Mitt Romney Millions Stashed In Off Shore Tax Havens

1. 72

   crazyhorsesghostposted 12 years ago

   
   What do you think about Mitt Romney being the first president in U.S. History to have millions stashed in offshore Tax Havens.
   
   You know I saw this tonight and it really bothers me that we keep letting people like this run for the US President.
   
   I'll tell you right up front that I don't support the Democrats, the Republicans or the Tea Party. But I can't believe that the average American votes with out really investagating the canidate. It's sad that some people will vote Republican or Democrat with out really doing an indepth study and research into who the canidate really is and what their voting record in the Senate or Congress is. Why would you vote for a man or woman with out knowing everything about them. Why indeed.
   
   I think we should also be able to cast a vote on election day for " None Of The Above " A no confidence vote like that winning might wake America up.
   
   I'm sad that the political parties in the USA have got to where they are. Sad indeed.
   
   I would not cast a vote for either Obama or Romney. I don't think either man should be the US President.
   
   We need a canidate that's willing to concentrate on the real issues that face America. Like this list.
   
   1. Hunger in America.
   2. Homeless in America.
   3. Ghost Towns created by NAFTA in the former textile towns and cities in the American south.
   4. Our Bridges and Roads are in serious need of repair.
   5. The War On Drugs is a joke that is never going to work. We need to legalize marijuna and tax it.
   6. We may very well have to fight China in the next 25 years or just give up America to them.
   7. Education.
   
   Those are 7 real issues that no American politician is talking about. Well it's time they wake up because America is in real trouble and it's only going to get worse.
   
   We need to forget being a Republican or a Democrat and just be an American. It's the only way the American Dream will ever be restored.
   
   Or we can keep playing the political spin game and play along with the politicians. I for one will never vote for Obama or Romney. I would write in None Of The Above if I could. And so should every other concerned American.

   replyreport
   1. 66

      Faybe Bayposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      I can't agree more. Did he ever give up his tax returns? Probably not. I quit waiting. His excuse was that he was Vetted and turned them in to McCain, but McCain didn't choose him as his running mate, he chose Sarah Palin... If she was a better choice than Romney four years ago what makes him such a great choice now. He's using stuff he did 10 or more years ago as a basis for why he should be President. Well 10 years ago i could run circles around people half my age physically and mentally as well as financially. I can't now, so what again was the criteria for choosing Romney as the Republican candidate?

      replyreport
      1. 72

         crazyhorsesghostposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Great points. I don't think he should ever be President and there are a lot of reasons. The American people should refuse to have him. We should all refuse to keep playing spin game politics.

         replyreport
   2. 0

      HowardBThinameposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      How much money a candidate has matters not one whit to me. I don't judge a person by their money - of lack of it.
      
      Since I don't support either candidate - I'm not voting this time. I'm tired of choosing between the lesser of two evils.
      
      But wealth doesn't figure into that decision. We've had many candidates that were more wealthy - John Kerry, Franklin Roosevelt, Lyndon Johnson, John Kennedy, Jefferson and the father of this nation, George Washington. They all did fine, despite having hundreds of millions.
      
      The downside with Romney isn't his money - it's his policies. He's no different than Obama and Obama has failed us miserably. Neither man will do us any good.
      
      The "tax return" thing is just another Birther fiasco and Romney will use it to his advantage just as Obama used the original birther fiasco to his advantage.
      
      Since Romney isn't required to release more taxes than he already has - trying to make it sound like he's doing something wrong is an effort in futility.
      
      If voters were smart - and I really have my doubts that they are, given who the last two presidents have been - they would steer clear of the petty stuff and focus on voting records and policies. When they do that - they'll find that Obama and Romney are just different sides of the same coin. Four more years of Obama will sink us - four years of Romney will do the same thing.
      
      There's no silver lining here.

      replyreport
   3. 60

      umbertoobrianposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Mitt Romney is taking actions that are perfectly legal to protect the product of his toil from a grasping government that would do nothing more with it than hire more bureaucrats and toss a few pennies at people whining that their sloth hasn't produced enough so someone has to take care of them.  Sounds right, good, just and brilliant to me.  My Man Mitt.

      replyreport
   4. 60

      Hollie Thomasposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Agree with all the above, except 6. But I'm not an American.

      replyreport
   5. 70

      rhamsonposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      I like your fire and angst at the political climate in this country. Unfortunately I think you believe that there is some sense of a princple of democracy or concern for the country albeit through the warring political parties. This and every election for the past 20 years and even farther back has been decided by the money. What else would anybody expect from a capitalist based system. The republicans are deeply entrenched in it and the democrats are in part or mostly supported by it. Bain Capital itself has donated over $100,000 to Obama's campaign alone. The business community does not care which party wins as long as it is one of their supported minions. America thinks that these elections are a matter of party platforms and ethical rhetoric but it is and always will be about the money until "we the people" do something about it.

      replyreport
2. 60

   Wizard Of Whimsyposted 12 years ago

   Oh give the guy a break . . .
   
   
   
   . . . aside from a tax break, I mean—preferably a leg or an arm break!

   replyreport
   1. 66

      Faybe Bayposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      hehehe, I hate getting involved in politics because I know that I'm right and anyone who disagrees with me is wrong...

      replyreport
      1. 72

         crazyhorsesghostposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         
         
         I think he would really harm rather than help our country. From everything I've checked out he really doesn't know anything about the middle class and probably doesnt care at all about the poor. But I will say I don't think any politician does.
         
         All they care about is making more money.
         
         We should just stop paying politicians or allowing them to profit in any way and I bet you we would end up with differnt politicians.

         replyreport
         1. 75

            Shyron E Shenkoposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            No, it will hurt forever.  When Medicare is turned over to a voucher system.  How do we ever get it back?  I don't know what is going to happen, but the future looks bleak with Romney and Ryan running.  Anyone but these goons is better. 
            
            Like they said at the beginning of President Obama's term, they hope he fails and they are doing everything possible to make it so.

            replyreport
            1. 60

               umbertoobrianposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               He is doing a fabulous job of failing all on his own.  I didn't ever say "I hope he fails."  I said, "I want the unmitigated disaster of his incompetence to strike the earth with such ferocity as to make a crater so wide and deep as to sink, for all time, the political ambitions of any liberal who would consider emulating him."  Mere failure would not be sufficient, after all Carter was a colossal failure but liberals didn't disappear.  Obama holds the promise of finally making that happen.

               replyreport
3. 61

   oz-vitezposted 12 years ago

   Does its bother you that – allegedly – Obama attended college on foreign scholarships or loans? Or, that many illegal aliens take away spots in colleges and universities from otherwise qualified students? I would simply like to know your answer.
   
   On your other points, have you considered:
   
   1. What is your definition of hunger? One could say that hunger is the result from an adequate meal that does not satiate an individual. Does this qualify as a concern?
   
   2. Current US population is 314,143,760; current homeless population is 636,017, or .002% of the current US population. Homeless decreased 1% from 2009 to 2001, with veteran homelessness declining 11% in the same period. Chronic homelessness decreased 3% during the same period, with chronically homeless declining by 13% since 2007. Among the homeless, 4/10 was unsheltered, with a 2% increase between 2009 and 2011, the only increase among categories reported. Homelessness has decreased nationally, with increases in 24 states and DC. (see more from my source here: http://www.endhomelessness.org/content/ … tail/4361/)
   
   3. Did you know that most foreign cars sold in America (Toyota, Honda, Hyundai, and Kia, mostly) are built in the South? I pass two LARGE Kia and Hyundai plants in GA and AL when I go to visit my parents in FL. More of these plants exist around the south, such as Tennessee, with more in Alabama. Engine plants and other subsidiaries are also located next to these plants. There are also several other major manufacturers in AL I pass on I-85 and I-65 when driving.
   
   4. According to Obama, entrepreneurs and business people did not build roads and bridges. Why should they be responsible for fixing them?
   
   5. The money spent on the war on drugs is an issue. But, to my question: If you legalize pot, however, would this also lead to legalizing the “hard” drugs as well? I can’t imagine this would create a better society.
   
   6. China’s birth rate (lower than the US, though foreigners account for higher birth rates in the US) and its one-child policy are slowly working against them. Leave them alone and in one generation you will begin to see their decline. You can’t argue with demographics.
   
   7. The Dept. of Education experiment needs to end. Give it back to the states; allow more charter and private schools to take over. This will never happen, but it would solve the problem.

   replyreport
   1. 61

      oz-vitezposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      oops...that should read "2009 to 2011" for the homeless stats

      replyreport
   2. 72

      crazyhorsesghostposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Your homeless figures by H.U.D. and The United Catholic Conference are way off.
      
      I know in New Orleans we have 15,000 plus including men, women, and children.
      
      In Charlotte N.C. its around 6,000 with about 12,000 in Western North Carolina.
      
      I think the figure is much closer to 7 million.
      
      Many homeless people were not counted in that link you posted.
      
      The U.S. Government including the White House Chief Of Staff says the amount of homeless vets is on the increase.
      
      Believe me there are many hungry people in America. I and my group raid supermarket dumpsters to feed tens of thousands of hungry people every night. I saw about 3000 people line up to eat a couple of hours ago.
      
      At least 1 in 6 people in the US go to bed hungry every night. Every night.
      
      We feed tens of thousands of meals every month to hungry people.
      
      America is a screwed up country with real problems that are not going to get any better. I just asked a priest friend off mine on the phone in Chicago and he said they have 200,000 plus homeless people there in Chicago alone. And they gave out 1,235,000 meals last month just at the dinner meal. This was just the people coming from outside for a meal. So yes hunger does exist. Hunger is very real and is not going away.
      
      I would not support Obama or Romney for the record. Nor would I supoport the Republicans or Democrats. We need to throw all the bums out of office and start over.
      
      The Kennedys at least supported many social programs with their wealth and they still do.
      
      Someone better fix America or it's going the same way as Russia. You'll end up with several small countries. And you'll be lucky to get that.
      
      Listen both the Democrats and Republicans supported NAFTA and its created virtual ghost towns all across the American south where textile towns used to exist.
      
      I think that all current and former Republicans and Democrats should be tried for treason against the American people. As should the lobbyists. It's time that America wakes up.

      replyreport
      1. 61

         oz-vitezposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Until you have hard and fast statistics, you are simply spitting out garbage information. What you think is irrelevant, as is your priest source. Nothing can be substantiated. See here:
         
         "For example, a recent one-day census organized by the City of Chicago found 5,170 people either staying in shelters or living on the street in the City of Chicago. This number is down 18 percent from 2007, when a similar survey found 5,922 homeless individuals. There was an overall 15 percent drop in the number of homeless individuals between 2005 and 2009.
         
         The City's count is based on the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development's definition of homelessness: "when an individual lacks a fixed, regular and adequate place to sleep or who regularly spends the night in a shelter, similar institution, or a place not meant for human habitation.""
         
         I somehow doubt the White House Chief of Staff is a relevant source of homeless statistics as well. Sadly, I present facts and you still hold to your false beliefs.
         
         Regarding hunger; going to bed hungry is not the same as going to bed without food. Big difference. Again, I suggest you look at how things are defined rather than believing false talking points.
         
         Name me a couple of "virtual" ghost towns in the South. See, the market has shifted; textile jobs have gone elsewhere (to locations where the greatest economic benefits are achieved), and automobile manufacturing has come to the South, replacing the textile jobs. And, by the way, the auto manufacturing jobs pay quite well.
         
         America will not go the way of Russia, so long as capitalism and the free market can exist. If the government takes over, then yes, America will cease to exist as we know it.

         replyreport
         1. 61

            Josakposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            Just to intercede with some facts:
            
            The United States poverty threshold is the line set by the Census Bureau and about 15.5% of the population falls below that line. That line represents a :    "federal government estimate of the point below which a household of a given size has income insufficient to meet minimal food and other basic needs."
            
            So in summary every year one in 6.6 recurring Americans will not make enough money to get "food and other basic needs" (shelter and clothing).
            
            The situation is pretty bad and getting worse... on the other hand the countries which are fixing those problems and minimizing them are not the ones sticking closely to free market systems.

            replyreport
            1. 60

               umbertoobrianposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               Statistics, the assumptions used to compile, calculate and interpret them, cannot give a complete, clear and objective picture of poverty because nothing is static in human society.  The methods and formulae for calculating poverty today have remained unchanged for some time resulting in  distortions. 
               
               http://newsroom.blogs.cnn.com/2011/08/1 … ally-poor/

               replyreport
               1. 61

                  Josakposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  Nope that is simply the census measure which is adjusted every year of how much one needs to get by in a year.

                  replyreport
            2. 61

               oz-vitezposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               Poverty and homelessness are not the same thing. Give me a list of countries that are abandoning the free market system (other than America) and are improving.

               replyreport
               1. 61

                  Josakposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  No it's not I defined exactly what those numbers meant.
                  Really?
                  How many do you want me to list?
                  Mongolia (communist) real GDP growth of 11.5
                  Turkmenistan (socialist) real GDP growth of 9.9
                  Argentina ( elected socialist and in the process of nationalizing industry) real GDP growth 8.8%
                  Laos (communist) real GDP growth 8.3%
                  India (with elected socialist government) GDP growth of 7.8%
                  
                  I can go on if you want but you never answered the question.

                  replyreport
                  1. 61

                     oz-vitezposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                     You never asked a question, so please continue.

                     replyreport
                     1. 61

                        Josakposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                        You are right I got confused with another similar question where I did ask a question.
                        
                        The question is where in the whole wide world is the strict free market system you are suggesting working in the current global economic situation.

                        replyreport
                  2. 61

                     oz-vitezposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                     Okay, okay, I will respond to your "question." Wait, this information is getter:
                     
                     Mongolia - by 2003, private companies made up 70% of Mongolian GDP and 80% of exports. Moving to free market after communism. (Montsame News Agency)
                     
                     Turkmenistan - GDP growth rate of 11% in 2010 ranks 4th in the world, but these figures are subject to wide margins of error. (CIA World Fact Book)
                     
                     Argentina – heavy government spending, notoriously high inflation (20-25%, highest in Latin America)
                     
                     Laos – 1986 reforms led to freer economy, with private enterprise succeeding in tourism, beer, coffee, and handicrafts. Chamber of Commerce is now privately operated.
                     
                     India – instituted major free market reforms in 1991; economy boomed in several different industries. Still struggles with some government control, however.
                     
                     See, its not about the dominant political system in the country. You have to realize that once these countries free the market, GDP will increase exponentially. (Except in Turkmenistan; they are fudging the numbers too much) Their political affiliations do not fully explain economic policies. See China as another example.

                     replyreport
                     1. 61

                        oz-vitezposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                        *better

                        replyreport
                     2. 61

                        Josakposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                        *sigh*
                        
                        #1) Mongolia has instituted a system of joint private and state commerce that system has ben very successful and it has seen growth unmatched by any free market system.
                        
                        #2) Turkmenistan's figures from several different sources are quite similar and while I accept there is a margin of error it is highly unlikely to be more than a percentage point.
                        
                        #3) Inflation has been and to a lesser extent is a problem in Argentina which is still recovering from the total economic collapse it suffered due to asset sales, that is precisely why i used real GDP growth rather than nominal growth because inflation is taken into account, so your point on this one is invalidated.
                        
                        #4) Laos much like Mongolia has a split system (which is I think the best system) I actually think they could do with a more free market approach but it does not change the facts of their growth under the split system.
                        
                        #5) I wasn't talking about India two decades ago which is largely irrelevant int he very different economic clime, I am talking about current economic policy and growth which is as I listed.
                        
                        But you never did answer the question, where in the world is the system you are suggesting working in a way that compares to the rapid economic growth of those above or the steadier growth with higher quality of life in places like Scandinavia?

                        replyreport
                        1. 61

                           oz-vitezposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                           See, there is no true free market system; yes, America is a mixed economy, in the true sense. But, you fail to realize that once a country institutes more free market principles, the economy begins to work better. Frankly, you are a leftist deluded by thinking the government does more to strengthen an economy than individuals. This is simply untrue, however.
                           
                           The American economy thrives in spite of the government, not because of it. Nordic countries are welfare states; sure, they have a good quality of life rating, but they are not ultimately successful, economically speaking. (note Scandinavia's low historic real GDP)
                           
                           Say what you will, the free market is key to success. Put another way, as governments give up control, economies begin to grow. That is what you should focus on.
                           
                           Or, you could name a TRULY socialist or communist state that has no free market principles and is thriving today. You can't however, because they have mostly moved to free market principles. That's what you fail to see in your analysis.
                           
                           Keep *sighing* lefty; the free market works again and again and again...

                           replyreport
                           1. 61

                              Josakposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                              As for pure systems I clearly stated I don't believe they work, for either side mixed systems do the point is where the perfect balance lies.
                              
                              The simple incontrovertible fact is that nations with higher margins of free market (such as the US) are floundering while nations with higher levels of planning not only achieve better growth but also better quality of life.
                              
                              Not only do Scandinavian nations have a better quality of life their GDP growth is consistent and respectable (in the 4% to 4.5% annually area typically).
                              
                              I will keep sighing as strict free market systems continue to fail all around the world in the current economy and while more and more countries realize this and go left, the number of people living under leftist systems has far overtaken the opposite and the opposite is quickly being left behind.
                              
                              Still you have been unable to show a single system like the one you suggest is working or that systems most like what you are suggesting are succeeding because quite simply they aren't.

                              replyreport
                              1. 61

                                 oz-vitezposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                                 You haven't proven anything either. Scandinavia, by the way, has averaged real GDP of 2.18% since 2001, about half your educated estimate. (Norway - 1.55%, Denmark - .64%, Finland - 1.83%, Iceland - 2.35%, and Sweden - 2.18%, all averages since 2001; again, none are close to your estimates)
                                 
                                 See, the free market works every time you try it. America is in decline due to leftist principles that have gutted the private sector. This has gone on for several decades. And, technically, you have not cited any other free markets that are failing either, but I am sure this is a simple oversight on your part.
                                 
                                 You can keep your arguments. No statistics bear out what you say and you are obviously misinformed when it comes to the facts.

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 61

                                    Josakposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                                    What I have proven is there is this truly amazing correlation between leftist mixed economies and both growth and quality of life.
                                    
                                    Could you give some sources for that data? I have some different data written down but without a source myself so I need to check.
                                    
                                    The free market statement is completely un-backed by any proof.
                                    
                                    It's true I haven't partly because they are getting rather hard to find anymore as people wise up.

                                    replyreport
                                    1. 61

                                       oz-vitezposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                                       Try Google; its a great tool.
                                       
                                       Okay, I'll be nice; the info came from the IMF. Then, read "Basic Economics" by Thomas Sowell. Plenty of proof there.

                                       report
                        2. 61

                           oz-vitezposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                           I am going to revive this thread to prove yet again why state intervention into an economy does not work. Witness here how Argentina continues to suffer from rampant inflation, as I noted previously:
                           
                           "The international bond market has shunned Argentina since its 2002 sovereign debt default and subsequent embrace of policies that emphasize state intervention in the markets and heavy government spending meant to stoke economic growth....
                           
                           Since then the economy has slowed, and the poll suggests most people are not buying Fernandez's argument that external factors, such as Europe's financial mess, are mostly to blame.
                           
                           Argentina's economic activity was flat in June, according to the official EMAE index, which is a close proxy for gross domestic product.
                           
                           Of those surveyed by Management and Fit, 44.5 percent said government policy was the main cause of the stagnation. Only 8.0 percent blamed it on spillover from sluggish world growth."
                           
                           And the real crown jewel in the story:
                           
                           "The government fines economists who publish their inflation estimates, which tend to double or triple the official figures."
                           
                           Source: http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/08/ … 7620120826
                           
                           Again, facts are stubborn things. Poor lefty; his economic beliefs continue to belie reality.

                           replyreport
            3. 78

               bn9900posted 12 years agoin reply to this

               So basically, what you are saying is that we should become like Europe. Do you listen to the news, they are in a worse position than we are. Greece is more than likely leaving the Euro.     Socialism only works if you are brainwashed into thinking that the government can take care of you.

               replyreport
         2. 61

            oz-vitezposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            In New Orleans, the number of homeless is about 6,700; see here for more:
            http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/ … ans_h.html

            replyreport
            1. 72

               crazyhorsesghostposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               I know for a fact those numbers are not right. We have as many as 10,000 people show up for a meal on days near the end of the month. The city of New Orleans where those numbers come from do not count truly homeless people. Only people going into shelters. Those numbers do not include people under bridges or in old buildings. There are many homeless people in New Orleans and other US cities who do not get counted. Because they do not want to be counted.
               
               The Regan Administration threw tens of thousands of mental patients out on the streets and these people are hardly ever counted.
               
               Homeless youth and runaways are rarely counted. Be downtown in New Orleans when we give out sandwiches on Saturdays and Sundays and you would see.
               
               You keep quoting numbers that are not true numbers.
               
               I am out there every night feeding these people. I see the people. I know they are out there. Homeless and Hungry. The Republicans don't care for these people . Romney wants to tax the middle class and cut out programs for the poor and Obama plays a good spin game but is doing little or nothing to correct the real problems.
               
               Tomorrow night we will make 15,000 sandwiches in New Orleans and they will all be eaten. We will give out 1000 or so blankets in our blanket exchange program. So yes we have a real homeless problem and the current politicians from either party don't give a Damn.
               
               Even if we had 100 homeless people in America the US Government should be taking care of our people before spending one dime overseas. To hell with any other people. Not one dime should be spent on people in other countries as long as we have one homeless or hungry person in the USA.
               
               And there may be a few thousand automobile jobs where you say but in the 1970's there were a couple of million textile jobs and the US politicians from both parties voted NAFTA in. Do you know what NAFTA was.
               
               None of our textile jobs should have been alloweed to leave America. The politicians who voted for NAFTA should be tried for treason. They sold out America plain and simple.

               replyreport
               1. 61

                  oz-vitezposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  I quote numbers that are backed up by statistics. I do not claim they are true, just that the numbers are well documented. You, on the other hand, make wild assertions about what you believe to true without any proper attribution. For example, you say 15,000 sandwiches will be made and eaten; by 15,000 people? Or 10,000 people? Or 5,000 people? Same thing with the blankets. You will give out 1,000 blankets but that does not tell us how many homeless there are in New Orleans, just that 1,000 people (assuming one blanket per person) wanted blankets. Facts are stubborn things, as John Adams once said.
                  
                  Yes, I am aware of what NAFTA is; you do not need to be insulting simply because you lack proper facts or references. Anyways, one reason for the decline in textile jobs, which I am unsure of your fondness for this industry, is technology. Economies of scale that come from automation lower production costs and consumer prices in the long run, which benefits many economically. (Unless one subscribes to the Luddite philosophy) I suppose you also feel bad for the buggy whip and typewriter manufacturers as well? Secondly, most textile manufacturing jobs left America for Asian countries, not those in the NAFTA agreement. I do not see many garments carrying the label "Made in Canada."
                  
                  Also, auto manufacturing jobs are up significantly according to the BLS. According to "the government," over 110,000 jobs were created in the last 12 months. I cannot tell if these are mostly foreign car manufacturers or if the numbers are legitimate, but that number is indeed noteworthy. I do believe, however, that the U.S. government needs to make a lot of changes in order to improve the manufacturing environment. But, sticking with old arguments and throwing the treason argument around is not helpful.
                  
                  Finally, it makes no economic sense for the U.S. government to take care of 100 homeless people through some type of spending or program. That is like saying spending billions of dollars to improve 98% pure water to 99% pure water is a good thing. (It is not, however, economically speaking) These mythical 100 people would be better served by local churches and nonprofits operating through the benevolence of fellow citizens. Heck, you're such a champ at this that helping 100 people should be no problem, right?

                  replyreport
               2. 72

                  crazyhorsesghostposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  
                  
                  
                  
                  
                  
                  
                  
                  
                  
                  
                  
                  
                  
                  
                  You know I listen to people defend the US Government from either party and I find myself getting sick. The US spends billions of dollars on aid to foriegn countries when we should not be spending one dime overseas as long as we have one homeless child or one hungry child here in America.
                  
                  We should never spend American dollars to rebuild what we bomb.But we should also not fight wars like we have fought in the last 10 years. Fight wars only to win. Not to rebuild and give more American money away.
                  
                  The U.S. should have a war. But it should be a war on poverty. A war on taking care of each and every American first before one dime is spent outside this country. It doesn't really matter how many homeless or hungry Americans there are. Even if there was one homeless or one hungry American our money should be spent here in the USA.
                  
                  We need a new political party that would be for America first. We need to cap imports. We need to stop illegal imigration. We need to take care of our fellow Americans before we spend one dime over seas. You see I see children excited to get food to take home. I see little kids hug cans of green beans and it makes me mad as hell that Romney wants to cut social programs and tax the middle class. How could you be for America and agree with this. How indeed. How can you be stupid and play the polical spin game. Republicans have almost always wanted to take from the poor and give to the rich. And our current crop of Democrats like Obama just plays along.
                  
                  What would men like the Kennedy Brothers, George Washington and Adams think of what has happened to America. You know I think they might call for revolution. They would be for America first. And they would have never have allowed American jobs to leave America. 
                  
                  But on the other side Obama has not kept his promises. He is not the answer either. We need canidates for President who would be for the American people first. Because this country can not continue to survive the way it is going. And anyone who believes it can is living in a fantasy world. To hell with the Democrats or the Republicans. Be for America and for what she once stood for. Stand up for the American Dream. And demand an end to Foriegn Aid of any kind as long as we have one homeless man, woman, or child living here in our country.
                  
                  That's about what I have to say. I'm off to raid grocery store dumpsters to feed hungry people. May the great spirit be with you and open your eyes to the fact that we have a real problem here in America and it's not going away. It's only getting worse.

                  replyreport
                  1. 61

                     oz-vitezposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                     Well, crazy, you again show that your understanding of American history is pretty slim. America has been engaged in the War on Poverty since LBJ in 1964. Shockingly, none of the programs have worked or made things better, which is partly why we are at this point in the United States.
                     
                     All I ask is that you step back and look at some hard facts and question your misinformation on a few issues, that's all. It's good that you help people, but you really need to look at the big picture, politically of course, but much more economically.

                     replyreport
      2. 70

         rhamsonposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         I am afraid it is to late for the people to salvage any control of the oligarchy that now runs the government. How could we when the very people to protect our rights has been sold out to special interest in the US Supreme Court. Corporations are people too? I don't know how it can be any planer than that and still the chattle continue to rail against abortion and gay rights and religious freedoms as we watch our children go to senseless wars drummed up by phony patriotic bravada. Big business wants everything you own and with the exodus of jobs how much longer will you have the means to stave them off? They have been throwing people in the streets for the last 4 years. This government was founded by the people but it sold out a long time ago. The dream is dead and experiment has failed. It has now become each to his own.

         replyreport
         1. 59

            Moderndayslaveposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            +1

            replyreport
   3. 75

      Shyron E Shenkoposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      If it were true, about President Obama's education, the Republicans would be all over it like a duck on a June bug, they have more connections than Ma.Bell, Verizon and AT&T put together and it would be broadcast 27 7. 
      
      The republicans only objective is to get TOTAL CONTROL (POWER).
      at all costs, lies, cheating and the destruction of all things and benefits for the middle class and the poor.

      replyreport
      1. 78

         bn9900posted 12 years agoin reply to this

         If you knew anything you would know that Ma Bell is a nickname for AT&T.  So by not even knowing that fact, anything else you state is untrue in my eyes. Get you facts before you post. And if you haven't realized but the broadcast would only make Fox News as the rest of the liberal media would black it out.

         replyreport
4. 60

   Xenonlitposted 12 years ago

   Cheers to you, Crazy Horse, for doing this post. Unless there is a relentless wash of truth in the forums and in the blogs, the lying liars will win.
   
   Mitt Romney is the weakest choice for our nation's most important job since...since...McCain/Palin!
   
   He lies, stumbles over the words that his handlers feed him, and his eyeballs don't move around enough to keep from creeping me out.
   
   His inability to tell the difference between right and wrong, responsibility and action, empathy and hate, and remorse and denial have made him a loser from the beginning.
   
   As to his overseas tax dodges and stashes of money, I am more concerned about his disturbing past behavior, including a violent assault on a classmate,  killing jobs and sending them overseas, abusing a pet and impersonating a uniformed law enforcement official.
   
   I am more concerned about his incessant giggling when he is confronted his lack of his moral, ethical and financial responsibility.
   
   I am more concerned that he is a chicken hawk who dodged military service while calling for other people to put their lives on the line. For him? Why? He chose a vice presidential candidate who likes to push the idea that veterans are welfare queens. Give it up, Romney!
   
   I am more concerned that he keeps repeating the dumbest of right wing slogans and key words. He can keep babbling about "liberty" and "government" all he wants to, but he cannot come up with a coherent PLAN for this nation.
   
   Now he has chosen a rabid and destructive pit bull for Vice President, a man who has not got the first clue as to how to run a government. Instead, he runs his mouth.
   
   We already had one dumb, irresponsible sock puppet for a president. We had better not let the latest one, Romney,  get into the White House, or the Koch Brothers will rule our nation.

   replyreport
   1. 60

      Petra Vlahposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      like they are not already doing it? (Koch Brothers that is). Other than that I agree with every single point you made

      replyreport
   2. 61

      oz-vitezposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Do people fear or revile George Soros in the same manner as the Koch brothers?

      replyreport
      1. 60

         Xenonlitposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         No. Soros actually spends his money on rightful things, not on crooked things like gun laws that let psychopaths murder children in cold blood.

         replyreport
         1. 0

            HowardBThinameposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            Like taking over small nations.

            replyreport
            1. 60

               umbertoobrianposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               Or crashing the Ruble or the Pound.  Perhaps Soros is shorting the Euro or Dollar, now.

               replyreport
         2. 61

            oz-vitezposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            Oh, "rightful things;" such as progressively leftist policies? Because that whole freedom and liberty thing never really worked out so well, huh?

            replyreport
   3. 75

      Shyron E Shenkoposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      I am so glad you said all that, I totally agree with you.

      replyreport
5. 60

   Wizard Of Whimsyposted 12 years ago

   Mitt Romney Would Pay 0.82 Percent in Taxes Under Paul Ryan's Plan
   
   http://www.theatlantic.com/business/arc … an/261027/
   
   

   replyreport
6. 78

   bn9900posted 12 years ago

   Crazy-Do you believe that Barry is a true citizen? Honestly you blame Romney for "hiding" income, when obsma hid his identity and his school records? Really, there is nothing a dem can say about Romney that isn't already known so they are grasping at straws.

   replyreport
   1. 60

      Wizard Of Whimsyposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      
      
      

      replyreport
   2. 72

      crazyhorsesghostposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      You missed reading where I said I don't support either one of the candidates. I think they should all be tried for treason against their fellow Americans.
      
      They have sold out America and neither should be President.
      
      Obama is as unacceptable to me as Romney.
      
      Both are out for their own agenda. And it's not about America. It's about their own special interests.
      
      I believe and know that the USA is in serious trouble and people want to keep on playing the political spin game. We as Americans should refuse to play the spin game.
      
      We should also outlaw lobbyists and special interest groups.
      We should impose strict term limits on the Congress and Senate.
      We do not need career politicians.
      We should cap imports of any product into the USA at 20 percent of any product used.
      
      Those are a few things that would turn it around in the right direction but you know what. The average American is going to continue to follow the herd and play party politics and the spin game.
      
      We need " None Of The Above " as a selection on the US Presidential ballot.
      
      One or two times of none of the above winning and you would start to hear something differnt from the fine Republicans and Democrats.
      
      They remind me of all the white men who made treaties with the Native Americans. Do you knw how many of those treaties they kept. Not a single one. Not one.
      
      And all the Republicans and Democrats do is lie to you. They tell you what you want to hear. A whole lot of empty promises.

      replyreport
7. 66

   maxoxam41posted 12 years ago

   I fully support you, now we have to rally the mass with us! Hard task since they were teh ones who who reelected Bush!

   replyreport
8. 77

   k2jade31posted 12 years ago

   Many posts in this forum I agree with. I can say, I am not a Democrat or a Republican. I do not believe in the two party system, both sides have failed us miserably. I know what I have lived. My husband is working two jobs, and I also work full time. We are barely living, cannot afford to drive any where, do anything, buy food.. why? Why are things soo expensive? Why is my electric and gas bill 400.00 a month in the winter? Why can utility companies, and cable companies have monopolies? There should be many choices in every community to keep prices competitive. There is so much wrong with the US, who is going to get us out of this mess?

   replyreport
9. 66

   maxoxam41posted 12 years ago

   Why can't you afford anything ask the private companies that fix their prices? Ask those same companies and the government why they don't increase their hourly rate! The only answer is every country besides few exceptions is at the mercy of the elite that dictates the direction of the government.

   replyreport
10. 77

    colpolbearposted 12 years ago

    I'm going to play a game called "argue with everyone by contradicting the previous post."  The rules are simple.  Every time I sign onto Hubpages, I'm going to write a comment on this Hub pointing out how silly the previous post is.  I won't pick sides, because it seems as though everyone has a closed mind.
    
    oz-vitez, your entire first paragraph gives statistical evidence suggesting differently from Josak's post.  You argue that his information is incorrect.  Yet, you used a different statistic with specific parameters (since 2001.)  Furthermore, neither of you sited the stat, making it virtually impossible to tell who actually has the correct numbers.
    
    The second paragraph simply has many assertions without reasoning, making it useless.  "See, the free market works every time you try it. America is in decline due to leftist principles that have gutted the private sector. This has gone on for several decades." -assertions, not logically backed up.
    
    Finally, the third paragraph basically states that your ignoring his arguments. -  "You can keep your arguments."  Also, you state "No statistics bear out what you say and you are obviously misinformed when it comes to the facts."  Apparently there is some different statistic out there stating contrary to what you've heard.  One of them is most likely incorrect, but nonetheless, the statistic is still out there somewhere.

    replyreport
    1. 61

       oz-vitezposted 12 years agoin reply to this

       Perhaps you should study more. You can also try using Google, which puts information right at your desktop. See, I came up with information in seconds and put it out for all to see. Anyone could search for the same data and find the same information. Josak now says he used information he personally has that lacks a source. That's more dangerous than what I did. But, keep going to make yourself feel good.
       
       Oh, and you should also read "Basic Economics" by Thomas Sowell for logical proof of what I have written.

       replyreport
11. 59

    StegToDifferposted 12 years ago

    Democrats complain about Romney not releasing his tax records and Republicans roll their eyes.
    Republicans complain about Obama not releasing his birth certificate and Democrats roll their eyes.
    Let's stop talking about petty things like birth certificates and tax "havens," and get to the real issues.
    After all, JFK, FDR, and Bill Clinton all cheated on their wives, yet they are all considered to be good Presidents. People focus far too much on the "character" of politicians these days. I don't want my candidates to be Jesus incarnate, I just want them both to have clear plans and positions so I can make an educated decision about who I want to vote for.
    TL;DR: Don't get caught up in the petty political things and only listen to the good, meaty stuff about the economy, foreign policy, healthcare

    replyreport
12. 72

    crazyhorsesghostposted 12 years ago

    Well I can name you several. Belmont, Gastonia, Forest City, and I could go on. The old textile mills are being torn down and there are no jobs for people say 50 or over.
    
    I work with it every day. I'm on the streets working with these people and seeing what is going on. I'm not making up statistics. I take pick up truck loads of food out of dumpsters on a nightly basis. I've worked with the poor and homeless for the last 40 plus years. I see the hungry line up to eat. I feed them and see kids hug cans of green beans. Shame on you and any American who refuses to see the truth.
    
    15,000 plus people live on the streets of New Orleans and another 300,000 can't come home because they have no home to come home to.
    
    Florida in the winter especially has a million or more homeless people. Winter is coming soon. Come stand beside me and watch a check in some night in Jacksonville. Go with us as we hand out sandwiches all night to hundreds of people a night who won't go to a shelter. Many many homeless people are not counted. Add this up by 50 states and its scary. 
    
    Look at Detroit or Gary Indiania. Both are virtual ghost towns. I've been there and seen it. Recently. They were former automobile and steel towns. Our fine politicians voted in NAFTA and sent the textile jobs over seas to Mexico and China.
    
    There is no way there are only 5000 homeless people in Chicago.. Many homeless people sleeping in old buildings or in back alleys are not counted. I've been there to and saw men froze to the ground. And not just one or two either.
    
    Who are homeless youth?
    
    Homeless StreetworkAccording to a 2002 federal study, approximately 1.7 million young people call the streets home every year.
    
    Children under 18 years of age accounted for 39% of the homeless population. Of that number, 42% were younger than age 5.
    
    Approximately 40% of homeless youth identify as L(esbian) G(ay) B(isexual) or T(ransgendered) – compared to 10% of the general youth population in the United States.
    
    http://www.safehorizon.org/index/what-w … 7QodkC4AZQ
    
    And that is just homeless youth. Your numbers are wrong.
    
    Check out the below site and read their numbers.
    
    http://www.bread.org/hunger/us/?utm_sou … 7QodcmUAMA
    
    America is about as screwed up as it gets and we keep playing the political spin game. Wake up America before it's to late.
    
    You can stick your head in the sand and spew out the figures that the politicians give you or you can look for real numbers. I work every day with feeding hungry people. I've been put in jail many times for raiding dumpsters in several southern states.

    replyreport
    1. 61

       oz-vitezposted 12 years agoin reply to this

       See, you have no economic basis for your arguments. You fail to understand that while textile manufacturing jobs have left the country, automobile manufacturing jobs have entered the country. I know jobs are scarce, but economically speaking, this is simply a transfer of jobs. Know why Detroit is a ghost town? Union labor in domestic auto manufacturers; the foreign auto manufacturer workers resist unions at every turn. For Gary, Indiana;  Obama's policies put the RV industry out of business. As to steel towns, you should review their economic history, and how the companies agree to major pension plans without foresight into the potential economic pitfalls.
       
       You can say what you want about "my" numbers. (I found them from government studies, I remind you. They are not mine.) They come from fairly reliable sources, even if it is "the government." You cite numbers from "a federal study" in 2002, 10 years ago. Not very up-to-date or reliable as there is no source on the website you quote. The numbers from studies I quoted came from 2009-2011. Perhaps things have gotten better?
       
       Finally, I will burst your bubble: you will never end hunger. As I said earlier, defining hunger is tricky. The website (second) says that people "struggle" to put food on the table. This does not mean they go without food, they simply cannot pay for enough food to satisfy their wants. People can live on much less food than they eat, though it is not preferable. The danger is a misunderstanding of a true definition and economic understanding of such terms.
       
       See, I cannot believe you based on what you see, hear, or talk to about other people. I am sure you see a lot of people in horrible situations. But, without counting them and talking to them as to why they are where you hand out food, your beliefs are underscored by your altruistic feelings. I so not doubt that many individuals are in tough situations, but your misinformation makes you unable to present a cogent argument on many points.

       replyreport
13. 59

    StegToDifferposted 12 years ago

    Well said, oz-vitez.

    replyreport
14. 72

    crazyhorsesghostposted 12 years ago

    
    
    
    Media Contact: Christina Murphy, 617-964-3834, Christina.Murphy@familyhomelessness.org
    
    1.6 Million Children Homeless in America
    
    Child Homelessness Increased By 38% During Recession Era
    
    More than 1.6 million children or one in 45 are homeless annually in America—according to a
    new report released today by The National Center on Family Homelessness.  This represents an
    increase of 38% during the years impacted by the economic recession (2007 to 2010).  The 124-
    page report, America’s Youngest Outcasts 2010 (see www.HomelessChildrenAmerica.org),
    ranks the 50 states from best (1) to worst (50) and offers specific policy solutions.   
    
    The report, which updates a previous study by The National Center, looks at trends in child
    homeless from 2006 to 2010 using data and research on the extent of child homelessness, child
    well-being, risk for homelessness, and state policy and planning efforts.  Data from the original
    report showed that more than one in 50 children were homeless annually in America.  That
    dropped to one in 63 in the recovery from Hurricanes Rita and Katrina and has increased since.
    
    “The Recession has been a man-made disaster for vulnerable children,” said Ellen L. Bassuk,
    MD, President and Founder of The National Center on Family Homelessness and Associate
    Professor of Psychiatry at Harvard Medical School.  “There are more homeless children today
    than after the natural disasters of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, which caused historic levels of
    homelessness in 2006.  The Recession’s economic devastation has left one in 45 children
    homeless in a year—an increase of 38% from 2007 to 2010.”
    
    The report finds that children experiencing homelessness in America suffer from hunger and
    poor physical and emotional health as well as limited academic proficiency in reading and math. 
    The constant barrage of stressful and traumatic experiences has profound effects on their
    development and ability to learn.
    
    According to America’s Youngest Outcasts 2010:
    • 1.6 million American children, or one in 45, are homeless in a year.
    • This equates to more than 30,000 children each week, and more than 4,400 each day.
    • Children experiencing homelessness suffer from hunger, poor physical and emotional
    health, and missed educational opportunities
    • A majority of these children have limited proficiency in math and reading.
    • The risks for child homelessness—such as extreme poverty and worst case housing
    needs—have worsened with the economic recession, even though the total housing
    capacity for families increased by more than 15,000 units in the past four years, primarily
    due to the federal Homelessness Prevention and Rapid Re-Housing Program
    
    You can read the entire PDF report at the below URL.
    
    http://www.homelesschildrenamerica.org/media/172.pdf
    
    
    
    
    
    I really do wonder how many people really truly care about their fellow Americans.
    
    Or do they only want to continue to play the Political Spin Game that so many Americans are caught up in. Peace to everyone. I pray to the Great Spirit that one day your eyes will be opened to the truth of what the politicians are doing to America. And that the politicians in power today only care about their own special interests and how much more they can take from the poor.

    replyreport
    1. 60

       umbertoobrianposted 12 years agoin reply to this

       More evidence it is time to retire Barrack Obama.

       replyreport
    2. 61

       oz-vitezposted 12 years agoin reply to this

       You need to dig a little deeper into the report, crazy. Check Appendix A for example. It states the following:
       
       "Most national data sets have no specific measures of homelessness, residential status, or housing stability
       
       we assumed that most homeless children live in poverty and used 33% to 50% of the Federal Poverty Level (FPL)
       
       America’s Youngest Outcasts 2010 assumes that for most states, the sizable gap between homeless children’s needs and available resources has not changed dramatically in the last five years, and may have worsened. (i.e. they don't really know the truth)
       
       Children and youth are homeless if they are:
       
       Living in emergency or transitional shelters.
       
       Living in motels, hotels, trailer parks, or camping grounds due to lack of alternative accommodations.
       
       Sharing the housing of other persons due to loss of housing, economic hardship, or a similar reason (sometimes referred to as doubled-up).
       
       Awaiting foster care placement.
       
       California, which generally accounts for more than 25% of the national total of homeless children" (ultra-liberal policies, mind you)
       
       So, many children included are not living without shelter, per se, just not in a home as defined by this institution or the government. So, we should question why they do not define homelessness as living without a physical structure, not a "home" as may be defined as a place owned or rented by parents or guardians. Again, economic definitions are necessary to get at the true meaning of reports, rather than taking an alarmist approach once we see emotionally charged data.
       
       By the way, this is still much lower than your personal estimate of 7 million homeless stated previously. Therefore, your initial personal analysis still lacks credibility. But, at least you are trying to justify your point, somewhat.

       replyreport
15. 72

    crazyhorsesghostposted 12 years ago

    No I am well aware of LBJ's war on poverty but the war on poverty was never fought the way it should have been. Here are some ideals that could end hunger and poverty as we know it.
    
    1. Start community vegetable gardens in every community in America. Use public lands where ever possible and unused land where ever necessary. Set up stores where people could shop and pay based on their income.
    
    2. Start a large community garden at every middle school and high school in America. Make it a national project with all kids required to take part and allow parents to volunteer.
    
    3. There are closed down military bases all across the USA. Create communities on those closed down bases where people could live and grow large amounts of the food they eat.
    
    4. Make it a crime for grocery stores and supermarkets to throw good food into dumpsters. Make it a law that they have to donate any unwanted food to organizations fighting hunger in their areas.
    
    With just those four things we could put a huge dent in the number of Americans who are homeless or living in poverty.
    
    I have been fighting my own personal war on poverty for almost 50 years now. And I am well aware of the history of poverty and hunger in America. LBJ had some great ideals but unfortunately he also had major political problems.
    
    Politicians today no longer have the fire that the Kennedy Brothers or LBJ had. Money has gotten in the way and it should be removed from the equation.
    
    If we changed it so the US President could have only one six year term and Senators or Congress could have only one term we would change America for the good. At the same time if we got lobbyists and special interest groups made illegal we would have America back on track.
    
    If we limited the imports of any item to 20 percent of the product used then we would be on track to recovering the American Dream. By this I mean that 80 percent of all steel, textiles, cars, etc would have to be made here in the USA.
    
    If America is ever to recover to the once great country it once was we are going to have to make some hard choices. If not then America as we knew it is doomed. It will never recover.

    replyreport
    1. 61

       oz-vitezposted 12 years agoin reply to this

       None of your plans are well thought out. First, you want to turn America back into an agrarian society, which is not in the best economic interest for most individuals. Second, you have a belief that homeless or poverty stricken individuals would be willing to work in order to gain better quality or more food. This is not the case, given studies on LBJ's "Great Society" plans and the resulting lack of work ethic that has resulted. (And, Obama has removed the work-for-welfare requirement, creating further dependence on the government) Third, you desire higher prices on goods through protectionist measures. This would actually increase poverty as individuals who struggle the most economically benefit the most from cheaper goods, i.e. imported textiles and such.
       
       Also, making it a crime for grocery stores to throw away good food is a slippery slope. Essentially, the government would be able to tell a company or group of citizens what to do with private property. Pretty dangerous proposition. I also find it interesting that you cry out against the government and its supposed injustices toward certain individuals yet you turn to that very same government for solutions. Again, your flawed logic and poor understanding of basic economics limits your ability to create a cogent argument for your position.

       replyreport
       1. 60

          umbertoobrianposted 12 years agoin reply to this

          Fantasies of Utopia are dangerous things.

          replyreport
       2. 78

          bn9900posted 12 years agoin reply to this

          Actually we would like a society that had "hard working" as one of it's morals, how ever the "progressive" Liberals believe a lazy people should just feed off the few.

          replyreport
          1. 60

             umbertoobrianposted 12 years agoin reply to this

             Actually feeding off the few is an evolutionary advantage, that is why there are so many who want to do as little as possible for the highest available reward.  If that means demanding government strip property from one person and award it to them, so be it.

             replyreport
             1. 78

                bn9900posted 12 years agoin reply to this

                China has a rice patty with your name on it.

                replyreport
                1. 60

                   umbertoobrianposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                   I didn't say I liked it.  I understand where adhering to the basic evolutionary imperatives leads and it isn't pretty.  The pure, green, zero carbon foot print, nationalized everything, liberal-communist-socialist-fascist-"state-ist" Utopia leads to a world of privation, hunger and misery.  How many times must it be seen to be believed? 
                   
                   But that basic biological, think with your belly, demand to survive with the lowest expenditure of energy and taking the least possible risk is hard for liberals to over come, so they institute governments powerful enough to punish those who spend energy like more is available and take monumental risks as if no disaster is possible.
                   
                   Liberalism appeals to our most basic and fundamental animal nature.  Conservatism appeals to our ambition and dreams.  Which one of these is buried in billions of years of evolutionary biology?  Which is the product of a massive brain?  Liberalism rewards the lazy, punishes the ambitious and seeks to install an elite to do the thinking for everybody.

                   replyreport
          2. 60

             Wizard Of Whimsyposted 12 years agoin reply to this

             

             replyreport
16. 81

    mperrottetposted 12 years ago

    I've been reading installments in The Philadelphia Inquirer from "Betrayal Of the American Dream" by Donald Bartlett and James B. Steele.  The statistics that they cite really back up the claims that crazyhorsesghost makes.  Here's a link to Barlett and Steele's site - What Went Wrong - The Betrayal or The American Dream.  It's really worth a look. http://americawhatwentwrong.org/
    
    I will vote for Obama this year, but I am going to actively get involved in a third party.  I'm seriously considering the Green Party, but I need to research it more.  If you can't bring yourself to vote for Obama or Romney, write a vote in, or write in a protest vote.

    replyreport
17. 72

    crazyhorsesghostposted 12 years ago

    mperrottet great article you cited there.
    
    http://gmatclub.com/forum/the-u-s-censu … 91184.html
    
    That one has some more great information.
    
    http://charleneongreen.org/radio-guests … lized.html
    
    As that one above does to.
    
    I have no doubt that 7 million or more Americans exist in the USA. And this includes a large percentage of American youths.

    replyreport
    1. 61

       oz-vitezposted 12 years agoin reply to this

       Well, at least you are consistent in your errors. Now you quote unemployment numbers and seek to attach it to the alleged uncounted homeless in America? Perhaps you should define homeless for me, since your previously study did not seem to have a clear definition of this term.
       
       Then, you pull some unsubstantiated information from a GMAT forum blog. Regardless of this poor reference, please define rich and poor for me. See, these are innocuous terms that no one can define economically. (and no one really does, by the way) But again, your lack of proper sources for anything you write cannot help your argument.
       
       Without going to far into the pension argument, do you feel bad that the federal government killed 20,000 non-union pensions? Or is government action acceptable, you are just against bib business?

       replyreport
18. 0

    JaxsonRaineposted 12 years ago

    @ the comment that politicians are just in it for the money...
    
    I'm fairly certain that Romney could do much better making money at Bain than as POTUS.

    replyreport
    1. 60

       umbertoobrianposted 12 years agoin reply to this

       Stop being reasonable and obvious, Romney's took no salary as governor of Massacheusettes - hardly the behavior of someone in it for the money.  Let's also remember, it is not conservatives who advocate confiscating the product of an other's toil merely to transfer it to someone who did nothing for it except belong to a protected class of citizens.  It is not conservatives that advocate for inequality but liberals who seek to make everyone perfectly equal by punishing one and rewarding another.  Usually punishing the successful and rewarding the unsuccessful- whether they  be individuals or GM.
       
       http://www.detroitnews.com/article/2012 … /208130392

       replyreport
       1. 0

          JaxsonRaineposted 12 years agoin reply to this

          My favorite thing I hear is:
          
          "Tax cuts for the rich is just redistribution of wealth upward!"
          
          When, in all reality, it's just less redistribution of wealth downward.
          
          Sorry, I'll try to keep reason out of it from now on(some say I'm never reasonable... I guess I just use too many indisputable primary sources!)

          replyreport
       2. 0

          JaxsonRaineposted 12 years agoin reply to this

          True that, as well.
          
          GM(successful company)'s tax rate: 20%ish
          GE(not successful company)'s tax rate: -1%ish
          
          GE is getting paid almost $70 billion total for having gone bankrupt.

          replyreport
    2. 59

       Moderndayslaveposted 12 years agoin reply to this

       Romney can do much better making money for his friends as POTUS than at Bain.

       replyreport
       1. 60

          umbertoobrianposted 12 years agoin reply to this

          Wish I was a Romeny friend, maybe there is still time.

          replyreport
19. 82

    formosangirlposted 12 years ago

    It is class warfare. If Mitt Romney can buy the presidency and fool everyone, then the foolish voters are to blame. He will protect his assets and his friends' first before he cares about anyone else. All the talk about the budget cut is a smoke screen for the rich to disregard the needs of the poor. The fact that Bush could bail out the banks but have no accountability is horrific, and those who sank the banks due to greed still received their promised bonuses.

    replyreport
    1. 60

       umbertoobrianposted 12 years agoin reply to this

       Cool!

       replyreport
20. 57

    Nonala Gaucheposted 12 years ago

    Give 'em hell oz!

    replyreport