jump to last post 1-37 of 37 discussions (278 posts)

Romney Claims People Believe They Are "Entitled" to Eat

  1. 0
    Sooner28posted 4 years ago
    1. rebekahELLE profile image90
      rebekahELLEposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I heard that on the news hour tonight and couldn't believe he actually said those words.  What an arrogant, ridiculous, insulting remark to the people of America who support our President.

    2. Credence2 profile image86
      Credence2posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Mitt  Romney is a plutocrat attempting to disguise himself as an "everyman". So he says that he does not care about almost 50% of the population? That may be his biggest gaffe yet and he will most certainly be held accountable at the polls for it.

      That was a stupid thing to say, press being present or not. How could the GOP select such a dork as its standard bearer?
      It is getting to the point that every other public statement he makes is a gaffe

      1. kathleenkat profile image90
        kathleenkatposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Credence,

        Have you ever said something stupid that you did not mean? What if i judged you by everything you ever said, even if you didn't mean it, took it back, ir said sorry. What if we all did that to all others? We are holding politicians to higher standards than we hold ourselves. That I think isn't right. Take a step back and realize Romney's intentions are not bad. Neither are Obama's. Nice to know that our country is run by fallible humans. After all, that's what makes us human.

        1. Credence2 profile image86
          Credence2posted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Sorry, Kathleen, that is not good enough. It is more than one statement, it is a scent that exudes from him and his campaign and is shown in his constant failure to define himself indepedent of the political winds. He is an autocrat that is not at least intelligent enough to recognize the implications to the common man in the street of his insensitivity. With Romney, this is not the "first time". When he goes into his cloistered chambers with audiences much like him and say that 50% of Americans are basically chopped liver,  it says a great deal

          He has told us all what he thinks of a large swatch of the Amercan population  If I CONSISTENLY said stupid things, it would give you reason to pause and I would deserve the scrutiny and subsequent criticism that I get. I expect more from someone that is vying for the throne and you probably would as well.

          He is a spectre of a man and I have seen evidence of this from him time and time again.

          1. kathleenkat profile image90
            kathleenkatposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Judge Judge Judge Judge Judge Judge Judge Judge Judge Judge ....

            Have you ever met Mitt Romney? If no, then you are probably only seeing what the media has fed you. Have some faith in him as a human being. If you have actually met him, then I would consider that he may be as evil of a man as you say he is.

            This is for everyone, not just you: Don't vote based off of someone's character, or supposed character. You are not doing yourself justice. Read their policies and their plans. Don't listen to their anti-opponent speeches, and don't listen to the negative propaganda. Read and be informed.

            1. Credence2 profile image86
              Credence2posted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Kathleen, I never met Abraham Lincoln either, so I have to use the more accurate and diverse tools to ascertain who the man actually was. I don't vote for personalities, I vote according to the record and the party platform that the candidate represents. I am well aware of the GOP platform and know that I stand opposed to their objectives most of the time. So, If Romney wraps himself up in it, which he seems to have difficulty, of course he is less likely to get my support in any case. I did not say he was evil, he is not working in concert with those middle class citizens that I affiliate my interest and fortunes with, but there are those that will support Marie Antoinette all the same and that is their right. I have to make value judgements based on the information available, it is not practical to think that you can assess someone only if you meet he or she physically. If that is the extent of my or anyones judgement, we just as well stay in bed.

              With the stakes for the economy and the direction that we will be going in, being a "nice guy" is not good enough. Ronald Reagan was a 'nice guy" as well, but that is not enough in itself to get my support. Your political ideology has to be somewhat on par with my view, that is if you want my vote.

              I have writtten several articles about Romney and believe that the
              criticism that I expressed toward him was well deserved and not merely petty.
              Believe me, I, if anybody, knows exactly who and what I am voting for and against, and why. This is not some sort of game I play.

            2. Mighty Mom profile image91
              Mighty Momposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              You're right, Kathleenkat.
              The public candidate is an image, not a true reflection of the man.
              How serendipitous, then, to catch this rare glimpse into an unscripted exchange on the real issues Mr. Romney cares about.

              We have finally met Mitt Romney.


              And what you assert about "Judge, judge, judge, judge, judge" is also true.
              By running for office, he is asking us to judge him.
              Just as, it seems, he is sitting in judgment of us.
              By his comments he has dismissed almost half the population of the country he hopes to lead as lazy, freeloading bums beyond any hope of personal redemption.

              I am reminded of a scene in one of my favorite books, Pride and Prejudice.

              As Elizabeth Bennet says to Lady Catherine de Bourgh, "You can have nothing further to say. You have insulted me by every possible method."

              1. JSChams profile image60
                JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Yeah....we met Mr.Obama the day he laughed when he was asked about those "shovel ready" jobs he promised.

                1. Mighty Mom profile image91
                  Mighty Momposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  How many jobs bills got squashed by the obstructionist Republican-controlled House?

                2. Ralph Deeds profile image70
                  Ralph Deedsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  "Yeah....we met Mr.Obama the day he laughed when he was asked about those "shovel ready" jobs he promised."

                  I recall from my college economics classes that one of the problems with stimulating the economy by spending on infrastructure projects (roads, bridges, fast rail, etc.) is that it takes too long to get them under way. "Shovel ready" sounds good but usually it takes a while to get the shovels ready. That's why the fastest acting methods of stimulus are tax cuts for the middle class, extended unemployment compensation and food stamps all of which are much faster acting than shovel ready projects which take longer to kick in, but are important is high unemployment persists as it has in the current recession.

                  Fed action is useful, but the effectiveness of lowering interest rates doesn't work unless the banks and other lending institutions are willing to lend. I recall the professor saying that cutting interest rates is good policy but it's like trying to push on a string. Increasing demand is more effective. Fiscal policy and monetary policy are the only tools available to the government and they work best hand in glove. However, in this recession the Tea Baggers in the House of Representatives stymied the Dems efforts to increase spending and assured a slow recovery and a risk of a double dip.

    3. Repairguy47 profile image59
      Repairguy47posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Romney just told the truth. Democrats buy votes with giveaway. Programs. There is a large segment of our society that feels they are entitled and will always vote for who will serve their selfish interests. The so called poor need to pay their fair share.

      1. stayingalivemoma profile image90
        stayingalivemomaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        "The so-called poor?"...I am one of those so-called poor, I worked and paid taxes. I've worked since I was 15 years old. In February 2011, I became officially disabled although I should have stopped working long before that. I get long term disability which amounts to a little less than 23000/year. I have five children, four that live with me and I receive food stamps and medicaid.
        Do you think for one minute that I wouldn't rather be working? Here I am, sick as hell, still writing on hubpages, writing on textbroker, elance, oDesk...trying to get extra money in....I don't think I'm selfish for needing help with food and medical care and I am appalled and your, and other people on here, comments.
        How dare Mitt Romney, and anyone who supports him, portray me as a freeloading democratic loser looking for handouts. How dare he assume that people on welfare or food stamps or medicaid or ssi/ssdi actually WANT to sit at home and collect money.
        My sister was making over 100,000 a year in the mortgage industry before the recession hit and now she is at home, living with my parents trying to run a massage business.
        We are Americans, we are black, white, hispanic, muslim, asian, purple, green...you name it and we deserve to be treated with respect and not like some secondhand thought when it comes time to vote. I pay my fair share, when I have it to pay. And I sincerely hope with all the love in my heart that you never, never have to eat your words and end up in a situation where, heaven forbid, you have to ask for help. Shame on you!

        1. Repairguy47 profile image59
          Repairguy47posted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Poor with an internet connection. Got cable and a flatscreen too?

          1. gmwilliams profile image86
            gmwilliamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            + a multillion times.   On target as usual, RG!

            1. Josak profile image60
              Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              What a horrible thing to say about someone who is as he wrote using the internet to make money so he can get by. I hope you feel good about yourself because that is a disgusting comment.

              1. jandee profile image45
                jandeeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                I agree.  He is one ignorant and utterly disgusting being and unlike the writer who he has no empathy with I hope he has to soon find himself knocking on the door of charity so as to enable him to understand the plight of the sick and unemployed.

            2. Ralph Deeds profile image70
              Ralph Deedsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              A man with a giant heart!

              1. habee profile image91
                habeeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                They have medical treatments for that. My brother has an enlarged heart.

          2. Uninvited Writer profile image82
            Uninvited Writerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            He needs an Internet connection to earn money...didn't you read? Being poor does not mean you are destitute. He seems to be working pretty hard to me. I know it's hard for those who are not writers to understand that writing is a job.

            1. Repairguy47 profile image59
              Repairguy47posted 4 years ago in reply to this

              I think you missed the entire point.

              1. stayingalivemoma profile image90
                stayingalivemomaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                And what exactly was your point? Do you think I did not acquire things while I was working? Do you think I don't need a working phone in the house for my son's school to call, or a working internet connection to try and make money on my own?

                1. Repairguy47 profile image59
                  Repairguy47posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  My point is you don't know a thing about being poor. While you type furiously on your keyboard complaining about how bad you have it there is someone going without food who would love to be in the comfortable situation you find yourself.

                  1. Mighty Mom profile image91
                    Mighty Momposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Is there some difference between "poor" and "poverty" that you are privvy to that the rest of us are unaware of?

                    According to the information stayingalivemoma provided about her income and family size the 2012 Federal Poverty Level Guidelines put her at well BELOW the 100% poverty level.

                    Sounds like "poor" to me. Also sounds like she's working hard at using the tools she has available to her at home to earn more money.
                    How does that not count as personal responsibility?
                    roll

                    FPL Chart
                    http://www.familiesusa.org/resources/to … lines.html

                  2. Josak profile image60
                    Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Pot calling the kettle? Sure there is always someone worse off, what does that prove? Nothing.

                  3. stayingalivemoma profile image90
                    stayingalivemomaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    ok, first of all, I don't have the time to devote to your rants about what constitutes being poor....BUT, since you are sooo engrossed with my personal life: I grew up in Detroit in the 70s, I know about being poor. My family moved to the suburbs when I was a teenager so I could have a better life and education. I graduated, went to college and worked, worked, worked. I have a family and I struggle, just like most Americans, but just because I have an OLD desktop computer and an internet connection doesn't make me any less poor than others.  By the way, what do YOU know about being poor?
                    Have you had to beg churches and agencies for help with your rent or electric bill? Well I have. Have you run out of food and had to go to churches or neighbors to ask for help? Well, I have. So don't tell me I don't know about being poor. I don't see any "PhD of Poor People" behind your name, so don't you even pretend to dignify that you know what I'm going through.

          3. Josak profile image60
            Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Did you not just read where he told he uses them to work to try and to get by? Clueless.

            1. Repairguy47 profile image59
              Repairguy47posted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Did you know REAL POOR PEOPLE DONT HAVE INTERNET CONNECTIONS? That's part of being poor! By the way if that is an example of poverty in this country then we're doing pretty good! Clueless?

              1. Uninvited Writer profile image82
                Uninvited Writerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                She could possibly be using the public library to chat on the Internet. The Republican's haven't closed them all yet.

                1. Repairguy47 profile image59
                  Repairguy47posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Yeah that's it.

                2. Ralph Deeds profile image70
                  Ralph Deedsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Where I live many public libraries have been closed.

                  1. Hollie Thomas profile image60
                    Hollie Thomasposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Ralph, I don't have the patience so can you explain to Repairguy the difference between relative and absolute poverty. Boy, this lad needs a 101 sociology lesson.

              2. chefsref profile image91
                chefsrefposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Yeah, that's the problem in this country, poor people are not poor enough and they do not suffer enough. Vote Romney and he will correct this outrage.

        2. Josak profile image60
          Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          *standing ovation* The poverty rate in this country is significantly higher than the unemployment rate anyway, how dare anyone especially the spoiled son of a rich family who has no idea what poverty is treat working Americans and poor Americans as  second class citizens, what kind of president writes off half the population? No kind, he will never be president.

          1. jandee profile image45
            jandeeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Maybe he's working for Obama ??  He certainly will give him many,many
            votes after his slagging off of the working class....

    4. 2besure profile image82
      2besureposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Mitt Romney is a hypocrite.  His grand-father was on welfare!  Video in his mother's own words!

      http://hinterlandgazette.com/2012/09/mi … exico.html

      1. kathleenkat profile image90
        kathleenkatposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        That doesn't make him a hypocrite. It would make him a hypocrite if he, himself, was on welfare.

  2. 0
    JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago

    Let me ask you Sooner...

    If there is someone in your community who is able, but refuses to work, is that person entitled to be clothed, housed, and fed by the community?

    It's a problem with America. We have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. America wasn't founded on the idea that we are entitled to an education, a car, a house, a job, free food, etc etc etc.

    A growing sense of entitlement is accompanied by a shrinking sense of responsibility and work ethic.

    1. Mighty Mom profile image91
      Mighty Momposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      But 47% of Americans who vote for Obama are on entitlement programs?
      Really?

      Between this, new polling numbers (including those in swing states) and the Politico article that also hit the airwaves today regarding the disarray of his campaign, this day is going to be pretty impossible to overcome.

      1. Ralph Deeds profile image70
        Ralph Deedsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        "But 47% of Americans who vote for Obama are on entitlement programs?
        Really?"

        I suspect more of them are Romney supporters!

        1. Mighty Mom profile image91
          Mighty Momposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          A disproporationately high number, it seems!
          See my recent post about Red State/Blue State Paradox in the thread Josak started about what Romney doesn't get about liberals.

    2. Hollie Thomas profile image60
      Hollie Thomasposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      You can't have it both ways, Jaxson. Either, there is employment in the US and folks just refuse to work, and therefore, eat. Or, Obama has sank your nation into some kind of communist utopia where there is no work (because of his leadership inadequacies, of course) and that's why your nation is in the state it's in!

      it's one way or the other. Boy is Mittens sinking to new lows.

      1. Mighty Mom profile image91
        Mighty Momposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        New low is right.
        "Blame the victim."

        1. Hollie Thomas profile image60
          Hollie Thomasposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Blame the victim is reprehensible, but poke the potentially starving is beyond reproach!

          1. Mighty Mom profile image91
            Mighty Momposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Not potentially starving, Hollie.
            INTENTIONALLY starving.
            Let's not forget how many jobs bills were blocked by the obstructionist anti-Obama Congress.

            Nothing like kicking the stool out from under citizens then kicking them again when they're down.
            sad

            1. Hollie Thomas profile image60
              Hollie Thomasposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              I know, have seen highlights on the news here. I shouldn't be shocked that they do this to people, but I am.

              1. 0
                Sooner28posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                They gut regulations, which leads to higher pollution, which leads to more deaths.  It's an easy relationship to see, yet the right decries regulations as "job killing."

                1. Hollie Thomas profile image60
                  Hollie Thomasposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  In this country also, Sooner. Regulations strangle enterprise, then regulations are lifted, still no jobs though!

        2. Repairguy47 profile image59
          Repairguy47posted 4 years ago in reply to this

          So you see them as victims too?

          1. Josak profile image60
            Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            A lot of them are, I know tens of ex colleagues in the coal mining business who worked their whole lives harder than most can imagine in the most horrible conditions for terrible pay, only to get black lung and struggle to pay for the treatment not to die meanwhile the owners of the mine did nothing and got rich. Those people ARE victims and but for very good luck I would be too. Just an example.

    3. 0
      Sooner28posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      If someone refuses to be exploited and forced into degrading or mind-numbing work in order to avoid starvation, I don't blame them.

      If our society offered, more then you may have a point.

      1. gmwilliams profile image86
        gmwilliamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        If a person has no job, ANY job will do.   As the saying goes, ANY JOB is better than NO JOB.   One sometimes CANNOT BE CHOOSY if he/she is unemployed, CAN ONE, Sooner?

    4. kathleenkat profile image90
      kathleenkatposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Well said. I couldn't agree more. So much that I have nothing to add!


      Who said that? It's a gray area. Some people who "have" stuff think that others who don't are entitled to it, and others who "don't have" also think they aren't entitled, and have to work for it. I am sure there are people under the poverty line voting for Romney, too. (Positive. Have you SEEN rural Tennessee? Very red, and very low-income.)


      Hollie,
      I won't pretend to know what Romney is/was thinking when he said that, but I tend to assume the good out of most people. He probably didn't mean it in the way we are assuming it here. Also, it is not unheard-of that someone who is starving, is starving because of their own damned mistakes. In which case, we can "blame the victim."


      +1000000000000000000000000. I think Gary Johnson would do a good job. I also think Ron Paul wouldn't be bad, either.

      1. habee profile image91
        habeeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        I partially agree - there are people who are too lazy to work. BUT there are also plenty who would like to work but can't find jobs.

        1. kathleenkat profile image90
          kathleenkatposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Yes;

          I would say that rather than creating social programs to support them whilst they are struggling, that perhaps we could use that money to help fund job programs?

          Just a thought; but I think that's where those opposing BO's social program's are coming from.

          1. Josak profile image60
            Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Completely agree with that though to be fair to Obama all his job creation programs were blocked.

    5. Credence2 profile image86
      Credence2posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Jaxson, Romney is a snooty aristocrat that is as everybit out of touch as we all have believed. To say that half the nation is on the dole is irresponsible and stupid.

    6. rhamson profile image76
      rhamsonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Your post fails to address the despair that many feel with the dissolving of jobs in our country. When you look at the jobs that are being created are dominated by fast food and big box outlets and their meager wages being offered it is far easier and in many cases with health issues to get on the government teet because of the inabilty to support oneself and maintain any other way. Don't start with the all or none comparisons to try and defend your position but the dissillusionment of the ability of the government to fix the situation is further exasperated by the inability of congress to come to any plausible conclusions as to how to fix it. Throwing them all off welfare and food stamps does what good when the conditions are set for failure in the first place?

      We need to fix the system before any real change can take place. You know what term they use to describe a group of baboons? A Congress.

      Term limits, publicly financed campaigns and lobby reform are our only hope.

    7. Ralph Deeds profile image70
      Ralph Deedsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      What do you base that opinion on, Jaxon? Are you from Grosse Pointe, Michigan? That's a commonly held opinion there where people try to avoid contact with the under classes except in the case of their cooks and cleaning ladies.

  3. chefsref profile image91
    chefsrefposted 4 years ago

    Among the "entitlements" that people receive in this country are thing like public education, the mortgage deduction, earned income child credit, child deduction, charity deduction, tax breaks for oil companies, tax breaks for companies that ship jobs overseas, Medicare, Social Security and Medicaid.
    Of course it is only benefits that accrue to someone else that concerns conservatives.
    According to my list and Romney's math Obama wins with a 99% margin

    1. Hollie Thomas profile image60
      Hollie Thomasposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      +1

    2. steveso profile image74
      stevesoposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Don't forget presidential candidates are "entiteled" to secret Service protections anong other benefits.

  4. 0
    JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago

    I don't agree with his numbers, but I know they are there.

    Just down the street from me is a job that pays $10/hr to call people and sell magazine subscriptions. It is one of those places that will hire anybody.($10/hr is the base pay, it's hourly drawn from commission).

    They can't keep staffed, people quit because it's boring work, etc...

    I know there are call centers all over the place that pay between $9-$15/hr, and can never keep staffed, because people aren't willing to do that kind of work.

    Like it or not, there are a lot of people who live off the government, because they don't want to do what is necessary to make it on their own.

    1. Mighty Mom profile image91
      Mighty Momposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Just becomes someone pays no federal income tax does not mean they have no income or are living off government programs.

      But forget the number for a minute. It's a distraction.
      It's stupid to argue what percentage of the population does or does and not pay income taxes.

      It's more about Romney's disdain for such a large percentage of the American public.
      He is lumping 47% of all Americans into the same category of slackers and takers.

      I think, honestly, he should worry a little more about US.

    2. Josak profile image60
      Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      This old chestnut huh? What do you think of this reply? (written more than a hundred years ago)

      `There's no need for us to talk about drink or laziness,' returned Owen, impatiently, `because they have nothing to do with the matter. The question is, what is the cause of the lifelong poverty of the majority of those who are not lazy and who DO work? Why, if all the drunkards and won't-works and unskilled or inefficient workers could be by some miracle transformed into sober, industrious and skilled workers tomorrow, it would, under the present conditions, be so much the worse for us, because there isn't enough work for all NOW and those people by increasing the competition for what work there is, would inevitably cause a reduction of wages and a greater scarcity of employment. The theories that drunkenness, laziness or inefficiency are the causes of poverty are so many devices invented and fostered by those who are selfishly interested in maintaining the present states of affairs, for the purpose of preventing us from discovering the real causes of our present condition.

      1. 0
        Sooner28posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        I must admit, I still didn't read that yet.  Amazing summary though.

      2. Hollie Thomas profile image60
        Hollie Thomasposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        I know who wrote that, and HE was a Northerner.wink

      3. jandee profile image45
        jandeeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        ' There are many causes,'  'They are all part of and inseparable from the system.   In order to do away with poverty, we must destroy the causes:  To do away with the causes we must destroy the whole system.'
        (written more than a hundred years ago)-Mugsborough near London

    3. Hollie Thomas profile image60
      Hollie Thomasposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Like it or not, you can't keep referring to people you *know* who are either more motivated than other poor people or just slackers. Those kind of assessments are based on value judgements, there is no evidence other than your opinion. Where's the data?

    4. livewithrichard profile image85
      livewithrichardposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      This is a pretty ridiculous statement.  There is high turnover in these types of positions because management requires a certain amount of productivity and sales. Yes, pretty much anyone can get these types of jobs but keeping them requires a skill set other than being able to read off a list.  They have to know when and how to counter objections and this is a learned sales skill.

      1. kathleenkat profile image90
        kathleenkatposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        You need to pass a test first to even get considered for an interview.

        Of all the hundreds of people who apply to a GED/HED job, you are lucky to get called in.

        And even luckier to get an offer.

        Then you go through weeks of training, during which, if you don't pass, you get dropped.

        Then, you have your job. Which, at this job, you usually get yelled at all day over the phone. And you may decide to quit.


        It takes a certain type of person to work at a call center. It takes someone who is patient, smart, and resourceful. That is *not* the lowest common denominator

      2. 0
        JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        No... I'm talking about mostly non son sales entry level jobs. Pretry much all you have to do is show up and refrain from swearing at customers. It's tedious...but that is my point. There are tons of people  who would rather live off the government than have a tedious job.

        1. Mighty Mom profile image91
          Mighty Momposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Here ya go. Was wondering how long it would take to find full vindication of Romney's remarks:
          http://blogs.knoxnews.com/johnson/2012/ … out-d.html

          The honest truth is that 100% of Americans are dependent on government every day.
          We don't even know about many of the subsidies the federal government gives to producers and programs that touch our lives.

        2. Credence2 profile image86
          Credence2posted 4 years ago in reply to this

          So how do you know that, Jaxson? That is just a rightwing inference that is never supported by the facts. Since Mittwit has been reluctant to release hispast  tax returns, it could well be possible that he pays little or no income tax, has that possibility occured to you

        3. mmorpglover profile image71
          mmorpgloverposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Yes there are different types of call center jobs the one the other guy was referring to is in sales. My mother taught me that if you can sell, you will never starve. It's a very valuable skill.

          The other type of call center job is just customer service like the people who you call and ask about your credit card bill. Pretty much anyone can do that but most people don't have the patience.

    5. Jonathan Janco profile image80
      Jonathan Jancoposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I've worked at a place exactly like this in college. It is not 'selling' magazine subscriptions. The script leads the solicitor through a composite of key phrases specifically to mislead the target of the solicitation into believing they have won a prize and the prize is all of these free magazine subsriptions. In the script is a discreet message the target is supposed to overlook that results in the company billing the target for the cost of the subscriptions several times a month. It is an outright criminal enterprise, plain and simple. When I worked at this place, they even admitted to me it was criminal in order for me to stick to the script, because the only way the scam works is if you explain everything the exact way they tell you to and if the target still falls for it you get the commission. These places are front for organized crime and engage in outright criminal behavoir themselves.

      1. PrettyPanther profile image86
        PrettyPantherposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        What?!!  A business putting profit above ethics?  NOOOOoooooo........  Surely, you jest.

  5. Repairguy47 profile image59
    Repairguy47posted 4 years ago

    Hows that occupy movement doing? Occupy hubpages seems to be a big hit.

  6. Mighty Mom profile image91
    Mighty Momposted 4 years ago

    Oh goody!
    Mitt Romney has made a tape addressing what he "really" meant by those comments.
    They're going to play it on the news next.
    *popcorn*

  7. habee profile image91
    habeeposted 4 years ago

    That was pretty bad, I must admit.

    1. 0
      Sooner28posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Thank you.

      1. Mighty Mom profile image91
        Mighty Momposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        He's doing a live press conference.
        Standing by his remarks.
        Putting into context that it's about pulling people into his campaign.
        The "victims" statement, he admits, was not "elegantly stated."

        1. habee profile image91
          habeeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Give us a report. I don't even want to watch it.

          I'm considering not even voting this year - first time ever since I turned 18. 300 million people, and BO and Mitt are the best we can do??

          1. 0
            Sooner28posted 4 years ago in reply to this

            I told my co-workers I was considering not voting, and they went crazy on me, saying I had a civic duty.

            Eh.  Does voting bestow legitimacy to a corrupt system?

            1. Reality Bytes profile image94
              Reality Bytesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              That is the purpose of U.S. elections, validation of the elites choices.

          2. peeples profile image90
            peeplesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            +1 Habee

            1. rhamson profile image76
              rhamsonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              It is the very best the banks and big business offer us to vote for.

        2. rebekahELLE profile image90
          rebekahELLEposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          You know, there's a point when damage control just doesn't work.  He has already exposed his character.
          He doesn't represent nor understand the average American citizen.

          1. kathleenkat profile image90
            kathleenkatposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Neither does Obama. It's not about the "average" here. It's about the "extreme." Obama supports those on the low-income side, and Romney supports those on the high-income side.

            Neither of them have me, a middle-income worker, in mind. Neither of them are really doing anything to benefit my tax bracket (sorry, but truth.) I think that's why this election is such a close one.

  8. Evan G Rogers profile image83
    Evan G Rogersposted 4 years ago

    Even if he didn't say that, people are NOT entitled to eat. You have to produce to eat. Those who can't be so bothered as to contribute enough to generate even their own sustenance should not expect others to give them food.

    However, it is very compassionate and GOOD of people to help others out.

    1. 0
      Sooner28posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Oh how a more advanced species/God will judge us with statements like that.

      1. Evan G Rogers profile image83
        Evan G Rogersposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Alright, then stop working and start begging for food.

        1. 0
          Sooner28posted 4 years ago in reply to this

          That's not relevant to my point.  No one said anything about begging.

          1. Evan G Rogers profile image83
            Evan G Rogersposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Yes, actually they did.

            Entitled to food means that you "deserve food even if you don't do anything".

            It was entirely relevant, you're just ignoring the bad part of your own argument.

            You can't possibly win this argument because you don't like your own argument.

  9. Jean Bakula profile image96
    Jean Bakulaposted 4 years ago

    Jaxson,
    There are good reasons why people are not willing to do that kind of work. I'm a good example, and I have taken my share of crappy jobs like that, as my spine curvature worsens. I am not working right now. I did work Full Time for 20 years, and paid into SS. My husband has BC/BS medical coverage, but if anyone needs surgery it will put us down the drain, and his co-pays are getting higher and higher. I have worked jobs that paid $10 an hour when I feel up to it, the most I can do is 20 hours. So that gives me $200.00 a week, or $800.00 a month (before taxes). My mortgage alone is $1000.00 a month, I have electric heat and air conditioning, so I spread the payment to equalize it through the year, and that's over $300.00 a month. House Taxes. My car payment is $300.00 a month. Phone, computer, TV, $175.00. Food $250 which I'm trying to stretch for two weeks.That doesn't include gas money, life insurance, propane for my stove, Credit Cards, Car insurance is another $317. The Water bill. Homeowner's insurance. It hurts my back to do this, so I end up seeing my chiropractor 3X week, at a $25.00 co-pay or $75.00 a week, $300.00 a month. So it isn't even worth it to hurt myself to make so little money that I   A). Can't make a difference, only will be able to pay the most small bill or two  B). Will likely have to see an orthopedic Dr. too, since I can't function with only chiro anymore, I need him and medication from the Orth guy. No one is willing to do the work because it will not help their financial situations in any significant way. The only good point is you don't need to dress well in business clothes for a call center. Plus it's mind numbingly boring for a person with a drop of intelligence. If you "promote" to the next level, the raise you get is something like 25 cents an hour. I am not a victim. My husband makes fairly decent money, but nowhere near $100,000.00. But I will say there are times when I feel defeated, and I don't like somebody born with a silver spoon in his mouth describing people like me, and other regular ones just trying their best, described in language Romney uses.

    1. 0
      JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Jean, I'm sorry to hear about your problems, but I'm not referring to people like you.

      I've worked in many call-center positions, both full-time and as extra income. I've personally seen hundreds of people quit their jobs 'because it's boring/tedious/annoying', who have no medical reason why they can't do the work. I've seen people quit their jobs, because it's boring, who were on food stamps, and just said 'well, I'll get more food stamps, plus cash payments, while I look for something else'.

      You have people on section 8 housing for 3, 5, or more years, while getting cash payments, and food stamps, and they don't want to find a job because they will lose their benefits, or because it's just too hard.

      That makes me sick. I was raised better than that, luckily... my dad came from a family without indoor plumbing(until he was about 17), and no money to send him to college. He has a PhD in chemistry and a masters in botany, and is a respected expert in his field. He did the hard work, the crappy jobs, while studying/working/raising a family.

      Life is hard... life is not about having the government standing by to give you what you are 'entitled'.

      We need to save welfare programs for those who really need them, not just those taking advantage of them.

      1. Jean Bakula profile image96
        Jean Bakulaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        I wanted to add something about boring, yet paying, jobs that Jaxson wrote about.. I understand you are not referring to people who have real health issues. I did work in real estate too, in rentals, and had quite the experience with Section 8 housing. My Real Estate Agency and property owners really LOVED people who came with a guaranteed rent paid by the government, and were pursuing people in "tough" situations. I admit I was getting disgusted with many of them. I was knocking myself out looking to find them nice apartments, but some of the owners were slumlords. I had this one woman with 2 young kids, and she would show up with 2 men when I was to take her to showings. I had to "remind" her she was supposed to be single and have no means of support. Plus she never had car seats for the little kids, and I wasn't about to take them unsafely in my car. I finally found a great place, an older couple left all the furniture, dishes, etc. and it was really beautiful stuff. How did she thank me? When she went back to the Welfare office, she told them I, or the Real Estate Agency I worked with, didn't help her at all, and tried to cheat me out of my commission! It was paid by the Gov't. for a Section 8 HUD situation anyway. It was no sweat off her. I draw the line at the Gov't. finding an apartment for a poor person going through an agency. The real estate agency charges 1 1/2 months of the rent as fee for finding the apartment, when we got them from the listings in back of the newspaper, something anyone could do for themselves (we also worked with large apt. complexes). So I still think Romney is out of touch with the way regular people live, but also realize there are people who are geniuses at manipulating the system and it's our money they are spending. We need better daycare so women with children can work, when they feel their children are ready for that. We also have  people who are not computer literate enough to do jobs that would be easy and no physical strain on them (I guess the collection agency wouldn't be bad for someone who could sit that long)..I know there is a job training area in NJ unemployment, several friends in their 50's have lost jobs, and are getting retrained for other ones, and they really seem to be making an effort to place these people in positions that utilize their talents. So how do you decide who is going to starve and who is just taking advantage of the system? It's not so easy.

    2. kathleenkat profile image90
      kathleenkatposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Your story hits me close to home. I had back problems, which worsened when I worked a retail job that involved lifting and loading. I spent pretty much all of my extra money on the chiropractor and physical training. I ate a whole lotta ramen noodles during that time.

      I found that switching to a desk job, and using a kneeling chair (instead of sitting in poor posture) has helped me to need the chiropractor a lot less. No, we can't all just "switch jobs" but I encourage you to look for one that isn't a lifting/loading job, or doesn't involve walking around on concrete floors for 8 hours a day (I needed prescription orthodics for that). My boyfriend works at a call center, and they offer him a standing desk, which is much better for posture.

    3. Credence2 profile image86
      Credence2posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Yes, that is a big 10-4, Mitt has really gaffed this time, wait till the mainstream press gets a hold of this!

  10. Wayne Brown profile image85
    Wayne Brownposted 4 years ago

    I really don't see that the truth hurts too very much.  There has been an "entitlement" metality created in this country and  it has grown in leaps and bounds over the passed four years.  Where does it stop? It is about time someone called attention to it and looked at some viable alternatives which could give people some hope instead of dependence on government handouts, basically politically bribery.  As entitlement grows and production shrinks, the lines eventually cross at a pointed called "busted"....then there is no one to help.  Oh, but i forgot, the liberal model always assumed that production will remain at least status quo or grow though there are no motivations for that except the emotions of the heart.  We have been led far enough down this road of government dependency...it is time for a new day in America.  ~WB

  11. quatrain profile image76
    quatrainposted 4 years ago

    Holly,
    This is not a shocker. Romney believes that 47% of people don't pay taxes and are dependent on government because...they are. I know people who are getting checks every month from the government, from SSD (social security disability) to food stamps. In fact, one woman I know through a friend received a substantial amount of money after her husband died. She used a big chunk of it to visit two friends overseas, and put the rest in bonds. No problem for me except she still collects food stamps. To continue collecting food stamps, she simply put the windfall money into an account in her sister's name. And by the way, none of the friends I am mentioning are minorities.

    I don't think I'm unique. Almost everyone knows someone who is scamming the system. Those of us who just can't see ourselves living off the government are a shrinking group.
    What's going to happen when the providers give up?

    1. kerryg profile image87
      kerrygposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      47% percent of people don't pay federal income taxes. Almost everyone pays taxes.

      Also, when you see who the 47% actually are, you'll notice that nearly all of them either pay payroll tax (and therefore have jobs) or are elderly and retired. Only about 7% of non-elderly Americans are actually so poor that they rely on government handouts to live.

      http://i.imgur.com/wZxqY.gif

      Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezr … se-people/

      1. 0
        Sooner28posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Raise taxes on grandma and the homeless!  That's a great economic policy...

        1. chefsref profile image91
          chefsrefposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          The average Social Security check is $1230.00, if we could just tax all those damn freeloading poor and old people we could stop them from living it up buying extravagances like food and medicine. Or as John Boehner said they could always eat beans and rice

          1. kathleenkat profile image90
            kathleenkatposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            I am not sure you are clear on what Social Security is. It's a program that you pay into, while working, and then recieve upon retirement. You could have kushy 401K and still recieve Social Secuirty checks. Many "old people" can more than afford to pay taxes.

            1. Ralph Deeds profile image70
              Ralph Deedsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              And many old people do pay federal income taxes. FYI, "kushy" 401k and IRA payouts are subject to federal income tax. However, the average 401k balance isn't very "kushy."

          2. kerryg profile image87
            kerrygposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Jon Stewart had a good clip about that months ago.

            http://www.cjr.org/the_audit/mitt_romne … php?page=2

            (Watch both for the full effect.)

  12. readytoescape profile image60
    readytoescapeposted 4 years ago

    The ridiculousness of the fictional interpretations and spin intended to make political hay out of this months old comment is beyond rationality. Simply put the political operatives and the news media seizing on this comment are all convinced YOU (meaning anyone that hears them) are all too foolish and impressionable to see the truth in the comment and define it’s meaning on your own.

    Romney is merely stating to the crowd of a political fund raiser, that the election as it begins is clearly tilted in favor of the incumbent and nothing the campaign can do will change the view of a large percentage of people that are already fully committed to the opposition. It is no different than saying a great number of black voters will vote for Obama just because his is black.

    1. livewithrichard profile image85
      livewithrichardposted 4 years ago in reply to this


      Partly right... what I gleaned from that remark was that he is not going to waste his time trying to convince a large number of people who have already set their mind on voting for the President, he only needs to concentrate on the 5% of people that are in the middle... which makes very good sense because as close as this race is, it's those 5% that are going to decide the winner.

  13. Wayne Brown profile image85
    Wayne Brownposted 4 years ago

    When one listens to the entire comment, it is apparent that Romney is laying out the thought process as to the direction in which he will campaign.  He makes it very clear that Obama has used entitlement to create a solid 47% of the population who will support him at the polls regardless.  Romney points out that he does not intend to waste time and energy attempting to convince that sector to "not vote for Obama" as it would be futile.  Instead, he states, he is aiming more toward the center of the electorate for that undecided voter that can still be swayed.  That is not a condemnation of the 47%.  It is a recognition that Obama owns that sector of the population.  When one is attempting to raise money, there has to be some rationale offered for the strategy.  The strategy here is "why take on that sector of the population totally sold on Obama?"   The point with regard to entitlement is to say that Obama has used "entitlement" to cement these relationships with the voter creating that mindset of "victim" by continuing to harangue about the wealthy not paying their fair share and fanning the fires of class envy.  Romney simply observes that, in this sector, of the population, the current administration has created a mindset of dependency and looks to the government to take care of that need.  Is that a judgement as to whether these people are "entitled" on Romney's part....no, it is an acknowledgement that he as a candidate cannot come up with any greater lever to change those minds in the upcoming election.  ~ WB

    1. kerryg profile image87
      kerrygposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Except that the states with the highest percentage of voters who don't pay federal income taxes overwhelmingly vote red, so I don't think it's particularly accurate to say that "Obama has used entitlement to create a solid 47% of the population who will support him at the polls regardless."

      http://i.imgur.com/sxQHH.jpg

      1. Credence2 profile image86
        Credence2posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Thanks for providing that most enlightening graphic, kerryg. With the maximum exception of two states among the red shaded states, they are standard GOP voters, interesting.........

      2. 0
        Sooner28posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        You post too many facts.  They get in the way of my gut tongue.

  14. psycheskinner profile image80
    psycheskinnerposted 4 years ago

    If anyone here really thinks a full 47% of the country are complete deadbeats i suggest they vote for Romney, and if they don't then vote for someone else. 

    I would sincerely hope that renders Romney unelectable.

    1. Repairguy47 profile image59
      Repairguy47posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      He said 47% of those voting for Obama. That is a far cry than 47% of Americans.

      1. psycheskinner profile image80
        psycheskinnerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Nope. He said the 47% who *are* voting for Obama.  So 47% of the total country.  Which is, not coincidentally, the number planning to vote Obama according to polls at the time he made the comment.  (Now more like 49%).:

        "There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what"
        "There are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government,"
        "These are people who pay no income tax, 47% of Americans pay no income tax."

        Read more: http://www.foxbusiness.com/government/2 … z26pzvJ0xZ


        That is how I and basically all the mainstream media are interpreting it.  47% of the population.

        And he is standing by the comment.

        1. Repairguy47 profile image59
          Repairguy47posted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Yeah, uhhuh. Forget it.

          1. psycheskinner profile image80
            psycheskinnerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Find me a single mainstream media outlet that hears it your way.  Then tell me how Romney psychically knows the exact percentage of Obama voters who are deadbeats.

            1. Repairguy47 profile image59
              Repairguy47posted 4 years ago in reply to this

              You can interpret it anyway you choose I don't care. He said 47% of those voting for Obama. What in your mind is a mainstream media outlet?

              1. psycheskinner profile image80
                psycheskinnerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                A newspaper or network station, excluding opinion pieces.

                He said "47% of Americans"--how much clearer can it be?

                But if you are happy that almost everyone else including Romney in his responses to the criticism are wrong, well.  OK.

                1. Repairguy47 profile image59
                  Repairguy47posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Romney being criticized by what you would consider mainstream is shocking to me. Let me put it this way...I don't care! He only stated the truth.

                  1. psycheskinner profile image80
                    psycheskinnerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    I am not talking about being critical or not.  Choose Fox news if you like.
                    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/09 … -approach/

                    It's just what he said and he has to own it.  He said almost half the country are bums.  47% of the population. That's just a fact that he himself does not deny.

  15. Joe Badtoe profile image60
    Joe Badtoeposted 4 years ago

    Jeez ! so some people excuse Romney's crass remarks about people he doesn't like? when did the US take a turn so far to the right that it can't see an ounce of humanity for people in less fortunate circumstances? Is it not a basic expectation for any govt let alone one overseeing a powerful country to provide decent healthcare and education for all its citizens and not just for those that can afford to pay for it. I mean seriously those people who have this moral abandonment when it comes to looking out for fellow human beings what is wrong with you? Do you want a two tier society where you feel so good about yourselves because you've seen people who haven't got the same material desires as you?

    Romney is a man with no substance other than taking orders from the powerful - He has said he's not interested in those not voting for him - would any intelligent presidential candidate really be that stupid? Are people really happy to see veterans returning from war to find themselves unemployed, homeless and suffering serious trauma. Are people happy to 'blame' people for not being as fortunate as those with wealthy parents. What kind of world do you people want? One of elitism,class separation and servility where brave men and women continue dying in pointless wars. It's a sick sick world when people like Romney are considered presidential material.

  16. junko profile image79
    junkoposted 4 years ago

    Everybody knows "It's all about money in this Capitalistic nation" The 47% are mostly poor and elderly, poor and depressed minorities, or people who can't find jobs. The people who can't find jobs and have to compete with the underclass for underclass jobs, they don't feel entitled, they feel used by politics. The permanent underclass the 37% has only their vote for hope, but at this important time for them there is an attempt to block their vote and hope. America has for too many economic slave then needed for Capitalism to successed. Romney don't care about the 37%, it seems nobody cares

  17. Jean Bakula profile image96
    Jean Bakulaposted 4 years ago

    I've worked in those places too on occasion. One was a collection agency, but there was an automatic dialer, so you have no control over who comes on the line. What they don't tell you when you get the job is that it's competitive, they "grade" you on how many bad debts you recover, there's a list in back of the room so they try to publically humiliate you if you aren't doing well. So you may get 10 calls where nobody picks up. The one who answers will hang up on you. And you'll be told you aren't bringing in any money, for your great $10 an hour. They are always old bldgs. with old chairs from before they made ergonomic ones for lumbar support. So you are in a crummy, dirty bldg. sitting with a headset, listening to people who hang up on you. It's so demeaning. And that's before some boss starts telling you to be tougher on the people on the phone that nobody is answering. There are different variations of those kind of jobs, but they are similiar. I think we all know someone collecting from the government who shouldn't be. But IMHO, Romney is out of touch and thinks everyone has it like him. He has no clue about the working poor. I don't think he's a mean person, I think for his wealth he is kind of sheltered, and never really interacted with people outside his income level.

  18. Mighty Mom profile image91
    Mighty Momposted 4 years ago

    Would you go for mean-spirited, perhaps?

    I think many of us have had doubts about who he really is, how he really feels, maybe some nagging suspicions.

    This video removes any doubt.

    1. Ralph Deeds profile image70
      Ralph Deedsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      How about narcissistic?

  19. taburkett profile image61
    taburkettposted 4 years ago

    In fiscal year 2008, anti-poverty spending was $475 billion. In fiscal year 2009, when Obama took office, it had risen to $590 billion.
    Federal welfare spending in fiscal year 2010 totaled $602 billion
    Federal welfare spending in fiscal year 2011 totaled $668 billion

    Welfare recipients are now at 48% of the population and still growing.

    The number of families in poverty has grown by 26% since 2008.

    The number of voters who have already stated they will vote for the failure is 48%.

    The number that will vote for Romney is 48%.

    Romney is campaining for the 4% not the 48% that already want a failure.

    but as usual, the 'rats spin their tail - and the followers swoon

    the real truth is if you want positive economic change - vote Romney

    1. junko profile image79
      junkoposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      What about the permanent 37% who so much money is paid to non-profits to administer aid to the underclass 50% administration fees and 50% actual aid to the people. Who cares about private sector fraud and corruption of Federal Funds paid to support the 37% permanently poor and uneducation?

    2. Mighty Mom profile image91
      Mighty Momposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Isn't it funny how so many Americans are "suddenly" freeloading on the government?
      How exactly did we get to this state?

      It's pretty simple, really.
      1. Crash the economy
      2. Undermine any/all government efforts to jump start it
      3.  Keep Americans out of work to prove that president's policies are bad
      4. Blame Americans for being out of work

      I don't agree with Mr. Romney that47% of  Americans see themselves as victims.
      Even though, thanks to Mr. Romney's cronies,  that's exactly what they are.
      sad

      1. chefsref profile image91
        chefsrefposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Amazing how the 53 million people now on Social Security are now freeloaders.
        Iraq vets, disabled by fighting the Bush war are now freeloaders.
        People receiving unemployment checks because their jobs were shipped overseas are now freeloaders.
        Hungry children receiving food stamps because their parents parents lost jobs are now freeloaders.
        SO, vote Romney for economic change that will put money in his pockets and get rid of those freeloaders. That's change we can believe in.
        Vote Romney and get
        More old people in poverty
        Disabled vets living under bridges
        People begging in the streets
        Children digging in dumpsters for dinner
        More money in Swiss accounts

      2. Repairguy47 profile image59
        Repairguy47posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Under this administration there are 15 million more sucking off the government teat.

        1. Mighty Mom profile image91
          Mighty Momposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Yes, it's a shame that the jobs promised in 2010 have not materialized, isn't it?

          Luckily for all you red state welfare slackers, those of us in the blue states don't mind sharing our wealth with you ... at least until our Congress gets off its butt and gets some damned jobs back into this country.

          1. taburkett profile image61
            taburkettposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            well - I guess we should blame the President since he has yet to balance a budget and nixed all drilling, coal, and pipeline work.
            by the way - politics requires compromise.
            none of that yet during the last 4 years from either the President or the Senate.
            failure is not single sided when it comes to politics just like any activity that requires compromise.
            however, it appears that the koolaide is much too strong for the O-naniacs

            1. Ralph Deeds profile image70
              Ralph Deedsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Your ignorance of economics is astounding. Balancing the budget during a recession is a recipe for disaster.

    3. Joe Badtoe profile image60
      Joe Badtoeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Hilarious - and how much will Romney give away to his 1% with tax breaks (none of which will bring in jobs) ? and how much will Romney spend on war with Iran? The only positive thing Romney will bring is enrichment for his friends, armed protection for his friends and an early death for millions of citizens. Democracy does not exist if humanity is unwelcome.

    4. Quilligrapher profile image89
      Quilligrapherposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Good evening, Taburket.

      I think I see a little tail spinning myself. You left out one important fact. In fiscal year 2008, the United States experienced the biggest economic meltdown since the Great Depression. Labeled the “Great Recession”, it turned around within the first 6 months of the present administration with the help of huge stimulus initiatives sponsored by both President Bush and President Obama.  With this in mind, your welfare growth numbers are both more understandable and far less misleading.
      Thanks, taburket, for contributing.
      http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6919429.jpg

  20. habee profile image91
    habeeposted 4 years ago

    I think Romney was trying to channel Ben Franklin's famous quote but did so awkwardly.

  21. Ralph Deeds profile image70
    Ralph Deedsposted 4 years ago

    Mitt Romney--"There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the President no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe 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-

    "My job is not to worry about those people. I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives."

    John Dingell--"Hard-working, middle-class Americans in Michigan and across the country are grossly insulted by these disdainful and belittling remarks.

    "Mitt Romney must remember that the president represents all of us - not just those of wealth and prestige.

    "Americans work hard, pay their taxes, and don't want the government to run their lives. They deserve more respect and consideration by those who seek high office. Americans also believe that people sometimes need a hand up, but do not want a handout. We are only a strong country when everybody has a shot at the American Dream."

    Courtesy of Willard Mitt Romney and  U.S. Representative from Michigan, "Iron John" Dingell.

    1. Josak profile image60
      Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      +1000

  22. aware profile image70
    awareposted 4 years ago

    mitt says let the hungry Americans eat cake.

    1. Ralph Deeds profile image70
      Ralph Deedsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      He learned that when he was a Mormon missionary in Paris.

  23. knolyourself profile image60
    knolyourselfposted 4 years ago

    Maybe they should go to where all the jobs have gone - overseas.

    1. Repairguy47 profile image59
      Repairguy47posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I'm hiring but then again I live in a probusiness state!

      1. Josak profile image60
        Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        What state?

        1. Repairguy47 profile image59
          Repairguy47posted 4 years ago in reply to this

          The great state of Texas of course. Need a job?

          1. Hollie Thomas profile image60
            Hollie Thomasposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Nah, he's fussy.

            1. Repairguy47 profile image59
              Repairguy47posted 4 years ago in reply to this

              I would wager he would work, couldn't say the same for you though. Try banging your head.

              1. Hollie Thomas profile image60
                Hollie Thomasposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                I'm fussy, too. Besides, I can make a living on my keyboard, I don't have to get my hands dirty, drill holes and change light sockets. Thanks to  a decent education.

                1. Repairguy47 profile image59
                  Repairguy47posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Having the knowledge to do something while employing others to actually do the labor is quite nice. I'm more than sure you will never know how that feels.

                  1. Hollie Thomas profile image60
                    Hollie Thomasposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Spot on, I don't have to employ others to earn a reasonable living. I don't have to depend on anyone, it's quite nice.

                  2. 0
                    Sooner28posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    I'd rather not ever know what it feels like to exploit people for a living.

              2. jandee profile image45
                jandeeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Chauvinist too !

          2. Josak profile image60
            Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            The one with 16% poverty rate? thanks but I'm good.

            1. Repairguy47 profile image59
              Repairguy47posted 4 years ago in reply to this

              You mean Texas has poor people? I wonder how they're getting by?

          3. Quilligrapher profile image89
            Quilligrapherposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Hi there Repairguy.

            May I quote from CBS in Dallas-Fort Worth?

            “…the latest U.S. Census data on Texas, which found that 17.9 percent of Texans — or 4.4 million people — live below the poverty line. That’s 2.6 percent higher than the national average and ranks Texas 40th in the nation.”{1}
            http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6919429.jpg
            {1} http://dfw.cbslocal.com/2012/02/05/stat … y-problem/

            1. Repairguy47 profile image59
              Repairguy47posted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Gee, you think that might have anything to do with a large population? Or maybe being across a river from Mexico whose residents come here because our version of poverty is sooooooooo much better than actual poverty? Your argument is much like the other liberal fail and my personal favorite, there are more white people on welfare! Oh my! There also happens to be a hell of a lot more white people...der

              1. Josak profile image60
                Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Sorry do you understand what a percentage is? The population won't affect that nor does the data include illegals, the reason is Texas has a massive wealth gap and very few measures to help the poor leave poverty.

              2. Quilligrapher profile image89
                Quilligrapherposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                   Hi again, RepairGuy. Nice to see your reply.

                Gee, do I think that it might have anything to do with a large population? Actually, no, I do not. Do you? The 2008 Census reported the total population in Texas at 24.7 million and the number of Texans below the official poverty level at 17.2%. The same US Census reported the total population in California at 36.9 million. According to you, a larger slice of Californians should be below the poverty level because they have a larger population, right? Wrong! The CA poverty level was 14.2%, that is 3% less than the Great State of Texas.

                I made one single, and I might add simple, point. In the Great State of Texas where you calm government is so business friendly, more than 17 percent of its citizens have incomes below the official poverty level. Now, how did you respond? You talk about a large population! You talk about non-citizens who are not included in the 17 percent!  You talk about liberals who have nothing to do with the 17 % poverty level in Texas! And, you talk about white people and the size of the white population, which also has nothing to do with the poverty level in Texas! Are you totally oblivious of the fact you avoided the point or do you do that on purpose?

                This just proves how hard it is to build an intellectual conversation when the necessary raw materials are not in inventory. From what I have seen, most folks in the forums see the wisdom in building their opinions on real facts and framing their statements based on verified data. Opinions, after all, are just opinions. They realize they have to give their readers a reason to believe they actually know something about what they are saying.

                Just the same, RepairGuy, I think you are nice guy and probably a great repairman. I enjoy sharing ideas with you.
                http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6919429.jpg
                {1} http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/ … rank01.xls
                {2} http://www.census.gov/prod/2010pubs/acsbr09-1.pdf

                1. kathleenkat profile image90
                  kathleenkatposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Hello, Quill.

                  I am not sure that the percentage of Texans living below poverty level has anything to do with whether or not Texas is business-friendly. You see, Texas has a much lower cost of living than California. If you go by ranking, California is the second most expensive state as far as cost of living goes. Texas, on the other hand, is forty-second on the list.

                  Texas has a minimum wage of $7.25, which reflects that. Working full time (40 hours per week, 52 weeks per year), that would be $15,080 before taxes. With the national poverty line at $11,170 for an individual, anyone who works part time is pretty much under the poverty line. With the national poverty line at $15,130 for a family of two, you are automatically living below poverty line. Single mom with a kid? Husband with a wife who doesn't work? Even in this common scenario, if you work minimum wage, you are considered poor! A family of 3 is $19090... Have a wife and a kid? Yep.

                  The good thing is, if you live in Texas, you can probably still make it pretty well for yourself and your family with the lower cost of living. Federal poverty level is based off of average for the whole country (Alaska and Hawaii are actually on a different scale, so, 48 states). Someone who makes 35k would probably be pretty well off in Texas, but barely able to afford a 2-bedroom apartment in California.

                  In contrast, a single person or a family of 2 in California are above poverty line, even on minimum wage. California has a has a higher minimum wage than Texas, at $8/hr, or $16,640/yr. Perhaps thats why there are less people in poverty, there?

                  http://www.top50states.com/cost-of-living-by-state.html
                  http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/12poverty.shtml
                  http://www.twc.state.tx.us/ui/lablaw/tmwsum.html
                  http://minimum-wage.us/states/California

                  1. Quilligrapher profile image89
                    Quilligrapherposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Hi Kathleen. Great post and quite true.

                    I introduced the extraordinarily high poverty rate in Texas to emphasize “business friendly” does not mean “worker friendly.” Another poster suggested the number of Texans living below the poverty level could be due to the size of the population, which, of course, it is not. The California data just makes that point. If Texas is such a business friendly state, I wondered why the income of close to 1 in 5 Texans is below the poverty level.

                    You may be correct, Kathleen, to say, “The good thing is, if you live in Texas, you can probably still make it pretty well for yourself and your family with the lower cost of living.” I am still skeptical. While “business-friendly” may translate into good margins for business owners, it does not always trickle down to the employee. Take Harlingen, Texas, for an example. In 2010, Harlingen had the distinction for being the cheapest place in the USA to live. It also had one of the lowest income levels in the country. The average annual wage was $31.7K compared to the US average of $44.4K. However, this did not trumpet the American dream. While Harlingen's cost of living was 18 percent lower than the U.S. average, the area’s income was 28 percent lower. Harlingen’s poverty rate was about 30-%, nearly double the national rate, and the unemployment rate was close to 9.4-%. Brownsville, TX, and McAllen, TX, were also low-cost areas with low income and high poverty rates.

                    Unfortunately, Kathleen, this data suggest to me that neither “business friendly” nor lower living costs lead to better living conditions for the average American. Texas may just be another example where trickle down economics delivers more hype than hope.

                    Thanks, Kathleen, for contributing the additional data.
                    http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6919429.jpg
                    {1} http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43540398/ns … e-live-us/

  24. Ralph Deeds profile image70
    Ralph Deedsposted 4 years ago

    Romney's 47% deadbeat comment reminds me of an old Army expression:  "Crapping in one's own mess kit."

  25. Len Cannon profile image88
    Len Cannonposted 4 years ago

    The poor should not be allowed to have access to the internet, a refrigerator, beds, food, the most meager moments of entertainment, or the illusion of hope that they might rise above their station.

    1. Uninvited Writer profile image82
      Uninvited Writerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      True, they should all live without electricity too. In shacks. Or in poor houses...or work houses...

    2. Repairguy47 profile image59
      Repairguy47posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      How exactly did you two get the poor shouldn't have internet? I said if you have an internet connection quit claiming your poor! If you have a roof,flatscreen TV,cable quit claiming to be poor! If you want to rise above your station quit paying for luxuries and put that money in the bank. How will you ever get anywhere spending money? Please present an argument that refutes this bit of obvious logic.

      1. Hollie Thomas profile image60
        Hollie Thomasposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Do you know the difference between absolute and relative poverty, Repairguy? Try reading a little more often.

        1. Repairguy47 profile image59
          Repairguy47posted 4 years ago in reply to this

          The question you should ask is do I care? I don't. If you have an internet connection cable etc you are not poor. My sympathy is reserved for an actual poor person.

          1. Hollie Thomas profile image60
            Hollie Thomasposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            You never appear to care about the topics you pontificate about. Clearly, if you believe that an internet connection indicates wealth, then you really do not know the difference between relative and absolute poverty.

            1. Repairguy47 profile image59
              Repairguy47posted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Why do you care about what happens in the U.S.? You spend more time on our politics than yours. Is your country that dull?

              1. Hollie Thomas profile image60
                Hollie Thomasposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Another Repairguy assumption dressed up as fact, a poor and somewhat laughable attempt to deflect from the fact that you do not know the difference between relative and absolute poverty.

                1. jandee profile image45
                  jandeeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Hollie -got to hav a larf.......he's a breadhead ...........I think you are right ! HE HASN'T A CLUE !!??

          2. stayingalivemoma profile image90
            stayingalivemomaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Do you actually think about what you say before you say it, or do you just blurt things out?

            1. Repairguy47 profile image59
              Repairguy47posted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Shouldn't you be using the internet to rise above your station instead of posting on forums?

              1. stayingalivemoma profile image90
                stayingalivemomaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Oh, I couldn't wait to get on here and let you know that you're "part of the gang". You see, you, like most or ALL Americans depend on the government in one form or another.
                You, no doubt use the US postal service to send or receive mail.
                Unless you have a car, you at one point in your life have used public transportation...or at the very least the people you employ may need to use it to get to work for you.
                If you can read, which I assume you can, you may have gone to a public library to take out books, or maybe your children do, if you have them.
                Since you appear to be one of the "good-ole boys" maybe you have been fishing or hunting in a public lake or park.
                You're a "handyman" right? I can only safely assume that you abide by or have OSHA rules in your workplace.
                Do you eat? Well, our BIG government makes sure that the food you feed your family is safe.
                Flew on a plane before? FAA.
                Been out of the country? US passport
                Been robbed, home or workplace broken into, guilty of domestic violence, maybe? Yep, we have police for that.
                Oh, were would we all be without our huge, interfering government?
                Get over yourself. You can speak for yourself and maybe a couple of other ignorant people on here, but you in no way are different than the rest of us. You at some point or another need and depend on government to make your life easier so you can run your little handyman business and pay your employees "more than minimum wage".
                If you can sleep at night with a good conscience, then I'm happy for you, but don't expect me to sign on to all this ruckus you're trying to raise on here as if you are "holier than thou".
                I can be respectful and agree to disagree because I can go to bed with a good conscience and I don't insult people or step on their toes to get what I have.
                So keep paying your taxes, whining and take solace in knowing that Mitt Romney will never be President.

              2. gmwilliams profile image86
                gmwilliamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                ATTABOY, RG,  YOU CALLED IT!

                1. stayingalivemoma profile image90
                  stayingalivemomaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Attaboy? You called it?
                  Wow, big words today....

                  1. gmwilliams profile image86
                    gmwilliamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    At least, RG has a substantial and profitable business.   May I ask what do YOU have?  You stated that you are struggling.  Hmmmm!    Get a life, lady and don't worry about others have and don't have- that is so immaterial at this point while you are struggling !  In other words, get  a  JOB and stop using the internet to post- do something substantial!  Keyword here is S-U-B-S-T-A-N-T-I-AL!

            2. Hollie Thomas profile image60
              Hollie Thomasposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              He really does just blurt it out, and then when asked to explain his comments or is presented with evidence to the contrary whinges "I don't care." lol

      2. gmwilliams profile image86
        gmwilliamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        + multillion and I DO read; however, RG has presented some excellent logic.   The poor in the United States lead quite luxuriant lives in comparison to the poor in other countries.   In such countries, there is REAL poverty at a quite abysmal level.   The poor in America are quite affluent in comparison.    In America, I have never seen so many poor people wearing designer labels, expensive sneakers, and designer bags while complaining how they are going to pay the rent!    Well, my advice, stop spending foolishly and prioritize!   RG, right on, pay the negaters no mind!

        1. Repairguy47 profile image59
          Repairguy47posted 4 years ago in reply to this

          I don't worry about that one at all.

        2. Ralph Deeds profile image70
          Ralph Deedsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          'The poor in America are quite affluent in comparison. "

          "In high school, Katherine Foronda trained herself not to feel hungry until after the school day had ended. She wasn't watching her weight or worrying about boys seeing her eat.

          "She just didn't have any food to eat or any money to buy it.

          "'I thought, if I wasn't hungry during class I'd be able to actually focus on what we were learning,'' said Foronda, now 19.

          "Every day, children in every county in the United States wake up hungry. They go to school hungry. They turn out the lights at night hungry.

          "That is one of the stunning key findings of a new study to be released Thursday by Feeding America, a network of 200 food banks and the largest hunger charity in the country.

          "As many as 17 million children nationwide are struggling with what is known as food insecurity. To put it another way, one in four children in the country is living without consistent access to enough nutritious food to live a healthy life, according to the study, "Map the Meal Child Food Insecurity 2011."

          http://abcnews.go.com/US/hunger_at_home … FoOASLNk5k

        3. Mighty Mom profile image91
          Mighty Momposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          That argument sounds ridiculously like what we used to be told as kids:

          "Clean your plate because there are starving children in China"
          and
          "Quit crying or I'll give you something to cry about."

          It's not for you or any of us here to pronounce what is or is not "real poor" in this country and how "real poor" people live in other (more than likely you are referring to Third World not First World) countries is an irrelevant comparison.

          It's like saying American women should not work to get equal pay for doing the same job as men because women in Saudi Arabia aren't allowed to drive or expose their faces or bodies.
          roll

          1. wilderness profile image96
            wildernessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            I have to disagree with you here, MM - it is the crux of the problem coming out in the forums here lately.

            Food, shelter and clothing are necessities,  Add in a few more for today's world - education, drinking water and maybe a wall phone.  Access to emergency medical care.  If you don't have these you are very poor anywhere.

            But that isn't enough for American poor any more.  They demand designer clothes, a flat screen TV with satellite reception.   A computer hooked to the net and multiple cell phones per family.  Beer and cigarettes, maybe a joint or hit of coke now and then.  The list goes on and on, but they are all luxuries that some forum respondents don't want to pay for. 

            The changing definition of "poor" seems to me to be of supreme importance when discussing how much we should all give to support others.  Romney is right in that there is no innate natural "right" to enough to eat.  Few of us would deny a hungry child in spite of that, but the luxuries being demanded as "rights" go considerably beyond what some find reasonable.

            1. Uninvited Writer profile image82
              Uninvited Writerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              And you know this because.............

            2. gmwilliams profile image86
              gmwilliamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              + a multillion times.   I believe in helping the DESERVING poor; however, there are those who CAN WORK THE SYSTEM and are QUITE WASTEFUL regarding spending! I remember going food shopping and a lady paid for her filet mignon, lobster, crab, and cider champagne  with........yes, you guessed it, food stamps.  This is egregious, these items were not necessary!   While I was at another store,  one cashier complained to another that she was thousands of dollars in debt because she purchased two designer bags, a 24 inch flat tv screen, and a home audio set, adding that there was "no way" she could pay the debt with her salary!       Hmmmmmmmm, welcome to the world of inverse logic!

              1. Uninvited Writer profile image82
                Uninvited Writerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Maybe it was someone's birthday or anniversary. Aren't the food stamps gone once they are spent, she would obviously have to economize on something else. I don't believe you saw this woman buy all this and then knew that they were discussing her in another store about being in debt. Talk about a coincidence... unless you were following her around.

                1. gmwilliams profile image86
                  gmwilliamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  It was TWO different women.  I was at two stores.   Read carefully!  The first woman purchases the filet mignon, lobster, and crab on food stamps.    The second woman was a cashier at another store who complained about being in debt although she purchased luxury items which was well beyond her meager salary!

                  1. Uninvited Writer profile image82
                    Uninvited Writerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    I read it, you did not make that clear. I didn't realize that you were talking about the cashier. The fact she is in debt is none of your business. She wasn't asking you to pay for it.

              2. kathleenkat profile image90
                kathleenkatposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                I don't doubt that you saw this, at all. I worked at a grocery store, and people with WIC checks and Food Stamps would have smart phones in their hands and Coach bags over their shoulders. Go figure.

                1. Uninvited Writer profile image82
                  Uninvited Writerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  And you think maybe they might have bought those when they could afford it? I would hate to think that everyone felt they had the right to judge me because I used food stamps. Do you watch what fat people buy too and complain about that?

                  Just did some research, the average monthly payment for those on food stamps is $133.84. I would imagine once it is gone that is it. it is up to the individual to decide how they will spend that money. I spend more on that on food every 2 weeks and I'm not buying a lot of food.

                  1. 0
                    JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    imo, people should sell their stuff before they go on welfare.

                    Also, buying ridiculously overpriced goods is part of the problem that sends people to welfare when things go bad... no money management, no savings, huge amounts of debt.

                    Go watch HouseHunters, you'll see what's wrong with people.

                  2. kathleenkat profile image90
                    kathleenkatposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    I spend about $200/month. Cool. Guess I could probably live off of Food Stamps.

                    The thing about smart phones an designer purses, though? You can tell if they are "current" or not. You can see if someone has the latest iPhone, or this season's Poppy purse. Even so, you can look at the kind of phone they have, and make a guess on how much their monthly payment is. You can tell if it's prepaid or not. Ever check the monthly payment on iPhone plans?

                    I don't know if you have ever worked in a cashier's position, but it is very hard not to judge people based off of what they buy. In fact, when they hand you their rewards cards hanging on their keys, you can see the logo of their car. It's easy to judge someone as "rich" if they have a BMW key fob (though I never saw that in correlation with WIC checks). And their payment type. Cash or debit? Usually goes with the WIC checks. Credit? Usually young people. Checks? Usually old people. You can even look at their editions of credit cards and make a wager on how much income they make. And yes, when I see fat people buying 5-gallon tubs of icecream, I make the judgement call of "they don't really care about their weight." I ain't perfect.

                  3. habee profile image91
                    habeeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    I've known people who got over $600 a month.

            3. Mighty Mom profile image91
              Mighty Momposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              I'm curious where your experience with these demanding poor comes from (?)
              Is it personal observation/interactions with people in your area?
              Is it anecdotal typing based on what you have seen/heard others report, perhaps through the media or internet sites?
              Is it based on analysis of reports of actual recipients of various "welfare" programs?

              It seems the old Reagan years stereotype of the "Welfare Queen" has been updated and is alive and well.
              But how accurate is it?

              Here's a comprehensive look at who (including the "whos" that are corporations!) actually receives benefits.
              The numbers may surprise you ... or not.
              http://kathmanduk2.wordpress.com/2009/0 … and-white/

            4. Ralph Deeds profile image70
              Ralph Deedsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              You have a completely warped view of what it's like to be poor, perhaps because you live, as I recall, somewhere far from urban centers.

  26. Uninvited Writer profile image82
    Uninvited Writerposted 4 years ago

    This conversation reminds me of all the pictures I used to see from the sixties of people in Appalachia before they could get any benefits. It looked more like a third world country than the United States in terms of poverty.

  27. ptosis profile image80
    ptosisposted 4 years ago

    Mitt Romney's 47% freeloaders combines elderly, poor workers & disabled veterans

    And this is coming from a rich guy who pays 15% taxes and see nothing
    wrong with abusing tax shelters to lower his tax bill - who is the real
    social parasite? Secretive with his offshore wealth, WTF?

    1. Ralph Deeds profile image70
      Ralph Deedsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Yep!

    2. wilderness profile image96
      wildernessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Tax shelters are generally presented as giving a tax break to someone or some company that will spend their money in a manner that is beneficial to society (although I find most claims pretty debatable).  How then can you "abuse" such a shelter if you do exactly what is required and desired with the money?

      What percentage did he pay of taxable income?  50%?  I would lay long odds that it is far greater than you or I did.  There is also little doubt that his bills for sales tax, real estate tax, personal property tax, etc. are far above what I even make, let alone pay.

      Secretive?  Do you make public all the details of your bank account?  Romney has met the needs of the law - why should your curiosity affect what he does after that?  Do you want to know the color of his underwear, too, or would public knowledge of the details of his trust (which he would then know, too!) do, at least for now?

      1. Josak profile image60
        Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Well according to what he has released for 2010 he paid 14%... which is a LOT less than I paid. It was however capital gains tax... I don't see that as right though, that someone making a lot more should not pay a much smaller share...

        1. taburkett profile image61
          taburkettposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          I do not understand your concern over this low percentage.
          based on this rate, Romney like me has paid more tax than 90% of the other citizens who filed in 2010.
          In fact, the folks in my tax category paid almost 63% of all taxes collected.
          additionally, since I own my own business, I also paid another 7.6% in taxes to support the employees that comprose my workforce.
          When considering the total outlay of taxes for my company, I pay more taxes than all my employees put together.
          So, maybe I should be upset that I pay so much in taxes based on your theory.........

        2. wilderness profile image96
          wildernessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          The govt. sees fit to reduce gross income or set lower tax rates to "encourage" investments they approve of - to "improve" society and provide incentive for pet social programs.  Do you expect Romney to invest as desired and STILL pay tax even though he doesn't owe it?

          I highly disagree with lower capital gains taxes, but fair is fair.  The law set the tax rate and Romney paid it.  What's the beef?

          1. Ralph Deeds profile image70
            Ralph Deedsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            "Do you expect Romney to invest as desired and STILL pay tax even though he doesn't owe it?"

            I don't expect anyone to pay taxes they don't owe, but I wonder about whether that's true of Romney. We do know that he's done everything he can to avoid taxes including some maneuvers involving private equity earnings from Bain that are controversial and borderline illegal. We also know that he has money in Swiss, Cayman Island and Bermuda accounts. And we know that he's refused for some reason to release tax returns beyond a year ago. I wonder what he's afraid of.

  28. gitarlos profile image60
    gitarlosposted 4 years ago

    Romney is so out of touch with the working class population and can only relate to the wealthy population.

  29. taburkett profile image61
    taburkettposted 4 years ago

    It is truly amazing - the amount of jealousy spew on this site.
    everyone seems to be hurt by the fact that someone uses the rules correctly, pays a huge amount of tax to support this nation, and therefore is an upstanding citizen.

    the wealthy have always been the group that have provided more tax revenue than any other group.

    in fact, most people in the lower 50% pay less than 2% of the amount that I pay yearly.

    what's next?
    will the o-slimeball want me to pay more for my McDonald's kids meal because I make more than the person in line in front of me?

    Jealousy - Jealousy - Jealousy
    man's most negative emotion

    1. gmwilliams profile image86
      gmwilliamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Tarbuckett, welcome to the world of insane liberalism and hatred of the wealthy, affluent, and highly successful.    THEY want income to be EQUALLY DISTRIBUTED,  didn't you know!  If YOU worked smart and obtained success and riches, you are being EXPLOITIVE and UNCARING.    Inverse logic reigns supreme!      Welcome to the NEW WORLD ORDER where wealth and success are condemned while poverty and failure are praised, even glorified!   The new ethos is that if you are poor and want money, DON'T WORK for it, ASK FOR DONATIONS AND HANDOUTS from those who have $$$$$!

  30. kathleenkat profile image90
    kathleenkatposted 4 years ago

    @wilderness; the changing definition of 'poor.'

    Several hundred, or maybe perhaps thousands, of years ago, it was common knowledge to know how to 'live off the land.' People knew how to spin wool and knit/crochet/weave it into cloth. People knew how to plant and cultivate seeds. People knew how to hunt. Having a home had nothing to do with basic survival. You could be homeless, easily. Big cities are what have made it hard. People don't know how to do the basics. Hell, I couldn't spin a good string of wool if I tried, let alone sheer a sheep. People feel entitled to eat, to have clothing, etc. Yet, they do not know how to obtain this without the help of others...  That's how being homeless or poor has changed over the years. Being poor didn't used to be such a problem, when people knew how to live off the land.

    1. wilderness profile image96
      wildernessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      True, cities have made a difference as has the knowledge lost through the ages.  Not only can neither you nor I shear a sheep, we can't legally raise one in the city, let alone in our high rise apartment.

      Nevertheless, people do not have an innate natural right to eat.  Society may or may not grant them that right, but nature most emphatically does not.

      That's not my point, however.  It is not the right to eat that I contest (although the responsibility to earn that right also exists wherever possible) but that the poor contend that they are also entitled to more and more luxuries, unrelated to the necessities of living.  In general, I draw the line when someone tells me they are entitled to entertainment at my expense because the won't or can't earn it themselves.  (Cable TV, cell phones, birth control, cheap or free transportation, etc.) and I get even more upset when demands include luxuries I can't afford for myself.

      1. Ralph Deeds profile image70
        Ralph Deedsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Do the auto workers in Janesville where the GM assembly plant closed in 2007 deserve to be eligible for unemployment compensation to tide them over until they can find another job. Are they leeches on society as described by Romney at the $50k dinner in Boca Raton?

  31. habee profile image91
    habeeposted 4 years ago

    I don't have a problem with food stamps or welfare. I have a problem with FRAUD. And yes, it happens. I've seen it many times, firsthand. I know several women right now who would sell me their food stamps at a bargain price so they could have money to party, buy alcohol, or go to the beach. I used to know several men/fathers who regularly traded their food stamps for drugs. Some of the men got a big yearly payment from my ex-father-in-law for their tobacco crop. It never failed - they always bought "stupid stuff" with their thousands. If I'd been in their predicament, I think I would have bought a freezer, meat, nonperishable foods, and clothes for my kids. Instead, they bought super expensive lawn furniture, designer shoes for themselves, and airplane trips to Miami.

    Look, we've struggled before. When I was a single mom with three kids, we never took food stamps or welfare. I didn't even try to get free school lunch for my kids. I always managed to scrape together their lunch money, but ice cream at school was a rare treat. I'm sorry, but it really galled me when the kids who got free lunch could afford to wear $100 sneakers, while mine were wearing Kmart shoes. Most of those same kids also bought ice cream every day, as my kids looked on longingly.

    This is the kind of stuff that angers a lot of conservatives. I'm sorry, but there's just something wrong with such scenarios. As a teacher, I knew which kids got free lunch and often which ones got food stamps and welfare. I also witnessed their being picked up from school in a very expensive car. One parent even drove a Hummer.

    I'm not a cold-hearted person. I believe in helping others and often do so on my own dime. There are people who are truly needy, through no fault of their own. Those people need our help. There are too many, however, who don't need or deserve government help. I resent my tax dollars going to such individuals. We need more fraud investigators. My best friend was one for a while, and she uncovered a lot of welfare fraud. In her first month alone, she saved the state over $50,000. Unfortunately, the job lost its funding.

    1. wilderness profile image96
      wildernessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      You are absolutely right, habee, although it isn't always (or even usually) actually fraud except in the ethical sense.  And the ethics of the people that take advantage of the government handouts at the expense of others isn't the same sense of ethics that I possess, either.

      The real task isn't to provide more welfare, it's to ensure that the monies (already in excess of what is actually needed) go to those that need it.  Not to effectively buy expensive shoes or cars.  Not to get a free school lunch because Mom is too lazy to make a sandwich (you can't convince me that half the country can't afford a sandwich for their kids).  Not to trade for a drug hit or fancy lawn furniture.

      Sad that your friend lost her job, but it should have been expected.  Had she saved less than her salary she might still have that job.  After all, less welfare coming into a state = less money for business + unhappy constituents (voters) = less chance of reelection for the politician.  It is almost inevitable that anything that limits feeding at the government trough will be stopped; in this case funding dried up. 

      We are becoming a nation of dependents; everyone dependent on good 'ol Uncle Sam for everything we want.  Until that changes (perhaps through a really major depression with people actually starving to death) it is only going to get worse.  Can you see 10% of the population supporting the other 90%?  We're coming ever closer to that, demanding that the infamous 1% provide all the cash we want.

    2. Ralph Deeds profile image70
      Ralph Deedsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      "There are people who are truly needy, through no fault of their own. Those people need our help. "

      Not according to Romney. They need to be weaned off the government tit.

      1. taburkett profile image61
        taburkettposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        If the government were doing its real job - creating an economic atmosphere to create better jobs
        those folks would have a better life through working at those jobs.
        Romney will create those jobs.

        1. Ralph Deeds profile image70
          Ralph Deedsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Obama has been doing his best, but has been stymied by the malicious Tea Baggers in the House of Representatives.

          1. taburkett profile image61
            taburkettposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            his community organizer best ain't good enough because it has'nt worked yet.
            a true statesman would have gotten the job done.
            time to replace the failure

        2. Josak profile image60
          Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Let me guess by lowering taxes right?

          A report from the Congressional Research Service finds there is no correlation in American history between economic growth and the lowering of taxes but that lower taxes on the rich do increase the wealth gap (how surprising).

          http://www.nationaljournal.com/domestic … s-20120917
          http://graphics8.nytimes.com/news/busin … conomy.pdf


          http://s2.hubimg.com/u/7177753_f248.jpg

          1. taburkett profile image61
            taburkettposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            when the government establishes a positive economic atmosphere more jobs are created and therefore more revenue earned for the nation.
            no tax increase is needed when more jobs are created by the private enterprises.
            more small business has gone belly-up in the last 4 years
            more jobs have been lost than created in the last 4 years
            more taxes will only lead to more loss when a failure is in charge

            1. Josak profile image60
              Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              How do you create this positive business atmosphere that you refer to? Because our economic growth now is better than the bubble adjusted rate for Bush during his whole Presidency so actually that seems to be working.

  32. 0
    DigbyAdamsposted 4 years ago

    Wilderness that's so not true. The bottom 40 percent of wager earners only earns 20% of the salaries. It hasn't been that bad since the depression. With the loss of money comes the loss of power. You bet Romney and his pals have us just where they want us. Many work at companies for peanuts creating the cashflow that creates their wealth.

    I'm very proud that my husband and I always been our own boss and always had a home and health insurance. But that's because we live in a state where they have to gives us access to health care. My husband and I pay over $1,000 per person per month for it, but we are guaranteed access. So we just keep working harder. But it's not easy making our own way with the power so titled against the little guy. Romney is one of the bad guys and he's not on our side.

    1. 0
      JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      The pie has gotten bigger, so what?

      20% of the income now is more than 20% of the income was 20 years ago...

      I'm guessing you would choose country B, wouldn't you?

    2. wilderness profile image96
      wildernessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I'm sorry, I'm not following what you are replying to.  Can you elucidate, please?

      I would point out, though, that the bottom 40% of earners include millions of teens at minimum wage as well as additional millions with part time or seasonal work.  These things will inevitably drastically lower the average wage for that group although neither one is intended or expected to provide a "living" wage.

  33. 0
    DigbyAdamsposted 4 years ago

    No I choose America. My husband and I do well here. It's not because of Romney and pals, but in spite of them. I live in Massachusetts. Romney wanted a watered down health bill that took companies off the hook and gave the people nothing. I have excellent health insurance because of Kennedy and the MA legislature - not Romney. Romney loves wealth redistribution believe me. He takes from the working poor and gives it to his wealthy pals. My life isn't subsidized, I pay full fare for everything. I've never had an ounce of public help - food stamps. Paid cash for a hugely expensive college education from businesses I've run since I was 6 years old.

    1. taburkett profile image61
      taburkettposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      The Massachusettes plan like the obamacare only rates as a good plan if you do not pay for any healthcare.  Those who do pay their own insurance pay approximately 20% more than those who pay nothing.  And with each increase in earnings, the rate goes even higher for the higher earner.  This is because niether system provides more doctors or nurses, just more patients on the free ride scheme..

      1. wilderness profile image96
        wildernessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        That's correct, that there will be more patients on a free or reduced cost ride but no more doctors or nurses.  In fact the opposite is probably more to be expected as payments for doctors is likely to go down and some will give it up.

        I don't understand the 20% thing, though - Zero plus 20% of zero is still zero.

        1. taburkett profile image61
          taburkettposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          regardless of the economic theory used, someone has to pay.
          those that doe pay for their own insurance pay 20% more now that others are guaranteed insurance that they do not pay for.
          the truth is nothing in this life is free - because someone has to pay for it.
          I have found that when the government gets involved we usually pay twice as much as necessary because the government creates overhead that is not normally required.

          1. wilderness profile image96
            wildernessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            TANSTAAFL.  There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch, from Robert Heinlein.

            And I understand your 20%, too, although I would put it higher simply because govt. is involved in it.  That doesn't mean that all economic theories will agree that someone has to pay; many apparently theorize that if govt. pays for it that it must be free to all.  I don't quite follow that line of reasoning, but many others seem to - after all, Obamacare is claimed to save the country money, not cost more, by paying for many millions of additional doctor visits.

            1. Josak profile image60
              Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              To put it incredibly simply government went to the insurance companies and said that they would be getting a lot more customers due to Obamacare and as such they would be expected to drop their prices and could still keep er even increase their profits, the program is profitable when combined with the few tax increases which were on solariums, Cadillac insurance and drug companies amongst a few other things.

              Thus the price of getting care for people was reduced.

  34. wellspoken profile image60
    wellspokenposted 4 years ago

    this is all a big mess. we all are entitled to eat as human beings we share this right to eat but no one has the right to depend on the governments and tax payers to pay for the meals while they sit on their asses and do nothing...i think he needs to put more careful thought into the things he lets come out of his mouth.

    1. 0
      Sooner28posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      And how is this right achieved without a government?

      1. taburkett profile image61
        taburkettposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        family and friends - much better than the wasteful government

        1. 0
          Sooner28posted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Yeah we tried that once.  Didn't work out so well.

          1. taburkett profile image61
            taburkettposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            date and time please?

    2. wilderness profile image96
      wildernessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      From whom or what do you get that right?  It is not a constitutional right, it is not guaranteed by your employer or your HOA.  It is not even guaranteed by God as He allows millions each year to die from starvation.  So why do you say it is your right?

      1. Josak profile image60
        Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Universal declaration of rights.

        Article 25.

            (1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

        1. taburkett profile image61
          taburkettposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          do you mean a free ride for this or do you mean the right to work to achieve this?

        2. wilderness profile image96
          wildernessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          If the United Nations wishes to declare that everyone has the right to all these wonderful things then it needs to make sure it happens.  Merely making the statement without backing it up doesn't accomplish much.

          So far they have a pretty dismal record there.  Perhaps it's only a list of what the members wish were universal rights, instead of a statement of reality.

  35. rebekahELLE profile image90
    rebekahELLEposted 4 years ago

    I would like to see people as passionate about corporate welfare as they are knocking the social welfare recipients, many of which are veterans and elderly.  The government spends more money on corporate welfare/subsidies than on traditional social welfare programs.   Tax preferences aren't direct spending, but in essence it's like the government writing a check. These expenditures are often hidden in bigger bills, which are hidden from public view. Big corporations like Wal-mart pay their employees so low that many of them do end up using food stamps.  Taxpayers end up subsidizing these 'slave wage' corporations, increasing their profit.  What does Romney want to do about it?  I haven't heard him mention anything other than helping those who need it least with tax breaks.  And still there are those living on food stamps right now who support him.  The irony is unbearable. Why so passionate to defend someone who cares very little about your life situation.

    1. wilderness profile image96
      wildernessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I would absolutely love to see all corporate tax breaks stopped clean, and the money "saved" simply given to them in the form of a check.  A check made a part of public record for all to see.

      It won't happen of course - it makes the welfare all to obvious and transparent, meaning people will scream about it, corporations will lose that welfare and politicians will lose their jobs as a result of that.

      1. rebekahELLE profile image90
        rebekahELLEposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Corporations already 'control' government, now even more so with Citizens United. It would be much more so if a Republican were to win the presidency, which is not likely with their current candidate.  Big Oil, in the guise of energy independence, is behind Romney's disastrous energy plan.  The only way Romney (wealthy puppet) could win is if the Koch Brothers are successful in their plan to buy the election.  What kind of America do we want?

        1. wilderness profile image96
          wildernessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          I think corporations and large business have always carried a very large stick in congress, we just didn't realize how deep the rot was.

          I don't like either candidate and I don't like the basic premise of either mainstream party.  IMHO either or both will be disastrous for the country and wish they would both just fade into the sunset.

  36. 0
    DigbyAdamsposted 4 years ago

    Teens often have to work to make money for college like I did. Paying them next to nothing to build up your personal fortune, so they have to go into debt is wrong. That's when I realized better to work for myself.

    Wilderness you seem hell-bent on supporting the people who are truly out to keep most of the American population poor. I don't understand this and I never will.

    My 40% figure means that the very rich get more than their fair share, and often do it by underhanded and immoral means. That isn't competition, it's an abuse of power. Romney didn't start out poor and work his way up. He had rich and powerful parents to grease the way.

    1. wilderness profile image96
      wildernessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Paying an unskilled, part time teen that often doesn't show up anyway the minimum wage necessary isn't wrong - it's a reasonable business practice.  They are generally paid what they are worth, which is very little, and what competition dictates which is also very little.  As you say, I worked my way through college without debt years ago and so did my son more recently.  It can be done, but not by sitting at home and complaining that $30 per hour jobs can't be found.

      I'm not hell-bent on supporting people who are truly out to hurt others.  But I am hell bent on maintaining freedom - something that may be hard to understand for some people that want more than they can afford.

      Your 40% figure has nothing to do with showing that business is often underhanded and immoral.  Both are judgement calls usually made by someone that is willing to pay the price (whether work or cash) for something until after they've got it, whereupon they were the subject of fraud.  It's fairly simple to avoid - if the price is more than the value, don't buy it (or "buy" the cash with your work).

  37. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
    Kathryn L Hillposted 4 years ago

    I never thought I would say this, but I think we are going to miss the generation that raised us baby boomers.  We did not trust anyone over 30 back in the 60s and 70s. (Now WE are about 2x30!) They are about gone and their industry and common sense is too. I miss the good things about them. Can we baby boomers keep the good things about them alive? If we can't, no one else will... well, maybe their grandchildren, the "trickle down" kids! (born in the 80's...) Whatever we do, we need to...
    b e w a r e   o f   i n c r e a s e d   t a x e s   ( This is not shouting. It is whispering because shouting is not allowed.)

    The real problem is, there is no check on the power of corporations.  The framers could not have foreseen the situation we are now confronted with.  Could it have been avoided?  Yes, if morals and values had been with the rich and powerful. 

    I guess making trillions drives away morals and values within a man. I don't really get that.  How can they sleep at night? I am talking about the holders of the puppet strings... 

    BTW We really need to locate the real enemies and not see each other, us fellow Americans... as in We the People, as enemies to each other! I sense actual hatred between the political parties!  I, for one, am very saddened by the animosity I witness daily.
    Eventually we will need to be on the same page on some level, to fight the real enemies who are tearing apart our nation and everything it stands for. Stop bickering or we will loose. Instead, lets look for common ground so that we can win. As the Beatles sang, (and my mother would say)  "Life is very  short...   and  there's  n o   t i m e  ... for fussing and fighting,  my friend(s)"

    1. rebekahELLE profile image90
      rebekahELLEposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I think your very wise post deserves to be bumped.  I too, think we as a nation will miss the generation that is fading into their golden years or have passed on.  I see some of my parent's DNA in my two sons, and it's rewarding for me to see that they are carrying on important cross- generational characteristics and values.  Parents have to hold on to values that can be measured and used for the good of all, and not selfishly for the sake of a political party's supposed platform.
      The GOP is pretty far removed from the Republican message of generations ago.  Adults now act more like children when it comes to political differences.  It's a messed up world when political divide succeeds in robbing us of our humanity and common decency.

      1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
        Kathryn L Hillposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Yes, there are still those fading into their golden years. I am glad they are here. Young people can talk to them and get a "new" perspective. smile

 
working