Romney on 47% comments: I was 'completely wrong'[views:15007][posts:81]______________________________________ [Oct 5,2012 10:21am - the_reverend ""] er.. I guess he flip-flopped again? http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/...s-i-was-completely-wrong/?hpt=hp_c1 |
| ________________________________ [Oct 5,2012 10:35am - KEVORD ""] He didn't flip flop. He was wrong with his number. Its 18%. |
| ______________________________________ [Oct 5,2012 10:50am - the_reverend ""] so... when he stood behind his 47% from when it leaked until now... and now he's saying he was completely wrong? I guess it's like saying you are pro-choice to get elected and then saying you are completely against it to get elected. |
| ________________________________ [Oct 5,2012 11:10am - Burnsy ""] Fair enough, rev. So it's like Obama saying adding to the debt is unpatriotic to get elected then adding to the debt even more but that's fine? |
| ______________________________ [Oct 5,2012 11:17am - ark ""] it's not but that's different than writing off half the country and the debt increase was unavoidable in the situation of the last 8+ years. romney wants to add 2 trillion to military spending on top of that. |
| ________________________________ [Oct 5,2012 11:29am - Burnsy ""] just want to be fair to each. I don't buy into the inherited debt issue. He knew what he was getting into when he ran for office, it was no surprise. |
| ______________________________ [Oct 5,2012 11:41am - ark ""] it is an issue though. he doesn't have final say in the budget. how money is spent is the challenge of politics. the fact he said adding to the debt is unpatriotic isn't a promise it wouldn't increase while in office. |
| ______________________________________ [Oct 5,2012 11:49am - Snowden NLI ""] Burnsy said:just want to be fair to each. I don't buy into the inherited debt issue. He knew what he was getting into when he ran for office, it was no surprise. That's not "being fair to each" because the two things aren't equivalent. Changing your stance on debt is not the same as getting shamed into pretending you don't hold half the country in contempt. |
| ______________________________________ [Oct 5,2012 11:53am - Snowden NLI ""] I mean seriously. He says it's "not his job" to represent 47% of the country because they're poor, and then "admits he's wrong" because it's actually only 18% of the country that it's "not his job" to represent because they're poor. It's...breathtaking. |
| ________________________________ [Oct 5,2012 12:12pm - Burnsy ""] Ark, that is also the DECEPTION of politics. Promising to fix all these issues when the country has continues to plummet while adding trillions to the national debt, then crying about the evils of the Republicans and how it's not fair cuz they're big st00pid doo-doo heads. That doesn't sound like a leader to me. Snowden, of course it's not equivalent the way you phrased it. When is it ever the same thing? Just throwing out an example for another example to illustrate the ineptitude of both. I'm not backing Romney on his 47% comment. It was a stupid thing to say and a piss poor position for a presidential candidate to have. I just refuse to acknowledge that President Obama is any better for this country. What are we even arguing about? They're all gonna drive this country into the ground either way. Let's just get drunk at a show about it. |
| ______________________________ [Oct 5,2012 12:33pm - ark ""] your first sentence could be said about any politician at any time. do you remember bush? why is it necessary to add 2 trillion to the biggest military budget in the world combined? is that better for the country? what about a voucher program for healthcare that doesn't take into account pre existing conditions, insurance company exploits, or american medical cost cabals? you gonna tell your dad he should have saved up for private insurance? does that fix the roots of the problems insurance and health cost that this country has, that is disproportionate to the rest of the civilized world? or leaving states on their own to fix their schools and infrastructure, instead of incentive based programs to make sure the states deserve federal money? every country that is ahead of us in education has federal programs, but apparently that wouldn't work for us. corporate tax breaks, oil subsidies, corn subsidies, all of these policies that are 100+ years old from the age of slave trade capitalism? how is all this shit good for the country?? |
| ______________________________ [Oct 5,2012 12:35pm - ark ""] it kills me when smart guys who have some grasp of history and political science think the lesser of two evils is romney and his aging conservative base that think the answer to heal a country with a growing population and a humbling world standing is stop progressive traditions that began in the 1920's, and why the hell not, go to war with iran and call palestine 2nd class humans. fuck all. |
| ________________________________________ [Oct 5,2012 12:38pm - my_dying_bride ""] Though the number 47 seems high, you simply can't argue that there is a good portion of voters that will vote Obama solely cause they choose to be unemployed and have the government take care of them. There are many worthless hypocritical leeches in this country that don't understand how economies work, and why companies aren't hiring; they just get a check and hope it doesn't change. The Obama campaign aims to keep these voters by exploiting comments like Romney's. A comment like that shouldn't offend anyone who's seen the labor statistics. |
| _________________________________ [Oct 5,2012 12:43pm - Coolio ""] http://youtu.be/K9njHHyRI7g |
| ______________________________ [Oct 5,2012 12:44pm - ark ""] i agree to a certain extent, but anyone will tell you being on unemployment sucks and it's not a way to live. it also doesn't last. |
| ________________________________________ [Oct 5,2012 12:47pm - waste of time ""] "Meanwhile, there were some really huge issues about the economy that were not addressed at all last night…. 1 – In an hour and a half debate about the economy, the Federal Reserve was not mentioned a single time. 2 – In an hour and a half debate about the economy, Ben Bernanke was not mentioned a single time. A d v e r t i s e m e n t 3 – In an hour and a half debate about the economy, quantitative easing was not mentioned a single time. 4 – In an hour and a half debate about the economy, the term “derivatives” was not used a single time. Considering the fact that derivatives could bring down our financial system at any moment, this is an issue that should be talked about. 5 – In an hour and a half debate about the economy, there was no mention of the millions of jobs that have been shipped out of the country. Considering the fact that both Obama and Romney have played a role in this, it is probably a topic they both want to avoid. Overall, the United States has lost more than 56,000 manufacturing facilities since 2001. 6 – In an hour and a half debate about the economy, neither candidate mentioned that the velocity of money has plunged to a post-World War II low. 7 – In an hour and a half debate about the economy, the fact that the rest of the world is beginning to reject the U.S. dollar as a reserve currency was not mentioned a single time, but this has enormous implications for our economy in the years ahead. 8 – The fact that the Social Security system is headed for massive trouble was only briefly touched on during the debate. At the moment, there are approximately 56 million Americans that are collecting Social Security benefits. By 2035, that number is projected to grow to an astounding 91 million. Overall, the Social Security system is facing a134 trillion dollar shortfall over the next 75 years. When are our politicians going to honestly address this massive problem? 9 – In an hour and a half debate about the economy, the nightmarish drought the country is experiencing right now was not mentioned a single time. 10 – In an hour and a half debate about the economy, the financial meltdown in Europe was basically totally ignored. But considering the fact that Europe has a larger economy and a much larger banking system than we do, perhaps someone should have asked Obama and Romney what they plan to do when the financial system of Europe implodes. 11 – In an hour and a half debate about the economy, the student loan debt bubble was only briefly mentioned. 12 – In an hour and a half debate about the economy, there was not a single word about the fact that the gap between the wealthy and the poor is now larger than it has been at any point since the Great Depression. 13 – In an hour and a half debate about the economy, there was no mention of TARP (which they both supported at the time). Would they both bail out the big banks if another financial crisis erupted? 14 – In an hour and a half debate about the economy, there was no mention of the economic stimulus packages (which they both supported at the time). Would they both want more “economic stimulus” if we entered another recession? 15 – In an hour and a half debate about the economy, neither candidate talked about the fact that most of the jobs our economy is producing now are low income jobs. In fact, since the end of the last recession, 58 percent of the jobs that have been created are low paying jobs. 16 – In an hour and a half debate about the economy, neither candidate mentioned that more than 100 million Americans are enrolled in at least one welfare program run by the federal government or that more than half of all Americans are now at least partially financially dependent on the government. I can’t blame Romney for avoiding this point though – he probably wanted to avoid the phrase “47 percent” at all costs. Is this really the best that America can do? Tens of millions of Americans tuned in hoping to become more informed about the candidates, and instead what they got was an hour and a half of tap dancing as Obama and Romney constantly tossed out buzzwords such as “education”, “energy independent” and “middle class”." http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archive...nd-romney-avoided-during-the-debate |
| ______________________________ [Oct 5,2012 12:48pm - ark ""] of course, it's a presidential debate. substance not invited. |
| _____________________________ [Oct 5,2012 1:18pm - Yeti ""] Burnsy said:when the country has continues to plummet CAUGHT |
| ___________________________________ [Oct 5,2012 1:22pm - Alx_Casket ""] [img] |
| _______________________________ [Oct 5,2012 6:42pm - Burnsy ""] Yeti said: Burnsy said:when the country has continues to plummet CAUGHT Haha! Ya bastid. I'm quitting this site. Ark, you seem to be misunderstanding my position. Sure you raise good a good point about military spending, though the current states of tension around the world is pretty unsettling. The voucher system proposed I believe DOES account for preexisting conditions, but that's just what he has said, and we all know what that means. I know your position on the Affordable Care Act. You posted a pretty detailed look at it a while back. Yes, there are some good things, namely preventing insurance companies from blocking those with preexisting conditions. I'm not some vehement tea party person who absolutely despises Obama but I think he's had his shot and hasn't done a good job. There will probably never be a candidate that espouses my views, Ron Paul came kinda close I suppose. |
| ________________________________ [Oct 6,2012 3:21pm - Snowden ""] my_dying_bride said:Though the number 47 seems high, you simply can't argue that there is a good portion of voters that will vote Obama solely cause they choose to be unemployed and have the government take care of them. There are many worthless hypocritical leeches in this country that don't understand how economies work, and why companies aren't hiring; they just get a check and hope it doesn't change. The Obama campaign aims to keep these voters by exploiting comments like Romney's. A comment like that shouldn't offend anyone who's seen the labor statistics. The thing about his remark isn't the actual number, it's that he came right out and said it "wasn't his job" to represent those people as president. Because (he incorrectly thought) that they didn't pay taxes and were unlikely to vote for him. The fact that he got the actual number wrong doesn't change the fact that this is an incredibly fucked-up way to look at the presidency. The fact that he was willing to write off almost half the country without even thinking "hm, it feels weird to totally dismiss 47% of the country I'm running for president of, maybe I should make sure I'm reading this tax info correctly?" is still pretty fucked-up as well though. Why would a sane person run for president if they actually believed that 47% of the population were pieces of shit? There are plenty of things I don't like about Obama, but he's definitely the lesser evil here. |
| _________________________________ [Oct 6,2012 4:25pm - ShadowSD ""] Burnsy said:Fair enough, rev. So it's like Obama saying adding to the debt is unpatriotic to get elected then adding to the debt even more but that's fine? Nearly all the debt spending under Obama comes from Bush policies Obama voted against or opposed: Iraq War/other bloated Pentagon weapons spending, Medicare D, 2002 tax cuts mostly for the rich. Take those out and we'd be spending about the same amount we take in - so the net effect on the national debt over the last four years would have been if anything cutting it, not adding to it. [img] [img] Obama's programs have added less federal spending than any President since Eisenhower: [img] |
| _______________________________ [Oct 6,2012 5:26pm - KEVORD ""] By law, the Senate is responsible for the annual federal budget. The Democrat-controlled Senate has not passed a formal budget since April 2009.The last Republican budget in 2007 showed a deficit that was the lowest in five years, and was the fourth straight decline in deficit spending. After that, Democrats in Congress took control of spending, and that includes Barack Obama, who voted for the budgets. by the end of this year the Democrats will have controlled the House for four years, the Senate for six and the presidency for four. That computes to more than 77 percent of the power for the past six years. |
| _______________________________ [Oct 6,2012 5:43pm - Burnsy ""] Cute charts, shadow. Thanks for posting them. Like I've already stated, more cry baby Obama saying it's not his fault he hasn't done what he SAID he was going to do. He made it impossible for himself but that was what he ran his campaign on. |
| _____________________________________ [Oct 6,2012 6:26pm - the_reverend ""] Since Romney is going to lose, what does it matter? |
| _______________________________ [Oct 6,2012 6:38pm - Burnsy ""] It matters because Obama likes Baggage. |
| _______________________________ [Oct 6,2012 6:56pm - KEVORD ""] I can't wait till Obama turns us into a third world country and I can start a company called Elite Hunting like Hostel. We'll be selling tons of 18%ers for killing. |
| _______________________________ [Oct 6,2012 6:59pm - Burnsy ""] Running Man - Worcester Edition. Hell yeah. |
| _____________________________________ [Oct 6,2012 7:21pm - the_reverend ""] Abortions for some, small American flags for others, |
| _________________________________ [Oct 6,2012 8:15pm - ShadowSD ""] Burnsy said:Cute charts, shadow. Thanks for posting them. Like I've already stated, more cry baby Obama saying it's not his fault he hasn't done what he SAID he was going to do. He made it impossible for himself but that was what he ran his campaign on. So he should have what, burned down Congress? He certainly reached out to them like a billion times. One of his key promises was to not be like Bush when it came to gross executive overreach, but it tied his hands in other ways; he couldn't just run over Congress when they were screwing around. Making it impossible for himself, though - I mean, what was the alternative? Every conservative policy Obama embraced to reach across the aisle, the Republicans suddenly said they hated it and always had (cap and trade energy policy and the health care mandate were CONSERVATIVE ideas that originated from Republicans in the 90's). Accepting your interpretation of events is not only ignoring that level of intransigence by Congress, it's rewarding it. Consider, if their strategy were to prove successful in this elections, we'd have nothing but administrations in the future where Congress of one party blocked EVERYTHING the President of the other party tried to do until everything fails to function; that's something that didn't happen until the last few years, but it will be the new normal for both parties unless the people actually have the sense to stand up and call bullshit. |
| _________________________________ [Oct 6,2012 8:20pm - ShadowSD ""] the_reverend said:Since Romney is going to lose, what does it matter? Really good question. But I think the margin does make a difference. A couple points in the popular vote and it's four more years of the same gridlock if Republicans keep the House. A larger margin means the Republicans will abandon their Congressional strategy of ignoring their jobs entirely just to fuck the President, because it didn't serve them well; Obama then really gets to enact most of his actual policies like any President before him, which will then either succeed or fail on their own merits, and his party will be rewarded or punished accordingly in the next election, instead of the clusterfuck Congress has given us where things are unclear. |
| _______________________________ [Oct 6,2012 8:41pm - Burnsy ""] Yes, he should have burned down Congress lol. Glad we figured it out. Cheers. |
| __________________________________ [Oct 7,2012 9:22am - KADINGUS ""] ARGUE ON THE INTERNET ABOUT IT BECAUSE IT WILL FIX EVERYTHING |
| ___________________________________________________________ [Oct 7,2012 10:51am - Big bag of assorted nigger parts ""] I mean, seriously. [img] |
| ______________________________ [Oct 7,2012 11:49am - ark ""] KEVORD said:By law, the Senate is responsible for the annual federal budget. The Democrat-controlled Senate has not passed a formal budget since April 2009.The last Republican budget in 2007 showed a deficit that was the lowest in five years, and was the fourth straight decline in deficit spending. After that, Democrats in Congress took control of spending, and that includes Barack Obama, who voted for the budgets. by the end of this year the Democrats will have controlled the House for four years, the Senate for six and the presidency for four. That computes to more than 77 percent of the power for the past six years. the budgets have to be bipartisan, correct me if I'm wrong but in 2010 or 11 Obama had to extend the Bush tax cuts so Republicans could pass on it. The budgets included increases in military spending for the 2 wars that people forget are still going on and needed both sides to pass on that, and 77 percent of the power is wicked oversimplified way to look at govt khed. |
| ______________________________ [Oct 7,2012 11:53am - ark ""] and just wanna add again that Romney thinks he can decrease the deficit without adding additional revenue, taxes or otherwise. How's your tax rate compared to his? 30 percent vs his 14 percent sounds right. |
| ________________________________ [Oct 7,2012 12:32pm - KEVORD ""] His tax rate is based on unearned income. Not the same thing. When I took money out of my investments in June to pay off my credit card I didn't pay the same tax rate as I do on my weekly pay check. Everyone is free to invest their money. |
| _____________________________ [Oct 7,2012 2:36pm - ark ""] http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/st...s-barack-obama-has-doubled-deficit/ |
| _______________________________ [Oct 7,2012 2:47pm - KEVORD ""] http://factcheck.org/2012/09/obamas-deficit-dodge/ |
| _____________________________ [Oct 7,2012 3:01pm - ark ""] that's another good site. they both say the same thing that obama inherited the greatest deficit in history and also increased it by another 10 percent, increasing spending in afghanistan (among the things he did i didn't approve of) and paying for a stimulus package to reinvest in the country, some parts of that i didn't like, stimulus is a different discussion. yes, i know investments are different, but high income people still pay a higher tax rate, which is out of balance with what the federal government wants to spend money on. |
| _______________________________ [Oct 7,2012 3:07pm - KEVORD ""] I don't think Romney is the greatest thing since sliced bread. But Obamas programs have not moved the economy in a direction were I can really say he needs another four years to keep this ball rolling. And it's not cause I'm conservative. I thought Clinton was a great president even thought he was a sexual predator. |
| _______________________________________ [Oct 7,2012 3:11pm - Ancient_Master ""] Do people honestly think that once a president takes office that he can just drastically change policies overnight? There are plenty of things that Obama did during the last 4 years that I disagree with, but do you think he was happy to do everything he did? Being the president doesn't automatically mean that you have the ability to make decisions above and beyond any legislation, and OB certainly has a lot of pressure coming from all sides to pass or veto bills. I think he was elected as an idealist, and for his enthusiasm. I also think he still has ideals, but perhaps he has become much more jaded after 1 term. fuck I would hate that job |
| _______________________________ [Oct 7,2012 3:14pm - KEVORD ""] Well that's it. I would love for someone to straight up ask him "Mr. President do you still want this job?". I honestly think his answer would be no. |
| _____________________________ [Oct 7,2012 3:16pm - ark ""] i'm a big clinton fan especially post-president. i hate romney and obama is a moderate at best to me, but on social issues he's got me. it's the lesser evil all the way. above all i think a regime changes does a lot more harm than good. |
| _________________________________ [Oct 7,2012 3:47pm - ShadowSD ""] KEVORD said:I don't think Romney is the greatest thing since sliced bread. But Obamas programs have not moved the economy in a direction were I can really say he needs another four years to keep this ball rolling. When I hear this point made, I don't get what the basis of comparison for this is. The last downturn this big was the Great Depression, and took over twelve years to get out of. From over 10% unemployment three years ago to 7.8% employment today looks like the right direction to me. -800K Jobs a Month in Jan 09 to +100K jobs a month for over two years does too. At the very least, it really seems a completely unsupported argument to want to go back to the direction that led us to the worse set of numbers - unless I'm missing something here. I never saw an economy in my life as bad as fall 2008. No work anywhere. I don't know man, I just don't get it. It's like if FDR lost in 1936 to someone with Herbert Hoover's policies. Or if Reagan had lost in 1984 to someone with Jimmy Carter's policies. With Obama, we're just supposed to ignore the actual numbers, I guess, why I'll never know. |
| __________________________________________________________ [Oct 7,2012 3:47pm - Big bag of assorted nigger parts ""] Ancient_Master said:Do people honestly think that once a president takes office that he can just drastically change policies overnight? People absolutely believe that, which is why so much of the water cooler banter by clucking yentas is about R-money allegedly being against women's healthcare coverage for birth control. What the fuck does that have to do with anything? Has anyone's coverage EVER covered that? It's all smoke, it's all bullshit, Romney's a limp-wristed liberal but people are too busy thinking he's an alleged "republican" to notice. THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE between any of these asshats. Same thing happened when Yobama got in, people thought it'd be a 180 turn from W's policies, but nope, it was "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss" with the warmongering and ever-expanding federal govt. Fuck em all. Kang vs Kodos indeed. |
| _________________________________ [Oct 7,2012 3:53pm - ShadowSD ""] I don't get the war mongering charge. Out of Iraq, leaving Afghanistan, not warring with Iran or Syria or ever going to, lost zero ground troops and set up zero bases in Libya, willing to stand up to Netanyahu in Israel; Romney gets in, all bets are off, and we start new ground wars. No difference my ass. I have relatives in Iran who's lives would be threatened if Romney and the neocons got in. Obama will never invade Iran. On the ever expanding federal government, well you saw the chart on how much less Obama added to federal spending than any President in decades. Anyone really serious about deficits and size of government as issues and not talking points would actually be relatively happy with Obama in comparison to any other President in living memory once having looked at all the data. They've all expanded the government, certainly, but Obama least of all. Facts > Talking Points. |
| _________________________________ [Oct 7,2012 4:37pm - ShadowSD ""] Burnsy said:Yes, he should have burned down Congress lol. Glad we figured it out. Cheers. Ha, fair enough. I'm not trying to be a smart ass (well any more than usual), I just honestly wonder what the suggested alternative approach for him was that would have been better. He only said change was hard and takes a long time in the '08 campaign more times than I can count. Clinton, for all the good I agree that he did, never leveled with us like than when he ran in '92. Change is good was all there was, with no effort to temper those expectations; Obama, who actually was pretty honest in speech after speech that change is frustrating and takes time, is rarely remembered for it, and everyone's like Randy Marsh in that episode of South Park after the '08 election. My point is that I can accept the argument of Obama should have done a and not b. But when there's never a plausible a suggested, that's where I don't understand the logic. Cheers. |
| __________________________________________________________ [Oct 7,2012 5:11pm - Big bag of assorted nigger parts ""] ShadowSD said:I don't get the war mongering charge. In 2007/2008, the biggest talking point wasn't finances, it was war, chiefly about ending it / bring the boys back home. Check out the Obama vs Clinton stuff from the time, it's all about "I'll have them home within a year." Yep. Yobama gets in and increases troops, not decreases, and then got us into Afghanistan as well. It was only earlier THIS YEAR that he brought us down to pre-surge levels. ShadowSD said: On the ever expanding federal government, well you saw the chart on how much less Obama added to federal spending than any President in decades. Dude is president #44. Dude spent more money than presidents numbers 1 through 40, combined. Facts > talking points. ShadowSD said: Romney gets in, all bets are off, and we start new ground wars. No difference my ass I don't argue that at all, Romney wants us to go into Iran NOW and it's totally bullshit. But that's the "no difference," they all have their own agendas and they all end with dead Americans. |
| _________________________________ [Oct 8,2012 9:26am - ShadowSD ""] Big%20bag%20of%20assorted%20nigger%20parts said: In 2007/2008, the biggest talking point wasn't finances, it was war, chiefly about ending it / bring the boys back home. Check out the Obama vs Clinton stuff from the time, it's all about "I'll have them home within a year." Yep. Yobama gets in and increases troops, not decreases, and then got us into Afghanistan as well. It was only earlier THIS YEAR that he brought us down to pre-surge levels. Your first two sentences are spot on, but from there you are unintentionally mixing up Iraq and Afghanistan. The Obama/Clinton primary was about ending the Iraq War, they never talked about ending the Afghanistan War. Obama said in the general election and even the Democratic primary that he wanted troops out of Iraq, but an increased surge of troops in Afghanistan. He said it over and over and over: "When I am president, we will wage the war that has to be won, with a comprehensive strategy with five elements: getting out of Iraq and on the right battlefield in Afghanistan and Pakistan..." - Barack Obama, http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/...d-take-war-on-terror-into-pakistan/ Google the words Obama 2007 Afghanistan and you'll find hundreds of links like that. See, this is what I'm talking about unreasonable criticisms of Obama. They're not even based in reality. By setting up no permanent bases in Afghanistan and a withdrawal date while already bringing out troops, Obama went beyond anything he promised in the campaign when it came to ending wars. And yet somehow the perception has been spun as the opposite. Big%20bag%20of%20assorted%20nigger%20parts said: Dude is president #44. Dude spent more money than presidents numbers 1 through 40, combined. Facts > talking points. How is that possible when Obama has cut the increase in federal spending more than any President in sixty years? Is there any data to back that up like I did for what I said? Big%20bag%20of%20assorted%20nigger%20parts said: I don't argue that at all, Romney wants us to go into Iran NOW and it's totally bullshit. But that's the "no difference," they all have their own agendas and they all end with dead Americans. I think the question is then do numbers count or do dead Americans = dead Americans regardless of the numbers? I'd say a handful dead (Libya) beats thousands dead and tens of thousands disabled (Iraq). That's not "no difference" to me. For as long as Obama's President, it's going to be the first approach to conflict, not the second. Given that the second kills THOUSANDS of times as many Americans and rips our deficit and national debt new assholes, I'll take it. Romney's Iran War will among other things bankrupt us. |