chassroc
Cave Dweller
Rocks are abundant when you have rocktumblinghobby pals
Member since January 2005
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by chassroc on Apr 13, 2012 15:52:48 GMT -5
On the campaign trail this year who said, "He’s a wealthy man, a very wealthy man,” ... “If you have a half a million dollar purchase from Tiffany’s, you’re not a middle class American.”
If you guessed Barack Obama, think again, That is Mitt Romney, talking about his rival, Newt Gingrich. So Mitt is thinking and saying that a man who has a couple of million and buys jewelry for his ladies at Tiffany's is evil. Not the Dems, this is just Republicans going at each other to show how out of touch rich Americans and rich Republicans are. Un freakin believeable! Talk about big brass ones! And some of you are outraged that there all Dems aren't poor. The height of hypocrisy.
Yes that was a Republican worth between two and three hundred million complaining about his rival who is not poor but is only worth a relatively paltry 6 million or so, being out of touch. Out of touch!. Chutzpah at its original best.
Just who is engaging in class warfare and demonizing the rich? Yes the richest of the rich is complaining about a rich rival being out of touch. Yes the same guy who thinks a $10,000 bet is mere pocket change, Mitt Romney, Republican. Is he pissed that there are other millionaires in America? Un real!
So lets stop being disingenuous about who is calling the rich Evil. Hint ... He's been known to dwell in Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Utah
charlie
|
|
|
Post by parfive on Apr 13, 2012 16:35:21 GMT -5
|
|
darstcreek77
has rocks in the head
Member since April 2011
Posts: 673
|
Post by darstcreek77 on Apr 13, 2012 17:20:43 GMT -5
Oh I know a bunch of dems in congress senate and the house that isnt poor , lets see rockafellow , kerry , gore , clinton on and on the different in romney is he earned his the old fashion way Work , gore born in to , kerry married rich twice , kenedy well never mind them , clinton great investments (right) rockafellow born in to richs , romney I believed went to collage worked hard went up the ladder .. now a lot of people do not like romney because he is mormon (like my inlaws ) but a lot of people didnt like kenedy because he was catholic. but alot of people on this forum doesnt like Romney because he is rich and a repub and trys to cut him down politely , but he will be the next President because if yall vote for obama he will make this country a 2nd world country , and I will come right out a say he isnt worth a cold jar of south Texas dog piss , thats just my opinion for whats its worth !
|
|
grayfingers
Cave Dweller
Member since November 2007
Posts: 4,575
|
Post by grayfingers on Apr 13, 2012 17:51:59 GMT -5
Boy Charlie, I guess you were pretty desperate to find a counterpoint. The statement you are referencing was from an interview last Dec. when Romney was asked to respond to Gingrich's attacks on his wealth. He pointed out that Gingrich is not doing too poorly himself. He went on to say that it is better to gain wealth from working in the private sector as he has, as opposed to Newt Gingrich, who has wealth gained from having worked in government. Nothing like taking part of a sentence out of context to try to make someone look bad, but that is the liberal way.
I do find it amusing that the liberal mantra seems to be that one would be more socially acceptable as a leper than as someone who has been successful in business. And you claim the left does not see the rich as evil. . . *chuckle*
The heroes of Democratic liberalism, Franklin Roosevelt and John Kennedy, were "hereditary millionaires" (they inherited their fortunes without working at a real job their entire pre-political lives). As near as I have been able to research, with the exception of Harry Truman and the possible exception of Bill Clinton (who cleaned up with book deals for himself and his wife after he left office), every United States President (at least in the 20th century) selected from the ranks of the Democratic Party has also been a millionaire, or at least wealthy. Jimmy Carter tried to come across as a "humble man of the soil," until people remembered that Carter owned a large hunk of soil in southern Georgia and the largest peanut warehouse in the state.
darstcreek, I wish I could share your optimism, but right now I would say that Obama has as good or better odds of winning as does Romney. Unless there is a bombshell of some sort dropped, this looks like a very close election, and it's gonna get dirty.
|
|
darstcreek77
has rocks in the head
Member since April 2011
Posts: 673
|
Post by darstcreek77 on Apr 13, 2012 19:38:35 GMT -5
Keep the faith Greyfingers the people who voted for the hope and change guy felt guilty about how certain people were treated in the pass , I for one didnt do anything to anybody (that I can remember ) lol ,and some of his people have seen the light People this time WILL REMEMBER THAT THEIR WALLET AND 401 IS LIGHTER and hopefully vote with there head .
|
|
grayfingers
Cave Dweller
Member since November 2007
Posts: 4,575
|
Post by grayfingers on Apr 13, 2012 19:50:09 GMT -5
Oh, yeah, I keep the faith. However, an incumbent always has an advantage as long as they can maintain their personal favorable/likeability/trust polling and deflect their faults onto their predecessor. Obama has pushed his to the edge, but then again so did Clinton. I learned a big lesson when he was re-elected, as I would have swore he was toast. Funny thing is, I would much prefer him or even Hillary to the current POTUS, as they are more old school Democrats compared to Obama.
|
|
|
Post by Rockoonz on Apr 14, 2012 1:13:14 GMT -5
Teleprompter in chief or Etch-a-Sketch in chief
Romney makes McCain look good So, did they persuasively say "you can't vote for anyone who isn't from one of the 2 parties", and you replied "I can't vote for anyone who isn't from one of the 2 parties" (these aren't the droids we're looking for) The one party masquerading as 2 (and taking your freedoms every day) has pulled the Jedi mind trick on you, but I say it doesn't have to be so. The Libertarians, the Constitution party, even the Greens have better candidates out there. Check them out, if you're not a puppet you will vote for one of them.
Lee
|
|
|
Post by helens on Apr 14, 2012 1:47:36 GMT -5
Romney is DANGEROUS for this country. He has no qualms about saying anything to win... as he did in Mass... and look what happened to Mass... dropped to #47 in employment, and the jobs created were all minimum wage.
Of course, that's par for the course for all the thousands of people he fired from the companies he took over with Bain, the crook. How did a criminal who only escaped prosecution because laws were changed on his behalf end up running for President of the US? We are in sooo much trouble... and his chances of winning are growing, not because he's got support, but because there is an awful lot of money at stake and money buys votes (remember, this nation is on Electoral College voting... they CAN vote for ANYONE they want, regardless of voter outcome in any given state - and everyone has a price).
Voting Libertarian means you throw your vote away. They simply will not have enough votes to carry anything (discounting the very real fear of Romney's criminal organization tampering with the voting on the Electoral College level of course).
The only chance we have is to have a Democratic Congress to stop Romney from cleaning out the Treasury and playing Bain's borrowing tricks on the US Treasury. Unfortunately, we won't be able to stop Romney from making a killing on War again (both literally and figuratively). Sigh.
|
|
grayfingers
Cave Dweller
Member since November 2007
Posts: 4,575
|
Post by grayfingers on Apr 14, 2012 8:22:09 GMT -5
Lee, again I agree with you in theory. However, it is hard to deny that to vote for a third party in this election would be Perot 2.0
Until a third party has a base of around 1/3 of voters we will be unable to break out of this vicious cycle.
“And I'm very happy in my former life; we helped create over 100,000 new jobs. By the way, we created more jobs in Massachusetts than this president’s created in the entire country. So if the president wants to talk about jobs, and I hope he does, we’ll be comparing my record with his record and he comes up very, very short.”
— Mitt Romney, Jan. 3, 2012
|
|
chassroc
Cave Dweller
Rocks are abundant when you have rocktumblinghobby pals
Member since January 2005
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by chassroc on Apr 14, 2012 9:14:57 GMT -5
So We point out again to you Bill and you Dart, Just who is engaging in class warfare and demonizing the rich.
Hint Hint ... It ain't the Dems , Look in a mirror.
You get upset that every Democrat is not poor!!!!!!
While the Dems celebrate success and want everyone( all Americans, not just those who are already rich) to have a chance at success and we want the wealth that a healthy sharing passionate society affords.
You want to demonize John Kerry for marrying a rich woman, Really! (Hint to Gray...He married her years ago...at a time in America when it wasn't a crime for A Dem to marry a rich person)
Gray...you complain that FDR was rich and that JFK was rich...again look in the mirron and tell us just who is engaging in class warfare and demonizing the rich. Democrats care about America and Americans in this country and if you are rich or poor it has no bearing on how we treat you, can you say the same
I don't get the point about Rockefeller being born into riches. Why are you guys so jealous when people have money, dont you want Americans to be wealthy, and we don't limit that to just ourselves. You only want yourseleves and other Republicans to be wealthy Lets give you a hint here, Nelson was Republican as was the whole Rockefeller clan until Jay had an Epiphany and realized ha was more like Dems than Republicans...at least in todays society. Jay cannot change the fact that he was born into the privilege that wealth affords. He benefits from it and I dont think he would want to give it all up. That does not make him a bad person. He surely benefited from it(having a family with money and thye influence it brings). All the American dynasties have special privileges that other Americans do not have.
I'm sure if we wanted to, we could be like you and find fault that the Rockefellers made money in Oil and banking, but we dont. Take a look at all the good the Rockefeller's have done for America( think Arcadia NP, The Adirondacks, St John, the Cloisters, Grand Teton NP) Does that make them like Democrats in your eyes. OK, you're right, They do seem like Dems to me too, at least for their extraordinary Conservation efforts. Oh, maybe the fact that Jay has gone against the family and become a Democrat makes him a villain in your eyes! I have news for you, A Rockefeller is a Rockefeller. A party affiliation should mean less than a persons actions, something you seem to find it hard to understand.
Charlie
|
|
|
Post by jakesrocks on Apr 14, 2012 9:20:17 GMT -5
. and his chances of winning are growing, not because he's got support, but because there is an awful lot of money at stake and money buys votes (remember, this nation is on Electoral College voting... they CAN vote for ANYONE they want, regardless of voter outcome in any given state - and everyone has a price).
Helen, is that any better or worse than the illegal, convict, and even dead peoples votes which put Obama in his castle on the hill last election ? How about about the Native American votes that were bought right here in my home state ? We have people doing time for that one. It's called election fraud.
|
|
grayfingers
Cave Dweller
Member since November 2007
Posts: 4,575
|
Post by grayfingers on Apr 14, 2012 9:28:16 GMT -5
Chass, Your assumption is incorrect. I have never demonized anyone for their wealth. If you really believe what you are saying about which side is demonizing those with wealth, you are much less perceptive and informed than I have given you credit for. Just guessing, you were once a Republican, weren't you? (your 'style' reminds me of David Gergen or Arianna Huffington.)
Gray
|
|
|
Post by helens on Apr 14, 2012 14:35:38 GMT -5
Lee, again I agree with you in theory. However, it is hard to deny that to vote for a third party in this election would be Perot 2.0 Until a third party has a base of around 1/3 of voters we will be unable to break out of this vicious cycle. “And I'm very happy in my former life; we helped create over 100,000 new jobs. By the way, we created more jobs in Massachusetts than this president’s created in the entire country. So if the president wants to talk about jobs, and I hope he does, we’ll be comparing my record with his record and he comes up very, very short.” — Mitt Romney, Jan. 3, 2012 You are talking about Mitt Romney, Mr Etch a Sketch. This applies to his own memories as well. HERE is what Romney did in Massachusetts, and the WP is the KINDEST towards Romney for his job record: www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/as-massachusetts-governor-romneys-record-on-jobs-was-unremarkable/2012/02/06/gIQABzEfxQ_story.htmlAn overheated industry has gone bust. A tepid economy is not producing enough jobs. And a successful businessman promises he can use his private-sector experience to jump-start the economy.
This is presidential candidate Mitt Romney now, but it was also Romney nearly a decade ago when he ran for governor of Massachusetts, a state that was still reeling from the tech bubble’s burst.
A core argument of Romney’s presidential campaign is that he knows how to create jobs based on his career in finance. As governor, Romney faced his first test in applying his business background to a slow-growing economy — and data show that the results were unremarkable. Here's an ACTUAL COMPARISON from BusinessInsider from articles.businessinsider.com/2012-01-06/politics/30596628_1_mitt-romney-total-jobs-job-growth: Does the expression, "Liar Liar Pants on Fire!" apply to Mr Romney here? YES.
|
|
|
Post by jakesrocks on Apr 14, 2012 15:10:25 GMT -5
Isn't it interesting Helen, that Your great savior Obama pays taxes at a lower rate than his secretary? Someone who makes approximately 1/8th. per year of what the Obamas make.
|
|
|
Post by helens on Apr 14, 2012 15:32:55 GMT -5
Jake, Obama doesn't pay more than his Secretary tho. Mitt Romney pays 6% less taxes than Obama (Obama's returns were just released - 20+%, Mitt Romney pays 13%). After deductions, 20% is about what most people pay, and in his case, he doesn't get to live at home, so he'd have extra deductions.
Nevertheless, if he made over $1 mil, he'd have to pay 30% too, and that will happen the minute he leaves office, since former Presidents make well over $1 mil a year doing speaking engagements in addition to their rest of their lives pensions.
For taxpayers, it's a very poor deal to have 2 different 1 term Presidents, because we are paying the retirements for 2 Presidents (plus secret service for life, plus medical, plus transportation, etc).
Obama is no great Savior to me, although for those who think Romney is Satan, I suppose you can call him that.
|
|
|
Post by jakesrocks on Apr 14, 2012 16:26:01 GMT -5
Check your facts Helen. I'd suggest an independent source, rather than a strictly pro Obama source. Obama did in fact pay taxes at a lower rate than his secretary did.
Also, secret service was done away with by another Dem former president. Old Billie Bob Clinton is the last to get protection for life. The newer Presidents are covered for 6 years after leaving office.
|
|
|
Post by helens on Apr 14, 2012 16:55:37 GMT -5
Jake, that's exactly why taxes need reform... WHY SHOULD Obama pay less than his Secretary? And... since he paid 20.5%, and his secretary paid a 'slightly higher percent' (she won't tell how much), he SHOULD pay more. Do you disagree?
|
|
|
Post by jakesrocks on Apr 14, 2012 18:05:37 GMT -5
Oh, so you rechecked the facts, and found he in fact did pay a lower rate than his secretary. You must have finally broke down and checked a non liberal source. You know, the sources that aren't afraid to show King Obama in a bad light.
I've never said that we don't need tax reform. I'd be all in favor of a national flat tax. I'd also support increasing import taxes on goods imported by American companies that have shipped their jobs overseas. Make it unprofitable for them to ship jobs away, and see how quick those jobs come back home. But neither side will pass laws like that. It would hurt our politicians where it hurts the most. In their own wallets.
|
|
|
Post by helens on Apr 14, 2012 18:46:48 GMT -5
Just told you that Obama would be hurting his own wallet with the 30% thing. If you net $1 million dollars, it's not that big a hurt. Taxes only hurt those who don't make over a million a year, so why do we get to feel they aren't pulling their weight, while people like Donnie are feeling broken by it?
|
|
chassroc
Cave Dweller
Rocks are abundant when you have rocktumblinghobby pals
Member since January 2005
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by chassroc on Apr 15, 2012 8:43:23 GMT -5
The difference between Democrats and Republicans is that when they see an inequity in the tax system, The Dems try to correctit and The Republicans try to protect it ( while complaining about a Democrat)
Charlie
|
|