superpunk

Pro Bowler
Messages
11,003
Reaction score
0
Most Americans would like to believe their representatives in government are looking out for their interests, and although they may have a specific cause that is unique to them, they at least expect legislators to work for the people. Politicians have the difficult task of considering all their constituents needs, and often, special interests feel their representatives are not supporting their cause but, as a rule, Americans are intelligent enough to understand they are not the center of the world. Since the start of the 112th Congress, Republicans have demonstrated to the entire country that they have no interest in supporting the American people or protecting their interests unless they are extremely wealthy, the energy industry, or religious extremists. With only a few weeks to go before the general election, polls are showing growing support for President Obama and Democrats, and in part it is because of Willard Romney, but it is equally likely that the American people who are not racists or religious extremists realize Republicans are not on their side.

Republicans have spent the past year-and-a-half obstructing progress this country needs to grow and prosper while working feverishly to eliminate programs Americans depend on. Many pundits claim the tea party is responsible for pushing Republicans to extremist positions, and there is some validity to that assumption, but the Republican ticket of Romney and Ryan verified to many Americans that the entire GOP adopted an extremist agenda based on racism, misogyny, greed, and hate. It is unclear if Republicans care about, or fail to understand, the American people, but they have miscalculated the decency of most Americans.

In a poll released yesterday, Pew reports that President Obama’s support among Catholics is surging in spite of the recent flap between the United States Council of Bishops (USCCB) over contraception coverage proving that religious freedom is not first and foremost on Catholic voters’ minds. Republicans have lost support among Catholics because their agenda of slashing social programs to protect the wealthy is not only un-Christian, it is un-American. In fact, if Americans have learned anything over the past three-and-a-half years, it is that everything Republicans support is contrary to what made America great.

There are very few Americans who do not appreciate good schools, clean air, police and fire protection, and security in their old age, and for the most part they are more than willing to pay for it through their payroll, sales, and income tax contributions. What they receive in return is a Republican Party, in Congress and the states, that supports slashing education, environmental protections, social safety nets, and even police and fire protection to fund tax cuts for the wealthy. Republicans even bartered natural disaster support and children’s programs for extending Bush-era tax cuts for the rich, and deliberately blocked jobs programs they claim are too expensive while protecting oil subsidies and corporate tax breaks to outsource Americans’ jobs. It is obvious to any reasonable human being, that when it comes to supporting the American people, Republicans have gone beyond falling short; they are actively working against 98% of the people. Conversely, President Obama and Democrats have amassed a record that is decidedly pro-American, and the people are finally taking notice.
 

cmd34

Pro Bowler
Messages
11,877
Reaction score
119
Yeah, they got bold and stopped pretending to care. There were some Repub's who stopped trying to hide their racism.

I don't think Obama carried through on a lot of the stuff he campaigned on but I still have to believe that the average middle class American is beginning to see he has their best interests in mind, or more specifically, that the Republican party does not.
 

superpunk

Pro Bowler
Messages
11,003
Reaction score
0
Yeah, they got bold and stopped pretending to care. There were some Repub's who stopped trying to hide their racism.

I don't think Obama carried through on a lot of the stuff he campaigned on but I still have to believe that the average middle class American is beginning to see he has their best interests in mind, or more specifically, that the Republican party does not.

Why are tax cuts for people who have more money than god more important than;

protecting the environment?
improving education?
social programs for the less fortunate?

FFS would one journalist, anywhere, ask this attempted-Mexican-fuck that question?
 

Bob Sacamano

All-Pro
Messages
26,436
Reaction score
3
Yeah, they got bold and stopped pretending to care. There were some Repub's who stopped trying to hide their racism.

I don't think Obama carried through on a lot of the stuff he campaigned on but I still have to believe that the average middle class American is beginning to see he has their best interests in mind, or more specifically, that the Republican party does not.

And then there are middle class denizens like dbair who refuse to see the light.
 

superpunk

Pro Bowler
Messages
11,003
Reaction score
0
It's not even something new.

They've been telling people for 30 years now - blatantly - "We don't care about you. You are a vote. If we get into office we are going to do things that make it harder for you to succeed. We care about people with more resources than you, who can offer more to us than you can."

And these people will still vote for them.
 

Bob Sacamano

All-Pro
Messages
26,436
Reaction score
3
Why are tax cuts for people who have more money than god more important than;

protecting the environment?
improving education?
social programs for the less fortunate?

FFS would one journalist, anywhere, ask this attempted-Mexican-fuck that question?

I see what they're trying to do, not tax the rich so that they will infuse that money into the economy, which improves the chances of job growth.

But at the expense of everyone else it turns that into a vicious cycle. Yeah there are jobs, but people will have to work more and more hours to be able to afford things such as healthcare etc.

Soon enough 90 will be the new age in which people can retire.
 

superpunk

Pro Bowler
Messages
11,003
Reaction score
0
I see what they're trying to do, not tax the rich so that they will infuse that money into the economy, which improves the chances of job growth.

I do understand how people can be tricked into thinking this "sounds good". As a shallow economic policy, it sounds nice to people who don't know better.

But that has been their policy since Reagan. And it's never worked. Because rich people did not get rich by giving away their money to bolster the economy out of the goodness of their hearts.

Meanwhile democratic presidents have presided over twice as many job creations as Republicans since 1961.

But at the expense of everyone else it turns that into a vicious cycle. Yeah there are jobs, but people will have to work more and more hours to be able to afford things such as healthcare etc.

Except there aren't ever any more jobs when this is attempted.

The best way to an empowered society is educating the poor and women and creating an environment where they can be successful if they apply themselves. Tax breaks for the wealthy combined with cuts in education and social programs falls neatly into neither of those categories.
 

cmd34

Pro Bowler
Messages
11,877
Reaction score
119
And then there are middle class denizens like dbair who refuse to see the light.


Dbair has that certain sheep mentality so I take him out of the equation.

I think with many Republicans they have let their personal dislike of Obama kind of blind them to how ridiculous Romney is. I think the party has played to their extreme fanbase, Billionaires and Tea Party nut jobs, and completely miscalculated the 75 percent of their base, who are intelligent, rational people, who just want less governement (less taxes) and lean right.

It was only a few months ago the Republican party was throwing literally anyone to the front because they did not want Romney. Now they want you to believe Romney is the guy to fix the country.

This isn't me saying Obama is great for the country, my hope is that he finds a way to improve with less obstructions in a second term. This is me saying Romney or any other corporate shill, is horrible for the country.
 
Messages
10,636
Reaction score
0
Same reason a lot of people were pro-owners vs the players.

They can't relate to either but want one side to beat the other.

Most millionaires are white men. Let's keep it that way. They think they're losing if the gap doesn't keep widening .
 
Messages
10,636
Reaction score
0
Having made that super liberal statement, and despite my belief in welfare and whatnot, the republicans nightmare of anchor babies and free food/housing for nothing kind of bums me out
 

superpunk

Pro Bowler
Messages
11,003
Reaction score
0
I’ve been wrong before, and I’ll be wrong again, but I may never have been as wrong as I was when I initially predicted that Mitt Romney’s heinous diatribe against 47 percent of America would have little direct impact on the election. It’s an absolutely crushing blow. Obviously it doesn’t guarantee his defeat — if a secret video surfaces depicting Obama promising to impose Sharia law in his second term, Romney will stand a good chance of coming back — but it destroys his public standing in ways that make a comeback nearly impossible.

Here is Obama’s latest ad using Romney’s comments:

[video=youtube_share;B9xCCaseop4]http://youtu.be/B9xCCaseop4[/video]

What’s devastating about the ad, aside from the juxtaposition of Romney’s words against photos of regular Americans, is something I only noticed the second time I watched it. It’s the sound of silverware clinking on china in the background as Romney speaks. That detail contrasts the atmosphere Romney inhabits with the one in which most Americans live. You can tell, even though you’re not seeing this, that the remarks are being made to people enjoying a formal dinner.

The damage of the remarks is twofold. Obviously, it deeply reinforces the worst stereotypes voters have of Romney. Indeed, the fact that he is currently running ads trying to make the case that he does care about all of America testifies to the grim position in which Romney finds himself. If you’re trying to clear the threshold of “does this candidate hate me” six weeks before the election, you’re probably not on the verge of closing the sale.

Worse still, the comments destroy Romney’s fundamental credibility. Here America sees what he says behind closed doors. Nothing he can say in public can possibly overcome the damage of these comments, because voters will quite correctly assume that he is telling them what they want to hear. George W. Bush’s campaign figured out how to do this to both Al Gore and John Kerry — by painting them as liars, Bush destroyed them as a message delivery platform. Romney has, essentially, done it to himself.

The size of the political damage Romney has incurred is beside the point. He was trailing narrowly, but in a polarized electorate with a tiny number of undecided voters. Not only has he turned some of those undecided voters against him, but he’s blown up his bridge to reach them.

My initial instinct, that Romney would escape, arose in part from my general belief that what is and what ought to be are not usually the same thing. Candidates routinely get tripped up by trivial mistakes, and escape unscathed from monstrous acts. Life isn’t fair. But if the 47 percent comments do finish Romney off, as now appears likely, it will be eminently fair.

It will be fair because Romney has spent the last five years refashioning himself in the image of his party, discarding his most decent elements along the way, only to be caught in the end speaking bluntly. I’ve argued that the comments reflect his true beliefs now, but it scarcely matters. America has now seen Mitt Romney talking about us (or 47 percent of us, which offends many more of us) behind our backs.

And then, finally, there is a poetic justice in the substance of Romney’s self-immolation. This is not a random gaffe, a joke gone bad, or even a terrible brain freeze. It is Romney exposed for espousing a worldview that is at the heart of his party’s mania. The idea he summed up at that fund-raiser was a combination of right-wing fever dreams I’ve been analyzing since Obama took office — the Ayn Randism, the fact-free class warfare, the frantic rage at a changing America. The Republican Party is going down because its candidate was seen advocating exactly the beliefs that make the party so dangerous and repellant.
 

superpunk

Pro Bowler
Messages
11,003
Reaction score
0
We'll figure it out after you elect Romney.

A fatal ambiguity has been hanging over Mitt Romney's pledge to reduce income tax rates and pay for it by eliminating deductions without doing anything to increase the tax burden on the middle class. The problem is that this is mathematically impossible. To get the rate reductions Romney has promised, you either have to increase the deficit or have to increase the tax burden on the middle class. It just can't be done otherwise.

So which did Romney have in mind? Well, now campaign adviser Kevin Hassett says neither, arguing that if Romney's math doesn't add up (and it doesn't), he just won't cut rates that much: "If you think the base-broadeners don’t add up, if you think he can’t get to 28 percent, then the right thing that would happen, as you know, if you’re going to have a revenue-neutral reform, is that they would have a different change in rates."

In other words, we now have three different versions of the Romney tax proposal existing in quantum superposition. In Version 1, we do the full rate cuts and have no decrease in government revenues because we make up the difference with higher taxes on the middle class. This is the least politically palatable but the best long-term growth policy. In Version 2, we do what Ronald Reagan or George W. Bush would do and slash tax rates mostly without offsets. The result is a big increase in the budget deficit, which I think is the best short-term growth policy. In Hassett's version, you stick to the promise of revenue neutrality and stick to the no-tax-hikes-on-the-middle-class pledge, and in that case you ... just don't do much of anything. Obviously not changing things is a pretty politically workable proposal. And since the Obama administration is proposing higher taxes than the status quo, there's still disagreement between the candidates.

But these three Romney policies are each totally different! I don't expect presidential candidates to tell us exactly what will happen if they win—Congress gets a say, and the future is always cloudy. But they should be able to give us some indication of the direction they intend to go.
 

jeebus

UDFA
Messages
1,650
Reaction score
0
Why are tax cuts for people who have more money than god more important than;

protecting the environment?
improving education?
social programs for the less fortunate?

FFS would one journalist, anywhere, ask this attempted-Mexican-fuck that question?
If only you could take all of their money to solve those problems, then all those problems would still be there but we wouldnt have to deal with those greedy selfish rich.
 

ThoughtExperiment

Quality Starter
Messages
9,906
Reaction score
3
I said I wouldn't do this again, but I guess I will...

How do some of you think Obama is helping the middle class but Romney's policies wouldn't? Forget Rommey as a person, I admit he's a lousy candidate. But that's because he comes off as a wuss, not because of his policies.

Like this

I see what they're trying to do, not tax the rich so that they will infuse that money into the economy, which improves the chances of job growth.

But at the expense of everyone else it turns that into a vicious cycle. Yeah there are jobs, but people will have to work more and more hours to be able to afford things such as healthcare etc.

Soon enough 90 will be the new age in which people can retire.
What does this even mean? Please explain, or try to.
 

Sheik

All-Pro
Messages
24,809
Reaction score
5
If only you could take all of their money to solve those problems, then all those problems would still be there but we wouldnt have to deal with those greedy selfish rich.

You made it, they want it.
 
Messages
4,952
Reaction score
0
I said I wouldn't do this again, but I guess I will...

How do some of you think Obama is helping the middle class but Romney's policies wouldn't?

I can't answer for him, but I will say that Romney's policies have been tried before and they failed. The Bush Tax Cuts did not work. He had one of the lowest top tax rates in history, and all it did was lead to the worst job creation record of any president in modern times. He also managed to turn a surplus into a deficit in just one year. Romney wants to go right back to this irresponsible policy.

Democrats on the whole have created substantially more jobs over the last 50 years than republicans. It's not even close.

To top it off, Romney's plan is to put the nation in $5 trillion MORE debt and then hope that he can dig us back out. Does that sound reasonable at all? Hell no.

Romney has also made it clear that he's going to gut medicare and replace it with some shoddy voucher program. Do middle class or poor senior citizen republicans ever get sick? I sure as fuck hope not for your sake.

Do any of you have children in public schools? Romney is perfectly ok with having class sizes of 50+ and completely cutting funding for things like supplies, books, field trips, and other stuff generally required to learn. Bright teachers do want any part of that. They'll find other professions, and then you'll be left with an NFL replacement ref teaching little Timmy 7th grade science. America already has a shitty education system compared to other countries, and it will only get worse this way. Do republican kids go to school or is that just a democrat thing?

I don't understand why this always have to be such a bi-partisan dick tugging contest. Romney is great if you're rich as fuck and don't need to rely on public stuff like: transportation, schools, roadways, oxygen, policemen and firefighters, etc. He admits this himself in that "47% of America" speech.

In fact, Romney is the Jason Garrett of presidential candidates:

1) Has no fucking clue
2) somehow stumbled into a prominent situation
3) Will waste 4 years of your life and make no progress
4) completely out of touch
5) if he disappeared tomorrow, no one would really miss him
 

dbair1967

Administrator
Messages
54,916
Reaction score
6,131
1) Has no fucking clue (I guess being a community organizer qualifies one for the toughest job in the world)
2) somehow stumbled into a prominent situation (See Barry "Hey I gave a great speech reading off a teleprompter, so I can be Pres!")
3) Will waste 4 years of your life and make no progress (Check, unless progress is spending money like its nothing)
4) completely out of touch (Double check)
5) if he disappeared tomorrow, no one would really miss him (I guess fucking garbage like Soros, Peolosi and Occupiers would, but nobody else)
 
Top Bottom