounts have a disproportionately large impact on their standard of living because they represent a larger portion of their income pool.

The first thing that SHOULD be changed is the loss of 'benefits' for anyone who earns more than a small amount of income from work. It has long been the case that if you can collect SSI or some other assistance, you are usually better off NOT taking a job because earning more than a few hundred dollars per month would cause you to lose those benefits. There are people in this world capable of working and willing to work but incapable of earning enough money to sustain themselves above the poverty level. Rather than making welfare and work an either / or proposition I'd much rather turn it into a subsidy.

If you are a dim witted poor person only capable of working as a pizza delivery person or a walmart greeter - I'd much rather give you a 'Bonus' from the government for working to your potential than pay you to stay home and not take that low level job for fear of working for a wage decrease. Of course none of that can happen until we first accept the fact that people have varied potential and some lack the potential to do much. We really ought to stop calling them poor people or moochers and start calling them what they actually are... 'extra people' that society has but really does not need. :2 cents:

:2 cents:

Coming from you... that's rich.

Aren't you supposed to now post only in your section, and stop derailing threads??

:disgust

Honesty can be fatal to your career.

http://30for30.espn.com/uploads/clip_47_thumbnail.jpg

at least romney is finally telling what he thinks is the truth

READ THIS ARTICLE

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

the biggest A-Hole in the Country is Mitt Romney

nobody could vote for this guy after reading that

he calls 47% of Americans leeches... he is the biggest leech that ever exsisted

Republican tax logic is that business owners will hire more people if they save money on taxes.

You could just as easily say that the bottom 90% of America shouldn't pay any taxes at all so that they can instead spend the money at the store. This would be "trickle up economics."

Governments around the world do not want their citizens exposed to examples of functional communism, so they have historically found a reason to place sanctions upon any nation building towards it.

It's so easy for him to get it wrong.

Second, most of the government spending programs redistribute income from workers to the unemployed. WRONG.

But in reality the reverse has proven true. Permanent tax reduction generates more expansion than increased government spending of the same dollars. I believe that the resulting difference in productivity is a main reason for the difference in results. Does he offer proof of this working in 2012?

Third, Keynesian models totally ignore the negative effects of the stream of costly new regulations that pour out of the Obama bureaucracy. Who can guess the size of the cost increases required by these programs? ObamaCare is not the only source of this uncertainty, though it makes a large contribution. We also have an excessively eager group of environmental regulators, protectors of labor unions, and financial regulators. Their decisions raise future costs and increase uncertainty. How can a corporate staff hope to estimate future return on new investment when tax rates and costs are unknowable? Holding cash and waiting for less uncertainty is the principal response. Thus, the recession drags on. This he's right on. Let's get rid of the regulations stopping companies polluting the environment, people around the Gulf will like this one. Regulations on banks breaking the bank again. As for the workers, we can ship jobs to china, much easier.

The estimated cost of new jobs in President Obama's latest jobs bill is at least $200,000 per job, based on administration estimates of the number of jobs and their cost. So don't spend it, give it to tax payers to buy imported goods and the people out of work can starve. $200,000 employs people in the US. $200,000 in tax cuts increases exports.

First, Congress and the administration should agree on a 10-year program of government spending cuts to reduce the deficit. And increase unemployment. Great idea.

Second, reduce corporate tax rates So the bosses pay less tax, now we see the greed factor.

Fourth, adopt an enforceable 0%-2% inflation target to allay fears of future high inflation. With the unemployment it creates and the money sucked out of the US economy. Inflation won't be a problem.

But it must be true, it was printed in the.

THE WALL STREET JOURNAL.

WE ALL KNOW THOSE GUYS HAVE THE INTERESTS OF THE COUNTRY AT HEART AND ARE IN NO WAY TO BLAME FOR THE PRESENT MESS.

Most of Government spending ends up in US pockets, before they buy imports in the shops. Even if the US Government spends money. Where does it spend it. In the Bahamas, Andorra, Cyprus, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Mauritius, Monaco, Panama, San Marino or Seychelles?

No they spend it here. Well most of it.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...ames_2.svg.png

So Wall Street Journal wants to stop spending it in the US and do what with it?

sperbonzo you're living in the 1960s, when the shops were full of American goods and roads full of American cars. Wake up, the world has changed since then.

Edited to make it correct.

Pretty much. The story that isn't getting much traction is the effect of QE3 on INFLATION. If the debt continues rocketing up another four years, there might be hell to pay.

Except that they haven't.

Oh wait... are you referring to them hiring in China and/or India?


Not sure that's a viable solution either but, now that you mention it, such a plan would certainly result in more money circulating where it would actually do the USA economy some good.

Hire more people where?

They still think America stands alone in the world. It would be strange if it wasn't coming from the guys who led globalisation.

If the goods bought at the store were made in the US it would work better than the trickle down.

I wonder how the bosses of Walmart, Ralphs, MacDonalds will feel about more Americans unable to buy their products?

Everyone should pay their fair share of taxes. Including corporations, that new breed of "person" our politically motivated supreme court so wrongly defined. End corporate welfare and then we can talk about modifying how we handle the poor humans among us. That politically useless 47% which include vast swaths of the southern states who were solidly painted red until yesterday when mister swiss bank account opened his crooked pie hole.

If someone can get their TV sets unglued from FOXnews for a while maybe they'll get the reports of what this clown said.

He never called them leeches, where did you get that? Again I want to stress that I don't like him and I won't be voting for him, but when a huge section of this population believes that the government 's job is to provide for them, then those people will vote for the party that says that they will provide for them. It's simple logic, not an insult.



.

This was not a campaign speech, he was speaking at a private function about a political reality. Those that expect the government to take care of them will always vote democrat. There is no point in him trying to tell them about the fact that government does not create wealth, it simply gets in the way of it's creation. They don't want to hear that. (and again, for the record, I will be voting for Gary Johnson)










.

Much like women showing their tits on bourbon street during mardi gras probably don't expect to wind up on the internet. We live in an age where just about everything is being recorded by someone. A contender for president of the united states should at least be aware enough to know that much. :2 cents:

Like you, I will be voting for Johnson.

However, I disagree with you and Mitt that all people who feel the government should take care of them and that they are victims always vote democrat. I grew up in a small redneck town. Like most small towns we had a lot of average working class people, a few rich people and a decent amount of poor people. I grew up around people who received all sorts of government help from food stamps to welfare to "disability" for things that they didn't appear to really have. Most of the these people had the attitude that they were owed something and that they were victims and the government should help them. And many of them voted republican. Why? Because they thought the democrats would take away their guns, send gay teachers into the school to spread their agenda and then force their daughters to get an abortion when they got knocked up at 17.

Romney was right. For the first time. Most people do not vote for the best president. They vote for whoever promises to give them the most free stuff.

Looks like the guys at MSNBC and Soledad Obrien at CNN might be smirking a little too quickly.

For the last couple of weeks there have been some polls out that Republicans have said were being manipulated by the Dems to make it look like Romney was losing while the press basically takes anything he says and claims it's a "gaffe" and a "bad day" for him each and every day on the newscasts.

Looks like voters are not buying what's being shoved at them from either MSNBC or Rolling Stone magazine:
Brand new gallup poll out today. Obama has dropped in the polls and Romney has gained:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/election.aspx

Obama 47% Romney 46%

It seems like the media is trying to force the narrative on what's happening in this election. Seems a little desperate to me.

A month ago Gallup had Romney up by 2.
http://nation.foxnews.com/2012-presi...ey-47-obama-45


:1orglaugh

Yeah, you can see that on the link I posted to begin with. It shows the last few months how the numbers have shifted back and forth a few points.

But it's all pretty much within the "margin of error" so it's a dead heat.

But if you watched CNN or MSNBC this week you would think that the election is already over and Obama won.

Which is kinda what I suspect they are doing to dishearten any Republicans from voting.

I personally think the election will be decided in the debates. And Obama is a tough one to beat because he's got that kind of personality that just makes you "like" him.

For Romney to have a chance, I think he would need to go strong on Obama's record and not let the moderators side-track him. But you know they will. It will be social issue question after social issue question trying to avoid the economy as much as possible.

Looks like an uphill battle for Romney to me unless he gets tough and stays on message.

popular vote doesn't matter... only thing that matters is a few states like ohio

I feel if Romney is going to have a chance to win he will need to do very well in debates. He will not only have to make some great points, but really explain some specifics of how he plans to do the things he says he will do.

While most of the polls have the candidates within the margin of error, when you look at the map for the electoral college right now Romney is getting his ass kicked and it seems like the last few weeks have been nothing but bad news and blunders for him.

He could still win. there are enough states that are still in play for him to pull it off, but he is going to have to be flawless from here on out and really prove to the 6-8% of the people who are still undecided that he has a clear vision for how to fix our problems and lead the country forward.

I don't think he can be "flawless" with the way the media is covering his campaign.

They made such a big deal out of him saying that Obama has 47 to 48% of the vote sewn up because the Dems are known as the party of entitlements (generally speaking).

I was shocked when the news reported it the way they did. I was watching CNN when it was reported and they seemed practically breathless when they reported it and they presented it like it was a major blunder.
But when they played the audio of what he said...I was like: "Huh? That's ir?"

It wasn't shit. And then they tried to make a big deal out of him saying that even though he was born in Mexico he wished his parents had been Latino instead of white people when they had him so he could get the Latino vote.
And the newscaster "analysts" like Roland Martin all started calling him a racist for that! I almost choked! If Obama had made that joke, Roland Martin would have thought it was great!

I didn't see anything wrong with what Romney said. He repeated a statistic (the percentage of people receiving govt. assistance of some kind) that was put out by the Associated Press a few weeks ago. It's the biggest percentage ever.
And he cracked a joke about wishing he were Latino so he could get their vote.

But the media has been crowing about it for two days and how it's a huge gaffe and another "bad day" for Romney.

So no...in the media's eyes Romney does nothing right. And Obama does no wrong.

So no way Romney can be "flawless" no matter what he does.
It's gonna be up to people to watch what's happening and see through the media analysis and spin. Amazingly...it looks like the polls are showing that that is what is indeed happening as Romney's numbers are climbing the last couple of weeks and Obama's are dropping.

+1 :2 cents: (and I won't even vote for Romney!)





.

I'm just watching what's happening with the media and it's disturbing to me. It's like MSNBC works for Obama or something. lol

Even Fox News will bring on Democrats and debate it with them...but MSNBC will just have a panel of liberal Dems with no Republicans at all and just sit there and attack Romney. It's not even close to being the "news". Just horrible.

And I think that when they keep claiming that every day is another "bad day" for Romney, it's starting to look like "the boy who cried wolf" and is starting to cause a backlash on Obama that they didn't intend.

I for one, would like to see the debates and have Obama explain to me how he's going to do things differently this time. And I'd like to hear what Romney says he can do to change things for the better.
So far we aren't getting that.
We're just getting smirking analysts on MSNBC and Soledad OBrien on CNN who all seem to be taking orders from the White House instead of even attempting to report the news.

funny, i had the same impression with Fox, forgot how that show was called but it was like 3 guys, 2 girls and one fat guy was some pseudo democrat who after a couple of minutes always said something like "ok, you might be right..." after the other four started making fun of him

That's "The Five" and the "pseudo Democrat" is Bob Beckel...one of the most respected liberal dems in the country.

He's definitely the star of that show. Without him on there it would be nothing. And no, Beckel never backs down in those arguments. He's like a bulldog...plus he's funny as hell too.

You need to watch "The Ed Shulz" show on MSNBC or "The Last Word" or Al Sharpton or Rachel Maddow on MSNBC and you'll see what I'm talking about.

They are taking it way beyond anything that Fox's right wing leaning ever did. It's pretty shocking.

MSNBC and CNN are for Democrats, Fox and Talk Radio are for Republicans
They may as well just run that as a crawl all day on the bottom of the screen while you watch.

That doesn't change the fact that Obama is good at campaigning and not great at governing or that Romney is awful at campaigning and likely even worse at governing.

I won't for a second say that CNN and most news stations don't seem to have it out for Romney. That said, while he was just repeating a statistic he makes it sound as if only Obama supporters get help from the government and that is clearly not the case. It comes off a little smug.

One of the reasons the media doesn't like him is that his party has done nothing but attack them for the last 4+ years. It seems like anytime anything goes wrong with the republicans they blame it on the "liberal elite media." The republicans like to play themselves off as victims just as much as the democrats only they do it on different subjects. They talk about how there is war against their religion and how just because they are conservative they are shunned and how the media is out to get them. Eventually when you bash the media over and over again some of those in the media are going to look for chances to smack you down and do it with glee. Just like when Obama makes a gaff you can hear the collective orgasm at Fox news.

Romney's main problem ultimately boils down to people not trusting him. He comes off as a guy who wants to be president because he wants to be president. It is like he has no conviction. He comes off like a guy who has made a bunch of money and now he wants to be president because he has nothing better to do with himself and it is the next step up on his ladder of power. While I'm sure he's not the first person who may feel that way the good ones are able to hide that and at least seem believable when they talk about wanting to help the country get better. Romney comes off stiff, uncomfortable and like a guy who just doing this almost because it is expected of him and he is just saying what he thinks you want to hear. It doesn't help him that he is running against a guy who is like a rock star.

we might have a different perception - who knows

but either left (MSNBC) or right (FOX) - something like this i have never seen before in any democratic country. i cannot watch MSNBC here, so i have to take your word for it - but if its like Fox but left, then both do not qualify as "news" in my eyes

and its sad that you're stuck with these propaganda channels

but i really like Jon Stewart - he's at least funny :winkwink:

You mean kind of like when Obama said "you didn't build that" (when referring to roads and bridges)? The media didn't exactly hold back on that gaffe much, and did their best to take it out of context.

= he was saying what he really believes in ... :2 cents:

BTW, red stated receives way more $$$ from gov ... So he basically insulted his own base ( 2/3 of the so called 47% ) biut that is wjho he is .... a spoon fed vulture ...

Wouldn`t it be nice if we could pull a ' Trading Places ' stunt on him ....

Why do you exclude those on unemployment? Only minority of them are unemployed because they can not find work. Most of them are unemployed because they do not want to work and want to collect benefits.
Mitt is spot on (only debatable thing is the number of those people).
Losers won't like Mitt :)

They point out Obama's wrongs all the time.They said the same bullshit the last election ,they forgot about Bill Ayers, Rev Wright and clinging to their guns and religion. But the press just loved OBama and said nothing wrong about him.
Yep CNN big liberal that's why they gave Glenn Beck his start on TV.
One thing you see on MNBC you dont see on FOX ever, is pundits apologize for crossing the line and get suspended for crossing the line.
Where fox basically promoted tea party events Showing news footage during the WI stand off saying it was there but there were palm trees in the background. Yep they are fair. lol

Newsflash Its not welfare its a insurance policy, you and your employer pay for. If you are in your fifties and lost your job you are basically fucked.

http://www.mercurynews.com/opinion/c...erican-culture
FYI David Brooks is a conservative.

David Brooks: Romney doesn't understand American culture
By David Brooks New York Times San Jose Mercury News
Posted:
MercuryNews.com
In 1980, about 30 percent of Americans received some form of government benefits. Today, as Nicholas Eberstadt of the American Enterprise Institute has pointed out, about 49 percent do.

In 1960, government transfers to individuals totaled $24 billion. By 2010, that total was 100 times as large. Even after adjusting for inflation, entitlement transfers to individuals have grown by more than 700 percent over the last 50 years. This spending surge, Eberstadt notes, has increased faster under Republican administrations than Democratic ones.

There are sensible conclusions to be drawn from these facts. You could say that the entitlement state is growing at an unsustainable rate and will bankrupt the country. You could also say that America is spending way too much on health care for the elderly and way too little on young families and investments in the future.

But these are not the sensible arguments that Mitt Romney made at a fund raiser in May. Romney, who criticizes President Barack Obama for dividing the nation, divided the nation into two groups: the makers and the moochers. Forty-seven percent of the country, he said, are people "who are dependent upon government, who believe they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to take care of them, who believe they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you name it."

This comment suggests a few things. First, it suggests that he really doesn't know much about the country he inhabits. Who are these "freeloaders?" Is it the Iraq war veteran who goes to the VA? Is it the student getting a loan to go to college? Is it the retiree on Social Security or Medicare?

It suggests that Romney doesn't know much about the culture of the United States. Yes, the entitlement state has expanded, but the United States remains one of the hardest-working nations on earth.

Americans work longer hours than just about anyone else. Americans believe in work more than almost any other people. Ninety-two percent say that hard work is the key to success, according to a Pew Research Survey.

It reveals that Romney doesn't know much about the political culture. Americans have not become childlike worshippers of big government. On the contrary, trust in government has declined. The number of people who think government spending promotes social mobility has declined.

The people who receive the disproportionate share of government spending are not big-government lovers. They are Republicans. They are senior citizens. They are white men with high school degrees. Far from living in the thrall of liberalism, the people who receive these benefits are more hostile to government than the average American.

Romney's comments also reveal that he has lost any sense of the social compact. In 1987, during Ronald Reagan's second term, 62 percent of Republicans believed that the government has a responsibility to help those who can't help themselves. Now, according to the Pew Research Center, only 40 percent of Republicans believe that.

The Republican Party, and apparently Mitt Romney, too, has shifted over toward a much more hyper-individualistic and atomistic social view -- from the Reaganesque language of common citizenship to the libertarian language of makers and takers. There's no way the country will trust the Republican Party to reform the welfare state if that party's doesn't have a basic commitment to provide a safety net for those who suffer for no fault of their own.

The final thing the comment suggests is that Romney knows nothing about ambition and motivation. The formula he sketches is this: People who are forced to make it on their own have drive. People who receive benefits have dependency.

But, of course, no middle-class parent acts as if this is true. Middle-class parents don't deprive their children of benefits so they can learn to struggle on their own. They shower benefits on their children to give them more opportunities -- so they can play travel sports, go on foreign trips and develop more skills.

People are motivated when they feel competent. They are motivated when they have more opportunities. Ambition is fired by possibility, not by deprivation, as a tour through the world's poorest regions makes clear.

Sure, there are some government programs that cultivate patterns of dependency in some people. I'd put federal disability payments and unemployment insurance in this category. But, as a description of America today, Romney's comment is a country-club fantasy. It's what self-satisfied millionaires say to each other, and it reinforces every negative view people have about him.

Personally, I think he's a kind, decent man who says stupid things because he is pretending to be something he is not -- some sort of cartoonish government-hater. But it scarcely matters. He's running a depressingly inept presidential campaign. Mr. Romney, your entitlement reform ideas are essential, but when will the incompetence stop?

What? WTF?

I need a less porous material than brick to smash my head off now. Suggestions? I have a slab of granite in the backyard but I can't lift it. Besides, I don't want to risk cracking it - its so sparkly and pretty.

One Org Laugh ideed!

Like I said some are legit people who can not find a job, but most are not. And it does not matter how you call it to some pot smoking and 40oz drinking lazy bastard who collects the cheque.

See Norway.

It wouldn't be a problem if it was voluntary, but the way it is setup now, those that have their shit together (are able to keep a job), have to pay for those that don't... which is exactly what welfare is...:2 cents:

That's not the norm. Are there some of course every system has people game the system. Most are people that just got laid off.
Its the whole welfare queen argument which is probably one percent but its talked about like its everyone living large on $400 a month.

with all due respect to your opinion there sperbonzo.... WTF??? "a huge section of this population" really? A huge section believes that? I hate to come across as incredulous and I believe I have conducted myself in ways in the past that show that I try and be respectful to others who have differing opinions on political stuff but I have to ask.... do you actually KNOW anyone who is part of the working poor in this country? People who are underemployed, work very hard but still cannot make enough scratch to climb above the poverty level?

Because I do, Kentucky happens to be one of the poorer states out there with a lot of people working very hard for very little. The ones I know do not believe the government's job is to provide them with everything. Fuck most of them are born and bred republicans who would sooner chop off a limb than vote for a democrat. I see it all the time and it baffles me. But when they need help... lets called it assistance, then yes... they DO feel entitled to a little help from the government. They do not quit their jobs, they do not kick back on the porch and bask in the glory that is sucking the Federal Gov's teat. No, they continue to work hard and wish they did not have to rely on any state assistance. The fallacy of an entire class of people that EXPECT the government to take care of their every want is the worst kind... the absolutely worst kind of class warfare because it actually effects the weakest in our society.

I know there is abuse, I know people can site case after case of people they know or have heard about that game the system but calling it a huge section of the population is just....below you

I thought the 47% number was way too high. Turns out it's not. Large percentage of those people don't earn enough to pay taxes - meaning they make less than $17k a year. Ouch. Ten percent of the 47% are elderly, meaning they've paid into the system and are now taking out.

I found this to be most interesting really.

Here's my favorite part:

(source)

At some point in time I wonder if we just need to accept this as the "new norm", if at least for a little while.

At the height of the recession my wife lost her job, and was denied unemployed. After a year of searching for a job she got burnt out - running around to interviews where there was one hundred people going for the same job. She surely wasn't a mooch and wasn't collecting anything from the government.

Now I wonder how many people are just like her.

Then tell us, where is the $16t? Did Bush waltz off to Texas with a couple of 747's loaded with hundred dollar bills?

This administration is out of touch. Harvard law school is not anywhere close to the norm. Obama had no experience in anything administrative and he continues to exploit that inexperience. I will admit, he is a good reader/speaker. Beyond that he didn't deserve a shot the first time around and the results are clear. He has no record to run on.