Obama should have went on the Kelly Ripa and Michael Strahan show. Everyone knows that where the cool kids go, right Mitt?

http://dailycaller.com/2012/09/18/em...to-spin-press/...speaking of media matters..:rolleyes:

You then are the one that needs to go back and read what Mitt said. They are included in the 47% along with someone working 2 minimum wage jobs and receiving food stamps trying to feed their family cause they lost thier job of 40 years to line Mitts pockets because Bain came in and inflicted their Pain and outsourced their entire division to India.

I never said unemployed people are freeloaders, there are plenty of unemployed people out there who would love to be working but Obama has failed them. A freeloader is someone who takes from the government and makes no effort to compete.

Dear Pain,

It's not about you bro. It's Mitt the true FinancialPainDispenser everyone is talking about. I guess it is a Generation Me thing.

Regards,
Jms62

I know what he said, he said people dependent on government would most likely vote for Obama. He never said anything about not working for them or that he wouldn't help them as President. He was talking about voting and he is right there are too many freeloaders in this country leeching off of us hardworking taxpayers. If you want to keep going towards Europe's culture of dependency which breeds malaise, no growth, a lower standard of living, laziness, no charity, selfishness, and an upper class which consists of politicians then go ahead and vote for Obama.

I would rather vote for the guy who has the guts to standby his comments of the problem of too many people being dependent on government than the one who runs away from his comment on hardworking people not building their businesses when you know he meant it.

Sorry I disagree, I don't think hooking people on gov't dependency by throwing them some scraps so they can barely survive in exchange for their votes so those politicians can live the high life off of our money while shrinking the overall pie and lowering the standard of living for everyone is the answer. Europe has tried it and they are going broke. They would have gone broke a lot sooner if we hadn't paid for their defense all these years.

Dude Guys like Mitt borrowing at low rates from banks which borrow at even lowernrates from the Fed which is my and your tax dollars buying companies and setting themselves up wit huge managment fees, firing people and shipping jobs overseas which means less money going into our economy and taxes and more money spent in unemployment for them is the problem. He is a Vampire sucking capital out our economy for himself. Does not sound presidential to me.

I think you are giving a bit of exaggerated view of what companies like Bain Capital actually do. There are plenty of private equity firms who buy companies in my business and keep them here. Cory Booker knows it, companies like this are needed to clean up inefficient companies and keep them floating, it doesn't always work.

No I am not at all. You are stuck in the 80's Michael Douglas movie where "Greed is Good"; Where "Trickle Down" didn't mean PISS on. Now it is all about clear cutting and strip mining the American Economy for the benefit of a privliged few and leaving a vast barren wasteland in your swath. If that wasn't the case then WHY THE **** ARE WE Here right now? And you want to put someone in Office that was a CHIEF Engineer of that methodology, Someone who thinks Banks are Overregulated even after they gutted us?? Are you serious?

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics...pital-20120829

Again I disagree with you. You are putting way too much trust in an incompetent and corrupt government to help people. If big government really helps people then why does every blighted and crime-ridden area in this country consistently vote Democrat and every single one of those areas, with the exception of the non-government phenomenon of gentrification, get poorer and more crime-ridden?

Like I said I don't think shrinking the pie and having an all powerful government decide who gets what is the answer.

It wasn't banks that got us into this mess, it was Democrats forcing banks to lend money for mortgages to people who never had a chance of repaying them. Who said banks shouldn't be regulated to some degree? However this current Dodd-Frank thing is a disaster, it leaves to-big-to-fail in there and it is designed to make the banks dependent on the politicians so that they can fatten their campaign coffers with cash.

Oh Really!!!???
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GkAtUq0OJ68

Oh My.... http://www.hark.com/clips/wspcywglfn-down-goes-frazier

You are right Bush was behind it at some point, but when he did call from some accountability for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the likes of Barney Frank ignored it.

Bill Clinton and his HUD Secretary Andrew Cuomo are the ones who started the push. Barney Frank and organizations like ACORN are the ones who really forced it on the banks.

By the way, that also shows you what a phony liar Bill Clinton is when he goes on TV hawking for Obama by saying the Romney's policies are the ones that got us in the mess. Clinton started this ridiculous push for home ownership by people who couldn't afford it and he signed the repealing of Glass-Steagel. Just like Clinton, never let those pesky facts get in the way of his rhetoric.

Let's try this again. YOU said all of the lazy freeloaders are voting for Obama, which is obviously not true.

So, in red dominated states, with those unemployment rates, wouldn't common sense lead you to think there is a decent number of freeloaders as well?

The point is there are (a lot) freeloaders on both sides. The right doesn't like talking about and you'll never see Fox News talk about it, but let's pretend it doesn't happen.

Oy vey.

Pot meet kettle.

Interesting Norman Mailer quote turned up on 'Word of the Day' digest today that is obviously germane to current debate.

To blame the poor for subsisting on welfare has no justice unless we are also willing to judge every rich member of society by how productive he or she is. Taken individual by individual, it is likely that there's more idleness and abuse of government favors among the economically privileged than among the ranks of the disadvantaged.

Norman Mailer (1923-2007)

Steve you are spending a lot of time on the wrong side of the tracks lately... Things should get explosive down here in the next 2 months.

How would the productivity of the rich be measured? By how many they employ in their own companies or maintain in the jobs they have with others? How much $ they put into the economy?
I have no doubt that the ultra wealthy are abusing the system but not "rich" people that have a household income of 250K, those are generally the people that are working the hardest and seeing the least benefits.

I am not so sure, I think other than a small number of true believers most of the populace is seeing these two for what the really are, the same.

you do know that george bush also went on letterman? your complaint is ridiculous. i have no doubt that when bush was in office, you probably defended him when he took a vacation, or went golfing, when anyone of the opposite political persuasion griped. there are always issues to take care of-no one can stay 'on the job' 24-7, it would kill them.
and obama is the most divisive? based on what? many presidents have entered office without earning a sizable majority. for many, they barely squeaked into office, or it took bargaining.. it's not a recent, new thing going on.
go check out jefferson vs burr, john q adams vs clay and jackson. there are plenty of historical facts out there that would probably help you gain perspective.