Romney tells millionaires what he really thinks of Obama voters

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
MickZagger said:
Democrats look out for the middle class. Republican's like to line the pockets of those that are already rich.
Click to expand...

The middle class shouldn't need food stamps. Someone's redefining what is middle class.
 
Denny Crane said:
The middle class shouldn't need food stamps. Someone's redefining what is middle class.
Click to expand...

Strenghten the middle class and they won't. Sending their jobs to China and India and there'll be a lot more food stamps going around.
 
MickZagger said:
Strenghten the middle class and they won't. Sending their jobs to China and India and there'll be a lot more food stamps going around.
Click to expand...

2 years of democrats controlling both houses of congress and the white house. $800B in stimulus money spent. About $800B in TARP money spent. The banks got vast sums of money and they bought other banks. The people got foreclosed on by the millions each year.

But yeah, those Democrats sure watch out for the middle class. Give 'em food stamps on their way down!
 
Denny Crane said:
2 years of democrats controlling both houses of congress and the white house. $800B in stimulus money spent. About $800B in TARP money spent. The banks got vast sums of money and they bought other banks. The people got foreclosed on by the millions each year.

But yeah, those Democrats sure watch out for the middle class. Give 'em food stamps on their way down!
Click to expand...

You twist stuff to the way you want to see it. Be fair and balanced. If foreclosures are something that happened overnight than you'd be onto something. Snowballs roll down hill and get bigger and bigger before they come to a stop.
 
So let me get this straight... I "twist" the actual facts somehow, and then you post "it's bush's fault" propaganda? What did Bush do, exactly? He pushed for lower income people to be able to buy homes and join the middle class.

How does this fit your theory?
 
Denny Crane said:
So let me get this straight... I "twist" the actual facts somehow, and then you post "it's bush's fault" propaganda? What did Bush do, exactly? He pushed for lower income people to be able to buy homes and join the middle class.

How does this fit your theory?
Click to expand...

Thats not propaganda, its reality. If you really think things were peachy keen when Bush left office you're delusional.
 
They weren't peachy keen when Clinton left office or when Carter left office, either.

Presidents inherit recessions - it's their job to deal with them.

Regardless, consider the HUGE sums of money spent and where the middle class stands today. Add in another $3T in money the Fed printed to hide massive deficit spending as well.
 
Denny Crane said:
They weren't peachy keen when Clinton left office or when Carter left office, either.

Presidents inherit recessions - it's their job to deal with them.

Regardless, consider the HUGE sums of money spent and where the middle class stands today. Add in another $3T in money the Fed printed to hide massive deficit spending as well.
Click to expand...

Question for you:

Was the economy better when Clinton left office, or Bush?

No, other words needed, just pick one of the names above.
 
Denny Crane said:
The middle class shouldn't need food stamps. Someone's redefining what is middle class.
Click to expand...

Romney did. According to him the middle class isn't the average amount an US adult makes a year but the few households that generate between 200-250K... which according to my bumping around is somewhere around 2-3% of the country. Lucky for his "middle class" that they won't bear the brunt of his tax hikes

http://www.opposingviews.com/i/mone...mitt-romney-claims-us-middle-income-250k-200k

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Distribution_of_Annual_Household_Income_in_the_United_States.png

STOMP
 
Why do you believe it was worse when Bush left than when he took office?

GDP was negative when he was sworn in. There were 3.5M jobs added in year 7 of Clinton bringing the unemployment rate to 4.0%, but just 42,000 jobs added in year 8 with unemployment jumping to 4.7% (that's near 20% increase). In spite of a multi $billion stimulus package of his own, plus various other measures, it took 2 years to turn the tide (unemployment went 4.7% -> 5.8% -> 6.0% -> 5.5% and down from there).

The Dot Bomb bubble burst in year 8 of Clinton, costing $7.1T in net wealth to everyone in the economy, as an aggregate. The banking and real estate collapse of 2008 cost $5T. Which was worse?

After 9/11, the airlines industry needed a bailout. American Airlines was forced into bankruptcy. Bush "saved" the entire airline industry as much as Obama saved GM and Chrysler.

Look at the job losses Bush inherited.

765_figure621.gif
 
STOMP said:
Romney did. According to him the middle class isn't the average amount an US adult makes a year but the few households that generate between 200-250K... which according to my bumping around is somewhere around 2-3% of the country. Lucky for his "middle class" that they won't bear the brunt of his tax hikes

http://www.opposingviews.com/i/mone...mitt-romney-claims-us-middle-income-250k-200k

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Distribution_of_Annual_Household_Income_in_the_United_States.png

STOMP
Click to expand...

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/mitt-romney-does-not-think-middle-class-starts-181052583.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...b17e52-fe73-11e1-98c6-ec0a0a93f8eb_story.html
 
Denny Crane said:
Why do you believe it was worse when Bush left than when he took office?

GDP was negative when he was sworn in. There were 3.5M jobs added in year 7 of Clinton bringing the unemployment rate to 4.0%, but just 42,000 jobs added in year 8 with unemployment jumping to 4.7% (that's near 20% increase). In spite of a multi $billion stimulus package of his own, plus various other measures, it took 2 years to turn the tide (unemployment went 4.7% -> 5.8% -> 6.0% -> 5.5% and down from there).

The Dot Bomb bubble burst in year 8 of Clinton, costing $7.1T in net wealth to everyone in the economy, as an aggregate. The banking and real estate collapse of 2008 cost $5T. Which was worse?

After 9/11, the airlines industry needed a bailout. American Airlines was forced into bankruptcy. Bush "saved" the entire airline industry as much as Obama saved GM and Chrysler.

Look at the job losses Bush inherited.

765_figure621.gif
Click to expand...

K, now can we get that same info for when Bush left office?

kthanx.

I agree it was slightly going downhill when Clinton left office, but when you peak so high in the middle of your term there's nowhere to go but down. Clinton and Greenspan were economic genius' and I don't really think its up for debate.
 
who believe that they are entitled to health care....

As they should.
 
Last edited:
Greenspan and Clinton did not see eye to eye at all. Clinton kept telling us the economy is "in the sweet spot" while Greenspan talked about "irrational exuberance." He saw the stock market bubble was going on and set out to deflate it by raising interest rates several times in late 1999 and early 2000. He believed he could guide the economy to a "soft landing" but underestimated the Fed's ability to make that happen.

I happen to be a genuine fan of Clinton, FWIW. I think he inherited a recession and the S&L crisis with the housing market collapse that went along with it.

Reagan inherited the most royal of messes, economically, since the Depression. No question about it. High (> 20%) interest rates, inflation in double digits, unemployment approaching double digits and an S&L systematic failure as well.

http://bancroft.berkeley.edu/ROHO/projects/debt/1990srecession.html
 
Treaty_of_Batum said:
In an interview that aired Friday morning, Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney told "Good Morning America" that the definition of middle income in America is "$200,000 to $250,000 or less."


Don't understand what he is trying to say here
Click to expand...

I'll quote from the second link...

But how does he define “middle-income”? The Republican presidential nominee defined it Friday as income of $200,000 to $250,000 a year and less.

The definition of “middle income” or the “middle class” is politically charged as Romney and President Barack Obama fight to win over working-class voters. Romney would be among the wealthiest presidents, if elected, and Democrats have repeatedly painted him as out of touch with average people.

Obama also has set his definition for “middle class” as families with income of up to $250,000 a year.
Click to expand...
 
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.
 
STOMP said:
thanks for proving my point... Obama's side goes far less then 200K to define the middle class

desperation makes a shitty cologne

STOMP
Click to expand...

Are you cherry picking blog posts on the internet that drop the words "less than" from what Romney actually said, or what?

Seems you are. And you call the real news organizations that point out he said "less than" shitty cologne.

I understand where you're coming from.
 
Denny Crane said:
Are you cherry picking blog posts on the internet that drop the words "less than" from what Romney actually said, or what?

Seems you are. And you call the real news organizations that point out he said "less than" shitty cologne.

I understand where you're coming from.
Click to expand...

really? Clearly in the video link I provided, he outlined 200-250K as his target group of the middle class... you're apologizing/stretching otherwise. Why do the few leaks we have on his vague policies have him only benefiting only those above 200K?

STOMP
 
Last edited:
STOMP said:
really? Clearly in the link I provided, he outlined 200-250K as his target group of the middle class... you're apologizing/stretching otherwise. Why do the few leaks we have on his vague policies have him only benefiting only those above 200K?

STOMP
Click to expand...

They don't benefit ONLY those above 200K. If you cut taxes on the lowest earners from 15% to 10%, it's a 33% tax cut, and if you cut taxes on the highest from 39% to 36%, it's a 15% tax cut. But EVERYONE gets a tax cut, no?

And I'm not a Romney supporter. I'm just really tired of the blame anyone but Obama routine.
 
Denny Crane said:
I'm just really tired of the blame anyone but Obama routine.
Click to expand...

Oh please... you've been blaming Obama for everything under the sun since before he was elected.

How about blaming Congress for the national budget? By the Constitution, they're the folks in charge of the purse strings after all. Be it GOP or Dino, it's easy decipher who has been in charge of the American economy at least for the last 11 years or so

STOMP
 
STOMP said:
Romney did. According to him the middle class isn't the average amount an US adult makes a year but the few households that generate between 200-250K... which according to my bumping around is somewhere around 2-3% of the country. Lucky for his "middle class" that they won't bear the brunt of his tax hikes

http://www.opposingviews.com/i/mone...mitt-romney-claims-us-middle-income-250k-200k

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Distribution_of_Annual_Household_Income_in_the_United_States.png

STOMP
Click to expand...

That quote was truncated. He said, "$200-250 and less". He was also talking about who he thought was "middle income" not "middle class". http://www.chicagotribune.com/busin...00k-to-250k-and-less-20120914,0,6073358.story
 
BTW

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/17/us/17iht-letter17.html

On taxes, it’s Mr. Romney who’s ducking. He has proposed a tax cut of more than $4 trillion over 10 years, an across-the-board 20 percent reduction in individual income tax rates and the elimination of the estate tax, the alternative minimum tax and taxes on capital gains, dividends and interest for those earning less than $200,000. The corporate tax rate would come down to 25 percent from 35 percent.

He insists this can be achieved without raising revenue, by limiting tax preferences. He refuses to specify any. The candidate cites Republican experts like the Princeton University economist Harvey Rosen. However, Mr. Rosen says this is feasible if Mr. Romney eliminates the popular tax deductions for items like home mortgages and charitable contributions for those making more than $100,000 a year.

...

Promises for a revenue-neutral plan in which the middle class and small businesses get a net tax cut suggest higher overall taxes for either the poor or the rich. The Romney campaign refuses to comment.

...


So. What is more revenue: 1) Tax rate of 90% on the "rich" with generous loopholes to get them to 15% effective rate, or 2) Tax rate of 25% on the "rich" with NO loopholes.

You choose.
 
STOMP said:
Oh please... you've been blaming Obama for everything under the sun since before he was elected.

How about blaming Congress for the national budget? By the Constitution, they're the folks in charge of the purse strings after all. Be it GOP or Dino, it's easy decipher who has been in charge of the American economy at least for the last 11 years or so

STOMP
Click to expand...

I do blame congress, but the congress of one party is likely to go along with what its president (of the same party) wants.

And things sure looked pretty good up until the results of the 2006 election kicked in.

Republicans controlled congress from 1994 through 2006. We had... 4 balanced budgets during that time as well as $400B deficits. The last time we had a balanced budget before that was 1969.

And FWIW, I'm not a deficit hawk. I believe some govt. debt is reasonable. Govt. should issue bonds to build a bridge or something. When the bonds are paid off, the debt is gone. Debt is a fine means of financing projects. That said, no organization that borrows to pay its ongoing bills is in good financial shape.
 
except you make up that 25% with no loopholes estimate. Romney refuses to comment. Why?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

MARIS61
Mitt Romney Haunted By Past
Replies
4
Views
677
3RA1N1AC
3RA1N1AC
Denny Crane
Obama loses bin Laden bounce; Romney on the move among GOP contenders
2
Replies
47
Views
2K
Denny Crane
Denny Crane
SlyPokerDog
Greed and Debt: The True Story of Mitt Romney and Bain Capital
2
Replies
33
Views
2K
mobes23
mobes23
ABM
Is Obama's New Hampshire Trip An Important One?
Replies
2
Views
364
MARIS61
MARIS61
SlyPokerDog
Obama spending binge never happened
Replies
28
Views
2K
maxiep
maxiep

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top