Romney tells millionaires what he really thinks of Obama voters

[MARIS61]

Tea Party Gets Subsidies from Tax Payers on Their Personal Farms
ABC reports 23 members of Congress receive huge subsidies (free money) from the US government

The Winners are: Representative Stephen Fincher from Tennessee- his occupation is Farmer, he received 3 million dollars in farm subsidies to himself and his family between 1995 to 2009.

Michele Bachmann also receives a big chunk of free money in government subsidies on her farm. Michele Bachmann and her husband received $ 251,973.00 dollars between 1995-and 2006. Bachmann takes “Socialized Money” although she is against health care for all Americans.

Iowa State Senator Chuck Grassley is another man on the welfare dole and who gets free government subsidies.Grassley received over $ 283,000.00 of free government money for his farm subsidy in Butler county.

Chuck Grassley’s son Robin got over $ 654,000.00 during the same time frame 1995-2005.

Sam Brownback takes welfare payments or free money on his farm. Brownback received over $ 50,000.00 in farm subsides of Tax payers dollars.

Brownback’s father and brother received $605,000.00 for their farm in Linn County, Kansas.

Senator Gordon Smith Republican from Oregon collected $47,000.00 since 1995 for their Smith Frozen Foods farm in Umatilla County, Oregon.

Senator Richard Lugar a Republican of Indiana who is also on the Senate Agriculture Committee cashed checks worth $ 18,000.000 for soybean, corn and wheat on his Stock farm in Marion County since 1995.

http://www.sodahead.com/united-stat...ot-calling-the-kettle-black/question-1688505/

 

[maxiep]

First, several of those people aren't "Tea Partiers". Second, agricultural subsidies should be abolished. Most people in the Tea Party would agree.

 

[Eastoff]

And here you have the crux of the election: The right wants to talk about large issues (debt, deficit, opportunity vs. dependency, projecting strength vs. leading from behind, etc.) and the left wants to talk about small issues: Mitt Romney's tax returns, contraception, perceived racism, etc. Gee, I wonder why the left doesn't want to talk about the large issues facing this country?

I thought I already directly responded to the statement in that quote in another thread, I'm sorry if I didn't do a good job. I thought I shouldn't ignore the other point(s) raised in your quote as well.

 

[Denny Crane]

From the Libertarian POV:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/09/18/the_democrats_fake_freedoms_115470.html


Fluke's sense of entitlement and her casual resort to the use of force made her an ideal speaker for last week's Democratic National Convention, where she was joined by many others who believe justice requires that they receive whatever they want (including automaker bailouts and cheap student loans), even if other people have to pay for it. This mentality is so pervasive among Democrats that they seem unable to distinguish between defending rights and soliciting subsidies.

(more really good stuff at the link)

 

[maxiep]

From the Libertarian POV:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/09/18/the_democrats_fake_freedoms_115470.html


Fluke's sense of entitlement and her casual resort to the use of force made her an ideal speaker for last week's Democratic National Convention, where she was joined by many others who believe justice requires that they receive whatever they want (including automaker bailouts and cheap student loans), even if other people have to pay for it. This mentality is so pervasive among Democrats that they seem unable to distinguish between defending rights and soliciting subsidies.

(more really good stuff at the link)

I think that's Romney's point of view as well. It didn't used to be that way, and we should hope it's not that way in the future.

 

[donkiez]

And here you have the crux of the election: The right wants to talk about large issues (debt, deficit, opportunity vs. dependency, projecting strength vs. leading from behind, etc.) and the left wants to talk about small issues: Mitt Romney's tax returns, contraception, perceived racism, etc. Gee, I wonder why the left doesn't want to talk about the large issues facing this country?

I see it as the left wanting to build or society stonger from the foundation, meaning the people. Rebalancing our budget by prioritizing our people over other unessary expenses. I see the right practicing voter suppression, talking about birth certificates and college records, working against budget issues and blaminng the president, useing skewed out of context stats of the persidents term, and limiting my rights and choices with religious and social and security and economic policies.

 

[julius]

And here you have the crux of the election: The right wants to talk about large issues (debt, deficit, opportunity vs. dependency, projecting strength vs. leading from behind, etc.) and the left wants to talk about small issues: Mitt Romney's tax returns, contraception, perceived racism, etc. Gee, I wonder why the left doesn't want to talk about the large issues facing this country?

same reason why the right condemned a draft dodger, pot smoking womanizer, and then ripped on two guys who actually went to Vietnam (as much as they did, it was still closer to Vietnam than Texas), who weren't drunks or into drugs when it suited their needs.

These aren't long term goals for the R's, they pick whatever issues seem relevant at the moment.

If you all the sudden from the mindset of "he's a coward because he skipped out on the draft" to "well, your guy might've served but we don't need to brag about it (because our guy has a spotty military record)", I kind of think you're not too concerned about certain issues.

Especially when these issues werent of major concern from 2000-2008

 

[BrianFromWA]

American taxpayers give Israel over $3 billion per year (over $8 million per day), more than to any other nation, despite the fact that Israel is smaller than New Jersey and is in the top 30 richest countries in the world.

I challenge you to look at the funding levels allocated as part of the Chicago conference for Afghanistan going forward. I think it'll show that your link is incorrect.

 

[Denny Crane]

 

[e_blazer]

I see it as the left wanting to build or society stonger from the foundation, meaning the people.

The problem with this statement, as I see it, is that people making it typically mean "the people" to be everyone except the rich. Whether you like it or not, the wealthy in this country (or any capitalist country) are essential to building anything. Without money, you can't build squat. You can propose policies that take money from the wealthy in the form of higher taxes, but there comes a tipping point in taxation where there's a declining willingness to make the risky investments needed for companies to grow and hire more people. We can debate where that point is exactly, but it would be nice if you could at least see some recognition of the risk expressed in the Democratic platform.

Rebalancing our budget by prioritizing our people over other unessary expenses.

The tea partiers would agree with your sentiment about reducing unnecessary expenses, although they'd probably disagree about which ones are unnecessary. The devil is in the details.

I see the right practicing voter suppression, talking about birth certificates and college records,

I'm still not certain how asking for a minimum level of ID in order to prove that you're registered to vote constitutes a heinous suppression of the right to vote.

working against budget issues and blaminng the president, useing skewed out of context stats of the persidents term,

Pot meet kettle. Democrats are still blaming Bush for today's problems and using out of context stats to do so. The President hasn't even proposed a budget and the Democrats in the Senate haven't shown any more willingness to work towards a budget compromise with the Republicans in the House than vice versa.

and limiting my rights and choices with religious and social and security and economic policies.

It seems to me that whomever perceives one of their oxen being gored on either side feels the same way.

I'm registered Independent because I can't stand at least some of the party lines on either side. What's really annoying, and ultimately destructive to our society, is that we seem to have reached a place where both sides can't seem to disagree with each other over policies without outright hatred being expressed. Politics is supposed to involve the art of compromise, but that art, or even the willingness to entertain the idea of compromise, seems to have been lost.

 

[julius]

first off, heritage isn't exactly the most unbiased thing in the world, but most importantly, can there be a breakdown of what causes what?

In that, stats can be misleading. How much of that is student loans (which is good for the country...smarter people = better jobs) vs how much of that is "housing", etc.

 

[Fez Hammersticks]

http://dailycaller.com/2012/09/18/d...ted-by-pointing-out-um-their-entire-strategy/

"Only Democrats"? I have family that are apart of the "1%" financially and everyone of them are Democrats.

This whole generalizing his non-voters is an epic fail by Mittens.

 

[MARIS61]

First, several of those people aren't "Tea Partiers". Second, agricultural subsidies should be abolished.

1. You're splitting hairs.

2. We agree on that.

 

[Masbee]

I paid income tax last year. In fact, I paid a shitload more of it as a percentage of my income than Romney did. I also own a small business that actually does create jobs. But I'm voting Obama.

It pisses me off that he thinks that 47% of Americans are voting for Obama because they want government to hand everything to them. He literally says that the only reason people vote for Obama is because they are lazy and they want it all given to you.

I'm voting for Obama for many reasons. One of them being that Romney is an asshole.

Obama is an asshole too.

If you don't know that by now, you haven't been paying enough attention.

Charisma does not equal not being an asshole.

For example, the majority of big stars (movies, music, sports, etc.) are total fucking assholes.

Obama has charisma and star power. Obama has a "story" about who and what he is. Like many other stars it is not truth.

Being an asshole does not disqualify one from being president, most of them were. Otherwise the only president we could have would be Jimmy Carter, and despite not being an asshole, he was the biggest failure of my lifetime.

 

[Rastapopoulos]

Why is everyone dodging the REAL issue here? Did Mitt get invited to the sex parties that the organizer of this fundraiser regularly throws?

 

[noknobs]

Fun Fact: In 2008, of the ten states with the highest percentage below the poverty line, nine of those voted Republican.

Mississippi
Kentucky
Louisiana
Arkansas
New Mexico * (D)
West Virginia
Oklahoma
Texas
South Carolina
Alabama

So, as an independant voter, I'm confused why Romney thinks "there are 47 percent who are with [Obama], who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims..."

Seems to me a larger percentage of those dependent upon goverment are Republican... What am I missing?

 

[noknobs]

Looks like it increased quite substantially between 2000-2008 as well... So your point eludes me.

 

[blazerboy30]

Looks like it increased quite substantially between 2000-2008 as well... So your point eludes me.

I'm pretty sure we aren't contemplating whether to vote for Bush again or not. But, keep pretending that the "point eludes you".

 

[Masbee]

How is this "secretly taped" video even that much news?

Romney:

If you are looking for free stuff, vote for the other guy.

Romney already put out to the world this viewpoint. We have learned little that was new by this "ambush" style video. The impression that Romney was saying something "secret" (even though he wasn't) and the Media frenzy (who is more in the tank for Obama and more actively supporting his campaign than the media has been for any candidate in my lifetime) are being whipped up to create yet another faux scandal.

Could this timing of this release be to distract from real, genuine and impactful scandals? Middle East? Embassy security? White House asleep at the switch? Bad economic news keeps piling up disrupting the Obama campaign lie that things are improving finally, just be patient?

 

[Rastapopoulos]

I love how "dependence on government" is a bad thing. Call me a crazy mixed-up socialist, but I think workhouses for poor children were actually bad, and that a government that provides for its citizens is a good thing. I know, I know, I should fuck off to Cuba.

Let's extend this line of thought: the sick are far too dependent on hospitals. They should be liberated by being set free into the streets. Oh wait, Reagan already thought of that one with the mentally ill.

My children are far too dependent on me. I fully intend to liberate them. One day when they're in school, we'll move. They'll thank me later when they've realized I was fostering their independence.

 

[noknobs]

I'm pretty sure we aren't contemplating whether to vote for Bush again or not. But, keep pretending that the "point eludes you".

I thought Denny was trying to show how much it's increased under Obama... seeing as it's constantly gone up over the decades, and substantially under the president right before Obama, I don't see the point. But thanks for your substantive post.

 

[Rastapopoulos]

Romney:

If you are looking for free stuff, vote for the other guy.

I truly wish that the good citizens of Mississippi, Louisiana, et. al. took him at his word.

What's funny is that someone somewhere in the Republican party realizes that a huge part of its crazy angry white base is dependent on government programs and that if they really followed through they'd basically be unelectable. So what Romney should REALLY say is "I was blowing smoke up these fat cats' asses! I'm effectively increasing taxes on the super rich by taking their money!"

 

[Denny Crane]

I thought Denny was trying to show how much it's increased under Obama... seeing as it's constantly gone up over the decades, and substantially under the president right before Obama, I don't see the point. But thanks for your substantive post.

Do you think that since 1962 (yes, 1962, start of the graph), the growth of dependency of so many people on govt. is a good thing or not?

 

[noknobs]

Do you think that since 1962 (yes, 1962, start of the graph), the growth of dependency of so many people on govt. is a good thing or not?

Healthcare and education is another matter, but when it comes to housing, food and income I don't think dependency is good at all.

 

[donkiez]

I'm registered Independent because I can't stand at least some of the party lines on either side. What's really annoying, and ultimately destructive to our society, is that we seem to have reached a place where both sides can't seem to disagree with each other over policies without outright hatred being expressed. Politics is supposed to involve the art of compromise, but that art, or even the willingness to entertain the idea of compromise, seems to have been lost.

Good points, I actually agree with or at least understand the arguement on most. I was being a little extra left side homer to prove a point. Some of the blind partisan homerism is just to much, and our scorched earth politicing is the real problem with our countery. Most of us agree on the issues that are problems, we just all seem to disagree on the best way to deal with them. My point is that if we can subsidize the whole world why cant we take care of our own people? Hand outs are not good, but giving people the tools to be sucessful are. Rich people stay rich and pass it on to their children because they have more recourses. When you are more fortunate you have better schools, health care, and food. There is no reason why decent education and health care shouln't be available to everyone. It makes us stronger in the long run as a whole when more people are healthy and have the information and resources to make good decisions reguarding their lives. THERE WILL ALWAYS BE PEOPLE WHO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF ANY SYTEM, get over it and factor that into the solution to minimize their effect on everyone else.

 

[STOMP]

I notice congress passes thing when the president has leadership qualities.

Clinton managed with republicans controlling house and senate. Reagan managed with opposition party in control of congress, too.

Pretty hard for a President to negotiate with a party who's leaders literally vowed to fight & obstruct him on everything he might propose even before he took office. Putting party over country, thats exactly what they've done. You have heard of Robert Draper's book haven't you?

http://theimmoralminority.blogspot.com/2012/04/new-book-reveals-that-republicans-held.html

STOMP

 

[RoyToy]

Fun Fact: In 2008, of the ten states with the highest percentage below the poverty line, nine of those voted Republican.

Mississippi
Kentucky
Louisiana
Arkansas
New Mexico * (D)
West Virginia
Oklahoma
Texas
South Carolina
Alabama

So, as an independant voter, I'm confused why Romney thinks "there are 47 percent who are with [Obama], who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims..."

Seems to me a larger percentage of those dependent upon goverment are Republican... What am I missing?

Bingo.

 

[Denny Crane]

Healthcare and education is another matter, but when it comes to housing, food and income I don't think dependency is good at all.

The more govt. spends on the war on poverty, the more people get hooked. Or so it seems.

I'm not averse to helping people who really need it, but I think it's beyond "way out of hand." If the programs were targeted to the truly needy, we wouldn't be in such a financial mess. Why? A lot of people would be paying taxes instead of having incentive to not. And I know a handful of people on unemployment who pass on decent jobs (required to look) because they're satisfied to make it on what the govt. gives them.

 

[STOMP]

I'm pretty sure we aren't contemplating whether to vote for Bush again or not. But, keep pretending that the "point eludes you".

Mitt is advocating the same trickle down economic policies as W and has many of same neocons as advisors now beating the war drums for Iran. I'm pretty sure that a lot of voters equate the two because they've obviously a whole lot in common... hopefully that helps

STOMP

 

[Denny Crane]

Pretty hard for a President to negotiate with a party who's leaders literally vowed to fight & obstruct him on everything he might propose even before he took office. Putting party over country, thats exactly what they've done. You have heard of Robert Draper's book haven't you?

http://theimmoralminority.blogspot.com/2012/04/new-book-reveals-that-republicans-held.html

STOMP

Clinton had both houses against him. They impeached his ass. Yet he got things done. He figured out how to convince them to go along with what he wanted to get done. That's called L E A D E R S H I P.

It's always someone else's fault with Obama. Some of us don't fall for it.

Yet on the other hand, Democrats had a filibuster proof majority and could pass whatever they wanted. And they acted like it. No matter what Draper said in his book, Obama could have had some republican votes for things he wanted if he had just shown a little respect.

You ever hear of Bob Woodward? You know, the guy who put the big hurt on Nixon. I'll see your book and raise you his book. He details how Obama and Boehner came really close to making deals (and Woodward blamed Obama for the failure on C-SPAN the other day).