crazy thing is the reason the US was sitting at number 1 for so long was BECAUSE of socialist , nation building policies.


one can connect the rise of the nation with regulation, and connect the fall of the nation with deregulation

but hey

maybe people just like licking some boots

Kanye is busy buying clothes with Kim, so I'll say it.

Mitt Romney hates poor people.

Actually no you are wrong and this is what most Republicans can never get through their selfish thick skulls. Bush was the exact same way.

The President of the United States job is to "ALL" the US citizens not just for the the people that happened to vote for them. This was the exact same fucking attitude Bush had.. He didn't give a fuck about half this country only the people whom voted for him.


Also this whole fascination you right wingers have with claiming everyone on the left is lazy & feels entitled. Seriously get over yourselves already.. 50% of the Republican base is white trash trailer park losers that like take food stamps & welfare.

For once I have to agree with Paul

Not true. We used to have factories that employed them.

http://www.allpar.com/photos/chrysle...roit-plant.jpg

Now with the ones left they are like this

http://static7.businessinsider.com/i...volkswagen.jpg

Or

http://totallycoolpix.com/wp-content...the-world1.jpg

Romney and his like saw to it that the US is no longer the manufacturing base it was. Asking him to come up with a solution is like asking Kim Dotcom to stop piracy.

So stop the spending, put up with the lost jobs and do what with the money saved?

Just in case people don't notice it.

Ok, Tony whatever you want to think. The country is NOT $16t in debt. The countries credit rating did NOT go down. There are numerous cost-cutting and waste controlling bills actively being implement. The average American works salary is really UP $4000 a year. There is no unemployment! Life is great for everyone.

And of course...Bin Laden is dead. That's a good thing. But hardly relative to what has happened to the nation fiscally.

I don't understand why you and your ilk constantly justify that because BUSH did it, it's ok that Obama does it too. It was not OK that Bush did it. It was the beginning of what we are now living with. What I said...and I will not say it again. The Obama administration has not fixed anything. The Obama administration has made everything financially worse for generations to come.

I'm as serious as a case of dick cancer.

He doesn't live in all of EU, he lives in the Czech Republic and they do not use the Euro. The "Euro debt crisis" does not mean all of Europe is failing.

I've only read a little about their financial situation, but it doesn't seem that bad. I'm sure MaDalton or Markham could clue us in on their financial details.

[QUOTE=Sin_Vraal;19195795]Romney is dead right. Obama has decided to follow the failed social policy of europe.

QUOTE]

Romney spoke the truth, people just don't want to hear it. Not saying i love the guy but his assessment of what's happening is accurate.

Obama wants to keep everyone dependent on the government so the gov't stays in control. Easy to see that. Too bad when everyone is poor and we move to socialism the idiots running the country will realize there is no one to pay taxes and we go bankrupt like some of the Euro countries and then it will be too late.

If you lack empathy and are a selfish 'me' prick you are a conservative.

If you have empathy towards others and are genuinely concerned with your fellow man you are a liberal.

Basically conservatism is a mental disorder.

Why did I think Mutt was Canadian?

He is giving up on getting their vote; seems intelligent. You probably will not see Romney campaigning in California either. Why? Because it would be throwing good money after bad. He can't win CA, why bother trying? I don't feel he is giving up on CA, he is giving up on getting the CA vote.

You realize there are free colleges too, right?

This whole thing is odd considering 82% of conservatives collect social security and medicare and red states collect more federal funds than they pay.

Not to mention Romney talks this shit while getting a $70,000 tax deduction for a fucking horse.

Paraphrasing:
"It's ok that the guy said it's not his job to worry about 47% of the nations population, in fact he's right in saying what he said."

:helpme

So... he wants to be president of the un-united states. We get it.

Minte,

You know as well as I do that Romney has zero intention of doing anything about the first paragraph of what I wrote. He wants to expand military spending to higher levels, the Ryan 'tax plan' would in fact reduce Romney's taxes to less than 1%, he himself is hiding money in tax shelters off shore. His backers ARE the oil companies, big agra and Goldman Sachs. The idea that 'if we just stop wasteful spending on poor people things will all get better' is moronic. Poor people are NOT the problem. If they could actually mastermind brilliant plans to suck money out of the economy... they wouldn't be poor people. We had plenty of poor people during good times and bad times. What we have now are a small group of 'post-nationalists' who do not feel tied to any nation, community or society and they are gutting our economy. They are doing much more damage than all the welfare mothers and drunk food stamp recipients ever could.

Facebook execs aren't giving up their US citizenship because our tax rates are too high... do you really think if his taxes were 3 points lower he would have remained a citizen? They are doing it because they feel ANY taxes are too high and have zero connection to the society that their own success was built on. No patriotism, no nationalism, no desire to see the country become stronger or better.

Gay rights? Rampant scamming by poor people? Defending the 'freedom' of the Iraqi people? Banks too big to fail? It's all a smokescreen for the momentum high frequency traders wrecking the stock market and international corporations bleeding cash from many countries and putting nothing back into them. The US economy is faltering, the EU is crashing, China is slowing... where is all the capital going? In a normal economy you have 'winners' and 'losers' - in a post-national world the winners don't happen to include any of the countries or their citizens.

For Those Who Have Not Figured It Out Yet:
Years ago mobsters would buy a restaurant, saddle it with debt, siphon off any equity they could and then burn it down for the insurance money. Then they started to do it with corporations as 'leveraged buyouts.' The same exact scam just done on a much larger scale, exactly what Bain did to Kaybee Toys while Romney was running it. Now they are going a level higher and doing the exact same thing with entire countries. They did a 'leveraged buyout of our Democracy' with Citizens United and the Koch funded tea party. Then they ran up as much debt as they could get their hands on while siphoning off trillions of dollars through companies like Halliburton in Iraq, AIG and Exxon subsidies. What comes next in the pattern? They ditch the carcass and move on leaving the restaurant employees, former company owners or in this case citizens stuck with an overwhelming tab that can not be sustained. That is EXACTLY what is happening right now, and if you think Romney (or Obama) has any real chance of fixing it you are even more of an idealist than I am.

Looks like Mittens was trashing his own base.



http://www.rollitup.org/attachments/...ayers-map-.jpg

I guess it is all in how you WANT to interpret his statements, but I am pretty sure (positive actually) that he was acknowledging that 47% of the eligible voters will never vote for him, not that 47% of Americans should be disregarded. :2 cents:

USA you are not alone Come to the mighty UK and see all the people on handouts, fuck they are better off than the people who actully work and pay taxes

He had a shot at correcting his comment when he held a hastily put together press conference last night.

Republican logic: Paying taxes is un-american if you're a millionaire or an oil company, otherwise you're a parasite wanting free stuff from the govt.

But doesn't every generation bitch about the next generation?

I remember my parents complaining about couples holding hands and kissing in public, calling it "ponorgraphic". (I also remember my grandmother calling a white chick dating a black man a "zebra lover".)

I can only imagine what my parents would think of society today.

I don't like the guy at all, but it sounds like he was just being realistic:

"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 ...

(Actually he was wrong, 46% of people do not pay Federal income tax, they FILE taxes, but they get it all back, except for SS and medicare payments. There you go. He said 47%, not 46%. I don't like him at all, and I won't vote for him, but what he said is the truth.).


Obviously there is not a direct correlation, but yes, I would say that almost half of the the people in the US now feel that they must look to the government to create jobs for them, take care of their retirement for them, give them their healthcare, etc..... That is the case for somewhere approaching half the people in the country now. They are entitled to their view, but I think that they would always vote for someone that promises that the government will provide for them in some way.




Sounds like a politically honest statement about the way things are.




.:2 cents:

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.