View Full Version : Romney is funny
spence 08-25-2012, 09:06 AM He goes on the stump and drops the Birther card. No, really!
Four Laughable Explanations for Mitt Romney's Birther Joke (http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2012/08/24/four_laughable_explanations_for_mitt_romney_s_birt her_joke.html)
Then he says he believes Obama was born in the US.
Then he says it was just a joke and he'd like everyone to put his and Obama's past behind them and focus on the issues.
Stuff like this will kill him with the independent voters.
-spence
scottw 08-25-2012, 09:30 AM He goes on the stump and drops the Birther card. No, really!
Four Laughable Explanations for Mitt Romney's Birther Joke (http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2012/08/24/four_laughable_explanations_for_mitt_romney_s_birt her_joke.html)
Then he says he believes Obama was born in the US.
Then he says it was just a joke and he'd like everyone to put his and Obama's past behind them and focus on the issues.
Stuff like this will kill him with the independent voters.
-spence
I watched it....horribly offensive and will probably derail the entire campaign...weren't both Presidential candidates asked about their birth certificates the last time around and wasn't the republican the first to be asked about his birthplace or certificate?...maybe he's just getting that one out of the way:) probably very smart and prudent:uhuh:
McCain's Birth Abroad Stirs Legal Debate (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/01/AR2008050103224.html)
spence 08-25-2012, 09:38 AM I watched it....horribly offensive and will probably derail the entire campaign...
You're missing the point. Romney can't come off as genuine even when he's trying...and you guys think Obama is fake. I'm really surprised actually that he'd go there.
And the Ryan addition looks like it will just highlight Romney's flip flops.
-spence
scottw 08-25-2012, 09:47 AM You're missing the point. Romney can't come off as genuine even when he's trying...and you guys think Obama is fake. I'm really surprised actually that he'd go there.
And the Ryan addition looks like it will just highlight Romney's flip flops.
-spence
that's at least one point of view...cheers!
striperman36 08-25-2012, 09:51 AM You're missing the point. Romney can't come off as genuine even when he's trying...and you guys think Obama is fake. I'm really surprised actually that he'd go there.
And the Ryan addition looks like it will just highlight Romney's flip flops.
-spence
I did think it was a pretty crude attempt at pokin Obama
and the guy gets offended about askin for tax returns and he said that we should let Detroit go bankrupt after getting a bailout at Bain.
Do as I say not as I do
Fly Rod 08-25-2012, 10:52 AM He had a GREAT SPEECH today....He will be the next president....regardless of the birth certificate remark.
Barry is a fake
How anyone can support Romney after his history at Bain Capital or what ever that place is spelled is beyond me... Lets see.. Bain Capital buys a company, fires everyone and outsources the jobs overseas..
mmmm yeah.. thats patriotic. :rotf2:
Sea Dangles 08-25-2012, 11:58 AM Running a business is about the bottom line,when a new leader comes in loyalty is not the issue.Profit margin is pretty much the only factor stockholders are concaerned with.
Romney has business experience
Romney knows youmust balance a checkbook
Romney will not tolerate giving money to the sad sacks of society
So all the armchair patriots who drive imported automobiles or hire immigrants workers on the cheap can speak up about how to be an American.
If Obama is still inspiring hope with anyone,raise your hand and be ridiculed.
striperman36 08-25-2012, 12:03 PM there is no inspiration in this election
Jackbass 08-25-2012, 04:37 PM Stuff like this will kill him with the independent voters.
-spence
Yeah because all the good things Obama has done over the past four years are going to be difficult to overcome.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
scottw 08-25-2012, 04:49 PM Yeah because all the good things Obama has done over the past four years are going to be difficult to overcome.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
best four years of your life...except you might not be smart enough to know or understand why...that's the schtick :uhuh:
B O should be grateful for this "off color humor" ...it might not only help with independents but also with his lackluster fundraising
“Governor Romney has embraced the most strident voices in his party instead of standing up to them,” Obama campaign spokesman Ben LaBolt said in an e-mail. “But Governor Romney’s decision to directly enlist himself in the birther movement should give pause to any rational voter across America.”
The Obama forces followed up with its appeal for money. An e-mail sent by Jim Messina, the campaign’s manager, reprised the birth certificate remark and asks recipients to “take a moment or two to think about that, what he’s actually saying and what it says about Mitt Romney.”
It then asked for donations of $3 or more.
JohnnyD 08-25-2012, 08:29 PM Stuff like this will kill him with the independent voters.
-spence
Not as much as an election year of pander to Independents, with talks about crossing the aisle, and then doing the exact opposite for the last 4 years will do to Obama.
detbuch 08-25-2012, 09:38 PM How anyone can support Romney after his history at Bain Capital or what ever that place is spelled is beyond me... Lets see.. Bain Capital buys a company, fires everyone and outsources the jobs overseas..
mmmm yeah.. thats patriotic. :rotf2:
His record at Bain was largely successful. The company you refer to, and which Obama campaign spews the drivel that you have bought into, GS Steel, was already on the verge of collapse when Bain invested in it, in order to return it to profitability. Actually, Bain kept the company running for seven years longer that it would have if it hadn't taken over. We were being flooded with cheap steel imports during this period and many steel companies (about 30) went out of business. Bain was accused of loading the company with debt in order to suck money out of it for consulting fees, etc. But GS Steel had outdated equipment, was in financial difficulty due to the cheap imports, so money had to be borrowed to update the company and grow it to a competitive size if it was to be profitable. So the Obama campaign team accused it of being driven by greed and profits rather than caring about jobs. It is obvious that the nature of business is driven by profit. Without profit there would be no jobs. The investment failed and the company went bankrupt. The jobs from GS Steel were not outsourced overseas.
As an interesting sidenote to Obama's team painting Bain as an evil vampire that sucks the life out of business, so far Obama has received $150,000 in campaign contributions from Bain. Democrats have received more contributions from Bain than have Republicans. In the last three election cycles, Bain employees have given Democrats $1.2 million (mostly from top executives), and have given Republicans over $480,000. Obama, in spite of defining Bain as greedy corporate job destroyers, has hired Bain executives to help his administration or his campaign. He named Boris Borshteyn, a former consultant for Bain Capital, to head the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. In Jan. 2012 he named Jeffrey Zients as his acting budget chief. Zients worked at Bain & Co. from 1988 to 1990. And Obama hired Jonathan Levine as his major fund raiser for his campaign. Levine is the person who was ACTUALLY in charge of Bain Capital at the time GS Steel went bankrupt. So Obama hires the man who was actually in charge during the time when he accuses Romney of being responsible for the layoffs.
spence 08-26-2012, 08:10 AM Not as much as an election year of pander to Independents, with talks about crossing the aisle, and then doing the exact opposite for the last 4 years will do to Obama.
There are some interesting articles that discuss this very topic.
Supposing Obama Were a Bipartisan | The Weekly Standard (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/015/787iekqf.asp?nopager=1)
Why Did Obama?s Bipartisanship Fail? -- Daily Intel (http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2012/04/why-did-obamas-bipartisanship-fail.html)
-spence
JohnR 08-26-2012, 08:57 AM How anyone can support Romney after his history at Bain Capital or what ever that place is spelled is beyond me... Lets see.. Bain Capital buys a company, fires everyone and outsources the jobs overseas..
mmmm yeah.. thats patriotic. :rotf2:
True, but fortunately the man at the helm the past four years had vast business experience before entering public service, exceptional history of running successful organizations, and a generally positive track record of saving businesses with private sector funds.
Oh, wait.
Spence often highlights we are choosing the lesser of two evils - maybe he is right....
spence 08-26-2012, 09:10 AM Running a business is about the bottom line,when a new leader comes in loyalty is not the issue.Profit margin is pretty much the only factor stockholders are concaerned with.
Romney has business experience
So we should run the USA on the basis of shareholder value?
It is incredibly rare for a large company to have a compact with it's employees where everybody is genuinely in it to keep the ship afloat. Perhaps the only one I can think of is Lincoln Electric Corp...
Romney knows youmust balance a checkbook
Didn't MA lead the country in debt per person when he was Gov?
Romney will not tolerate giving money to the sad sacks of society
Sure he will.
It's easy to make grand promises about letting the poor fend for themselves when you're on the campaign trail pandering to ex-Palin devotees.
But once that decision will be recorded in real statistics of child malnourishment and homelessness under your watch things get a bit more tricky.
So all the armchair patriots who drive imported automobiles or hire immigrants workers on the cheap can speak up about how to be an American.
Every car these days is imported. Your GM or Ford is jacked with nearly 1/2 it's parts parts made in Mexico or other countries. That Toyota or BMW might have just been assembled by Americans in South Carolina, Indiana or Tennessee depending on the model.
If Obama is still inspiring hope with anyone,raise your hand and be ridiculed.
Bush wasn't inspiring hope in 2004 and yet he won. People don't vote for the best choice, they vote for the least worst choice.
-spence
spence 08-26-2012, 10:17 AM His record at Bain was largely successful.
While I would agree that calling out a single anecdote to pain a larger picture isn't exactly fair, I do think assessing what Romney might have really learned at Bain is fair in context of how he might apply it to Presidential leadership.
A large private equity firm like Bain isn't like a normal business. Certainly private equity serves a necessary purpose in the marketplace, but these organizations are known for pushing the envelope when it comes to secrecy, intentional organizational complexity and tax avoidance schemes.
Romney made a hell of a lot of money at Bain and by some reports continued to after he technically left the company. It's interesting that with the transparency which usually accompanies a Presidential nominee, we still understand very little about Romney's fortune.
That Romney is being so tight lipped on the subject does leave several questions lingering.
-spence
scottw 08-26-2012, 10:25 AM Bush wasn't inspiring hope in 2004 and yet he won. People don't vote for the best choice, they vote for the least worst choice.
-spence
when you are doing a decent job, inspiring hope isn't essential to getting re-elected....
when you are doing a lousy job...well...you say stuff like this
AP Interview: Obama Says Romney Holds "Extreme" Views | RealClearPolitics (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/08/26/ap_interview_obama_says_romney_holds_extreme_views _115212.html)
this election will be about changing vectors....we know where the current vector is taking us and consistently 60% don't like the current vector RealClearPolitics - Election Other - Direction of Country (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/direction_of_country-902.html)
....which means that the guy resposible for the current vector in large part is going to have to convince most of the country that it makes sense to continue on, despite the lack of any substantial improvement now or on the horizon for the important indicators, or he's going to have to convince a majority that the vector proposed by his opponent will be worse...that'll be a tough sell, particularly if the current economic/employment vector continues to slide...
http://www.tnr.com/blog/plank/106512/you-are-probably-worse-you-were-four-years-ago
You Are Probably Worse Off Than You Were Four Years Ago
All told, this is a stunningly bad economic record for an incumbent president to run on. The fact that Obama’s still the favorite testifies to how uniquely terrible the Romney-Ryan ticket is, and perhaps also to how much blame extremist congressional Republicans deserve for consistently blocking nearly every plausible avenue to economic recovery. Still, there’s no avoiding the fact that the economy has worsened over four years for the typical American household, even as it has improved for the one percent. Thank goodness Mitt Romney is about the last person on earth who would ever want to point that discrepancy out.
spence 08-26-2012, 01:14 PM when you are doing a decent job, inspiring hope isn't essential to getting re-elected....
when you are doing a lousy job...well...you say stuff like this
AP Interview: Obama Says Romney Holds "Extreme" Views | RealClearPolitics (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/08/26/ap_interview_obama_says_romney_holds_extreme_views _115212.html)
Actually Obama appears quite lucid in that article. He's also exactly right, on big issues like abortion, immigration, health care etc... the GOP platform has taken a hard right stance which compared to Romney's history is quite a radical shift.
this election will be about changing vectors....we know where the current vector is taking us and consistently 60% don't like the current vector RealClearPolitics - Election Other - Direction of Country (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/direction_of_country-902.html)
....which means that the guy resposible for the current vector in large part is going to have to convince most of the country that it makes sense to continue on, despite the lack of any substantial improvement now or on the horizon for the important indicators, or he's going to have to convince a majority that the vector proposed by his opponent will be worse...that'll be a tough sell, particularly if the current economic/employment vector continues to slide...
I don't believe people assign the current vector to Obama, they're smart enough to understand the issues that face the country are much, much larger than the past 3+ years.
I also don't believe most people think the country needs a big ideological shift but rather just basic governmental responsibility. This is independent of party...
-spence
scottw 08-26-2012, 06:03 PM Actually Obama appears quite lucid in that article. yeah, "small" is the word I would use :uhuh: He's also exactly right, on big issues like abortion, immigration, health care etc... the GOP platform has taken a hard right stance which compared to Romney's history is quite a radical shift. where has the GOP platform shifted radically or otherwise on these BIG issues?
I don't believe people assign the current vector to Obama .....some applaud and some disdain the better living through more encompassing government vector...he is the assignee , they're smart enough to understand the issues that face the country are much, much larger than the past 3+ years. you (and Zimmy) can't seem to decide whether they're smart enough or not smart enough, either way another gross generalization :)
I also don't believe most people think the country needs a big ideological shift but rather just basic governmental responsibility. This is independent of party...if most people(reference the RCP poll) feel the country is headed in the wrong direction consistently over a long period, that might indicate the desire for a big idealogical shift which is actually not a shift but a return to our founding ideals and principles in response to the BIG idealogical shift currently being forced on us...most people can't help it, it's ingrained in us as Americans...at least "most people":uhuh:
-spence
tossing around the "extreme" card is a little silly and desperate sounding...it's been grossly overused :uhuh:
likwid 08-26-2012, 07:26 PM tossing around the "extreme" card is a little silly and desperate sounding...it's been grossly overused :uhuh:
Then stop using it.
Striper Talk Striped Bass Fishing, Surfcasting, Boating - Search Results (http://www.striped-bass.com/Stripertalk/search.php?searchid=1502503&photoplog_searchinfo=1&photoplog_searchquery=extreme)
:hihi:
scottw 08-26-2012, 07:52 PM Then stop using it.
Striper Talk Striped Bass Fishing, Surfcasting, Boating - Search Results (http://www.striped-bass.com/Stripertalk/search.php?searchid=1502503&photoplog_searchinfo=1&photoplog_searchquery=extreme)
:hihi:
you probably should have done a bit more investigation before posting that...
these are great examples of where extreme has appeared in my posts, can't promise I haven't used in the context I mentioned ("extreme" card) myself but ...truly apples and oranges as Spence would say
thanks to an extreme negative phase of the Arctic Oscillation
economic slumps by use of extreme monetary stimulus
“I am a socialist. I live to the extreme left, the extreme left of you mere liberals,” O'Donnell said:
Instead, privileged, wealthy, white Democrats attacked Brown as an "extreme right-wing" judge who didn't care about "civil rights" or the "down-trodden." They were unconstrained by accusations of racism and sexism.
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.) ridiculed Bush nominees including Brown, as "Neanderthals." He attacked Brown as "another extreme right-wing candidate ... a judicial activist who will roll back basic rights."
Sen. #^&#^&#^&#^& Durbin (D-Ill.) said: "Janice Rogers Brown is one of President Bush's most ideological and extreme judicial nominees."
but at least you got a self satisfied chuckle :)
oh, this is a good one where I quoted Spence
Originally Posted by spence
Any good engineer knows you make something better by taking it to the extreme to see where it breaks
and quoting the one and only Zimmy
Originally Posted by zimmy
and extreme eastern Montana
:hihi:
detbuch 08-26-2012, 08:53 PM While I would agree that calling out a single anecdote to pain a larger picture isn't exactly fair,
It isn't even inexactly fair, and in the case of Romney/Bain, the picture painted by Obama's team is a distortion verging on a lie.
I do think assessing what Romney might have really learned at Bain is fair in context of how he might apply it to Presidential leadership.
So now he must not only disclose tax returns, but also what he has learned? :confused: Perhaps Obama should disclose what he learned in college by disclosing his school records.
A large private equity firm like Bain isn't like a normal business. Certainly private equity serves a necessary purpose in the marketplace, but these organizations are known for pushing the envelope when it comes to secrecy, intentional organizational complexity and tax avoidance schemes.
You could say the same thing about most members of Congress. And tax avoidance "schemes" are available to everybody. There is an abundance of investment firms, estate planners, and tax preparers who advertise their ability to shelter your income from taxes. If venture capital firms "are known for pushing the envelope when it comes to secrecy," perhaps they are merely exercising their 14th Ammendment right to privacy, as do those who get abortions. You imply that there may be some unnamed thing wrong, or perhaps illegal(?) about these things.
Romney made a hell of a lot of money at Bain and by some reports continued to after he technically left the company. It's interesting that with the transparency which usually accompanies a Presidential nominee, we still understand very little about Romney's fortune.
That Romney is being so tight lipped on the subject does leave several questions lingering.
-spence
Nor do we understand much about the fortunes of the vast majority of members of Congress, including Pelosi and Reid who shout for the disclosure of Romney's tax records for the last 10 years instead of only the two years that he is submitting. They submit financial disclosures that are required by Congress, but not tax records which are far fuller and more detailed. Their claim is that they are not running for President. Well, they have as much to do with tax policies, and maybe more, as the President. Why shouldn't We the People know what venture capital firms they invest in and in what tax schemes they take advantage of and in which offshore tax shelters?
You are typically vague on the subject of leaving several questions lingering. That the questions are posed originally by Romney's opponents also leaves questions lingering. Could it be that they want to see those tax records, as legal as they apparently are, to find "evidence" that Romney is not "in touch" with the rest of us. That he is one of the rich one percenters who get special tax breaks and don't live by the same rules that the rest of us have to live by. Is that also why Pelosi and Reid and most members of Congress refuse to release their tax records? Nancy Pelosi's husband heads one of those super secretive venture capital firms, and the details of his tax records are not being disclosed in her financial disclosure to Congress. Yet they can accuse Romney of the same "secrecy" because they are not running for President?
likwid 08-27-2012, 06:03 AM you probably should have done a bit more investigation before posting that...
these are great examples of where extreme has appeared in my posts, can't promise I haven't used in the context I mentioned ("extreme" card) myself but ...truly apples and oranges as Spence would say
boring wall of text proving scottw doesn't fish
go fishing.
scottw 08-27-2012, 06:18 AM go fishing.
I accept your apology...fishing was great this weekend, got my neighbor and his boy out on their yak alongside one of my daughters and I for a great morning Sunday, they're addicted now, fun to see....Saturday morning produced bigger fish though......one of the twins is already got me scheduled to fish this afternoon..... so I guess I appreciate your advice but I've got that covered :)
Sea Dangles 08-27-2012, 06:33 AM So we should run the USA on the basis of shareholder value?
It is incredibly rare for a large company to have a compact with it's employees where everybody is genuinely in it to keep the ship afloat. Perhaps the only one I can think of is Lincoln Electric Corp...
Didn't MA lead the country in debt per person when he was Gov?
Sure he will.
It's easy to make grand promises about letting the poor fend for themselves when you're on the campaign trail pandering to ex-Palin devotees.
But once that decision will be recorded in real statistics of child malnourishment and homelessness under your watch things get a bit more tricky.
Every car these days is imported. Your GM or Ford is jacked with nearly 1/2 it's parts parts made in Mexico or other countries. That Toyota or BMW might have just been assembled by Americans in South Carolina, Indiana or Tennessee depending on the model.
Bush wasn't inspiring hope in 2004 and yet he won. People don't vote for the best choice, they vote for the least worst choice.
-spence
When he ran that company he was not auditioning for the presidency,he was merely trying to make it profitable.
Debt per person isa deceiving statistic if you don't understand what debt really is;wealthy people can incur more more debt as a result of their wealth and per capita income. (see CT)
Spence,like most dems the picture you paint regarding the nations sad sacks is purely sensationalism.Put the broad brush away,anyone with common sense can understand there is too much abuse of the current system.The Palin comment is puzzling to me but typical of one who may be grasping at straws.
Thank you for explaining the ins and outs of car assembly but either you missed the point or didn't understand it.
Do you really think another 4 years of Obama is going to benefit the United States Jeff?
PaulS 08-27-2012, 06:55 AM Nothing more than a poor attempt at humour but also shows why there is no real connection btw him and the public.
RIJIMMY 08-27-2012, 12:21 PM Nothing more than a poor attempt at humour but also shows why there is no real connection btw him and the public.
FDR was one out greatest presidents, during one of our most troubling times. He was beyond rich and didnt earn it himself. He never knew a hard days work. Did he need to "connect" to the public?
This whole connection thing is marketing by the Dems. I guaranty 80% of Americans cant connect with Nancy Pelosi. I know very few who "connect" with Obama.
This is simple and should be an add by Romney. List all the current problems in the country - debt, unemployment , etc and then say you have 2 choices - list Obamas resume and list Romney's resume. Who in their right mind would hire a law professor and community organizer to solve this country's problems? It doesnt add up
Typhoon 08-27-2012, 01:47 PM Republicans don't represent me.
Democrats really don't represent me.
Who to vote for?
PaulS 08-27-2012, 02:02 PM Did he need to "connect" to the public?
But don't you think people are more apt to vote for someone they think can relate to them? Romney doesn't poll as good as Ryan or Obama on that. I see Ryan in a golf shirt and he seems comfortable - Romney looks more comfortable in a tie or a sports jacket.
JohnnyD 08-27-2012, 02:20 PM Republicans don't represent me.
Democrats really don't represent me.
Who to vote for?
Gary Johnson.
RIJIMMY 08-27-2012, 02:40 PM But don't you think people are more apt to vote for someone they think can relate to them? Romney doesn't poll as good as Ryan or Obama on that. I see Ryan in a golf shirt and he seems comfortable - Romney looks more comfortable in a tie or a sports jacket.
you're right
Typhoon 08-27-2012, 02:48 PM Gary Johnson.
Thinking of writing in Ron Paul.
justplugit 08-27-2012, 03:09 PM People don't vote for the best choice, they vote for the least worst choice.
-spence
Who are we kidding,in the real world, people will vote for the canidate who will most line
their pockets. :hihi:
likwid 08-27-2012, 07:30 PM Thinking of writing in Ron Paul.
Vote for Dom.
You know you want to. :hihi:
scottw 08-27-2012, 08:02 PM Nothing more than a poor attempt at humour .
maybe he got the memo:)
"There's really no way to make the conspiracy about President Obama's birth certificate completely go away, so we might as well laugh at it -- and make sure as many people as possible are in on the joke."
https://store.barackobama.com/madeintheusa/made-in-the-usa-button.html?source=socnet_20120827_BO_TW_MADE_IN_T HE_USA_BUTTONS_MERCH&utm_medium=tw&utm_source=bo_tw&utm_campaign=socnet_20120827_BO_TW_MADE_IN_THE_USA _BUTTONS_MERCH
scottw 08-28-2012, 01:57 AM He's also exactly right, on big issues like abortion, immigration, health care etc the GOP platform has taken a hard right stance which compared to Romney's history is quite a radical shift.
spence
not exactly....
"The 2012 platform adopted the identical pro-life language that has been in the platform since the late Rep. Henry Hyde inserted it in 1984 in Dallas."
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/aug/27/republican-party-platform-best-yet/
"The platform sections on immigration are examples of how closely social and fiscal issues and costs are intertwined. It is in favor of the rule of law, against any kind of amnesty, and supports requiring employers to use e-Verify to make sure their employees are legally in the United States. It also takes a strong stand for approving photo IDs before allowing someone to vote."
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/july_2012/most_voters_favor_photo_id_at_polls_don_t_see_it_a s_discrimination
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/immigration/august_2012/63_oppose_driver_s_licenses_public_benefits_for_il legal_immigrants_who_get_work_permits
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/immigration/august_2012/56_put_border_control_first
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/immigration/june_2012/55_want_u_s_supreme_court_to_uphold_arizona_immigr ation_law
"the platform calls for repealing Obamacare"
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/health_care_law\
"Most voters still support repeal of President Obama’s national health care law "
what was he "exactly right" about Spence?
what and where "exacty" is this "radical shift" and/or "hard right stance" in the GOP Platform ?
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_presidential_election/june_2012/47_consider_obama_s_political_views_extreme_31_say _same_of_romney
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/right_direction_or_wrong_track
spence 08-28-2012, 07:44 AM Nor do we understand much about the fortunes of the vast majority of members of Congress, including Pelosi and Reid who shout for the disclosure of Romney's tax records for the last 10 years instead of only the two years that he is submitting. They submit financial disclosures that are required by Congress, but not tax records which are far fuller and more detailed. Their claim is that they are not running for President. Well, they have as much to do with tax policies, and maybe more, as the President. Why shouldn't We the People know what venture capital firms they invest in and in what tax schemes they take advantage of and in which offshore tax shelters?
I'm not sure Harry Reid has that significant of a fortune so to speak. Pelosi is certainly loaded by comparison, although still nothing close to Romney.
The congressional disclosure might not be as clear as a tax return, but it does give a pretty good picture of where interests may lie. By contrast Romney is pretty much tight lipped saying his hundreds of millions are all in blind trusts. Go away, nothing to see here...
It's interesting as well he says he's said in the past that disclosing his returns isn't fair as it would show his tithing which is intended to be private, but yet he has disclosed some. So why not the others?
This really has nothing to do with privacy and everything to do with politics. Romney has largely built his fortune using tax schemes that even if legal are a prime example of the elite playing by a different set of rules than everybody else. Taxes are a big issue this election and under the GOP plan Romney would likely end up paying even LESS in a disproportionately dramatic manner.
If voters are going to make a decision based largely on trust, I'd like to see pretty much everything on the table.
-spence
Swimmer 08-28-2012, 09:03 AM How anyone can support Romney after his history at Bain Capital or what ever that place is spelled is beyond me... Lets see.. Bain Capital buys a company, fires everyone and outsources the jobs overseas..
mmmm yeah.. thats patriotic. :rotf2:
Yup, and NAFTA helped that become eben easier.
detbuch 08-28-2012, 10:48 AM I'm not sure Harry Reid has that significant of a fortune so to speak. Pelosi is certainly loaded by comparison, although still nothing close to Romney.
Harry Reid has far more than most of us and his position in Congress has helped him acquire it. Pelosi's husband heads Financial Leasing Services, Inc., a venture capital and real estate firm. Seeing as how venture capitalists are painted as highly secretive, tax scheming, financial vampires, shouldn't we get detailed tax returns included in her financial disclosures? And it is Congress that legislates tax policies, so congressional disclosures should be as detailed as presidential disclosures. Congress has more control of tax policies than the President, and can gain as much, or more, from their legislation than the President.
The congressional disclosure might not be as clear as a tax return, but it does give a pretty good picture of where interests may lie. By contrast Romney is pretty much tight lipped saying his hundreds of millions are all in blind trusts. Go away, nothing to see here...
Craig Holman, a gvt. affairs lobbyist for Public Citizen, a non-partisan watch dog group said "Senior public officials, especially members of Congress and presidential candidates, should be required to disclose their tax returns so that the public can monitor conflicts of interest." Congress has the power to legislate against "secret" tax shelters, and had it completely during Obama's first two years, but did no such thing. And it controls what members must financially disclose, but when it comes to tax returns, Congress is "tight lipped." Could it be that disclosures and restrictions would impede the personal gains of its members, who control tax policies? Yes.
Tax returns reveal assets and investments in a way congressional financial disclosures don't. Those disclosures offer no direct information on tax liabilities and no requirement for reporting spousal income other than the source, but not the amount of any income over $1,000. When it comes to valuation of investments or reporting income on the annual disclosure forms, only broad numbers such as between $250,000 and $500,000, or $1 million and $5 million, which makes it difficult to know how much a lawmaker will benefit from competing tax plans. Darrel West, a vice president of left leaning Brooking Institution, said that congressional financial disclosures don't provide the same level of detail as a tax return--which makes it difficult to determine how politicians will benefit from tax policies.
In a McClatchy investigation, only 17 of Congress's members gave their tax returns. The reporters requested returns, anonymously, to examine in detail how members would personally be affected by changes in tax laws, including income tax rates as well as capital gains and dividends and deductions for expenses. Most, including Pelosi, Reid, and Wasserman, the loudest callers for Romney's returns, chose to keep their tax liabilities a secret. Of the meager 17 who disclosed, most got large deductions for interest on personal and investment real estate.
It's interesting as well he says he's said in the past that disclosing his returns isn't fair as it would show his tithing which is intended to be private, but yet he has disclosed some. So why not the others?
Romney already has disclosed more tax returns than members of Congress who never had to disclose ANY, certainly not 10 years worth, when they ran for office, and only disclose annual disclosures which don't offer the detail necessary for voters to know how tax policies affect them. Detailed spousal incomes are not reported, and some have investments offshore, including Bermuda in which a Romney investment has been criticized.
This really has nothing to do with privacy and everything to do with politics. Romney has largely built his fortune using tax schemes that even if legal are a prime example of the elite playing by a different set of rules than everybody else. Taxes are a big issue this election and under the GOP plan Romney would likely end up paying even LESS in a disproportionately dramatic manner.
Exactly. Privacy is OK for some, but not others. It has everything to do with politics. Somehow, we are to believe that how Romney made his fortune will color how he operates as President. But that does not apply to members of Congress. They will, somehow, legislate for our benefit, whatever they define that to be, but Romney will line his pockets. Pelosi, Reid, Wasserman, et. al., will maintain their privacy and try to deny Romney's so that it will not be shown that they are "guilty" of some of the same things with which they wish to hammer him. I will give the congress persons the benefit of the doubt and assume that none of them has done anything illegal, but merely taken advantage of rules they created. Those are the same rules Romney followed.
The Founders were wealthy, and to a great extent on the basis of not being burdened with taxes. Yet we consider Washington to be our greatest President. How would he fair in today's political climate? Comparatively speaking, he was far wealthier than Romney. Did his wealth or tax evasion cause him to be a bad/unworthy/evil destroyer of the middle class for his own gain? Haven't most Presidents been wealthy? Do we assume that they sought the office to secure even more wealth? Didn't we once assume that wealthy candidates would be more trustworthy than poor ones, since they didn't need the money?
Romney made his under rules that he didn't create, and rules that Congress legislated, much to their own benefit. Are Congressional members in it for the money? Should we know all the details of their finances? Do you really believe that Romney cares that much about more wealth that he will risk his presidency by s#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&g more wealth from the middle class? Could it be that if indeed, Ryan's plan will allow him to pay even less taxes (Reid Claims he doesn't pay any now, how much less can you get) it would allow the economy to grow so that all will benefit?
If voters are going to make a decision based largely on trust, I'd like to see pretty much everything on the table.
-spence
If everything is on the table, then decisions will not be largely on trust. If you want to see everything on the table, that should apply to ALL politicians and judges.
spence 08-28-2012, 12:53 PM If everything is on the table, then decisions will not be largely on trust. If you want to see everything on the table, that should apply to ALL politicians and judges.
I'll certainly agree that those in positions of public authority should be held to a high standard. Congress has the ability to legislate away potential conflicts of interest which doesn't have any real value for their constituents.
But again the real issue here isn't privacy but policy. Interesting new Pew poll on American's opinions.
The poll found that many Americans believe rich people to be intelligent and hardworking but also greedy and less honest than the average American. Nearly six in 10, or 58 percent, say the rich don’t pay enough in taxes, while 26 percent believe the rich pay their fair share and 8 percent say they pay too much.
http://www.boston.com/business/personal-finance/taxes/2012/08/28/most-americans-say-the-rich-don-pay-enough-taxes/ZsJVhAL7JwWbMXavmT2CnN/story.html
-spence
detbuch 08-28-2012, 10:33 PM I'll certainly agree that those in positions of public authority should be held to a high standard. Congress has the ability to legislate away potential conflicts of interest which doesn't have any real value for their constituents.
But again the real issue here isn't privacy but policy. Interesting new Pew poll on American's opinions.
-spence
As far as policy being "the" issue, Congress has much power over policy, so should not be exempt from the same scrutiny as presidential candidates. But policy is not only the purview of all our governments from local to federal including all the branches of those governments, even their judiciarys, it also requires the participation of The People in and their influence on those governments. That participation and influence was originally intended to be more direct on, and closer to, those governments. It has progressively become more distant and indirect, almost to the point of subservience. We seem to lack the will, desire, or "time" to devote to the more constant participation that is demanded to preserve the power that once was bequeathed to us. We are hearded into polls structured to elicit responses which can be used as evidence to support "policies" concocted by distant, unelected bureaucrats--quite as Woodrow Wilson, one of the fathers of progressivism, said must be done to influence us in the direction of the will of the administrative state.
The Pew poll that you link doesn't impress me with a rational meaning to exist. What is the purpose of a poll of the opinions of a basically uninformed, uninvolved (except for personal gain) selection of people. You asked previously in this thread in a response to Sea Dangles "So we should run the U.S.A. on the basis of share holder value?" One might ask, in response to your linked poll "So, should we run the U.S.A. on the basis of polls?"
Was a poll like this done in 1800, or 1840, or 1875, 0r 1900, or 1932, or 1960? Would average American opinions of the rich been appreciably different in the past?
If it has any meaning, it is a blue print for waging class warfare. If polls show a "majority", or "most" Americans believe that the wealthy or Republicans "favor" or "will benefit" the wealthy if elected, then government by polls demands that we never elect a rich person or a Republican. And, after purging the rich and Republicans from government, we find that politicians still get wealthy and there is still disparity in income and wealth among the people, even though the income gap would have narrowed due to policies of middle class and poor politicians who favor the middle class and poor and which would have dwindled the rich class and its creation of wealth, there would obviously be more work to be done. The middle class, having more opportunity for education, employment and wealth (decreased as it might be) would by dint of greater intelligence and wealth than the poor, have more access to the seats of government, and by downsizing the economic scale due to the suppression of wealth, there would be less opportunity for the poor to rise out of poverty, so the income gap would again grow and the public opinion polls of the now greater numbers of poor would begin to resemble your poll, with the middle class now being the wealthy who could not be trusted as much as the poor, and who would be seen as greedy, and who would be viewed as favoring the middle class over the poor. So, by public opinion poll, the middle class would have to be purged from the functions of government, and the poor would rule, becoming more plentiful as wealth and greed, and dishonesty were removed from the seats of power, and what wealth remained, would be distributed to the poor, by poor politicians who favered and benefitted the poor. And the poor would multiply so that virtually all would be poor . . . and equal . . . so class warfare would no longer be necessary.
So, Spence,how should we run the U.S.A.? Might it be better to run it by a system of individual freedom to pursue individual dreams garanteed by immutable laws and inalienable rights? Or by the opinions of shifting majorities discerned by polls and an administrative system that directs the opinions to respond to such prefabricated polls?
Communism has been tried and been found very wanting. Socialism seems to work better for a longer period of time but then degrades in the direction of communism. Neither system satisfies the human potential and desires of disparate natures, of those with different inherent capabilities and the ensuing dreams of realizing those capabilities.
I know you've professed a desire for "fairness" and "responsibility" in government, but haven't stated how those would be achieved, nor even what they mean. So, Spence, how should we run the U.S.A.?
scottw 08-29-2012, 03:50 AM [QUOTE=detbuch;956049]The Pew poll that you link doesn't impress me with a rational meaning to exist. If it has any meaning, it is a blue print for waging class warfare. QUOTE]
:uhuh:
Quote:
The poll found that many Americans believe skinny people to be intelligent and hardworking but also greedy and less honest than the average American. Nearly six in 10, or 58 percent, say the skinny don’t eat enough, while 26 percent believe the skinny eat their fair share and 8 percent say they eat too much.
spence 08-30-2012, 04:29 PM When he ran that company he was not auditioning for the presidency,he was merely trying to make it profitable.
He was trying to deliver shareholder value. The point being that the type of leadership that requires might not be what the country needs, yet that's what he's selling...
Debt per person isa deceiving statistic if you don't understand what debt really is;wealthy people can incur more more debt as a result of their wealth and per capita income. (see CT)
The stat was state debt per capita. As I've noted this in the other thread there are many reasons for this, but if the current US debt is owned by Obama I'd think Romney would own MA at that time, and it wasn't that good.
Spence,like most dems the picture you paint regarding the nations sad sacks is purely sensationalism.Put the broad brush away,anyone with common sense can understand there is too much abuse of the current system.The Palin comment is puzzling to me but typical of one who may be grasping at straws.
There's abuse all around. For every welfare cheat or public employee with a fat pension you have corporate abuse of the same system.
Thank you for explaining the ins and outs of car assembly but either you missed the point or didn't understand it.
Then what was it?
Do you really think another 4 years of Obama is going to benefit the United States Jeff?
I'd like to see more leadership, but the proposed changes from the GOP I don't see as offering an attractive alternative. There's significant risk of making things even worse.
-spence
vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
|