Romney just cost himself the election

[whatbogsends]

TeddyReceptus is not displaying a party icon. How do you know what party he belongs to?

If you aint fer us yer agin us!

 

[RedPaddy]

Here's how it works (I lived in Mass when Mitt wanted to be Governor there). The world is a hard and cruel place so Mitt gets people to "fix" things for him! When he wanted to be governor of a state that has rather set "residency requirements" for the candidates, Mitt realized he had given up that right in order to be big king man of SLC Olympics. Well being the savior of the Olympics was fun and good and made him look good, but now Mitt wanted to be governor of Massachusetts! What is a widdle boy to do who has more money than God? Well somehow the rules got changed in Mass and Mitt was allowed to get around the rules.

lol. yup, he got it changed. At least he was financially good for mass. His gifts to the left on social issues I regret, but financially he did better than any I know of with a 90% opposing party legislature.

Kind of remind me of the Dems in MA changing the laws after Teddy K flew south for his long hot permanent retirement and taking the people's right ot elect a replacement away and appointing a senator. Or the time when Sen BraveHeart Kerry had the fire hydrant literally moved a bit further down the street just so he could park directly in front of one of his houses.

Yeah, politics in MA can be quite fun to reminisce about. Thanks

 

[TeddyReceptus]

When you say championed, obviously you mean never even brought up n the floor for serious consideration

The history of healthcare reform is actually quite two-sided, Mach. I know many republicans who can't remember the world before 2008 like to forget, but healthcare reform has been discussed by many presidents going back to Teddy Roosevelt (don't worry who they were, they just made up most of the 20th century).

You may not like history but let's go with that ultra-liberal rag The Wall STreet Journal for some background (LINK)

From a debate in 2011:

Romney: Actually, Newt, we got the idea of an individual mandate from you.

Well, interestingly enough that's from the mouth of the GOP candidate!

How did Newt respond?

Gingrich: That's not true. You got it from the Heritage Foundation.

Oopsy! Now we have the Heritage Foundation involved!

Heritage did put forward the idea of an individual mandate, though it predated HillaryCare by several years. We know this because we were there: In 1988-90, we were employed at Heritage as a public relations associate (a junior writer and editor), and we wrote at least one press release for a publication touting Heritage's plan for comprehensive legislation to provide universal "quality, affordable health care."(ibid)

oh my! An eye witness!!!

The real issue is that anyone with a brain knows you can't force a for-profit insurance company to assume high risk pool members without demanding a "mandate". It's the only way a reform of insurance can work while keeping insurance companies in the loop.

I think we all understand that the GOP base has no real understanding of economic details, but your thinktanks and your politicians do.

They just choose not to tell you.

Too bad for you guys I guess!

 

[Illuminaughty]

Romney: Actually, Newt, we got the idea of an individual mandate from you.
​

Well, interestingly enough that's from the mouth of the GOP candidate!

How did Newt respond?

Gingrich: That's not true. You got it from the Heritage Foundation.
​

Oopsy! Now we have the Heritage Foundation involved!

Job well done Gingrich.

 

[SimplyMe]

HIS proven inability?

Mitch McConnell: Top Priority, Make Obama a One Term President - YouTube

I don't know about how you vote, but personally I'd rather pay my congressperson to do the job of legislating rather than PLAYING PURE POLITICS.

I didn't send my congressperson to Washington to unseat someone. I sent them there to legislate.

(But then I'm not a conservative so I believe in paying for a service and actually getting it.)

Interesting how the rest of McConnell's remarks get completely ignored. You know, the part where he says, "If President Obama does a Clintonian backflip, if he's willing to meet us halfway on some of the biggest issues, it's not inappropriate for us to do business with him."

Later in the remarks he stated, "I don't want the president to fail. I want him to change."

Also, note that this was not when Obama was first elected but in October 2010, a time when Republicans felt that Obama refused to listen to them, didn't care what Republicans wanted, because he knew he had a Democratic majority in Congress and didn't need the Republicans.

It's also interesting, just about a month later, that McConnell and Biden worked together to pass some bills in the lame duck session of Congress, before the Republican majority, that had just been elected in the House, took office. The evidence here doesn't support that McConnell was unwilling to work with the White House.

 

[TeddyReceptus]

I do not know of anyone who has advocated for such.

Sorry but the record speaks for itself. When the budget debates were ongoing the choice was either increase revenue by increasing taxes (especially the top marginal tax rates which had been cut under Bush) or cutting social programs. The GOP firmly stood against any and all tax increases. That leaves only one choice. LIke it or not that was the choice the GOP made explicitly.

Increased tax rates and and tax revenues do not equate, rather they are opposing.

sounds like standard issue Trickledown nonsense. But I will consider actual evidence. Thanks.

Look at the rates and revenues from 1921 to 1925, during the Kennedy administration, and the Reagan administration for evidence of this.

Please provide the graph and/or data. Thanks.

Warren G. Harding Administration 1921-1923 Top Marginal Tax rate = 73%

JFK Administration Top Marginal Tax Rate = 91%

Reagan Administration Top Marginal Tax Rate = started at 69% ended at 28%

But I suspect you are trying to leverage the Laffer Curve?

So if you can actually provide evidence that Laffer was demonstrably correct, please do educate us!

I applaud the Republicans for even their attempts to reduce our deficit while the democrats spend like drunken fools money they do not have.

If you think one balances the books quickly and under duress by cutting opex without increasing revenues then you are probably not going to be doing a lot of business. The GOP knows this, but they sell you another story altogether.

You can raise the rate of taxation but all you are doing is affecting behavior.

You know, we've had 30 years of this TrickleDown supply-side "experiment" and I don't see it actually working. Maybe you actually have data?

Those affected by the rate increase end up paying less since they are putting their money outside of the reach of the tax man.

The GOP Presidential Nominee certainly knows that! I guess giving your money to a country made up almost 50% of lazy leeches would make you curl your lips and try anything to keep those grubby nasties from getting your sweet money.

I just wonder why does Mitt want to run a country made up of such vile beings?

Ewww! I can see why he stashes some of his sweet lovely money in off-shore tax havens!!! (If I hated American that much I guess I'd hide as much money from it as I could too! ewwww!)

 

[TeddyReceptus]

TeddyReceptus is not displaying a party icon. How do you know what party he belongs to?

It's actually a fair cop. I will vote Democrat, I'm reasonably consistent (since college) in voting Dem or (when I lived in Mass and I knew Gore would get our electoral votes I voted for the Green party just so they had a shot at getting federal matching funds the next year but to no avail).

I'm a liberal progressive. Back in college I kind of leaned "Right" and at first felt a kind of "OK" feeling for Ronny Raygun. But then I grew up. Started to have to function in the world so I became a Dem.

I don't believe that the Dems are right all the time and I'm disappointed in Obama on many fronts, I was disappointed in Clinton as well. So I'm not ultra-partisan, but I am a dem. So it was a fair catch on behalf of the poster.

(Sorry I didn't put an icon there...I tend not to load up the bells and whistles on these fora. My bad!)

 

[SharonL]

Romney has not hurt himself - in fact it has given energy to people to think this needs to be addressed. The average person has common sense to know he is not talking about people that need assistance or has earned it, but if people would just be honest they would admit there are many people on welfare and food stamps that could work if they wanted to - but when unemployment pays as much as a job - why not take a long vacation. Half the citizens not paying taxes and the other half not bringing in enough taxes to sustain us - we will go over the edge - printing money to the tune of 40 billion per month has devalued the dollar until we are on a path to crashing.

 

[TeddyReceptus]

Romney has not hurt himself

I am troubled since I assume at 77 Sharon, you may use Medicare and SS? That means you may very well be among the 47% that Mitt openly disdains because you use a government check. But then you probably pay taxes on that, so maybe you are an "OK" person in Mitt's ledger.

Maybe if Mitt and his buddy Paul will effectively privatize SS and cut Medicare benefits. That will be easier on you knowing that it is offset by ultrawealthy folks like Mitt and Paul get to maintain near historically low levels of top marginal tax rates!

- in fact it has given energy to people to think this needs to be addressed.

How shall it be addressed, Sharon? Shall we start by cutting medicare? I'm not old (yet) so I don't use it. And if I think like a Republican I will never need it. So yes let's cut, cut, cut. Let's rely on the Laffer Curve and trickle down economics!

Let's clear the decks and solve the problem altogether: let's eliminate all social welfare programs and give all that money to the "job creators" and we will live in Utopia.

The average person has common sense to know he is not talking about people that need assistance or has earned it

What the right seem to fail at in this logical syllogism is that people who get aid are not, ipso facto, lazy people unable to take care of themselves. In fact most people who get aid are not that way.

This myth of the welfare queen was debunked 20 years ago. But still it lives on in Republicans imaginations.

Are there abusers of social welfare programs? YES! Is it nearly half of all America? NO!!!!!!!

, but if people would just be honest they would admit there are many people on welfare and food stamps that could work if they wanted to - but when unemployment pays as much as a job - why not take a long vacation.

See this is where the GOP train goes off the rails. This idea that somehow poverty level income from social welfare is so sweet an existence that masses of Americans flock to it is ridiculous! How many people do you know or have you actually met who live like that?

I'm guessing the answer is ZERO. Why is that? Because there simply aren't that many bad people out there!

Half the citizens not paying taxes and the other half not bringing in enough taxes to sustain us

This is simply not the case, Sharon. It has been explained so many times that this is grotesque myth that it scares me that it seems impossible to quell. And do remember that some people who pay ridiculously low tax rates include multimillionaires. Maybe this is why Mitt doesn't really want to talk about his tax returns much.

- we will go over the edge -

Well, in a very real sense you are right. We will go over the edge, but the fix is not to have a go at people who need and use welfare programs!

It is a balanced approach. Increase taxes, eliminate loopholes, cut some programs, cut some welfare.

It is never one thing vs another. It is always compromise and balance.

No one wants to see 77 year old women out on the street unable to afford their medication! And similarly I don't want to see children unable to get food in this, the richest country to ever exist on the planet. And I don't want 44 million of my fellow Americans unable to get good healthcare.

 

[mpok1519]

Did anyone see Rmoney's damage control speech? His body language was something between a chihuahua that needs to pee and a shark attack victim. He REALLY wishes he hadn't said those things.

 

[jpcedotal]

I think Romney finally spoke the truth...

 

[JCSr]

I think Romney finally spoke the truth...

Doesn't it bother you that he was lying all that time before he finally spoke the truth?

 

[SharonL]

Maybe his body language says 'I've hit a nerve - I've said something that should be addressed - I've stirred up some energy - polls are closing.

Jimmy Carter's grandson is working hard to get Obama to have the title 'the worst president in the United States history' and take that title from his grandfather.
http://www.news-press.com/article/20120919/NEWS0107/120919005/0/CONSERVATION2020/Jimmy-Carter-s-grandson-arranged-Romney-video-release?odyssey=nav%7Chead

 

[jpcedotal]

Doesn't it bother you that he was lying all that time before he finally spoke the truth?

no more than Obama and every other politician in Washington...

just to add I aint voting for either of them...I am a Christian and I only vote Christian.

 

[HerbieHeadley]

no more than Obama and every other politician in Washington...

just to add I aint voting for either of them...I am a Christian and I only vote Christian.

I'm voting for Romney who knows Jesus Christ is Lord.

 

[mathetes123]

This feigned shock at what Romney said as if it was some kind of extremist gaff is typical of the liberal media. What Romney said is no different than what the conservative talk radio commentators have been talking about for years. He stated that the 47% who depend on the government would vote for Obama. Are there or are there not 47% who are dependent on government? If so, would they not be more likely to support a candidate who openly states he supports redistribution of wealth? He is talking about campaign strategy. Why would he devote limited resources to appeal to people who are not going to vote for him anyways rather than to people he can reach? Nowhere in Romney's statements did he say as president he would only represent the other 53%, though this is the perception that the liberal media is trying to twist his words to suggest.

 

[jpcedotal]

This feigned shock at what Romney said as if it was some kind of extremist gaff is typical of the liberal media. What Romney said is no different than what the conservative talk radio commentators have been talking about for years. He stated that the 47% who depend on the government would vote for Obama. Are there or are there not 47% who are dependent on government? If so, would they not be more likely to support a candidate who openly states he supports redistribution of wealth? Nowhere in Romney's statements did he say as president he would only represent the other 53%, though this is the perception that the liberal media is trying to twist his words to suggest.

I think this is what Romney wants...does anyone really think this footage "accidentally" slipped out? Who do u think Romney wanted to hear him say that without "actually" saying it "on record"?

Romney is playing the media and the liberals, while at the same time telling the grass roots folks he aint blind to the growing number of "my check" lazy folks...I think both sides are forgetting the intelligence of Romney and this aint his first rodeo.

 

[morningstar2651]

Romney has not hurt himself - in fact it has given energy to people to think this needs to be addressed. The average person has common sense to know he is not talking about people that need assistance or has earned it, but if people would just be honest they would admit there are many people on welfare and food stamps that could work if they wanted to - but when unemployment pays as much as a job - why not take a long vacation. Half the citizens not paying taxes and the other half not bringing in enough taxes to sustain us - we will go over the edge - printing money to the tune of 40 billion per month has devalued the dollar until we are on a path to crashing.

Actually, according to Romney, 1 out of 2 people are a leach on society and don't matter.

 

[Illuminaughty]

I think Romney finally spoke the truth...

That 47% of Americans are on government assistance isn't the truth. That people are irresponsible simply because they don't get paid a lot for their labor isn't accurate either. You can't make stuff up just to illustrate your point. Even if you agree with the basic idea of people being leaches and living off the government and such I don't see how anyone could agree with the specific examples he gave which not even factual.

 

[Thekla]

I'm voting for Romney who knows Jesus Christ is Lord.

The understanding of Who Christ is seems to be different in the Mormon faith -- per my understanding, God the Father and God the Son ( the incarnated, crucified, resurrected, and ascended Christ) are and were physical creatures -- and God did not create matter, but formed existing matter. That God is finite, and exists only in time but is not its creator, or the Creator. Ie the understanding of the Trinity is far afield of traditional Christian belief, and in line with Platonic (and neoPythagorean etc.) thought, as well as Gnostic, Arian and Audian understandings (recognized as heresies).

I would appreciate verified correction on this.
See, for example:
Why I Love Mormonism - NYTimes.com

The identity of Christ is central to Christianity (and the Gospel of John, for example); a different identity = a different Christ.