Not good for Romney

inlet13

Zoso wrote:

pandora wrote:

Who says this is how it needs to be....
and incredibly excessively I might add.
With just the example of food stamps and an obese population, in what world does that
make sense? Should any help be only to save a life? Or should it be to grow people
to unhealthy weights?

You seem to be understating the excessive nature of where we are headed ...
towards this growing entitlement the masses feel is due to them.
This is only to grow worse until it breaks....
and break it will...

Just how far can a deficit go before it can't grow anymore? Before we break?
Which candidate has a chance of lessening the growth?
So far our President and his administration of redistribution
has not been able to curb any growth of the deficit, in fact,
it has gained speed with this strategy.

I am not on either side, no team for me, just trying to figure out who can
fix this problem and get people back to work and remove the idea
anyone is entitled to anything ... they must work for what the get.

there needs to be a healthy balance between government intervention (i.e health care, food stanps) and individuality.. otherwise the poor have got no resources to even begin to change their lives but they need that push that the GOP argue is essential (and so does most people)..that push they have is the pressure to be more then they are and the pain of being fighting for every meal.

don't you need to to somewhat assist the very poor otherwise how can anyway change their situation? a moderate look at this issue is the best way otherwise nothing will ever change. socialism doesn't work but either would the ignorant view that the GOP hold about the rich and poor gap and helping the down trodden.

Sorry to jump in here. But, don't the poor "change their situation" by getting a job? From one job, they can then get another, and another... and so on - moving up the payscale. Just my thoughts. No one "changes their situation" by getting government assistance, right?

mydogmookieblaylock

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ArC7XarwnWI&feature=player_embedded

this is what is going to happen

whygohome

Johnny Abruzzo wrote:

pandora wrote:

Johnny Abruzzo wrote:

Always fun to read pandora's "unbiased" view of the state of the race.

hmmm...did I say anything about the state of the race :? only my interpretation of what Romney
really meant by his words and yes that opinion is unbiased
because our President may very well get my vote
can you say that if you vote, your vote may very well go to Romney ... thought not
so who's biased

I'm not the one who claims to be unbiased, but supports whatever one side says over the other side about, oh, 99% of the time.

I'm an Obama supporter but I don't agree with everything he does & says. And I find Romney to be a dreadful presidential candidate, easily the worst of my lifetime, who is a comical caricature of the typical rich businessman who decides to partake in politics, like this guy.

Paul Ryan?:

whygohome

Romney/Ryan?:

pandora

Johnny Abruzzo wrote:

pandora wrote:

Johnny Abruzzo wrote:

Always fun to read pandora's "unbiased" view of the state of the race.

hmmm...did I say anything about the state of the race :? only my interpretation of what Romney
really meant by his words and yes that opinion is unbiased
because our President may very well get my vote
can you say that if you vote, your vote may very well go to Romney ... thought not
so who's biased

I'm not the one who claims to be unbiased, but supports whatever one side says over the other side about, oh, 99% of the time.

I'm an Obama supporter but I don't agree with everything he does & says. And I find Romney to be a dreadful presidential candidate, easily the worst of my lifetime, who is a comical caricature of the typical rich businessman who decides to partake in politics, like this guy.

I do not claim anything this is how i feel. Why this is a hard election for me as an Independent.
Clearly this administration is not doing well. It sucks. He has not done what he has promised,
we are not in a better place personally or our business. The deficit is out of control,
as are taxes. The new healthcare another tax and penalty :fp:

BUT...

I like our President, personally, I think he is good in many ways for our country.
I believe 4 years is never long enough and maybe he should have 4 more for success,
as most Presidents in recent voting years.

I also would have liked a different candidate for the Republican party,
you are correct about his persona unfortunately.

BUT...

He just might be able to do what he says he can, build an economy not a government,
which is the ideal that lives in my heart.

What to do what to do?

Cliffy6745

Serious question. How is Romney going to build an economy? Tax cuts for the rich that will be paid for by cuts to.....wait till I'm President and I will tell you.

That's good.

blackredyellow

inlet13 wrote:

Zoso wrote:

pandora wrote:

Who says this is how it needs to be....
and incredibly excessively I might add.
With just the example of food stamps and an obese population, in what world does that
make sense? Should any help be only to save a life? Or should it be to grow people
to unhealthy weights?

You seem to be understating the excessive nature of where we are headed ...
towards this growing entitlement the masses feel is due to them.
This is only to grow worse until it breaks....
and break it will...

Just how far can a deficit go before it can't grow anymore? Before we break?
Which candidate has a chance of lessening the growth?
So far our President and his administration of redistribution
has not been able to curb any growth of the deficit, in fact,
it has gained speed with this strategy.

I am not on either side, no team for me, just trying to figure out who can
fix this problem and get people back to work and remove the idea
anyone is entitled to anything ... they must work for what the get.

there needs to be a healthy balance between government intervention (i.e health care, food stanps) and individuality.. otherwise the poor have got no resources to even begin to change their lives but they need that push that the GOP argue is essential (and so does most people)..that push they have is the pressure to be more then they are and the pain of being fighting for every meal.

don't you need to to somewhat assist the very poor otherwise how can anyway change their situation? a moderate look at this issue is the best way otherwise nothing will ever change. socialism doesn't work but either would the ignorant view that the GOP hold about the rich and poor gap and helping the down trodden.

Sorry to jump in here. But, don't the poor "change their situation" by getting a job? From one job, they can then get another, and another... and so on - moving up the payscale. Just my thoughts. No one "changes their situation" by getting government assistance, right?

Yes, it's just that easy to get a job... or maybe they can just borrow money from their parents to start a company?

No one "changes their situation" by getting government assistance, but they can do trivial things like "feed their children" or "go to the doctor" or "stay in their house" after getting laid off, with government assistance.

usamamasan1

2010 and 2011 Romney paid nearly $5million in taxes. TWO years. I guess that's his fair share right?

inlet13

Cliffy6745 wrote:

Serious question. How is Romney going to build an economy? Tax cuts for the rich that will be paid for by cuts to.....wait till I'm President and I will tell you.

That's good.

Serious question, I'm being serious - do you really think Obama vs. Romney matters? Why?

When push comes to shove - do you think either will do drastically different things from the opponent? If so, what?

blackredyellow

Cliffy6745 wrote:

Serious question. How is Romney going to build an economy? Tax cuts for the rich that will be paid for by cuts to.....wait till I'm President and I will tell you.

That's good.

And he's going to cut spending... not really sure what spending yet, but I'm sure there it will be something.

inlet13

blackredyellow wrote:

inlet13 wrote:

Sorry to jump in here. But, don't the poor "change their situation" by getting a job? From one job, they can then get another, and another... and so on - moving up the payscale. Just my thoughts. No one "changes their situation" by getting government assistance, right?

Yes, it's just that easy to get a job... or maybe they can just borrow money from their parents to start a company?

No one "changes their situation" by getting government assistance, but they can do trivial things like "feed their children" or "go to the doctor" or "stay in their house" after getting laid off, with government assistance.

In our current economy, it's definitely harder than it once was no doubt. But, I see an awful lot of illegal immigrants finding ways to get jobs in the US. Several are cutting the lawn outside my office right now - I could wave to them. And yes, I'm positive they are illegal - I've spoken to their boss. They are cheap labor for him. He finds them at the Home Depot.

So, how do these folks do it? In my personal opinion - they work at it - they figure it out. That's not to say that it's always possible to get a job, I get that - especially now.

But, sorry...

My point stands - You don't CHANGE YOUR SITUATION .... by getting government welfare. You change it by getting a job.

usamamasan1

The Romneys donated about $4 million to charity in 2011


the campaign affirmed Friday that "in each year" from 1990 to 2009, "the Romneys owed both state and federal income taxes," with the federal effective rate averaging 20.2 percent. Annual charity giving averaged 13.5 percent during that period, the campaign said.

Cliffy6745

inlet13 wrote:

Cliffy6745 wrote:

Serious question. How is Romney going to build an economy? Tax cuts for the rich that will be paid for by cuts to.....wait till I'm President and I will tell you.

That's good.

Serious question, I'm being serious - do you really think Obama vs. Romney matters? Why?

When push comes to shove - do you think either will do drastically different things from the opponent? If so, what?

Economically, probably not in any major way. But I am far from an economic expert, and I don't pretend to be.

So if neither is going to have a major difference economically? I should vote based on social issues and foreign policy, right?

Edit: And I am not saying I am voting stricly on social issues, but I do agree things will not be completely different economically under either, although I don't agree upper class tax cuts with the middle class likely paying for them is the way to go.

MayDay10

usamamasan1 wrote:

The Romneys donated about $4 million to charity in 2011


the campaign affirmed Friday that "in each year" from 1990 to 2009, "the Romneys owed both state and federal income taxes," with the federal effective rate averaging 20.2 percent. Annual charity giving averaged 13.5 percent during that period, the campaign said.

how much of that was mandatory contributions to the Mormon Church?

Zoso

the answer the above question.. no one one changes their situation from govt assistance but while they are looking for work etc and are homeless how do they feed themselves or their family? they need money to catch a bus or taxi to get to an interview.. maybe decent clothes for an interview... no one gets rich off assistance this is why it's annoying people complain about people getting assistance.

how do you expect a homeless person to find a job? eat? etc etc with no help from anyone?

also.. govt provides training for job employment and interviews etc... this is all important stuff.

govt assistance doesn't make people move up the ladder gives them the basics to maintain and ATLEAST ATTEMPT to forge a decent existence.

Mitt's mantra is the people who have 'lost' in life are their because of their bad choices and the winners are rich because they worked harder and were smarter. I know people who have worked 3 jobs for their whole lives and still JUST make it.

blackredyellow

usamamasan1 wrote:

The Romneys donated about $4 million to charity in 2011


the campaign affirmed Friday that "in each year" from 1990 to 2009, "the Romneys owed both state and federal income taxes," with the federal effective rate averaging 20.2 percent. Annual charity giving averaged 13.5 percent during that period, the campaign said.

Serious question... are they releasing his tax forms, or just saying that his rate was 20.2%?

Cliffy6745

blackredyellow wrote:

usamamasan1 wrote:

The Romneys donated about $4 million to charity in 2011


the campaign affirmed Friday that "in each year" from 1990 to 2009, "the Romneys owed both state and federal income taxes," with the federal effective rate averaging 20.2 percent. Annual charity giving averaged 13.5 percent during that period, the campaign said.

Serious question... are they releasing his tax forms, or just saying that his rate was 20.2%?

Yeah, he has. Certainly an attempt to get positive news after the past week. And good, good for him. I am glad he paid what he is supposed to.

Zoso

to add to the answer of romney vs obama and who will change the economy a lot.. probably none of them but they will both push their agenda...

romney will increase the gap between the rich and the poor and he will tell us that a huge gap is a necessity in a decent free market society.

he will say that the investments will boost the economy which is true, the people that invent things, create successful companies etc etc will therefore support the very poor as the money will trickle down to more jobs and opportunities. he will say that the middle class will benefit from THIS because their will be more products on the market AGAIN boosting the economy. Romney will say that too much govt interference means that the typical American won't or hasn't got the drive to became more successful. I think a lot of this is correct but it has to be balanced out with well tuned welfare programs as this gives the basics to the needy who haven't yet got the resources or opportunity to move up..

Romney thinks all this because he believes that every American is born equal.. this is a fallacy and a common misconception. Obama will turn the economy around if he balances the GOP theme (mentioned above) with providing enough assistance people in immediate need.

pandora

Zoso wrote:

pandora wrote:

Who says this is how it needs to be....
and incredibly excessively I might add.
With just the example of food stamps and an obese population, in what world does that
make sense? Should any help be only to save a life? Or should it be to grow people
to unhealthy weights?

You seem to be understating the excessive nature of where we are headed ...
towards this growing entitlement the masses feel is due to them.
This is only to grow worse until it breaks....
and break it will...

Just how far can a deficit go before it can't grow anymore? Before we break?
Which candidate has a chance of lessening the growth?
So far our President and his administration of redistribution
has not been able to curb any growth of the deficit, in fact,
it has gained speed with this strategy.

I am not on either side, no team for me, just trying to figure out who can
fix this problem and get people back to work and remove the idea
anyone is entitled to anything ... they must work for what the get.

there needs to be a healthy balance between government intervention (i.e health care, food stanps) and individuality.. otherwise the poor have got no resources to even begin to change their lives but they need that push that the GOP argue is essential (and so does most people)..that push they have is the pressure to be more then they are and the pain of being fighting for every meal.

don't you need to to somewhat assist the very poor otherwise how can anyway change their situation? a moderate look at this issue is the best way otherwise nothing will ever change. socialism doesn't work but either would the ignorant view that the GOP hold about the rich and poor gap and helping the down trodden.

The rich give much from both persuasions,
red and blue equally I'm sure.

Personally I don't think people should be taxed to provide excessive
aid to people or have funny money paying for it.

People help...
they give every time they hear of need. Even in these strapped times people give.
Unfortunately this money does not get to where it is needed.

A good example was what I heard happened to the money collected for the victims
of the Colorado shootings. Money that was to go to the families.
Millions collected now sit somewhere tied up and they must try,
by lawsuit, to get more than the small amount they each received. :wtf:
We have someone gettin rich off of the generosity of charitable gifts,
not just this case but countless cases.

Let's put helping others back into the hands of real people. Let's put volunteerism
and incentives to do so a number one priority. Let's stop the idea of entitlements
and have everyone work for what they receive.
No one would keep a starving child from food, resources can be made by people
for the people. Most especially true when taxes are drastically lowered,
money put back into peoples pockets so they can donate
and help others in their own communities.

Now with government involved we have obese people receiving 400$ a month
and up on food stamps.
We have fraud, abuse and this administration is attempting to bring
more onto government care than get them off.

What is wrong with that picture?

Do we think they do it for votes? Do we think they do it for power?

inlet13

Zoso wrote:

the answer the above question.. no one one changes their situation from govt assistance but while they are looking for work etc and are homeless how do they feed themselves or their family? they need money to catch a bus or taxi to get to an interview.. maybe decent clothes for an interview... no one gets rich off assistance this is why it's annoying people complain about people getting assistance.

how do you expect a homeless person to find a job? eat? etc etc with no help from anyone?

also.. govt provides training for job employment and interviews etc... this is all important stuff.

govt assistance doesn't make people move up the ladder gives them the basics to maintain and ATLEAST ATTEMPT to forge a decent existence.

Mitt's mantra is the people who have 'lost' in life are their because of their bad choices and the winners are rich because they worked harder and were smarter. I know people who have worked 3 jobs for their whole lives and still JUST make it.

This wasn't a pom-pom waving question. I don't care about Mitt or Obama. I think they both suck. So, no need to bring Mitt or Obama into it - they both are IMHO horrible presidential candidates.

To answer your question, in the perfect world, personally - I would think an insurance plan of sorts for unemployment would be wise - even if it's publicly run. Although I'd prefer private. I also think if government wasn't so involved in welfare, private enterprise and charity could/would help more - as would communities - the wealthy in particular. I don't think public welfare ceasing to exist would leave a vacuum as most do - charity and private markets, people would fill the hole. I also think welfare breeds dependence - this is particularly true when run by government, and still true - but to a lesser extent when received through private enterprise or handouts. Just like my child can be misled into thinking she's entitled to this or that without working for it, so can a grown up. That's my take.

The job though. That's what gets people out. Working for your own money. Knowing that it's not easy but appreciating every cent. That's what changes people's situations.

People can have different views on how one can get the job - as both candidates do. But, anyone (not saying you did this) who acts like handouts by government are preferred to even the lowest or low jobs has entitlement issues, and is probably a spoiled brat.