Obama Failure Thread Part V

Why? There is nothing in Romney's past that indicates that he has any idea of what to do with a government to spur economic growth. All he has are tax cuts, and the proven falsehood that tax cuts have any effect on investment or growth. He wants to cut capital gains to 0%, which will certainly mean a lot of people cashing out their investments to spend on something, but I'm not sure how many jobs it will create.

Romney hasn't had anything resembling a job since 2007, and that job was as a governor! He is not only out of touch with the average American working stiff, he also has no idea what the market has been like the last 8 years.

I have a small business too, and I can tell you that health care is our primary issue luring new employees, because they'd rather stay with a large company that offers more options. If there was a public option, or if it was illegal to offer health care as part of benefits packages, my company would grow by leaps and bounds. In fact, the entrepreneurial spirit of America would take off, because in many cases people can't start companies because they don't want the risk of losing their health care benefits.

 

Since the Democrats will retain the Senate, do you hold a hypothetical President Romney pre-emptively responsible for not repealing Obamacare???

 

no kidding. I also had no problem with his initial statement of "no matter what I say 47% of people will vote for "him" instead", fair enough - it was all the shit he said after that that got me riled up, when he also classified all those people as refusing or just plain unable to take personal responsibility and all being greedy moochers who thought they all deserved free stuff from the government just because they might take some temporary assistance, or have the gall to be retired or a disabled veteran.
Even though they all probably "took" less on their taxes for that stuff than he did by claiming his stupid horse as a tax deduction.

 

I can't rep this enough.

My biggest issue with the Republican party today is their belief that all rich people earned it and if you are not rich you are in the "Free Shit Army," and sit around all day collecting money from people at work. This colors every piece of their policy - don't have health care? You must be a mooch. Can't afford private college? Lazy. Can't find a job in the worst economy in decades? Go and try, you shiftless bastard.

There are a lot of people that are not rich, my friend, and they are better people than corporations.

But 47% of the people believe this crap, and I can't get them to empathize with their fellow Americans, so screw em.

 

Here is the exact transcript of the infamous speech.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/09/full-transcript-mitt-romney-secret-video

He is talking about people that are jobbing the system, not people that are trying to better themselves.

 

Exactly. In his mind's eye, half the friggin country is trying to game the system. Half. It is only the benevolence of the Romney's and the Kochs that keeps all of us losers from circling the drain. If only we would just say, "thank you Mitt!" and be on our way.

 

But the point is that he thinks 47% of the people are jobbing the system.

Of course it's not "jobbing the system" when you have well-paid accountants who help you do it.

 

so the IRS is a job creator?

 

When was/is/will be a good moment to tackle the Healthcare issue? There have been numerous attempts and the issue has ballooned up to 18% of GDP.

Which background? Missionary/Bishop? Venture/vulture Capitalist? Moderate Governor of a Liberal State with a so-so record? Failed candidate for most of the last 18 years?

How do you feel about the rest of the statement? Moochers that feel entitled to jobs, food.. you name it!!!!

So hiring people does not spur employement?

You built that… with a little help from government!!!

So you are willing to invest X amount to keep your workforce under 50 employees and save yourself $40k? Does the math add up?

The same way the Bush policies ended up in the biggest recession in 80 years….

 

So? While there certainly are some people out there who are "jobbing the system" and would fall into the "mooch" category, it is nowhere near the 47% threshold he cites. It would have to be a pretty small % of the overall populace. If you don't understand why so many people took offiense to that, I don't know what to tell you.

Basically, every candidate has a base, people who will vote for them no matter what, and then there are those in the middle who can go either way. Romney is lumping anyone who supports Obama -- for any number of reasons -- into that "mooch" category. It is almost as if there couldn't be any possible other reason a sane person would vote for the guy. It has to be because the gub-mint is giving away free stuff, because otherwise, they all would be Republicans, right?

 

Am I following correctly? It seems like Stanger is also accepting that 47% at face value, meaning that he believes 47% of all Americans are on the dole. Surely that can't be right. Surely Stanger can't be that misinformed?

 

Stanger believes people aren't entitled to food. Let's just leave it at that.

 

looks like fox news and Breitbart are selectively quoting Bill Clinton in ohio.
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2012/10/18/right-wing-media-use-cropped-video-to-manufactu/190744


partial quote

full quote

 

He is saying there is a percentage of the public that isn't going to vote against getting something for free. His 47% is in all likelihood high, but I think it's higher than what you think it is. You have seen the video from his inauguration and the Obamaphone video from this year, right?

And I couldn't care less about it "helping me" on some internet forum that leans heavily left.

 

No, just you Brummie. Just you.

 

What are they getting free? That number isn't "people on welfare," it's "people not paying federal income tax." Hell, it's not even people paying NO income tax.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57515033-503544/fact-checking-romneys-47-percent-comment/

 

They're entitled to food. They just have to pay for it.

 

Do you consider people getting social security or medicare as getting something for free? How about VA benefits? Free again? Sorry man, you usually discuss within the realm of sanity, but "in all likelihood" 47% is high? In all likelihood, you are high if you think it comes anywhere near that. You (and he) are talking about half of the country. The vast majority of that number that doesn't pay tax or working people. Working people who qualify for the EIC that was established by republicans. I'm sorry, but I'm getting fed up with Romney and his supporters acting like the stars of an Ayn Rand novel. The media hates them. They carry all of the rest of us. If anyone acts like victims it is Romney and friends.

 

George McGovern On The Failure To Tame The Military Industrial Complex

Over the course of his career, McGovern made a lot of arguments that I personally find unpersuasive. But he sure did get the most important issue of his time right. Think of all the Americans who'd be alive today if the country had listened to McGovern rather than his opponents about the Vietnam War. Think of all the veterans who'd have been better off. Think of how many Vietnamese civilians would've been spared death by napalm. But America didn't listen.

The country would eventually come to see Vietnam as a mistake.

But ours is a people who are dismissive of men who lose presidential elections. We behave as though electoral outcomes discredited their ideas, even on matters where they're ultimately proved right....

....

After Obama took office, McGovern wrote him an open letter, published in Harper's magazine, that said, "When I entered the U.S. Senate in 1963, the defense budget was $51 billion. This was at a time when our military experts felt it necessary to have the means to win a war against the combined powers of Russia and China. Today we have a military budget of over $700 billion, and yet neither Russia nor China threatens us, if indeed they ever did. Nor does any other nation."

Once again, few Americans are listening.

It's strangely common to think of men defeated in presidential elections as losers, though they are invariably men who'd be regarded as especially accomplished if they'd never run for the office. McGovern was a decorated combat veteran, a college professor, a three term senator, and a humanitarian who worked for years to alleviate global hunger, among other things. As he lays dying in hospice, his country remains as beholden to the military industrial complex as ever, years after the decisive defeat of its only credible geopolitical foe. When the obituaries are published, they'll note McGovern's electoral loss. It's far less likely that they'll note the two ruinous wars America would've been spared had its leaders and voters taken McGovern's advice.

The failure wasn't his, it was ours.​

​

 

There are people that are on government assistance that need it. There are also people that get government assistance that don't need it. Again, is the 47% high? Probably. That's right, I said probably because we just don't know for sure. I have had employees get in trouble because they were on disability, getting a few thousand a month for free, and gave me their kids SS# so they could work. I had an employee file a Workers Comp claim after he nicked his finger on a saw, which was fine, but then 9 months later tell me he was quitting because he is getting full disability payments and didn't need to work. Another employee told me he was getting food stamps when I was paying him $17 an hour for 40 hours a week and his wife was also employed with health benefits. How he qualified I have no idea.

Those are the people I am talking about. It happens more than you think.

 

So you have lets say 49 employees (based on your other comments) plus yourself working at your company. One of them is trying to milk the system...

1/50 = 47%

 

Just as there are people who maneuver their finances so they can take every tax write-off available to them even when they don't need it. Some even run for president.