Mitt Romney drumming up money with the well-heeled

[carlfense]

Hey! The Washington Post must be monitoring my HB posts.

Mitt Romney will probably get 95 electoral votes from ‘moocher’ states. Obama will probably get 5.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/09/18/mitt-romney-will-probably-get-95-electoral-votes-from-moocher-states-obama-will-probably-get-5/

 

I think it's time for the return of #Romneyshambles

[BigRedBuster]

 

second, bush won in 2000 by promising his tax cuts. by promising bigger refunds. so, the check that keeps coming, as you said.

 

 

This statement say so much. Honestly.....

 

So...a tax refund or a drop in taxes is relying on the government financially??? Really???

 

News flash, it isn't the governments money. If they allow you to keep more of YOUR money, that isn't living off the government. Taking someone else's money who worked hard for it and giving it to someone else is living off the government.

[knapplc]

Kinda like when I pay taxes for Secret Service personnel and Mitt Romney pays less taxes but uses more of America's resources? That kind of living off the government? Yeah, I hate that, too.

[NUpolo8]

Kinda like when I pay taxes for Secret Service personnel and Mitt Romney pays less taxes but uses more of America's resources? That kind of living off the government? Yeah, I hate that, too.

 

(redacted).

[knapplc]

I don't know why you edited out your agreement of that statement. I'm not going to get mad at you for saying I'm right.

[sd'sker]

 

 

second, bush won in 2000 by promising his tax cuts. by promising bigger refunds. so, the check that keeps coming, as you said.

 

 

 

This statement say so much. Honestly.....

 

So...a tax refund or a drop in taxes is relying on the government financially??? Really???

 

News flash, it isn't the governments money. If they allow you to keep more of YOUR money, that isn't living off the government. Taking someone else's money who worked hard for it and giving it to someone else is living off the government.

you brought up buying votes with checks, bush literally did that. that was my point. an unpaid tax cut means that money has to come from somewhere.

 

thanks for the news flash, so profound. here is another news flash: most of those 47% are just keeping there money, that is why everyone is so disgusted by romney's claim that they refuse to help themselves. you really think romney worked hard for his money?

 

also, i am still waiting for the SPECIFIC cuts you wish to make of people actually living off the gov't.

 

you know what says a lot, that i respond to each of your points (if you can even call them that) and you pick on one thing i say without any context.

 

but keep living in your fantasy world where this economy and our deficit is caused by the paltry amounts we actually spend on the underprivileged. that is a very convenient, albeit flawed, worldview. but it fits those who believe in their own superiority and entitlement, like those who romney was speaking to in the leaked video.

[huskerXman]

One last thing, no amount of taxing the rich will make the slightest change in the nation debt, PERIOD.

Despite the emphatic "PERIOD" . . . your statement is false.

Really? How so?

Mathematics.

 

 

Then you would have no problem showing me the calculations, right?

[Whistlebritches]

$2 of taxes paid is more than $1 of taxes paid which means the debt is $1 less.

 

It may be meaningless in the grand scheme of things but it's a change that reduces the debt. I don't understand what is so hard to understand about this. By your argument none of us should bother paying taxes because it's not enough to matter. Who cares if I only contribute 50% of what I should, right?

[knapplc]

$2 of taxes paid is more than $1 of taxes paid which means the debt is $1 less.

 

I love mathematics.

[Ziggy]

$2 of taxes paid is more than $1 of taxes paid which means the debt is $1 less.

 

I love mathematics.

 

Mathematics and that statement only work in a vacuum, so while that sounds logical all other variables have to remain constant for it to be true. Technically in a vacuum, if you do a simple (2-1)-(2-1)=0, the first being spending, the second being revenue. I love mathematics too. But all the same its a vacuum and is irreverent to the conversation.

[knapplc]

$2 of taxes paid is more than $1 of taxes paid which means the debt is $1 less.

 

I love mathematics.

 

Mathematics and that statement only work in a vacuum, so while that sounds logical all other variables have to remain constant for it to be true. Technically in a vacuum, if you do a simple (2-1)-(2-1)=0, the first being spending, the second being revenue. I love mathematics too. But all the same its a vacuum and is irreverent to the conversation.

 

Well, we wouldn't want this conversation to continue without due reverence. Should we genuflect, have a moment of silence, or just kneel? How reverent should we be here?

[carlfense]

$2 of taxes paid is more than $1 of taxes paid which means the debt is $1 less.

 

I love mathematics.

 

Mathematics and that statement only work in a vacuum, so while that sounds logical all other variables have to remain constant for it to be true. Technically in a vacuum, if you do a simple (2-1)-(2-1)=0, the first being spending, the second being revenue. I love mathematics too. But all the same its a vacuum and is irreverent to the conversation.

Your lack of appreciation for 1+1-1 > 1+0-1 is indeed irreverent.

[sd'sker]

I just love yellow journalism. Is this same person going to go into a closed door dinner with Dem donors and video tape what Obama says? Do you honestly think that what he says is nice and lovely???? Really???

 

Now, what he said is harsh and probably could have been worded differently.

 

HOWEVER, I agree with the general point. We have too many people who depend on the government. I am shocked anyone would claim otherwise. AND, I also agree that someone depending on the government is going to vote for who ever guarantees that check to keep coming.

Someone said that a large number of these people are retirees. True. But, a big problem we have is the social security system. It is going to go broke. Don't you think that if we take people out of the SS system that don't NEED the check would be a good thing? Yes, I'm talking about rich people who don't NEED the check.

 

We have too many people on the government pay check and the Dems have done a WONDERFUL job of buying all those votes by claiming the Republicans want to take away the pay check. Hmmm....harsh reality, to a certain extent we do unless you really need it.

 

For which, he stated that he is for the safety net for the people who really need it.

It's so easy for yellow journalists to make hay out of emotions from people who don't want to give up the pay check from the government.

 

fifth, what exactly do you want to take away? who exactly are those 'too many on the government pay check'? please, with links.

i am still waiting. i want to know who you think who the 'people who don't want to give up the pay check from the government' are and how big of a group it is.

[sd'sker]

 

 

second, bush won in 2000 by promising his tax cuts. by promising bigger refunds. so, the check that keeps coming, as you said.

 

 

 

This statement say so much. Honestly.....

 

So...a tax refund or a drop in taxes is relying on the government financially??? Really???

 

News flash, it isn't the governments money. If they allow you to keep more of YOUR money, that isn't living off the government. Taking someone else's money who worked hard for it and giving it to someone else is living off the government.

this has been bothering me so i am going to try to explain it for you a little better.

 

bush sold the american public on the notion that if elected they would get a tax refund (so people voted for him because of a promise of a paycheck, something you seem to have a problem with. although, i doubt that is the only reason people voted for bush, just as the reasons to vote of obama are far more complex and idiosyncratic), but under that auspice he was really just trying to pass a huge tax cut to the opulent minority. it was an unfunded tax cut that facilitated historic wealth redistribution to that opulent minority on the back of the middle class and our increasing debt. that is far worse, more irresponsible, and gravely out-of-line with true conservative values than 47% of americans not paying federal income tax and a sliver actually receiving money from the gov't to survive.

[strigori]

And here's another. Mitt's not doing damage-control, he's doubling down:

 

 

Romney Stands By Comments In Video

 

COSTA MESA, Calif.—Mitt Romney stood by his comments captured on a hidden camera at a closed-door fundraiser earlier this year in which he called supporters of President Barack Obama "victims" and said they are reliant on government handouts.

 

In a hastily arranged news conference Monday night, he called his words "off the cuff" and "not elegantly stated," but given several opportunities to back off the comments, he did not.

 

Romney said he was merely talking about the "political process of drawing people into my own campaign." He described the incident as a "snippet of a question and answer session" and called on the full video to be released to show the question and his response in its full context.

 

Mitt must be a Neil Young fan - "It's better to burn out than to fade away."

Or he might be Kurgan.