Romney's Message Is Changing/Romney Secret Tape (merged)

[emmiedahl]

In a nutshell Mitt will cut taxes on the rich thus giving them incentive to expand/hire which will allow more jobs to be created and increase production and spending.

History shows us that this never works. Why try it again?

On the other hand, Obama wants to tax the rich to death thus giving business owners and large companies no incentive to expand or hire which will continue to keep our economy in the tank. Not only this, but Obama actually thinks that the extra taxes on the 1 or 2 percent will help pay down the national debt. LOL

He is taxing them to death by.... taxing them less than Reagan did?

Look, less income means more debt--even a Republican can understand that, right? We cannot keep using conservative politics that increase our debt and trash our economy.

[emmiedahl]

I guess we will really find out after the election. I think the liberal media is in for a big surprise. I can the MSNBC anchors now almost crying, "this wasn't supposed to happen. The polls, what happened to the polls?".

Actually, Rasmussen has been wrong in almost every election they have polled for. We don't really have to wait. See link above.

[Mythicwings]

AKA, I hate rich people. They have too much money and don't deserve it. They should be forced by the government to give it to the poor and middle class.

The constitution never intended for it to be this way. Our God given rights allow for nobody to hold us down, NOT for the government to hold us up.

Where can you point to, with evidence, that that is the definition of "God given rights"? Your "interpretation" of redistribution:

AKA, I hate rich people. They have too much money and don't deserve it. They should be forced by the government to give it to the poor and middle class.

while snarky, so I commend you on that, isn't what Obama or anyone thinks who talk about governmental regulation. You are going to see everything fail horribly if you insist on believing that regulations equal some kind of Communism. The kind of system you applaud, the Free Market form of capitalism, performs wealth redistribution by way of governmental regulation, it's just that those laws channel money away from most of society and into the systems that enrich only a relative few people. That's WHY those laws were made, it isn't some kind of "natural law" system that just miraculously appeared to sanctify wealth. When Obama talks about redistribution, he is talking about bringing back laws that worked for the whole society, especially the middle class: small business, middle class capitalism. This is suppose to be a country with a stable middle class, not a place set up for a few people to be able to have unlimited wealth at everyone else's expense.

[emmiedahl]

If you think that taxing the rich means one hates them, then Reagan hated them twice as much as Obama!

[formergothardite]

So the plan is to give the rich tax breaks and just hope that they decide to pay the poor good enough wages so that they can keep food on the table and afford insurance? And this is from the man who bought a sweat shop in China and didn't seem upset at all that the works were getting paid nothing?

And since he is claiming that he will cut duplication in the welfare system, can't he even give us an idea of what this duplication is?

Are you not even a tad bit curious as to why he is refusing to release his tax info when pretty much everyone else does? What is he trying to hide? And if he wasn't trying to hide something, why won't he release it?

[MyName]

Thinking that the Haves should help the Have Nots is not hate, it is humane.

[Sola]

In a nutshell Mitt will cut taxes on the rich thus giving them incentive to expand/hire which will allow more jobs to be created and increase production and spending.

On the other hand, Obama wants to tax the rich to death thus giving business owners and large companies no incentive to expand or hire which will continue to keep our economy in the tank. Not only this, but Obama actually thinks that the extra taxes on the 1 or 2 percent will help pay down the national debt. LOL

I admit I was wrong about the tax info. Sorry.

And it doesnt work. That's been proven time and time again. Its happening here in the UK right now. Tax cuts for the rich aren't stimulating the economy. They never do.

[Visionoyahweh]

If you think that taxing the rich means one hates them, then Reagan hated them twice as much as Obama!

[emmiedahl]

And it doesnt work. That's been proven time and time again. Its happening here in the UK right now. Tax cuts for the rich aren't stimulating the economy. They never do.

Taxes on the wealthy are at an all-time low. We keep cutting taxes, the economy gets worse, we cut taxes more, the economy gets worse. Meanwhile, our expenses go up because of the crappy economy, which means more debt. Trickle-down/supply-side/voodoo economics have never worked--ever--but rich people keep convincing poor dolts like jericho that maybe they will work this time around.

Jericho, are you against Obama taxing the wealthy at the same rate they paid under Reagan? Was Reagan also oppressing and hating them?

[Witsec1]

Interesting that these folks never defended President Obama when he uttered his "inelegant" remarks about guns and religion with the "Hey, it was a private event" excuse. Such fucking hypocrites, it makes me sick.

For members of the reality-based community (AKA not Jericho), it's important to remember that the entire context of Obama's "guns and religion" quote was exactly opposite to Romney's meaning. Romney writes off nearly half of the US population as totally worthless and beneath him. He really believes he does not need to "worry" about them. If they starve, it's not his problem. This was not a gaffe, this is what he really thinks and he has not backed down. What Obama said was:

"We’ve got a couple of folks who are heading out to Pennsylvania to go door to door with us. And the question was: What kinds of questions should I expect them to get? … The places where we are going to have to do the most work are the places where people feel most cynical about government. The people are misapprehend—I think they're misunderstanding why the demographics in our—in this contest have broken out as they are. Because everybody just ascribes it to “white working-class don't want to work—don't want to vote for the black guy.†That's—there were intimations of that, there was an article in the Sunday New York Times today that kind of implies that it's sort of a race thing. …

"Here’s what it is: In a lot of these communities in big industrial states like Ohio and Pennsylvania, people have been beaten down so long, they feel so betrayed by government, that when they hear a pitch that is premised on not being cynical about government, there’s a part of them that just doesn't buy it. And when it's delivered by—it is true that when it's delivered by a 46-year-old black man named Barack Obama, then that adds another layer of skepticism. (Audience laughs.)

"But—so the questions you're most likely to get are going to be: 'Well, you know, what’s this guy going to do for me? What’s the concrete thing?' And what they want to hear is—you know, so we'll give you talking points about what we're proposing: to close tax loopholes and roll back, you know, the top—the tax cuts for the top 1 percent. Obama's going to give tax breaks to middle-class folks, and we're going to provide health care for every American. You know, we’ll have a series of talking points.

"But the truth is that our challenge is to get people persuaded that we can make progress when there's no evidence of that in their daily lives. You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, Ohio—like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years, and nothing's replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration and the Bush administration. And each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are going to regenerate. And they have not. So it's not surprising then that they get bitter, and they cling to guns or religion, or antipathy toward people who aren't like them, or anti-immigrant sentiment, or, you know, anti-trade sentiment [as] a way to explain their frustrations.

"Now, these are in some communities. You know, I think what you'll find is that people of every background—there are going to be a mix of people. You can go in the toughest neighborhood, you know, working-class lunch-pail folks, and you'll find Obama enthusiasts. And you can go into places where you’d think that I'd be very strong, and people will just be skeptical. The important thing is that you show up and you're doing what you're doing."

He's not writing off those people, like Romney writes off 47% of the people he wants to govern. Naturally, dishonest and desparate Romney defenders are whining their little heads off with their "both sides do it" lie.

[jericho]

History shows us that this never works. Why try it again?

He is taxing them to death by.... taxing them less than Reagan did?

Look, less income means more debt--even a Republican can understand that, right? We cannot keep using conservative politics that increase our debt and trash our economy.

That's the overall tax rate. But Reagan made a substantial cut in taxes to the rich.

http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/oreilly/2012/07/10/bill-oreilly-ghost-ronald-reagan-haunting-president-obama

And Mr. Reagan kept his promise in that address dropping the federal income tax rate for the highest earners from 70 percent to 28 percent. Mr. Reagan went on to say that a large federal government was a problem, not a solution.

[Guest Anonymous]

So, Reagan cut taxes and everything was beautiful, fine, and dandy after that?

[shesinsane]

That's the overall tax rate. But Reagan made a substantial cut in taxes to the rich.

As did George W. Bush, and look how much the economy grew under him. :roll:

[emmiedahl]

That's the overall tax rate. But Reagan made a substantial cut in taxes to the rich.

http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/oreilly/2012/07/10/bill-oreilly-ghost-ronald-reagan-haunting-president-obama

Obama is still planning to tax them less than Reagan did. So again, why is this going to destroy the economy again? Can you at least hold conservatives and liberals to the same bar when it comes to hard numbers?

btw, Reagan's tax cuts were the reason he tripled the US national debt in ten years.

[Witsec1]

In a nutshell Mitt will cut taxes on the rich thus giving them incentive to expand/hire which will allow more jobs to be created and increase production and spending.

Romney says he won't cut taxes on wealthy Americans: http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/romn ... ction.html

Can you explain, Jericho?

[lilwriter85]

I think at this point a lot of the people voting Romney/Ryan are going to vote for them no matter what, either because they are anti-Obama for whatever reason, are gonna vote Republican regardless, or because they actually buy into the craziness.

I just hope that enough the people who are on the fence or leaning towards third parties or not voting at all do get out and vote for Obama, so that Romney does not when and we don't end up with a large Republican majority in congress.

There was a pic going around facebook that said something like "the Democrats aren't perfect but at least they're not fucking crazy". That pretty much sums up my this election for me.

I haven't seen that pic, but I agree with you it also sums up the election for me.

[emmiedahl]

It should also be noted that Reagan raised taxes on the poor and middle classes to extend these cuts to the wealthy. Look it up, jericho.

[emmiedahl]

Romney says he won't cut taxes on wealthy Americans: http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/romn ... ction.html

Can you explain, Jericho?

Romney lies so much he cannot even keep his lies straight.

But I absolutely believe he will cut taxes on the rich, because that will give him more money, e.g. the only thing he cares about besides magic underwear and being assigned many wives in polygamous Mormon heaven.

[Mythicwings]

For members of the reality-based community (AKA not Jericho), it's important to remember that the entire context of Obama's "guns and religion" quote was exactly opposite to Romney's meaning. Romney writes off nearly half of the US population as totally worthless and beneath him. He really believes he does not need to "worry" about them. If they starve, it's not his problem. This was not a gaffe, this is what he really thinks and he has not backed down. What Obama said was:

He's not writing off those people, like Romney writes off 47% of the people he wants to govern. Naturally, dishonest and desparate Romney defenders are whining their little heads off with their "both sides do it" lie.

It's one of my favourite comments Obama has ever made. It is full of compassion and complexity and solution-finding thinking. But it is long and needs to be read so the one-sentence fear-soundbite people are already asleep.

[formergothardite]

So it seems Mitt's whole plan isn't to actually help the poor at all. He will help the rich and then leave it up to the rich to help the poor, and if they don't well, that's not his problem.

[Sola]

You still around Jericho? Are you going to address the points made that trickle down doesn't work and taxes under Obama are lower than under Reagan?

Or have you run off again with your patriarchal dick between your legs?

[Artemis]

Correct, but Mitt was talking about INCOME tax in a private closed meeting not meant for public consumption. In reality, he shouldn't even be having to explain anything he said there. It wasn't spoken to or worded as for a press conference.

Late to the party (been busy with work), but have to say that the bolded is fucking bullshit. He's a politician, aiming for the highest office. It's his fucking job to explain everything he says because you know what? People from his own community, AKA America, people that he disses as 'it's not my job to worry about them' could be starving or dying of preventable diseases if this is his attitude to them. He doesn't get a fucking pass because he thought he was off the record.

'In vino veritas'? Well this was obviously a case of 'sub rosa veritas'. He thought he was offline, so he said what he truly thought. I'm delighted that karma bit him in the butt on this occasion, and I hope that it takes another bite and hangs on where it hurts.

not meant for public consumption.

Hypocrite.

And I agree with Sola about the mess here in the UK. What he's planning? It hasn't worked here.

Are you still there jericho? I notice you don't have much to say, suddenly.

[MyName]

I am too new to start my own thread I guess. But this sort of fits here anyway. Have you seen the Clint Eastwood quote? HIGHLIGHT OF MY DAY.

"If somebody's dumb enough to ask me to go to a political convention and say something, they're gonna have to take what they get," the veteran actor told an Extra correspondent...

In another interview on today's episode of Ellen, Eastwood poked some more fun at his rambling diatribe, saying "the Democrats who were watching thought I was going senile, and the Republicans knew I was."

from http://gawker.com/5944272/clint-eastwoo ... t-they-get

edit--hey I screwed up the quote block.

edit 2-- possibly fixed it.

[Buggaboo]

I guess we will really find out after the election. I think the liberal media is in for a big surprise. I can see the MSNBC anchors now almost crying, "this wasn't supposed to happen. The polls, what happened to the polls?".

Well, then let's leave it until November, shall we? If you are so secure in your beliefs, that should not be a problem. Then again, if you were really so secure in your beliefs you would not consistently come over here to pick fights, would you? No. You wouldn't. You would be able to accept that sites like this exist and it wouldn't bother you. You wouldn't NEED to come here. But clearly you do. Speaks volumes, to me.

[jericho]

You still around Jericho? Are you going to address the points made that trickle down doesn't work and taxes under Obama are lower than under Reagan?

Or have you run off again with your patriarchal dick between your legs?

Reagan brought the highest marginal tax rate down from 70% to 50% within his first year in office. And by the end of his 2nd term it was down to 28%.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=213

So yes it was higher, but look where it came from!