Romney’s voters are not moochers or victims

[punked]

This is like giving a man a fish to eat for a day. Teach a man to fish ......

Hand outs are only going to last as long as there is money in the system. The money seems to be running out quick.... oh wait now we have QE-Unlimited. The fed pumping 49bill every month into the economy until further notice. Sure this will work out as well as the last two attempts at QE. Is the economy better off now than it was 4 years ago? I think that answer is ... no.

"It's like give a man a fish and he will eat for a day. Take that fish away from the man and give to a billionaire to sell to the man because who needs cheep affordable food in the US anyway?"

There fixed that for you.

America is the richest nation in the world they can afford to make sure their people can eat. They can afford a lot of things but they have pay for those things.

Edited September 22, 2012 by punked

[Bonam]

Is the economy better off now than it was 4 years ago?

Yes it is. In September 2008 the economy was falling off a cliff. GDP was shrinking, hundreds of thousands of jobs were being lost every month, the stock market was crashing, and companies were going bankrupt left and right. Today, GDP is growing, unemployment rates are steady, jobs are being created from month to month, the stock market has recovered, and employers are starting to hire again.

Now, whether the methods used to achieve this, such as massive deficit spending and quantitative easing are sustainable or justifiable is certainly questionable, but there is no question that for now, the economy is better than it was 4 years ago.

Edited September 22, 2012 by Bonam

[GostHacked]

"It's like give a man a fish and he will eat for a day. Take that fish away from the man and give to a billionaire to sell to the man because who needs cheep affordable food in the US anyway?"

There fixed that for you.

America is the richest nation in the world they can afford to make sure their people can eat. They can afford a lot of things but they have pay for those things.

Why is the USA national debt clocking in at 16 trillion dollars? Why does it rarely if ever go down, but constantly rises?

http://news.yahoo.com/us-national-debt-hits-16-trillion-republicans-blast-031301848.html

WASHINGTON - The Treasury Department said Tuesday that the national debt has topped $16 trillion, the result of chronic government deficits that have poured more than $50,000 worth of red ink onto federal ledgers for every man, woman and child in the United States.

The news was greeted with a round of press releases from Barack Obama's Republican rivals, who used the grim-but-expected news to criticize the president for the government's fiscal performance over his 3 1/2 years in office. Obama has presided over four straight years of trillion dollar-plus deficits after inheriting a weak economy from his predecessor, George W. Bush.

"We can no longer push off the tough decisions until tomorrow," said No. 2 House Republican Eric Cantor. "It's time to address the serious fiscal challenges we face and stop spending money we don't have." Last summer, Cantor dropped out of a set of budget talks hosted by Vice-President Joe Biden, citing the insistence of the White House on tax increases to help close deficits that require the government to borrow 33 cents of every dollar it spends.

The spiraling debt means that lawmakers and the eventual winner of the White House in November will have to pass a law early next year to raise the government's borrowing cap from the current ceiling of $16.39 trillion. Passing such legislation last year proved enormously difficult and the nation's credit rating suffered.

[punked]

Why is the USA national debt clocking in at 16 trillion dollars? Why does it rarely if ever go down, but constantly rises?

http://news.yahoo.com/us-national-debt-hits-16-trillion-republicans-blast-031301848.html

Why does Mitt Romney pay 14% as his income tax on a 14 million dollar income?

Let me state this again. America is the richest country in the world they can afford to feed their people if they want to. They can afford to fight 2 wars for 13 years if they want to. They can send every student to school for free if they want to. They can afford to have 200,000 people earning over 200,000 dollars a year pay no taxes at all.

It isn't a question of if they can do things, it is a question of how much they are willing to pay and how many things they truly as a country they want. You pretending that America is broke when they have a millionaire for every hundred people just makes you look like you have no idea what you are talking about.

America if they wanted to all chip in and make sacrifices could pay off their national debt tomorrow.

Edited September 22, 2012 by punked

[GostHacked]

Why does Mitt Romney pay 14% as his income tax on a 14 million dollar income?

Let me state this again. America is the richest country in the world they can afford to feed their people if they want to.

If they want to. IF.

They can afford to fight 2 wars for 13 years if they want to. They can send every student to school for free if they want to. They can afford to have 200,000 people earning over 200,000 dollars a year pay no taxes at all.

That's just it, they can't afford it. And again they could send everyone to school for free. If they WANT to.

Seems like they really don't want to. Socialism is a dirty word in the USA.

It isn't a question of if they can do things, it is a question of how much they are willing to pay and how many things they truly as a country they want. You pretending that America is broke when they have a millionaire for every hundred people just makes you look like you have no idea what you are talking about.

You keep hitting on that which I think is important, the degree of willingness to correct such problems.

If America is not broke, why do we now have Quantitative Easing #3 which is perpetual? Where does the Fed get the money to dump into the economy? And if the economy was sound as you claim it to be, why did the bailouts go to the banks that created the whole mortgage housing crisis a couple years back?

If America is not broke, why are cities going bankrupt and asking public servants to take a pay cut?

If America is not broke, why is the ratio of poor people compared to the upper crust increasing?

America if they wanted to all chip in and make sacrifices could pay off their national debt tomorrow.

So when do you want to pay your 50,000 share?

[Guest American Woman]

"It's like give a man a fish and he will eat for a day. Take that fish away from the man and give to a billionaire to sell to the man because who needs cheep affordable food in the US anyway?"

I'm not sure what your point is. Why do you have to give the fish to "a billionaire" to sell to him? And what difference does it make if the man selling the fish is getting his money from the man's income or from the government via food stamps? His profit/the price of the fish is the same regardless.

[punked]

I'm not sure what your point is. Why do you have to give the fish to "a billionaire" to sell to him? And what difference does it make if the man selling the fish is getting his money from the man's income or from the government via food stamps? His profit/the price of the fish is the same regardless.

I never got why the billionaire needed the fish either but that is Republican logic so I often can not follow it.

As for why America should be kept feed, to grow and keep a strong healthy work force I think the pros for that speak for themselves. That is with out mentioning how the small American Farm couldn't compete with out the program. There are plenty of places to either cut or raise revenue. Food stamps is not the place to start I'll tell you that much.

[kraychik]

The most puzzling part: the parts of America that are the biggest "takers" are the parts where Republican support is strongest:

Irony alert

-k

That information is missing a lot of context. We need to look at which states have higher proportions of people dependent on welfare programs. Also, which states get more federal funding in absolute and per-capita terms? Also, which states have the worst debt ratios (hint, they're all Democratic strongholds)? These are just a few pieces of missing information from this article. This is a misleading article from the disgraceful Washington Post.

[kraychik]

Bull. Shit. You know damn well that there's very few people who pay no taxes (like, less than 15%).

While that's true, the question is what percentage of the population consumes more money via government-provisioned "services" than it contributes via taxes? That number is a lot higher than 15%, and it's only growing as America accelerates its economic decline with a socialist President.

[Shady]

Here's the core of Obama's support. Which only reinforces my belief, that only property owners should be allowed to vote. But instead, we've got a large group of, pardon my french, complete f'ing morons, selecting the president of the United States. Which gave us Obama. They're dragging America down, along with the rest of us.

[bleeding heart]

Here's the core of Obama's support. Which only reinforces my belief, that only property owners should be allowed to vote. But instead, we've got a large group of, pardon my french, complete f'ing morons, selecting the president of the United States. Which gave us Obama. They're dragging America down, along with the rest of us.

You're an elitist. Congratulations.

You also have zero clue about democratic principles. Again, good work.

[kraychik]

Here's the core of Obama's support. Which only reinforces my belief, that only property owners should be allowed to vote.

I understand what you're trying to get at, but ownership of property isn't the standard to set. Property owners can still be racked with debt, and can be economic liabilities on the public purse.

But instead, we've got a large group of, pardon my french, complete f'ing morons, selecting the president of the United States. Which gave us Obama. They're dragging America down, along with the rest of us.

There's no question that a large swathe of the electorate subscribes to this mindset:

"Government is the great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else." – Frederic Bastiat

That Howard Stern clip is priceless, and encapsulates the contemporary leftist in America or Canada.

[kraychik]

You're an elitist. Congratulations.

You also have zero clue about democratic principles. Again, good work.

There's validity to what he's saying. Let's look at contemporary immigration policies, as an example. The left prefers to import people who have much lower likelihoods of successful integration into our society. Some argue that this is simply a consequence of stupid policies which refuse to set standards for admission based on culture/values, which I find likely. Other argue that this is by design and done through malice, with the intention of bolstering the number of people dependent on so-called government welfare programs to boost its voter base. This scenario is related to what Shady is getting at, where he wants some sort of standard for voting. A part of me sympathises with his position, but I certainly wouldn't know how to go about implementing such an idea as policy.

[punked]

There's validity to what he's saying. Let's look at contemporary immigration policies, as an example. The left prefers to import people who have much lower likelihoods of successful integration into our society. Some argue that this is simply a consequence of stupid policies which refuse to set standards for admission based on culture/values, which I find likely. Other argue that this is by design and done through malice, with the intention of bolstering the number of people dependent on so-called government welfare programs to boost its voter base. This scenario is related to what Shady is getting at, where he wants some sort of standard for voting. A part of me sympathises with his position, but I certainly wouldn't know how to go about implementing such an idea as policy.

Yew we get it. Only your opinions count.

[bleeding heart]

There's validity to what he's saying.

Sure...if one is opposed to the essential core of democratic principles.

Edited September 25, 2012 by bleeding heart

[kraychik]

Sure...if one is opposed to the essential core of democratic principles.

You don't understand that democracy has many iterations any more than you understand that conservatism does.

[bleeding heart]

You don't understand that democracy has many iterations any more than you understand that conservatism does.

Limiting the vote to "property owners"--is one of those iterations?

I don't believe you've thought this through...at all. But plainly it appeals to your (top-down) class warrior sensibilities.

Edited September 25, 2012 by bleeding heart

[kraychik]

Limiting the vote to "property owners"--is one of those iterations?

I don't believe you've thought this through...at all. But plainly it appeals to your (top-down) class warrior sensibilities.

I already rejected that iteration.

[-TSS-]

Here's the core of Obama's support. Which only reinforces my belief, that only property owners should be allowed to vote. But instead, we've got a large group of, pardon my french, complete f'ing morons, selecting the president of the United States. Which gave us Obama. They're dragging America down, along with the rest of us.

Would people who have inherited property be eligible to vote in your ideal society?

[bleeding heart]

I already rejected that iteration.

Only because you "wouldn't know how to go about implementing such an idea as policy."

But as principle, you think it's pretty good, eh?

So your adherence to democratic principles is exactly...zero. Congratulations.

[Shady]

In terms of stimulus to the economy, food stamps are probably a lot more efficient than cutting capital gains taxes or any of the other ideas that Team Elephant is trumpeting right now.

Food stamp funds go straight into the economy. They're spent at retailers, and more than likely spent at food retailers that are close to poor communities where food stamp recipients actually live.

As well as being spent at local businesses in areas that need jobs the most, food stamp funds probably purchase American-made products at a higher rate than the average shopping dollar. As in, if an American buys $100 of consumer goods, a big portion of that $100 is probably being spent on stuff made in other countries. If an American buys $100 of food, a lot of it is probably spent on stuff produced by American farmers and food companies.

-k

Complete nonsense. Foodstamps aren't economic stimulus. It shows how economically illiterate you are. It that were the case, everyone should be on foodstamps!!! Just think of the stimulus to the economy!! LOL.

[Shady]

Yes it is. In September 2008 the economy was falling off a cliff. GDP was shrinking, hundreds of thousands of jobs were being lost every month, the stock market was crashing, and companies were going bankrupt left and right. Today, GDP is growing, unemployment rates are steady, jobs are being created from month to month, the stock market has recovered, and employers are starting to hire again.

Now, whether the methods used to achieve this, such as massive deficit spending and quantitative easing are sustainable or justifiable is certainly questionable, but there is no question that for now, the economy is better than it was 4 years ago.

The recession officially ended before almost all of the stimulus started being spent, and QE1 and QE2 even got started.

[BubberMiley]

Complete nonsense. Foodstamps aren't economic stimulus. It shows how economically illiterate you are. It that were the case, everyone should be on foodstamps!!! Just think of the stimulus to the economy!! LOL.

That's like saying building roads and bridges is not economic stimulus. If that were the case, we would just need to build redundant bridges to nowhere to solve our economic woes.

It's amazing how much you don't get it while still thinking you do.

[guyser]

Complete nonsense. Foodstamps aren't economic stimulus. It shows how economically illiterate you are. .

Silly boy, you sure do love looking foolish dont you?

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2012/07/18/fox-still-denying-that-food-stamps-unemployment/187227

But economists agree that food stamps and unemployment benefits are more stimulative in a struggling economy than extending the Bush tax cuts.

A January 2010 Congressional Budget Office report showed that increasing aid to the unemployed would have a bigger impact on the economy than reducing taxes:

oh yeah...

Now about kimmy's economic illiteracy , this makes you less than illiterate, not sure what one can call that , ya know, apart from pompous stupidity I suppose

Edited September 25, 2012 by guyser

[kraychik]

Only because you "wouldn't know how to go about implementing such an idea as policy."

But as principle, you think it's pretty good, eh?

So your adherence to democratic principles is exactly...zero. Congratulations.

The idea is to require voters to have some skin in the game. There are invariable problems with extending votes to people who contribute far less than they benefit from government administered programs. It is moral hazard. What you're doing again is proving that you don't actually understand what democracy is, and don't realise that it is an umbrella term under which many iterations exist.