|
|
On September 19 2012 08:46 rogzardo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 08:44 whatevername wrote:On September 19 2012 08:08 Risen wrote:On September 19 2012 08:00 whatevername wrote:On September 19 2012 07:50 rogzardo wrote:On September 19 2012 07:43 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 19 2012 07:21 biology]major wrote:On September 19 2012 07:06 kwizach wrote:On September 19 2012 07:04 xDaunt wrote:On September 19 2012 06:58 Kaitlin wrote:
[quote]
I wouldn't say "public opinion", but it had its effect on small business owners, not all of whom were always, or automatically in Romney's camp. I don't understand why any small business owner would vote for a democrat unless their social values greatly outweighed their economic values and interests. Because the economic plans of Democrats are better for the economy and for business owners in general. if you give the top bracket tax breaks they will share the wealth and help grow the economy instead of putting it in their pockets!. It is only logical for people to share their wealth and hire more workers without any change in demand just because they acquired a little more profit on the side? right??Oh and if the wealth does not go into their pockets guess where it goes? Overseas (Not america) So no, wealth does not trickle down, at least not to us. Why not? Businesses can increase their demand by lowering prices / stealing market share. Lower taxes create an incentive for them to do more of that. Trust the rich. They will take care of you. Trickle down economics has been proven to be effective. This is why our current economic state is so positive. This is why the wealth gap between the poor and the rich is at the lowest its ever been. If only we allow the rich to expand our economy, and pay less taxes than those who will one day work in a job created by the rich, poverty will be nothing but a distant memory. Alternatively: Trust massive state expansion, it worked for Russia, France and the U.S! It can work for you too. I love the delusion of left wingers that the State isnt culpable in manipulation of the markets. Half the country is at the beck and call of the Government. That's not really the alternative. The alternative is don't lower taxes for the rich. That's all. Yes because half of Americans being dependent on the Government, Government spending as a share of GDP being about 40%-- thats all synonymous with merely having a legal system. Thats what I'm railing against. Curse dem laws!!11!. Thanks for your input. On September 19 2012 08:08 Risen wrote:On September 19 2012 08:00 whatevername wrote:On September 19 2012 07:50 rogzardo wrote:On September 19 2012 07:43 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 19 2012 07:21 biology]major wrote:On September 19 2012 07:06 kwizach wrote:On September 19 2012 07:04 xDaunt wrote:On September 19 2012 06:58 Kaitlin wrote:
[quote]
I wouldn't say "public opinion", but it had its effect on small business owners, not all of whom were always, or automatically in Romney's camp. I don't understand why any small business owner would vote for a democrat unless their social values greatly outweighed their economic values and interests. Because the economic plans of Democrats are better for the economy and for business owners in general. if you give the top bracket tax breaks they will share the wealth and help grow the economy instead of putting it in their pockets!. It is only logical for people to share their wealth and hire more workers without any change in demand just because they acquired a little more profit on the side? right??Oh and if the wealth does not go into their pockets guess where it goes? Overseas (Not america) So no, wealth does not trickle down, at least not to us. Why not? Businesses can increase their demand by lowering prices / stealing market share. Lower taxes create an incentive for them to do more of that. Trust the rich. They will take care of you. Trickle down economics has been proven to be effective. This is why our current economic state is so positive. This is why the wealth gap between the poor and the rich is at the lowest its ever been. If only we allow the rich to expand our economy, and pay less taxes than those who will one day work in a job created by the rich, poverty will be nothing but a distant memory. Alternatively: Trust massive state expansion, it worked for Russia, France and the U.S! It can work for you too. I love the delusion of left wingers that the State isnt culpable in manipulation of the markets. Half the country is at the beck and call of the Government. That's not really the alternative. The alternative is don't lower taxes for the rich. That's all. Yeah, no ones ever mentioned cutting Government spending, deregulation, privatization, decentralization of programs [to make them more efficient/responsible to the public] free trade etc etc. Thats never - ever to be completely clear - been offered as a clear alternative to massive ever growing state intervention and debt. Brilliant. Please tell us where you got the statistic of 40% of Americans being dependent on the government, and what exactly being dependent means. "About 49 percent of Americans live in households that receive some form of government benefits, according to the libertarian Mercatus Center at George Mason University, based on data from 2010.*"
Dependent is probably a poor choice of words. How many of those require those benefits to actually sustain themselves I dont know, or care. The result is still almost half the country having, in their best interests [well, not really but seemingly] to constantly pressure for the expansion of Government. The Government in part subsidizes nearly half the country. How far its regulations go in punishing particular behaviour and promoting certain companies is all the more drastic. America has one of the biggest Governments in the history of the world and people constantly ridicule it as some kind of wild wild west anachronism. What the states really is, a society beholden to and nanny'd by a non functioning corrupt Government that will spend us all into the poor house.
|
On September 19 2012 07:04 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 06:58 Kaitlin wrote:On September 19 2012 06:55 xDaunt wrote:On September 19 2012 06:52 Kaitlin wrote:On September 19 2012 06:48 HunterX11 wrote:On September 19 2012 06:44 jdseemoreglass wrote:On September 19 2012 06:34 TheTenthDoc wrote:
If you can find me a single quote from a Democrat that won an election that dismisses the entire Republican party as [insert negative property here] I will agree with this. I could probably offer numerous examples. Obviously it won't be as explicit as you want it to be. But the first comment that comes to mind is this one by Obama, quite obviously referring to many Republican voters: "And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations." Obama probably did permanently lose a lot of voters from that remark. And despite how people like to explain it away, "You didn't build that" hurt him as well. Actually, I'm not sure it really has. It's hard to look at the polls and say, "that comment cost Obama X%." I just don't really get the sense that the comment has demonstrably moved public opinion one way or another since it was made three-four months ago. I wouldn't say "public opinion", but it had its effect on small business owners, not all of whom were always, or automatically in Romney's camp. I don't understand why any small business owner would vote for a democrat unless their social values greatly outweighed their economic values and interests. EDIT: The one major exception to this rule that comes to mind would be trial lawyers. Generally speaking, it is within their economic interest to vote for democrats.
http://www.thumbtack.com/politics
Looks like social/moral issues rank third among concerns for small business owners in their choice for president, and 39% still think Obama is more supportive of small businesses compared to Romney's 31%, with 28% undecided (38-33 in swing states.)
|
On September 19 2012 08:53 whatevername wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 08:46 rogzardo wrote:On September 19 2012 08:44 whatevername wrote:On September 19 2012 08:08 Risen wrote:On September 19 2012 08:00 whatevername wrote:On September 19 2012 07:50 rogzardo wrote:On September 19 2012 07:43 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 19 2012 07:21 biology]major wrote:On September 19 2012 07:06 kwizach wrote:On September 19 2012 07:04 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
I don't understand why any small business owner would vote for a democrat unless their social values greatly outweighed their economic values and interests. Because the economic plans of Democrats are better for the economy and for business owners in general. if you give the top bracket tax breaks they will share the wealth and help grow the economy instead of putting it in their pockets!. It is only logical for people to share their wealth and hire more workers without any change in demand just because they acquired a little more profit on the side? right??Oh and if the wealth does not go into their pockets guess where it goes? Overseas (Not america) So no, wealth does not trickle down, at least not to us. Why not? Businesses can increase their demand by lowering prices / stealing market share. Lower taxes create an incentive for them to do more of that. Trust the rich. They will take care of you. Trickle down economics has been proven to be effective. This is why our current economic state is so positive. This is why the wealth gap between the poor and the rich is at the lowest its ever been. If only we allow the rich to expand our economy, and pay less taxes than those who will one day work in a job created by the rich, poverty will be nothing but a distant memory. Alternatively: Trust massive state expansion, it worked for Russia, France and the U.S! It can work for you too. I love the delusion of left wingers that the State isnt culpable in manipulation of the markets. Half the country is at the beck and call of the Government. That's not really the alternative. The alternative is don't lower taxes for the rich. That's all. Yes because half of Americans being dependent on the Government, Government spending as a share of GDP being about 40%-- thats all synonymous with merely having a legal system. Thats what I'm railing against. Curse dem laws!!11!. Thanks for your input. On September 19 2012 08:08 Risen wrote:On September 19 2012 08:00 whatevername wrote:On September 19 2012 07:50 rogzardo wrote:On September 19 2012 07:43 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 19 2012 07:21 biology]major wrote:On September 19 2012 07:06 kwizach wrote:On September 19 2012 07:04 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
I don't understand why any small business owner would vote for a democrat unless their social values greatly outweighed their economic values and interests. Because the economic plans of Democrats are better for the economy and for business owners in general. if you give the top bracket tax breaks they will share the wealth and help grow the economy instead of putting it in their pockets!. It is only logical for people to share their wealth and hire more workers without any change in demand just because they acquired a little more profit on the side? right??Oh and if the wealth does not go into their pockets guess where it goes? Overseas (Not america) So no, wealth does not trickle down, at least not to us. Why not? Businesses can increase their demand by lowering prices / stealing market share. Lower taxes create an incentive for them to do more of that. Trust the rich. They will take care of you. Trickle down economics has been proven to be effective. This is why our current economic state is so positive. This is why the wealth gap between the poor and the rich is at the lowest its ever been. If only we allow the rich to expand our economy, and pay less taxes than those who will one day work in a job created by the rich, poverty will be nothing but a distant memory. Alternatively: Trust massive state expansion, it worked for Russia, France and the U.S! It can work for you too. I love the delusion of left wingers that the State isnt culpable in manipulation of the markets. Half the country is at the beck and call of the Government. That's not really the alternative. The alternative is don't lower taxes for the rich. That's all. Yeah, no ones ever mentioned cutting Government spending, deregulation, privatization, decentralization of programs [to make them more efficient/responsible to the public] free trade etc etc. Thats never - ever to be completely clear - been offered as a clear alternative to massive ever growing state intervention and debt. Brilliant. Please tell us where you got the statistic of 40% of Americans being dependent on the government, and what exactly being dependent means. "About 49 percent of Americans live in households that receive some form of government benefits, according to the libertarian Mercatus Center at George Mason University, based on data from 2010.*" Dependent is probably a poor choice of words. How many of those require those benefits to actually sustain themselves I dont know, or care. The result is still almost half the country having, in their best interests [well, not really but seemingly] to constantly pressure for the expansion of Government. The Government in part subsidizes nearly half the country. How far its regulations go in punishing particular behaviour and promoting certain companies is all the more drastic. America has one of the biggest Governments in the history of the world and people constantly ridicule it as some kind of wild wild west anachronism. What the states really is, a society beholden to and nanny'd by a non functioning corrupt Government that will spend us all into the poor house.
Link your source.
|
On September 19 2012 08:53 whatevername wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 08:46 rogzardo wrote:On September 19 2012 08:44 whatevername wrote:On September 19 2012 08:08 Risen wrote:On September 19 2012 08:00 whatevername wrote:On September 19 2012 07:50 rogzardo wrote:On September 19 2012 07:43 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 19 2012 07:21 biology]major wrote:On September 19 2012 07:06 kwizach wrote:On September 19 2012 07:04 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
I don't understand why any small business owner would vote for a democrat unless their social values greatly outweighed their economic values and interests. Because the economic plans of Democrats are better for the economy and for business owners in general. if you give the top bracket tax breaks they will share the wealth and help grow the economy instead of putting it in their pockets!. It is only logical for people to share their wealth and hire more workers without any change in demand just because they acquired a little more profit on the side? right??Oh and if the wealth does not go into their pockets guess where it goes? Overseas (Not america) So no, wealth does not trickle down, at least not to us. Why not? Businesses can increase their demand by lowering prices / stealing market share. Lower taxes create an incentive for them to do more of that. Trust the rich. They will take care of you. Trickle down economics has been proven to be effective. This is why our current economic state is so positive. This is why the wealth gap between the poor and the rich is at the lowest its ever been. If only we allow the rich to expand our economy, and pay less taxes than those who will one day work in a job created by the rich, poverty will be nothing but a distant memory. Alternatively: Trust massive state expansion, it worked for Russia, France and the U.S! It can work for you too. I love the delusion of left wingers that the State isnt culpable in manipulation of the markets. Half the country is at the beck and call of the Government. That's not really the alternative. The alternative is don't lower taxes for the rich. That's all. Yes because half of Americans being dependent on the Government, Government spending as a share of GDP being about 40%-- thats all synonymous with merely having a legal system. Thats what I'm railing against. Curse dem laws!!11!. Thanks for your input. On September 19 2012 08:08 Risen wrote:On September 19 2012 08:00 whatevername wrote:On September 19 2012 07:50 rogzardo wrote:On September 19 2012 07:43 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 19 2012 07:21 biology]major wrote:On September 19 2012 07:06 kwizach wrote:On September 19 2012 07:04 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
I don't understand why any small business owner would vote for a democrat unless their social values greatly outweighed their economic values and interests. Because the economic plans of Democrats are better for the economy and for business owners in general. if you give the top bracket tax breaks they will share the wealth and help grow the economy instead of putting it in their pockets!. It is only logical for people to share their wealth and hire more workers without any change in demand just because they acquired a little more profit on the side? right??Oh and if the wealth does not go into their pockets guess where it goes? Overseas (Not america) So no, wealth does not trickle down, at least not to us. Why not? Businesses can increase their demand by lowering prices / stealing market share. Lower taxes create an incentive for them to do more of that. Trust the rich. They will take care of you. Trickle down economics has been proven to be effective. This is why our current economic state is so positive. This is why the wealth gap between the poor and the rich is at the lowest its ever been. If only we allow the rich to expand our economy, and pay less taxes than those who will one day work in a job created by the rich, poverty will be nothing but a distant memory. Alternatively: Trust massive state expansion, it worked for Russia, France and the U.S! It can work for you too. I love the delusion of left wingers that the State isnt culpable in manipulation of the markets. Half the country is at the beck and call of the Government. That's not really the alternative. The alternative is don't lower taxes for the rich. That's all. Yeah, no ones ever mentioned cutting Government spending, deregulation, privatization, decentralization of programs [to make them more efficient/responsible to the public] free trade etc etc. Thats never - ever to be completely clear - been offered as a clear alternative to massive ever growing state intervention and debt. Brilliant. Please tell us where you got the statistic of 40% of Americans being dependent on the government, and what exactly being dependent means. "About 49 percent of Americans live in households that receive some form of government benefits, according to the libertarian Mercatus Center at George Mason University, based on data from 2010.*" Dependent is probably a poor choice of words. How many of those require those benefits to actually sustain themselves I dont know, or care. The result is still almost half the country having, in their best interests [well, not really but seemingly] to constantly pressure for the expansion of Government. The Government in part subsidizes nearly half the country. How far its regulations go in punishing particular behaviour and promoting certain companies is all the more drastic. America has one of the biggest Governments in the history of the world and people constantly ridicule it as some kind of wild wild west anachronism. What the states really is, a society beholden to and nanny'd by a non functioning corrupt Government that will spend us all into the poor house.
Obviously this explains why the states with populations that receive the most government funding consistently are voting Republican.
Oh wait...this explanation doesn't actually fit the real world. People are voting primarily based upon whose policies they think are better for the country, on balance.
|
On September 19 2012 08:56 rogzardo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 08:53 whatevername wrote:On September 19 2012 08:46 rogzardo wrote:On September 19 2012 08:44 whatevername wrote:On September 19 2012 08:08 Risen wrote:On September 19 2012 08:00 whatevername wrote:On September 19 2012 07:50 rogzardo wrote:On September 19 2012 07:43 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 19 2012 07:21 biology]major wrote:On September 19 2012 07:06 kwizach wrote:
[quote]
Because the economic plans of Democrats are better for the economy and for business owners in general. if you give the top bracket tax breaks they will share the wealth and help grow the economy instead of putting it in their pockets!. It is only logical for people to share their wealth and hire more workers without any change in demand just because they acquired a little more profit on the side? right??Oh and if the wealth does not go into their pockets guess where it goes? Overseas (Not america) So no, wealth does not trickle down, at least not to us. Why not? Businesses can increase their demand by lowering prices / stealing market share. Lower taxes create an incentive for them to do more of that. Trust the rich. They will take care of you. Trickle down economics has been proven to be effective. This is why our current economic state is so positive. This is why the wealth gap between the poor and the rich is at the lowest its ever been. If only we allow the rich to expand our economy, and pay less taxes than those who will one day work in a job created by the rich, poverty will be nothing but a distant memory. Alternatively: Trust massive state expansion, it worked for Russia, France and the U.S! It can work for you too. I love the delusion of left wingers that the State isnt culpable in manipulation of the markets. Half the country is at the beck and call of the Government. That's not really the alternative. The alternative is don't lower taxes for the rich. That's all. Yes because half of Americans being dependent on the Government, Government spending as a share of GDP being about 40%-- thats all synonymous with merely having a legal system. Thats what I'm railing against. Curse dem laws!!11!. Thanks for your input. On September 19 2012 08:08 Risen wrote:On September 19 2012 08:00 whatevername wrote:On September 19 2012 07:50 rogzardo wrote:On September 19 2012 07:43 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 19 2012 07:21 biology]major wrote:On September 19 2012 07:06 kwizach wrote:
[quote]
Because the economic plans of Democrats are better for the economy and for business owners in general. if you give the top bracket tax breaks they will share the wealth and help grow the economy instead of putting it in their pockets!. It is only logical for people to share their wealth and hire more workers without any change in demand just because they acquired a little more profit on the side? right??Oh and if the wealth does not go into their pockets guess where it goes? Overseas (Not america) So no, wealth does not trickle down, at least not to us. Why not? Businesses can increase their demand by lowering prices / stealing market share. Lower taxes create an incentive for them to do more of that. Trust the rich. They will take care of you. Trickle down economics has been proven to be effective. This is why our current economic state is so positive. This is why the wealth gap between the poor and the rich is at the lowest its ever been. If only we allow the rich to expand our economy, and pay less taxes than those who will one day work in a job created by the rich, poverty will be nothing but a distant memory. Alternatively: Trust massive state expansion, it worked for Russia, France and the U.S! It can work for you too. I love the delusion of left wingers that the State isnt culpable in manipulation of the markets. Half the country is at the beck and call of the Government. That's not really the alternative. The alternative is don't lower taxes for the rich. That's all. Yeah, no ones ever mentioned cutting Government spending, deregulation, privatization, decentralization of programs [to make them more efficient/responsible to the public] free trade etc etc. Thats never - ever to be completely clear - been offered as a clear alternative to massive ever growing state intervention and debt. Brilliant. Please tell us where you got the statistic of 40% of Americans being dependent on the government, and what exactly being dependent means. "About 49 percent of Americans live in households that receive some form of government benefits, according to the libertarian Mercatus Center at George Mason University, based on data from 2010.*" Dependent is probably a poor choice of words. How many of those require those benefits to actually sustain themselves I dont know, or care. The result is still almost half the country having, in their best interests [well, not really but seemingly] to constantly pressure for the expansion of Government. The Government in part subsidizes nearly half the country. How far its regulations go in punishing particular behaviour and promoting certain companies is all the more drastic. America has one of the biggest Governments in the history of the world and people constantly ridicule it as some kind of wild wild west anachronism. What the states really is, a society beholden to and nanny'd by a non functioning corrupt Government that will spend us all into the poor house. Link your source. http://mercatus.org/sites/default/files/publication/nation-of-dependents-analysis.pdfOn September 19 2012 09:02 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 08:53 whatevername wrote:On September 19 2012 08:46 rogzardo wrote:On September 19 2012 08:44 whatevername wrote:On September 19 2012 08:08 Risen wrote:On September 19 2012 08:00 whatevername wrote:On September 19 2012 07:50 rogzardo wrote:On September 19 2012 07:43 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 19 2012 07:21 biology]major wrote:On September 19 2012 07:06 kwizach wrote:
[quote]
Because the economic plans of Democrats are better for the economy and for business owners in general. if you give the top bracket tax breaks they will share the wealth and help grow the economy instead of putting it in their pockets!. It is only logical for people to share their wealth and hire more workers without any change in demand just because they acquired a little more profit on the side? right??Oh and if the wealth does not go into their pockets guess where it goes? Overseas (Not america) So no, wealth does not trickle down, at least not to us. Why not? Businesses can increase their demand by lowering prices / stealing market share. Lower taxes create an incentive for them to do more of that. Trust the rich. They will take care of you. Trickle down economics has been proven to be effective. This is why our current economic state is so positive. This is why the wealth gap between the poor and the rich is at the lowest its ever been. If only we allow the rich to expand our economy, and pay less taxes than those who will one day work in a job created by the rich, poverty will be nothing but a distant memory. Alternatively: Trust massive state expansion, it worked for Russia, France and the U.S! It can work for you too. I love the delusion of left wingers that the State isnt culpable in manipulation of the markets. Half the country is at the beck and call of the Government. That's not really the alternative. The alternative is don't lower taxes for the rich. That's all. Yes because half of Americans being dependent on the Government, Government spending as a share of GDP being about 40%-- thats all synonymous with merely having a legal system. Thats what I'm railing against. Curse dem laws!!11!. Thanks for your input. On September 19 2012 08:08 Risen wrote:On September 19 2012 08:00 whatevername wrote:On September 19 2012 07:50 rogzardo wrote:On September 19 2012 07:43 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 19 2012 07:21 biology]major wrote:On September 19 2012 07:06 kwizach wrote:
[quote]
Because the economic plans of Democrats are better for the economy and for business owners in general. if you give the top bracket tax breaks they will share the wealth and help grow the economy instead of putting it in their pockets!. It is only logical for people to share their wealth and hire more workers without any change in demand just because they acquired a little more profit on the side? right??Oh and if the wealth does not go into their pockets guess where it goes? Overseas (Not america) So no, wealth does not trickle down, at least not to us. Why not? Businesses can increase their demand by lowering prices / stealing market share. Lower taxes create an incentive for them to do more of that. Trust the rich. They will take care of you. Trickle down economics has been proven to be effective. This is why our current economic state is so positive. This is why the wealth gap between the poor and the rich is at the lowest its ever been. If only we allow the rich to expand our economy, and pay less taxes than those who will one day work in a job created by the rich, poverty will be nothing but a distant memory. Alternatively: Trust massive state expansion, it worked for Russia, France and the U.S! It can work for you too. I love the delusion of left wingers that the State isnt culpable in manipulation of the markets. Half the country is at the beck and call of the Government. That's not really the alternative. The alternative is don't lower taxes for the rich. That's all. Yeah, no ones ever mentioned cutting Government spending, deregulation, privatization, decentralization of programs [to make them more efficient/responsible to the public] free trade etc etc. Thats never - ever to be completely clear - been offered as a clear alternative to massive ever growing state intervention and debt. Brilliant. Please tell us where you got the statistic of 40% of Americans being dependent on the government, and what exactly being dependent means. "About 49 percent of Americans live in households that receive some form of government benefits, according to the libertarian Mercatus Center at George Mason University, based on data from 2010.*" Dependent is probably a poor choice of words. How many of those require those benefits to actually sustain themselves I dont know, or care. The result is still almost half the country having, in their best interests [well, not really but seemingly] to constantly pressure for the expansion of Government. The Government in part subsidizes nearly half the country. How far its regulations go in punishing particular behaviour and promoting certain companies is all the more drastic. America has one of the biggest Governments in the history of the world and people constantly ridicule it as some kind of wild wild west anachronism. What the states really is, a society beholden to and nanny'd by a non functioning corrupt Government that will spend us all into the poor house. Obviously this explains why the states with populations that receive the most government funding consistently are voting Republican. Oh wait...this explanation doesn't actually fit the real world. People are voting primarily based upon whose policies they think are better for the country, on balance. And who in their right mind actually would consider 40% of Americans receiving Gov aid to be to their benefit? Hardly any American actually supports the expansion of Government- particular programs sure, but on principle they want it smaller and they want less taxes. Both parties support the expansion of the welfare state, for christ sakes the Republicans are priding themselves as the defender of Medicare. GWB was the biggest expander of Government in decades, only outdone by Obama. Most Americans dont even know the name of their Congressman or Senator, let alone what policies they actually support in specifics. Votes are based on culture and perception in the media more or less. All the same, any politician who had the balls to call for the *massive* cutbacks necessary to keep the Government afloat would soon see every single recipient of those programs out to destroy his career. Which is precisely why were diving off a cliff and no one seems to care.
|
On September 19 2012 08:00 whatevername wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 07:50 rogzardo wrote:On September 19 2012 07:43 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 19 2012 07:21 biology]major wrote:On September 19 2012 07:06 kwizach wrote:On September 19 2012 07:04 xDaunt wrote:On September 19 2012 06:58 Kaitlin wrote:On September 19 2012 06:55 xDaunt wrote:On September 19 2012 06:52 Kaitlin wrote:On September 19 2012 06:48 HunterX11 wrote:
[quote]
Obama probably did permanently lose a lot of voters from that remark. And despite how people like to explain it away, "You didn't build that" hurt him as well. Actually, I'm not sure it really has. It's hard to look at the polls and say, "that comment cost Obama X%." I just don't really get the sense that the comment has demonstrably moved public opinion one way or another since it was made three-four months ago. I wouldn't say "public opinion", but it had its effect on small business owners, not all of whom were always, or automatically in Romney's camp. I don't understand why any small business owner would vote for a democrat unless their social values greatly outweighed their economic values and interests. Because the economic plans of Democrats are better for the economy and for business owners in general. if you give the top bracket tax breaks they will share the wealth and help grow the economy instead of putting it in their pockets!. It is only logical for people to share their wealth and hire more workers without any change in demand just because they acquired a little more profit on the side? right??Oh and if the wealth does not go into their pockets guess where it goes? Overseas (Not america) So no, wealth does not trickle down, at least not to us. Why not? Businesses can increase their demand by lowering prices / stealing market share. Lower taxes create an incentive for them to do more of that. Trust the rich. They will take care of you. Trickle down economics has been proven to be effective. This is why our current economic state is so positive. This is why the wealth gap between the poor and the rich is at the lowest its ever been. If only we allow the rich to expand our economy, and pay less taxes than those who will one day work in a job created by the rich, poverty will be nothing but a distant memory. Alternatively: Trust massive state expansion, it worked for Russia, France and the U.S! It can work for you too. I love the delusion of left wingers that the State isnt culpable in manipulation of the markets. Half the country is at the beck and call of the Government.
What other countries have significantly more government involvement in the economy that the U.S.?
Germany, the U.K., Denmark, Norway, Sweden, and Canada.
What other countries are doing significantly better than the U.S. in terms of quality of living?
Germany, the U.K, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, and Canada.
Don't go down the road of, "it failed for Russia!" Historical examples are not on the conservatives' side. The only way that conservatives can win this argument is to somehow argue that the U.S. situation is so unique that government policies like the ones that these countries have won't work. Hell, you could probably throw countries like The Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, Lichtenstein, Switzerland, Austria, South Korea, and Japan on the list of "countries that have more government involvement in the economy and yet haven't collapsed into doom, despair, and devil-worshipping debauchary".
|
On September 19 2012 09:03 whatevername wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 08:56 rogzardo wrote:On September 19 2012 08:53 whatevername wrote:On September 19 2012 08:46 rogzardo wrote:On September 19 2012 08:44 whatevername wrote:On September 19 2012 08:08 Risen wrote:On September 19 2012 08:00 whatevername wrote:On September 19 2012 07:50 rogzardo wrote:On September 19 2012 07:43 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 19 2012 07:21 biology]major wrote:
[quote]
if you give the top bracket tax breaks they will share the wealth and help grow the economy instead of putting it in their pockets!. It is only logical for people to share their wealth and hire more workers without any change in demand just because they acquired a little more profit on the side? right??
Oh and if the wealth does not go into their pockets guess where it goes? Overseas (Not america)
So no, wealth does not trickle down, at least not to us.
Why not? Businesses can increase their demand by lowering prices / stealing market share. Lower taxes create an incentive for them to do more of that. Trust the rich. They will take care of you. Trickle down economics has been proven to be effective. This is why our current economic state is so positive. This is why the wealth gap between the poor and the rich is at the lowest its ever been. If only we allow the rich to expand our economy, and pay less taxes than those who will one day work in a job created by the rich, poverty will be nothing but a distant memory. Alternatively: Trust massive state expansion, it worked for Russia, France and the U.S! It can work for you too. I love the delusion of left wingers that the State isnt culpable in manipulation of the markets. Half the country is at the beck and call of the Government. That's not really the alternative. The alternative is don't lower taxes for the rich. That's all. Yes because half of Americans being dependent on the Government, Government spending as a share of GDP being about 40%-- thats all synonymous with merely having a legal system. Thats what I'm railing against. Curse dem laws!!11!. Thanks for your input. On September 19 2012 08:08 Risen wrote:On September 19 2012 08:00 whatevername wrote:On September 19 2012 07:50 rogzardo wrote:On September 19 2012 07:43 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 19 2012 07:21 biology]major wrote:
[quote]
if you give the top bracket tax breaks they will share the wealth and help grow the economy instead of putting it in their pockets!. It is only logical for people to share their wealth and hire more workers without any change in demand just because they acquired a little more profit on the side? right??
Oh and if the wealth does not go into their pockets guess where it goes? Overseas (Not america)
So no, wealth does not trickle down, at least not to us.
Why not? Businesses can increase their demand by lowering prices / stealing market share. Lower taxes create an incentive for them to do more of that. Trust the rich. They will take care of you. Trickle down economics has been proven to be effective. This is why our current economic state is so positive. This is why the wealth gap between the poor and the rich is at the lowest its ever been. If only we allow the rich to expand our economy, and pay less taxes than those who will one day work in a job created by the rich, poverty will be nothing but a distant memory. Alternatively: Trust massive state expansion, it worked for Russia, France and the U.S! It can work for you too. I love the delusion of left wingers that the State isnt culpable in manipulation of the markets. Half the country is at the beck and call of the Government. That's not really the alternative. The alternative is don't lower taxes for the rich. That's all. Yeah, no ones ever mentioned cutting Government spending, deregulation, privatization, decentralization of programs [to make them more efficient/responsible to the public] free trade etc etc. Thats never - ever to be completely clear - been offered as a clear alternative to massive ever growing state intervention and debt. Brilliant. Please tell us where you got the statistic of 40% of Americans being dependent on the government, and what exactly being dependent means. "About 49 percent of Americans live in households that receive some form of government benefits, according to the libertarian Mercatus Center at George Mason University, based on data from 2010.*" Dependent is probably a poor choice of words. How many of those require those benefits to actually sustain themselves I dont know, or care. The result is still almost half the country having, in their best interests [well, not really but seemingly] to constantly pressure for the expansion of Government. The Government in part subsidizes nearly half the country. How far its regulations go in punishing particular behaviour and promoting certain companies is all the more drastic. America has one of the biggest Governments in the history of the world and people constantly ridicule it as some kind of wild wild west anachronism. What the states really is, a society beholden to and nanny'd by a non functioning corrupt Government that will spend us all into the poor house. Link your source. http://mercatus.org/sites/default/files/publication/nation-of-dependents-analysis.pdf
You have successfully proved that medicaid and social security exist.
|
On September 19 2012 08:53 whatevername wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 08:46 rogzardo wrote:On September 19 2012 08:44 whatevername wrote:On September 19 2012 08:08 Risen wrote:On September 19 2012 08:00 whatevername wrote:On September 19 2012 07:50 rogzardo wrote:On September 19 2012 07:43 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 19 2012 07:21 biology]major wrote:On September 19 2012 07:06 kwizach wrote:On September 19 2012 07:04 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
I don't understand why any small business owner would vote for a democrat unless their social values greatly outweighed their economic values and interests. Because the economic plans of Democrats are better for the economy and for business owners in general. if you give the top bracket tax breaks they will share the wealth and help grow the economy instead of putting it in their pockets!. It is only logical for people to share their wealth and hire more workers without any change in demand just because they acquired a little more profit on the side? right??Oh and if the wealth does not go into their pockets guess where it goes? Overseas (Not america) So no, wealth does not trickle down, at least not to us. Why not? Businesses can increase their demand by lowering prices / stealing market share. Lower taxes create an incentive for them to do more of that. Trust the rich. They will take care of you. Trickle down economics has been proven to be effective. This is why our current economic state is so positive. This is why the wealth gap between the poor and the rich is at the lowest its ever been. If only we allow the rich to expand our economy, and pay less taxes than those who will one day work in a job created by the rich, poverty will be nothing but a distant memory. Alternatively: Trust massive state expansion, it worked for Russia, France and the U.S! It can work for you too. I love the delusion of left wingers that the State isnt culpable in manipulation of the markets. Half the country is at the beck and call of the Government. That's not really the alternative. The alternative is don't lower taxes for the rich. That's all. Yes because half of Americans being dependent on the Government, Government spending as a share of GDP being about 40%-- thats all synonymous with merely having a legal system. Thats what I'm railing against. Curse dem laws!!11!. Thanks for your input. On September 19 2012 08:08 Risen wrote:On September 19 2012 08:00 whatevername wrote:On September 19 2012 07:50 rogzardo wrote:On September 19 2012 07:43 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 19 2012 07:21 biology]major wrote:On September 19 2012 07:06 kwizach wrote:On September 19 2012 07:04 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
I don't understand why any small business owner would vote for a democrat unless their social values greatly outweighed their economic values and interests. Because the economic plans of Democrats are better for the economy and for business owners in general. if you give the top bracket tax breaks they will share the wealth and help grow the economy instead of putting it in their pockets!. It is only logical for people to share their wealth and hire more workers without any change in demand just because they acquired a little more profit on the side? right??Oh and if the wealth does not go into their pockets guess where it goes? Overseas (Not america) So no, wealth does not trickle down, at least not to us. Why not? Businesses can increase their demand by lowering prices / stealing market share. Lower taxes create an incentive for them to do more of that. Trust the rich. They will take care of you. Trickle down economics has been proven to be effective. This is why our current economic state is so positive. This is why the wealth gap between the poor and the rich is at the lowest its ever been. If only we allow the rich to expand our economy, and pay less taxes than those who will one day work in a job created by the rich, poverty will be nothing but a distant memory. Alternatively: Trust massive state expansion, it worked for Russia, France and the U.S! It can work for you too. I love the delusion of left wingers that the State isnt culpable in manipulation of the markets. Half the country is at the beck and call of the Government. That's not really the alternative. The alternative is don't lower taxes for the rich. That's all. Yeah, no ones ever mentioned cutting Government spending, deregulation, privatization, decentralization of programs [to make them more efficient/responsible to the public] free trade etc etc. Thats never - ever to be completely clear - been offered as a clear alternative to massive ever growing state intervention and debt. Brilliant. Please tell us where you got the statistic of 40% of Americans being dependent on the government, and what exactly being dependent means. "About 49 percent of Americans live in households that receive some form of government benefits, according to the libertarian Mercatus Center at George Mason University, based on data from 2010.*" Dependent is probably a poor choice of words. How many of those require those benefits to actually sustain themselves I dont know, or care. The result is still almost half the country having, in their best interests [well, not really but seemingly] to constantly pressure for the expansion of Government. The Government in part subsidizes nearly half the country. How far its regulations go in punishing particular behaviour and promoting certain companies is all the more drastic. America has one of the biggest Governments in the history of the world and people constantly ridicule it as some kind of wild wild west anachronism. What the states really is, a society beholden to and nanny'd by a non functioning corrupt Government that will spend us all into the poor house.
So what? Social Security is defined as a government benefit, yet almost everyone who receives social security benefits has paid into Social Security for most of their life. Same with Medicare.
Receiving some sort of government benefits does not equal being dependent on government. Or refusing to work to sustain oneself (though I suppose in the case of Social Security, retirement can be seen as refusing to continue to work to sustain oneself).
Similarly students receiving Pell grants or loan guarantees to go to college by and large plan on working later in life and paying a large amount of taxes than the benefits they received. Many of them ARE dependent on government, but they are hardly deadbeats.
And for that matter, why is the focus on individuals receiving government benefits. Why not corporations that receive government benefits in the form of farm aid, targeted tax cuts (I'm looking at you Exxon), or tax breaks designed to entice corporations to build facilitates in a certain state, city, or county.
It's rather silly to think that study about government benefits has much to do with who is dependent on government.
Not to mention the mealy-mouthed language of " live in households that receive some form of government benefits". So two people who word hard at their job while their son lives in their house and goes to college with the help of a Pell grant COUNT among the people you are including as "dependent on government." As do parents of a disabled adult who are gainfully employed even as their adult child receives disability benefits.
Or people who hold jobs and take care of their elderly parents, even as those parents receive social security benefits (after having paid into the program).
Really, quoting that study falls into the ream of lies, damn lies, and statistics.
|
I think Mitt has officially thrown away any chance of winning this election, I'd be utterly amazed if he could come back at this point.
Between the Palestiniains not wanting peace comment, the economy improving if he's elected even before he's had a chance to do anything comments, the 47% comments, and this latest gem.
http://www.upworthy.com/mitt-romney-accidentally-confronts-a-gay-veteran-awesomeness-ensues
It's just becoming a PR nightmare at this point, and overshadowing any legit points he might have.
Edit: the video is dated 2011, but seems to be getting circulating recently, I hadn't seen it before.
|
On September 19 2012 09:10 sevencck wrote:
I think Mitt has officially thrown away any chance of winning this election, I'd be utterly amazed if he could come back at this point.
This is the American vote... Anyone can win.
|
Despite the my frustration that I've had reading and posting in this thread for the past few days, I now feel confident that Romney has fucked up beyond repair, and has a pretty slim chance at ever becoming president.
Sometimes, just for a second, I almost believe there is a god. Well played Mitt. Well played.
|
On September 19 2012 07:33 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 07:29 kmillz wrote:
Obama
47%
-1
Romney
46%
+1
Gallup poll. Looks like all you folks saying "Romney is in alot of trouble after that 47% comment in that leaked video!" are wrong. Don't Gallup results lag by a day? They update at 1 PM EST. Romney's leaks happened last night. If they called people this morning I don't think they would have heard about them yet.
I saw that video weeks ago.
|
On September 19 2012 09:10 sevencck wrote:I think Mitt has officially thrown away any chance of winning this election, I'd be utterly amazed if he could come back at this point. Between the Palestiniains not wanting peace comment, the economy improving if he's elected even before he's had a chance to do anything comments, the 47% comments, and this latest gem. http://www.upworthy.com/mitt-romney-accidentally-confronts-a-gay-veteran-awesomeness-ensuesIt's just becoming a PR nightmare at this point, and overshadowing any legit points he might have. Edit: the video is dated 2011, but seems to be getting circulating recently, I hadn't seen it before.
He already has come back, its a 1% election right now according to gallup (the most accurate poll with a 2% margin of error, predicted the most elected presidents of any poll). That video was leaked weeks ago. It resulted in nothing. So no, he hasn't thrown anything away.
|
On September 19 2012 09:21 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 09:10 sevencck wrote:I think Mitt has officially thrown away any chance of winning this election, I'd be utterly amazed if he could come back at this point. Between the Palestiniains not wanting peace comment, the economy improving if he's elected even before he's had a chance to do anything comments, the 47% comments, and this latest gem. http://www.upworthy.com/mitt-romney-accidentally-confronts-a-gay-veteran-awesomeness-ensuesIt's just becoming a PR nightmare at this point, and overshadowing any legit points he might have. Edit: the video is dated 2011, but seems to be getting circulating recently, I hadn't seen it before. He already has come back, its a 1% election right now according to gallup (the most accurate poll with a 2% margin of error, predicted the most elected presidents of any poll). That video was leaked weeks ago. It resulted in nothing. So no, he hasn't thrown anything away.
You're implying that the majority of people have been exposed to the 47% comments and the country has had a chance to digest them already. You're implying this won't snowball away from Mitt. He said 47% of Americans will back Obama no matter what and “my job is not to worry about those people.” (among saying other things)
The election is more than a month away, the U.S. public will have alot of time to reflect on those comments. It will likely just solidify Obama's support, push those who were on the fence toward Obama, and push many Republicans toward the independent.
|
On September 19 2012 09:28 sevencck wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 09:21 kmillz wrote:On September 19 2012 09:10 sevencck wrote:I think Mitt has officially thrown away any chance of winning this election, I'd be utterly amazed if he could come back at this point. Between the Palestiniains not wanting peace comment, the economy improving if he's elected even before he's had a chance to do anything comments, the 47% comments, and this latest gem. http://www.upworthy.com/mitt-romney-accidentally-confronts-a-gay-veteran-awesomeness-ensuesIt's just becoming a PR nightmare at this point, and overshadowing any legit points he might have. Edit: the video is dated 2011, but seems to be getting circulating recently, I hadn't seen it before. He already has come back, its a 1% election right now according to gallup (the most accurate poll with a 2% margin of error, predicted the most elected presidents of any poll). That video was leaked weeks ago. It resulted in nothing. So no, he hasn't thrown anything away. You're implying that the majority of people have been exposed to the 47% comments and the country has had a chance to digest them already. You're implying this won't snowball away from Mitt. He said 47% of Americans will back Obama no matter what and “my job is not to worry about those people.” (among saying other things) The election is more than a month away, the U.S. public will have alot of time to reflect on those comments. It will likely just solidify Obama's support, push those who were on the fence toward Obama, and push many Republicans toward the independent.
It's more that it will dissuade Republicans from voting.
|
On September 19 2012 09:10 sevencck wrote:I think Mitt has officially thrown away any chance of winning this election, I'd be utterly amazed if he could come back at this point. Between the Palestiniains not wanting peace comment, the economy improving if he's elected even before he's had a chance to do anything comments, the 47% comments, and this latest gem. http://www.upworthy.com/mitt-romney-accidentally-confronts-a-gay-veteran-awesomeness-ensuesIt's just becoming a PR nightmare at this point, and overshadowing any legit points he might have. Edit: the video is dated 2011, but seems to be getting circulating recently, I hadn't seen it before.
You know all of this just makes conservatives more likely to come to the polls to vote for him.
|
On September 19 2012 08:27 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 08:21 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 19 2012 07:50 rogzardo wrote:On September 19 2012 07:43 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 19 2012 07:21 biology]major wrote:On September 19 2012 07:06 kwizach wrote:On September 19 2012 07:04 xDaunt wrote:On September 19 2012 06:58 Kaitlin wrote:On September 19 2012 06:55 xDaunt wrote:On September 19 2012 06:52 Kaitlin wrote:
[quote]
And despite how people like to explain it away, "You didn't build that" hurt him as well. Actually, I'm not sure it really has. It's hard to look at the polls and say, "that comment cost Obama X%." I just don't really get the sense that the comment has demonstrably moved public opinion one way or another since it was made three-four months ago. I wouldn't say "public opinion", but it had its effect on small business owners, not all of whom were always, or automatically in Romney's camp. I don't understand why any small business owner would vote for a democrat unless their social values greatly outweighed their economic values and interests. Because the economic plans of Democrats are better for the economy and for business owners in general. if you give the top bracket tax breaks they will share the wealth and help grow the economy instead of putting it in their pockets!. It is only logical for people to share their wealth and hire more workers without any change in demand just because they acquired a little more profit on the side? right??Oh and if the wealth does not go into their pockets guess where it goes? Overseas (Not america) So no, wealth does not trickle down, at least not to us. Why not? Businesses can increase their demand by lowering prices / stealing market share. Lower taxes create an incentive for them to do more of that. Trust the rich. They will take care of you. Trickle down economics has been proven to be effective. This is why our current economic state is so positive. This is why the wealth gap between the poor and the rich is at the lowest its ever been. If only we allow the rich to expand our economy, and pay less taxes than those who will one day work in a job created by the rich, poverty will be nothing but a distant memory. This isn't trickle down economics. This is how a market economy is supposed to function. When profits go up competition should increase and push profits back down. We aren't currently seeing that and there's no one "there it is!" problem and solution. A reasonable diagnosis of the problem is that businesses do not see current profits as sustainable and / or see uncertainty as too great a factor. Lowering taxes would then help remedy that. If you disagree, fine, but please offer some logic behind your disagreement. Businesses are willing to expand and hire more workers when they see opportunity for growth, i.e., more products to sell. Cutting taxes is simply a false growth for business - they didn't sell more products or necessarily make more of their goods, they simply got more money off of what they're already doing. You basically made status quo practices more profitable. So you just gave them some extra cash which won't go into investment, because opportunity and demand didn't change.
Businesses have plenty of opportunities to grow. Most only have a tiny fraction of market share - for an individual business there's tons and tons of demand out there to be had. Its just a matter of grabbing it and whether or not you can do so profitably.
|
On September 19 2012 09:37 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 09:28 sevencck wrote:On September 19 2012 09:21 kmillz wrote:On September 19 2012 09:10 sevencck wrote:I think Mitt has officially thrown away any chance of winning this election, I'd be utterly amazed if he could come back at this point. Between the Palestiniains not wanting peace comment, the economy improving if he's elected even before he's had a chance to do anything comments, the 47% comments, and this latest gem. http://www.upworthy.com/mitt-romney-accidentally-confronts-a-gay-veteran-awesomeness-ensuesIt's just becoming a PR nightmare at this point, and overshadowing any legit points he might have. Edit: the video is dated 2011, but seems to be getting circulating recently, I hadn't seen it before. He already has come back, its a 1% election right now according to gallup (the most accurate poll with a 2% margin of error, predicted the most elected presidents of any poll). That video was leaked weeks ago. It resulted in nothing. So no, he hasn't thrown anything away. You're implying that the majority of people have been exposed to the 47% comments and the country has had a chance to digest them already. You're implying this won't snowball away from Mitt. He said 47% of Americans will back Obama no matter what and “my job is not to worry about those people.” (among saying other things) The election is more than a month away, the U.S. public will have alot of time to reflect on those comments. It will likely just solidify Obama's support, push those who were on the fence toward Obama, and push many Republicans toward the independent. It's more that it will dissuade Republicans from voting.
Really? It hasn't dissuaded me and I'm Independent. That video does not convince me that Obama is the right choice for America, as such, I will still cast my vote for the most likely candidate to dethrone him, and you are foolishly ignorant if you think most people will suddenly get a change of heart and vote Obama from that video or NOT vote for the guy to unseat him.
|
On September 19 2012 06:13 MinusPlus wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 05:19 xDaunt wrote:
...
I think that a little much is being made of the significance of the 47% comments. Was it helpful? Of course not. Is it harmful? Possibly at the margins, and probably only short term. Hopefully Romney will use this as an opportunity to take the gloves off and throw out some meaty policy for people to chew on.
...
By whom? I mean...the GOP kinda built their whole convention around "You didn't build that," so calling 47% of the nation entitled, victimized dependents not worth pandering to seems significant (relatively). And that's taken in context, on video, and using the same wording. Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 05:59 jdseemoreglass wrote:On September 19 2012 05:57 Gorsameth wrote:On September 19 2012 05:53 Wolvmatt. wrote:On September 19 2012 05:47 Gorsameth wrote:
How can anyone running for President say that almost half of the people in the country that he wants to lead are insignificant.
Im sorry but i think a president should do more then cater to the 50.1% that voted for him. You can't give everybody everything. Ofcourse you can't but there is a different between trying to do the best for everyone and flat out dismissing 47% of your country as useless bags of meat. That's not what he did. He said it's a waste to fight for the vote of people who are already decided. How do you read that as "half the country is insignificant"? Come on people, do you think Obama is fighting for the Tea Party vote? Should he? Does that mean he dismisses them as insignificant citizens? This stuff is very basic. This reminded me. I realize the Non-Payers by State image was posted earlier, but no one juxtaposed that one with polling data by state, which had been my first thought after seeing it. So, in case anyone reading wasn't already acutely aware, here's how we supposedly stand today. ( source) ![[image loading]](http://taxfoundation.org/sites/taxfoundation.org/files/UserFiles/Image/Fiscal%20Facts/20100524-229-nonpayers-map-.jpg) ![[image loading]](http://electoral-vote.com/evp2012/Pres/Pngs/Sep18.png) The interesting thing about what Romney said is that he didn't just say that 47% of Americans will vote for Obama no matter what -- it's that he also insulted a significant portion of his own base. Or maybe they aren't significant. I never know what's going to come out of this Romney guy next. (Sorry for old news & large images)
LOL at that image of non-payers. That's the prime example of misleading the viewers with stats. I hope you guys are smarter than that.
|
On September 19 2012 09:21 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 09:10 sevencck wrote:I think Mitt has officially thrown away any chance of winning this election, I'd be utterly amazed if he could come back at this point. Between the Palestiniains not wanting peace comment, the economy improving if he's elected even before he's had a chance to do anything comments, the 47% comments, and this latest gem. http://www.upworthy.com/mitt-romney-accidentally-confronts-a-gay-veteran-awesomeness-ensuesIt's just becoming a PR nightmare at this point, and overshadowing any legit points he might have. Edit: the video is dated 2011, but seems to be getting circulating recently, I hadn't seen it before. He already has come back, its a 1% election right now according to gallup (the most accurate poll with a 2% margin of error, predicted the most elected presidents of any poll). That video was leaked weeks ago. It resulted in nothing. So no, he hasn't thrown anything away.
And the vid has only widely come available to the public eye a few days ago. Its going to take at least a week to get polls that update with what people think after all the stuff has come to light. Almost everyone agrees that this is going to hurt him, just a question of how much.
I dont see Romney coming back personally. Before all this stuff came to light i would still had Obama as the favorite, if ever so slightly and now i just see it turning into a runaway train for Romney. To much momentum to even pull things back to where he needs it to be just to be on even ground.
Unless Obama pulls something equally stupid in the debates like say something along the like of all white people being crackers i think he has this in the bag.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
