Mitt Romney calls half of America freeloaders

[Thepaindispenser]

Originally Posted by Danzig

yeah, he just said 'it's not my job to worry about them'.


and mitt romney doesn't give a rats ass about you or anyone. he wants to be president-the only people he will worry about helping are those like him. and that doesn't include you, or me, or anyone else who isn't a rich guy like him.

That is not what he said. He said it wasn't his job to worry about getting them to vote for him, take another listen to it.

[geeker2]

Originally Posted by Thepaindispenser

That is not what he said. He said it wasn't his job to worry about getting them to vote for him, take another listen to it.

Zig after you see the actual words - what is so terrible about the way he answered a specific question ?


http://www.motherjones.com/politics/...y-secret-video

Audience member: For the last three years, all everybody's been told is, "Don't worry, we'll take care of you." How are you going to do it, in two months before the elections, to convince everybody you've got to take care of yourself?

Romney: There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe that government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you name it. That that's an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what. And I mean, the president starts off with 48, 49, 48—he starts off with a huge number. These are people who pay no income tax. Forty-seven percent of Americans pay no income tax. So our message of low taxes doesn't connect. And he'll be out there talking about tax cuts for the rich. I mean that's what they sell every four years. And so my job is not to worry about those people—I'll never convince them that they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives. What I have to do is convince the 5 to 10 percent in the center that are independents that are thoughtful, that look at voting one way or the other depending upon in some cases emotion, whether they like the guy or not, what it looks like. I mean, when you ask those people…we do all these polls—I find it amazing—we poll all these people, see where you stand on the polls, but 45 percent of the people will go with a Republican, and 48 or 4…

[Recording stops.]

[Riot]

The economy is steamrolling ahead - Did you get your 13% raise this year?

(Reuters) - The net worth of the richest Americans grew by 13 percent in the past year to $1.7 trillion, Forbes magazine said on Wednesday, and a familiar cast of characters once again populated the top of the magazine's annual list of the U.S. uber-elite, including Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, Larry Ellison and the Koch brothers.

The average net worth of the 400 wealthiest Americans rose to a record $4.2 billion, the magazine said.

Collectively, this group's net worth is the equivalent of one-eighth of the entire U.S. economy, which stood at $13.56 trillion in real terms according to the latest government data.

But the 13 percent growth in the wealth of the richest Americans far outpaced that of the economy overall, helping widen the chasm between rich and poor.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...88I0WA20120919

[pointman]

Originally Posted by Riot

The economy is steamrolling ahead - Did you get your 13% raise this year?

(Reuters) - The net worth of the richest Americans grew by 13 percent in the past year to $1.7 trillion, Forbes magazine said on Wednesday, and a familiar cast of characters once again populated the top of the magazine's annual list of the U.S. uber-elite, including Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, Larry Ellison and the Koch brothers.

The average net worth of the 400 wealthiest Americans rose to a record $4.2 billion, the magazine said.

Collectively, this group's net worth is the equivalent of one-eighth of the entire U.S. economy, which stood at $13.56 trillion in real terms according to the latest government data.

But the 13 percent growth in the wealth of the richest Americans far outpaced that of the economy overall, helping widen the chasm between rich and poor.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...88I0WA20120919

The gap between the rich and poor grew more between 2009-2010 than it did between 2002-2007, but you shockingly left that fact out. Now you are telling us it has grown even further this year.

The numbers point to the gap growing larger between the rich and poor to be the result of Obama's policies, not Republican's. How inconvenient for you.

[Clip-Clop]

Originally Posted by pointman

The gap between the rich and poor grew more between 2009-2010 than it did between 2002-2007, but you shockingly left that fact out. Now you are telling us it has grown even further this year.

The numbers point to the gap growing larger between the rich and poor to be the result of Obama's policies, not Republican's. How inconvenient for you.

This is one puppet in the oval office who knows who is pulling the strings! Strong work right there.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by pointman

The gap between the rich and poor grew more between 2009-2010 than it did between 2002-2007, but you shockingly left that fact out. Now you are telling us it has grown even further this year.

The numbers point to the gap growing larger between the rich and poor to be the result of Obama's policies, not Republican's. How inconvenient for you.

If it were not for straw men you've have no friends but your Sockpuppet.

I didn't "leave anything out", considering I didn't write the article - I merely posted a newspaper article referencing current conditions with no comment.

The redistribution of income, the languishing pay and purchasing power of the middle class, while productivity has soared while money has concentrated among the wealthy, has been occurring since the late 1960's. And yes, there has been plenty published on Derby Trail about how that has happened.

Your comment about Obama's policies is interesting - which specific policies have done that? Do tell.

[pointman]

Originally Posted by Riot

If it were not for straw men you've have no friends but your Sockpuppet.

I didn't "leave anything out", considering I didn't write the article - I merely posted a newspaper article referencing current conditions with no comment.

The redistribution of income, the languishing pay and purchasing power of the middle class, while productivity has soared while money has concentrated among the wealthy, has been occurring since the late 1960's. And yes, there has been plenty published on Derby Trail about how that has happened.

Your comment about Obama's policies is interesting - which specific policies have done that? Do tell.

Shocking that you would resort to insults when you attempt to mislead people reading here with a distortion of facts, just like you did with Clip earlier in the thread. As usual you resort to the sock puppet nonsense when you can't counter with facts. By the way, sock puppet is two words, not one genius. What next, are you going to infer I am a racist like you did with Clip?

You added your clear insinuation that a vote against Obama is a vote to increase the gap in income inequality, you didn't just post an article. You are a pathetic bully who is a fraud.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by geeker2

Zig after you see the actual words - what is so terrible about the way he answered a specific question ?


http://www.motherjones.com/politics/...y-secret-video

Audience member: For the last three years, all everybody's been told is, "Don't worry, we'll take care of you." How are you going to do it, in two months before the elections, to convince everybody you've got to take care of yourself?

Romney: There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe that government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you name it. That that's an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what. And I mean, the president starts off with 48, 49, 48—he starts off with a huge number. These are people who pay no income tax. Forty-seven percent of Americans pay no income tax. So our message of low taxes doesn't connect. And he'll be out there talking about tax cuts for the rich. I mean that's what they sell every four years. And so my job is not to worry about those people—I'll never convince them that they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives. What I have to do is convince the 5 to 10 percent in the center that are independents that are thoughtful, that look at voting one way or the other depending upon in some cases emotion, whether they like the guy or not, what it looks like. I mean, when you ask those people…we do all these polls—I find it amazing—we poll all these people, see where you stand on the polls, but 45 percent of the people will go with a Republican, and 48 or 4…

[Recording stops.]

i have an issue with someone saying that every voter for his opponent is on the govt teat. it's completely incorrect. and it shows his lack of understanding of the country in general, and the population in particular.

a lot of people who 'depend' on the govt are actually largely republican voters. the man was kowtowing to his audience. he already said in the past he's not worried about the poor, now he's not worried about anyone who he feels would vote for obama.
that doesn't leave very many people for him to worry about, does it?
personally, i don't think many politicians really give a damn about any of us. they only care about themselves.
i'm not anti mitt because of that speech. i won't vote for him because of his stance on things, which i've already posted about.
and i have no doubt everyone has seen my take on obama...so like i said elsewhere, i will be voting for a third party candidate.

[geeker2]

Originally Posted by Danzig

i have an issue with someone saying that every voter for his opponent is on the govt teat. it's completely incorrect. and it shows his lack of understanding of the country in general, and the population in particular.

a lot of people who 'depend' on the govt are actually largely republican voters. the man was kowtowing to his audience. he already said in the past he's not worried about the poor, now he's not worried about anyone who he feels would vote for obama.
that doesn't leave very many people for him to worry about, does it?
personally, i don't think many politicians really give a damn about any of us. they only care about themselves.
i'm not anti mitt because of that speech. i won't vote for him because of his stance on things, which i've already posted about.
and i have no doubt everyone has seen my take on obama...so like i said elsewhere, i will be voting for a third party candidate.