|
|
Rick Santorum: Conservatives Will Never Have "Smart People On Our Side"
WASHINGTON, DC — Former presidential candidate Rick Santorum attacked the media and "smart people" for not being on the side of conservatives in a speech to the Values Voter Summit on Saturday.
"We will never have the media on our side, ever, in this country," Santorum, a former Pennsylvania senator, told the audience at the Omni Shoreham hotel. "We will never have the elite, smart people on our side."
The media "doesn't like the other side," Santorum said. "And not necessarily, I would argue, because they agree with them, but because they can influence the country.
"If just a few people make decisions about what this world looks like, what this country looks like, then you have people sitting in offices at major media outlets and Hollywood who think they can deal with a small group of people, to get them to jump through the hoops they want you to," Santorum said.
Santorum also criticized the libertarian wing of the Republican party for not supporting what he sees as the pillars of conservatism: religion and family.
"When it comes to conservatism libertarian types can say, oh, well you know, we don't want to talk about social issues," Santorum said. "Without the church and the family, there is no conservative movement, there is no basic values of America."
So much for that misattributed Churchill quote I guess. 
Source
|
On September 18 2012 19:53 Critter wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2012 19:41 jellyjello wrote:
I don't get fixated on the numbers, but it is true that there are a lot of people who will vote for Obama regardless of his motives or records simply because he is a democrat. Romney is right in saying that he is wasting his time trying to convert these people. I mean, just look at the poll numbers on how many people would vote for Obama and whether Obama has done a good job as president. There's the number that makes zero sense if there ever was one.
Those numbers make perfect sense to people who don't buy into Romney's economic plans and completely disagree with him on social issues. Much like some republicans are voting Romney because "He's not Obama" some democrats are voting Obama because "At least he's not Romney." EDIT to Kukri: Because the incumbent historically has a good advantage in the general election.
I'm not super stoked about Obama myself, I think he fucked up a lot of really good oppourtunities, but if I were in the U.S. I would absolutely vote for Obama just because I think Romney is so very much worse....
|
On September 18 2012 19:57 screamingpalm wrote:Rick Santorum: Conservatives Will Never Have "Smart People On Our Side" Show nested quote +
WASHINGTON, DC — Former presidential candidate Rick Santorum attacked the media and "smart people" for not being on the side of conservatives in a speech to the Values Voter Summit on Saturday.
"We will never have the media on our side, ever, in this country," Santorum, a former Pennsylvania senator, told the audience at the Omni Shoreham hotel. "We will never have the elite, smart people on our side."
The media "doesn't like the other side," Santorum said. "And not necessarily, I would argue, because they agree with them, but because they can influence the country.
"If just a few people make decisions about what this world looks like, what this country looks like, then you have people sitting in offices at major media outlets and Hollywood who think they can deal with a small group of people, to get them to jump through the hoops they want you to," Santorum said.
Santorum also criticized the libertarian wing of the Republican party for not supporting what he sees as the pillars of conservatism: religion and family.
"When it comes to conservatism libertarian types can say, oh, well you know, we don't want to talk about social issues," Santorum said. "Without the church and the family, there is no conservative movement, there is no basic values of America."
So much for that misattributed Churchill quote I guess. Source
Way to set up that 2016 run in which you're going to get beat down in the primary Rick. God what a schmuck.
|
United States41961 Posts
God it must be depressing to be a Republican at the moment, they've got to be match fixing. Romney probably bet his net worth on Obama before making that comment. What the fuck kind of professional politician allows himself to be videoed insulting the electorate. Jeez.
|
On September 18 2012 20:36 KwarK wrote:
God it must be depressing to be a Republican at the moment, they've got to be match fixing. Romney probably bet his net worth on Obama before making that comment. What the fuck kind of professional politician allows himself to be videoed insulting the electorate. Jeez.
One who thinks that attendees of a rich private exclusive party would agree with his vision.
I guess some of those rich people have hearts too.
|
I wish we had a candidate that channels someone like John F Kennedy.
"And so, my fellow Americans, ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country.
My fellow citizens of the world, ask not what America will do for you, but what together we can do for the freedom of man."
|
Philadelphia, PA10406 Posts
Goodbye Romney, may you and the divisive, racial, horrible ideology you apparently believe be washed away for a generation. This video is a reminder to progressives that we can't just beat Romney, we need to crush him and this political movement that says that some people don't count, that it's a good life to be poor, that it's minorities who have the advantages, and that the path to prosperity is by putting more weight on the ankles of those struggling to get by.
Run up the score.
|
On September 18 2012 16:54 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2012 16:16 Mindcrime wrote:On September 18 2012 15:55 kmillz wrote:On September 18 2012 15:08 BlueBird. wrote:On September 18 2012 14:56 Zaqwert wrote:
The % argument is completely insane to me.
Someone paying 15% of their 30K income is really gonna complain about the millionarie on the other end of town who paid 14%?
So the guy who paid 4,500 bucks is chaffed the guy who paid 140,000 isn't paying enough?
Mitt Romney has paid more in taxes over the last 2 or 3 years than pretty much anyone on this board will their entire lives.
The rich aren't "screwing" over the society, they are the ones making it possible.
I'm squarely cushy middle class btw. But just because I can't afford a new Mercedes or private jet doesn't make me think it's ok to pillage from those who can. It's because that 4,500 actually makes a difference for that person's life, it could mean living comfortably, or struggling. I know 4,500 is a decent chunk of money too me. Romney it's just another 140,000, he's got plenty of millions in his accounts and what not. These number's are nothing too him. I disagree about the rich making things possible, they've seen most of the economic growth over these years with their extremely low tax rates, and they're still calling for lower tax rates for the rich as if it's actually going to go back into the economy or something? (sorry about misusing they're and their, feel silly, freaking tired, goodnight all ) Well, the funny thing is, the rich payer higher tax rates, so a flat tax (15% across the board for example) would actually mean the rich are taxed less. I would support a flat tax, but I think it is kind of bullshit we are double taxed. I would completely get rid of income tax and just raise sales tax. There is no federal general sales tax, so...? And aside from being extremely regressive, replacing the federal income tax with a sales tax (i.e. the FairTax plan) would double tax the shit out of seniors who spent their lives paying income taxes. Anyone bother asking the seniors? Average retirement age just keeps on going up (for those of us not in public sector units or private sector ones in certain states) so more and more seniors are subject to these income taxes. A flat sales tax replacing the income tax would be neat; only advisable if the income tax amendment were repealed (The only way politicians would not end up with both a national sales tax and income tax in an "emergency situation." Totally unfeasible from the lack of knowledge about how it would function and potential gains. Kinda like the gold standard. Pipe dreams, both of them. And I'm still calling for an across-the-board tax cut. Naturally, the rich, who pay more, would feel the most relief. And have more money to invest, hire more workers, etc.
FairTax is an interesting way to take sales tax and turn it into something that isn't regressive, but federal income tax is only one of the many taxes we pay. The rest tend to be very regressive.
http://www.ctj.org/pdf/taxday2011.pdf
So if federal taxes were made flat and state/local stayed regressive, that's regressive overall. I'd support something like FairTax if they also did something to make state/local taxes flat, but not if they don't.
|
Today's leaked video of Romney just goes to show what a dickhead this guy is. I've never disliked Romney as a human being until I saw this video. He truly is a douchebag.
He talks about the 47% who pay no income taxes. But these people still pay other taxes. They pay no income tax because most of them are elderly, students, or have low income.
Who pays US income tax? The US federal government runs off two kinds of taxes: payroll taxes, which fund benefits such as Social Security, and income taxes, which largely fund the rest of the federal budget. In 2011, the Tax Policy Center studied the tax liability of US households: 53.6% paid income taxes, 46.4% did not 28.3% paid payroll taxes but not income taxes 10.3% were elderly and retired and were not taxed on Social Security benefits 6.9% did not pay any tax with household incomes of less than $20,000 (£12,300) The majority of those who pay payroll but not income tax do so because of tax benefits for the elderly, families with children and low-income earners. Source: www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-19631430
He calls these people diehard Obama supporters because they are entitled to healthcare, food and housing. And what evidence is this bullshit based off? Where are the surveys that say that 47% of the population are Obama voters because they are too poor to pay income taxes and feel entitled to government services.
What about the Obama voters who agree with his policies? He paints Obama voters as almost entirely consisting of entitled people leeching off government, so what about the voters who believe in a strong social safety net, universal healthcare, fiscal stimulus in recession, higher taxes on the rich, etc? He complains that every 4 years the Republican economic doctrine of giving tax cuts for the rich is attacked and doesn't get through to this 47% who pays no income tax. Maybe it wouldn't be mocked if Republicans actually had some other economic policies. Bush, McCain, Romney, virtually their entire economic plan is tax cuts for the rich. Whether there is a surplus or a deficit, boom or recession, their only economic idea is tax cuts for the rich. And Romney seriously wants to complain that this idea doesn't get through? He says "That's what they sell every 4 years," he might as well be talking about his own voodoo Republican economics which never changes. Whether it's counter-cyclical or pro-cyclical fiscal policy, it doesn't matter -- tax cuts for the rich will solve everything according to Republican dogma.
Then Romney insults this 47% by saying that they feel government should care for them and take no personal responsibility. Really? Almost half the population feel entitled to leech off the government and take zero responsibility for themselves?
|
I'd consider a flat tax if it were a progressive flat tax, ie. certain income levels have to pay a flat X%.
The same flat X% tax across all income levels is just a fantasy for the rich and even greater hardship for the hardworking poor.
|
On September 18 2012 22:24 Adila wrote:
I'd consider a flat tax if it were a progressive flat tax, ie. certain income levels have to pay a flat X%.
The same flat X% tax across all income levels is just a fantasy for the rich and even greater hardship for the hardworking poor.
If you have a tax system like that, then you run into weird things happening at the boundary between income brackets -- like, let's say if you make below $50k you pay a flat 20% on all income and from $50,001 to $75k you pay a flat 25% on all income. Then you're actually better off making $49k than making $51k.
That's one of the reasons a progressive tax system works the way it does, with each person's income partitioned into all of the tax brackets.
That is if I'm understanding you correctly...
|
On September 18 2012 22:07 tree.hugger wrote:
Goodbye Romney, may you and the divisive, racial, horrible ideology you apparently believe be washed away for a generation. This video is a reminder to progressives that we can't just beat Romney, we need to crush him and this political movement that says that some people don't count, that it's a good life to be poor, that it's minorities who have the advantages, and that the path to prosperity is by putting more weight on the ankles of those struggling to get by.
Run up the score.
Right, because it's Romney and the Republicans that have a hand in a divisive and racially motivated political strategies. The President and Democrats have not participated in that at all.
If you believe that then I've got a bridge to sell you...
|
On September 18 2012 22:38 Signet wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2012 22:24 Adila wrote:
I'd consider a flat tax if it were a progressive flat tax, ie. certain income levels have to pay a flat X%.
The same flat X% tax across all income levels is just a fantasy for the rich and even greater hardship for the hardworking poor. If you have a tax system like that, then you run into weird things happening at the boundary between income brackets -- like, let's say if you make below $50k you pay a flat 20% on all income and from $50,001 to $75k you pay a flat 25% on all income. Then you're actually better off making $49k than making $51k. That's one of the reasons a progressive tax system works the way it does, with each person's income partitioned into all of the tax brackets. That is if I'm understanding you correctly...
That's the general idea of a flat tax proposal I would consider adopting. It certainly has many issues but, in my opinion, it is much more fair than a straight flat tax.
|
On September 18 2012 22:38 Signet wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2012 22:24 Adila wrote:
I'd consider a flat tax if it were a progressive flat tax, ie. certain income levels have to pay a flat X%.
The same flat X% tax across all income levels is just a fantasy for the rich and even greater hardship for the hardworking poor. If you have a tax system like that, then you run into weird things happening at the boundary between income brackets -- like, let's say if you make below $50k you pay a flat 20% on all income and from $50,001 to $75k you pay a flat 25% on all income. Then you're actually better off making $49k than making $51k. That's one of the reasons a progressive tax system works the way it does, with each person's income partitioned into all of the tax brackets. That is if I'm understanding you correctly...
I believe you are corrrect, sir. I am, however wondering why we need the bracketing. Of course you need upper and lower boundaries, but a straigt up linear taxation between those would seem like a much more interesting structure. Last I checked, one of the primary answers was that they wanted people to be able to calculate their taxes without a calculater... I still laugh at such dilusional answers!
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On September 18 2012 22:47 ey215 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2012 22:07 tree.hugger wrote:
Goodbye Romney, may you and the divisive, racial, horrible ideology you apparently believe be washed away for a generation. This video is a reminder to progressives that we can't just beat Romney, we need to crush him and this political movement that says that some people don't count, that it's a good life to be poor, that it's minorities who have the advantages, and that the path to prosperity is by putting more weight on the ankles of those struggling to get by.
Run up the score. Right, because it's Romney and the Republicans that have a hand in a divisive and racially motivated political strategies. The President and Democrats have not participated in that at all. If you believe that then I've got a bridge to sell you...
It wasn't the Democrats who had to resort to culture wars because they were unable to sell their economic policies. Republicans were the ones who brought the abortion debate back to the table, along with God, not the Democrats. Democrats have merely been fighting back.
Do we have to remind you of the blatant divisive nature of Republicans in the House or will you walk across that bridge you're trying to sell on your own two feet?
|
It's only the middle of September, so it's still possible for Romney to make people forget about that awful video by actually presenting a positive alternative.
But considering he's never really done that up until now it's safe to say that he's doomed. All Obama has to do is not fuck up as equally.
|
On September 18 2012 23:03 radiatoren wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2012 22:38 Signet wrote:On September 18 2012 22:24 Adila wrote:
I'd consider a flat tax if it were a progressive flat tax, ie. certain income levels have to pay a flat X%.
The same flat X% tax across all income levels is just a fantasy for the rich and even greater hardship for the hardworking poor. If you have a tax system like that, then you run into weird things happening at the boundary between income brackets -- like, let's say if you make below $50k you pay a flat 20% on all income and from $50,001 to $75k you pay a flat 25% on all income. Then you're actually better off making $49k than making $51k. That's one of the reasons a progressive tax system works the way it does, with each person's income partitioned into all of the tax brackets. That is if I'm understanding you correctly... I believe you are corrrect, sir. I am, however wondering why we need the bracketing. Of course you need upper and lower boundaries, but a straigt up linear taxation between those would seem like a much more interesting structure. Last I checked, one of the primary answers was that they wanted people to be able to calculate their taxes without a calculater... I still laugh at such dilusional answers!
That would work. It's also very close to what we have now, at least once you've already taken deductions out.
|
Barack Obama can talk shit on the half of the country that does pay taxes and it's all cool. He can talk shit on gun owners and the religious and who cares. Mitt Romney can state the obvious - huge numbers of people have an entitlement mentality, most of them don't pay taxes - and it's just a shocking insult to the American people. In two weeks no one will remember Romney's "insult."
And when Romney wins it's gonna be funny as all hell.
It wasn't the Democrats who had to resort to culture wars because they were unable to sell their economic policies.
Hahahahahahaha. Sandra Fluke?
Republicans were the ones who brought the abortion debate back to the table, along with God, not the Democrats. Democrats have merely been fighting back.
Democrats didn't bring abortion back into the forefront of national politics by the HHS mandate? It was Republicans who brought abortion back?
Sorry, but hahahaha you're either ignorant or deliberately pushing a false timeline.
Do we have to remind you of the blatant divisive nature of Republicans in the House or will you walk across that bridge you're trying to sell on your own two feet?
You gonna walk your own bridge there?
Do we have to remind you of the blatant divisive nature of the Democratic Party from 2000 to today? The disgraceful accusations of racism ad nauseum? "The rich"? Bitter clingers with their guns and religion? Corporations corporations corporations David Koch?
Goodbye Romney, may you and the divisive, racial, horrible ideology you apparently believe be washed away for a generation. This video is a reminder to progressives that we can't just beat Romney, we need to crush him and this political movement that says that some people don't count, that it's a good life to be poor, that it's minorities who have the advantages, and that the path to prosperity is by putting more weight on the ankles of those struggling to get by.
Run up the score.
Yeah, people like you descend into self-caricature territory with hilarious swiftness.
Romney will run up the score, and you can cry with your ridiculous fantasies. For claiming to care about everyone oh so much, the middle class has been decimated on your watch. The poor have gotten so much poorer - on your watch. Minorities have been hit hardest - on your watch. More weight has been put on the ankles of those struggling to get by than in 80 years - on your watch. George Bush hasn't been president for 3 and a half years. Your impassioned certainty of moral superiority sure hasn't translated into results. Maybe you just don't care? Path to prosperity? What good is that, being wealthy is wrong, remember?
We have to decimate the class warfare, religious division, impoverishing economics, character assassination and total lack of care for anything but their own self-satisfaction of progressives if we have any hope of turning the middle class around, or ending racial division, or having everyone actually count. It's funny how everything you say applies far more aptly to your own politics than to the Right's. It's classic projection.
|
Uhhh... State legislatures all across the country, along with House Republicans, have been trying very hard to restrict access to abortion and birth control. If that's not divisive then I don't know what is.
|
On September 18 2012 23:23 DoubleReed wrote:
Uhhh... State legislatures all across the country, along with House Republicans, have been trying very hard to restrict access to abortion and birth control. If that's not divisive then I don't know what is.
Abortion is a very important and divisive issue. It's an issue that has seen a shift in opinion towards the pro-life position.
It's not divisive to bring up a serious issue and try to do something about it when your side has the advantage. It's not divisive to bring up an issue the Left is gradually losing at the moment. It's only "divisive" to you because your side is currently losing. The majority at the moment leans pro-life, and crying "divisive" because you're against that position doesn't mean anything.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/154838/Pro-Choice-Americans-Record-Low.aspx
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
