$57K per day & owns how many homes

Yup Romney is very rich. We could try hiring a failed community organizer instead of a successful entrepreneur. Oh wait, we did that already and it hasn't worked out. Maybe my lefty friends would like to interview some homeless folks for the most powerful job in the free world.

Feisty...so true. Ironically, I look out the window of my work place (state gov't) and see the folks camped out at the legislative plaza. They are poor and they are 'sleeping the the streets' and no one cares. I care and I want others to care. I have about had it with the narcissism in this country. Sadly, Newt and Romney are both Narcissists. President Obama has shown he actually cares and has empathy for the forgotten. That is why he is hated so much and it is very sad.

OBAMA 2012

This is another attack on Romney by the left wing press. Read the whole story and then decide who is really bending the words. Romneysaid that there is already a safety efor the very poor and if it needs fixed, he will fix it.

Rob- failed community organizer....far from it. The only failure I see is the failure of people like you to take off the GOP blinders and recognize the poor and middle class are people too, to recognize that the so called American dream is the domain of the 1%.

The only safety net for the poor is the one the Dems are fighting to keep in place and the GOP is attempting to destroy.

They are poor and they are 'sleeping the the streets' and no one cares.

Diverdown,

You & me both!

Romneysaid that there is already a safety efor the very poor and if it needs fixed, he will fix it.

Raw,

Translated into GNOP gibberish - Willard will ELIMINATE them!

"I'm not concerned about the very poor."

Well, no sh$t, Sherlock!

And by "very poor" he means anyone who makes less than $375,000 a year. That's "not very much", you know.

Dd1: They are poor and they are 'sleeping the the streets' and no one cares. . . . President Obama has shown he actually cares and has empathy for the forgotten.

If Obama cares, why are they sleeping in the street? Or is "caring" good enough?

We also tried a rich oilman already. I would say the comunitty organizer has worked better than the previous rich guy we tried. The rich have already had enough help, they don't need anymore.

the 1% will never be satisfied until people are standing in soup lines and sleeping in the streets!!!

If your in the soup line chances are it is your own fault. It is easy to get a job. it just takes a few hours. The middle class is destroying itself for years.

Neither party really cares about the poor. The republicans sure don't and the Democratic Party has been so corrupted by corporate democrats like Clinton and Obama that this has long since lost that focus.

But RAW, look at which statement made the headlines.

If you are a seasoned political campaigner, you don't make dumb statements like that since if you have good sense, you know they will be used against you.

Gingrich is smilin' broadly today.

@JoAnnaSmith1

If Obama cares, why are they sleeping in the street?

Because Repugs are majority in the house. Time to vote them out and get back our America Dream.

The Marquis de Mittens says, "Let them eat safety net..."

I used to think Romney has all the empathy of a toaster, but I'm starting to think I was overestimating how empathetic he is.

Rob in ma

The value of entrepreneurs in the economy is that they create products and they create jobs. Mitt Romney did very little of either. His major goal was to create wealth for his own very small company and their investors and that wealth was created largely by downsizing the companies that his venture capital company purchased. Workers were often laid off, their salaries and pensions reduced or eliminated and too often those companies were forced into bankruptcy. In several of the companies the retirement obligations were shifted to the federal government, which meant not only that the employees' retirement was reduced but that taxpayers took on the obligation. Mitt Romney did not, for the most part, help the middle class (his stated goal). He enriched the wealthy and sent more people into the lower economic class.

Oh, come on, Frauline. We all know that "47% don't pay taxes" crap is,well, crap.

The Heritage Foundation and its FAUX News mouthpieces choose the one tax paid (occasionally) by rich people (federal income tax) and say that constitutes all "taxes".

PAYROLL taxes make up 46% of all federal revenues. And those are only paid by wage-earners (unlike Romney). They're a bigger percentage of the federal budge than income taxes, so can I say that Mr. Romney "contribute[s] nothing to society and pay[s] no taxes" since he doesn't pay ANY of the tax that provides the biggest portion of federal revenue?

Oh, and don't even get me started on corporate taxes. They're only 12% of federal revenues!

There is the 53% who actually contribute to society by paying taxes

FF,

Got nothing better than a repeatedly debunked LIE today in your weak attempt at a comeback?

Sorry your off your game today old gal! ;o)

Better luck next time!

PS: Thanks RAF for giving frisky a detailed explanation & a smack on her ass! ;o)

@Rob in ma-3189632

We could try hiring a failed community organizer instead of a successful entrepreneur. Oh wait, we did that already and it hasn't worked out. Maybe my lefty friends would like to interview some homeless folks for the most powerful job in the free world.

I didn't know hiding your money in Caymen Islands is called entrepreneurship. How would I know? I'm just an average middle class hard working American.

Oh Lord, I just noticed that there now is a Frisky Fraulein on this board to counter the resident Feisty Redhead. They are diametrically opposed in their viewpoints it seems.

This is likely going to be fun!

Nice twist job MSNBC on Romney's words.

He said they have their safety net already and would fix anything in need of repair, in so many words.

Nice hack job and it shows the true fabric of MSNBC and how true reporting is beyond this monster.

Plenty of social safety nets, and most are funded by charitable donations which will only increase once Romney is elected and gets the government out of our pockets. You've got to let go of your bias towards the GOP. Republicans are for low government intervention and for communities caring for one another (something we've gotten away from with all the federal handouts). Romney gives more to charity than to the Fed. This is a good man who cares deeply about others.

Stepped in it again huh, Mitt, only this is worse than answering an Occupy guy's question with "I'm right, and you're wrong" with the nonverbal communication of "so there!"

Frisky Frau

Your "5%" figure is a little low. More than 15% of the nation is below the poverty line. Is that who you believe is not paying their fair share? Many more who are above the poverty line, but barely, yet conservatives rant continually about the 47% who pay no income taxes. I suggest some research to determine how many of those people actually should be paying taxes. Would it be the retired folks living on social security? Who?

I just saw Marc Halperin on Alex Wagner. He has this right.

If Romney, the 1%, Republicans and ultra-conservatives would concern themselves with lower classes they would realize that their own profits margins would get even better. The more people with abilities to make purchases the better the economy will be all the way around. Unfortunately for the United States and the World, Romney, the 1%, Republicans and ultra-conservatives want to laddle the cream off the top and screw everyone else not realizing that in the long run it's better to have a balanced economy.

Auto: "If your in the soup line chances are it is your own fault. It is easy to get a job. it just takes a few hours. The middle class is destroying itself for years."

===========

......This was sarcasm, right? If not, the words "delusional", "ignorant", whatever come to mind. From some of the outlandish things I've seen posted on these threads, I'm not sure this wasn't the actual intent.

R=CWQ: Because Repugs are majority in the house. Time to vote them out and get back our America Dream.

Going to the "Blame the Republicans" answer kind of quick there aren't you Queen? So what legislation that would get the poor off the streets did the GOP House block? And why didn't the Democrat controlled House not pass it when they were in control?

I guess that has been and will be the answer to all the failures of Obama. It's doubtful it will work. Obama will be made to be accountable for his actions, and those actions are not good.

Queen:I didn't know hiding your money in Caymen Islands is called entrepreneurship. How would I know? I'm just an average middle class hard working American.

Hiding? The IRS didn't think so, and they're kind of picky about "hiding" things. Didn't look like hiding to anyone but you. Maybe you need glasses.

President Obama has shown he actually cares and has empathy for the forgotten. That is why he is hated so much and it is very sad.

Yeah, sure, that's the reason.

For the record, I don't hate Obama. I think he is a fine human being who genuinely wants to make things better. But having "care and empathy for the forgotten" doesn't do squat to actually help them.

This is the same idiotic mindset behind things like wearing ribbons to show how much you care. I don't care how much you care. I only care what you are actually doing about solving the problem you profess to care so much about. If the answer to that is "not much besides wearing this ribbon" then I would suggest you don't have a lot of room to point fingers at others.

Obama's policies are bad, not because things like helping the poor or reducing unemployment are bad ideas, but because his policies don't work. Economic stimulus by the government doesn't work. Our current strategies for dealing with homelessness don't work. All the caring and empathy in the world won't change that fact. I would much rather there be someone who didn't so much care about the homeless themselves, but who had better ideas for how to help them, than someone who got all teary at their plight but continued to drive the same failed programs we have now.

As for the main point of this article, Mitt's comment isn't even a verbal gaffe. It makes perfect sense in context. Quoting that one line without the surrounding text is intellectually dishonest.

Auto 101

It is easy to get a job. it just takes a few hours.

Wow. What planet are you from?

Douglas - Romney and the Republicans will dismantle any "safety net" that they find as soon as they can. It is part of their agenda. And that "safety net" has lots of holes. I know because I work in a human service non-profit in a urban area. Charity-supported homeless shelters and soup kitchens keep these people alive, not government safety nets that are constantly being cut in favor of tax reductions to the 1%.

REVELATION: Who knew Romney was not concerned about the poor?

He also says that if the safety net needs fixing, he'll fix it... Rephrased: he will gut the safety net, since he obviously believes that these Americans are lazy folks who do not deserve said safety nets or know the value of work.

Vote for Romeny; he will be the president of the 1%....

This is just another example of liberal media spin!

FR simply used standard tactics which they have been used SO MANY TIMES BEFORE!

Take a comment out of context and spin it into a headline that makes your liberal point! (yawn)

And SURPRISE! All the usual liberal-loons jump on the bandwagon. Failing to either read the article or acknowledge what it actually said. All they need is that WONDERFUL HEADLINE!

(show me the clown nose, fisty!)

he was actually saying the exact opposite of not caring about the 99%. what he meant was that he isnt focusing on the top 5% or the bottom 5% but rather the people who are effected the most when their taxes go up and money is wasted at the federal level. Once again Feisty Red Head would rather make a partisan shot instead of any attempt to be fair and have a civil conversation. Also ironic how often she has the first post on these boards. Either MSNBC puts her up there or she sits on the computer waaayyy too much in which case I would tell her that perhaps your economic situation would improve if you werent on msnbc all day

jacq24

Then the fact that Romney gave almost 15% of his sizable income to charity must thrill you. Sounds like he's doing his part. You must also be disappointed in the President's meager 1% charitable donation and the Veep's $600-some dollar contribution.

PS you can give someone in the bottom 1% 20 grand cash today and one year from now they would be in the same situation.

They all make verbal blunders at times. I recall The Community organizer running for president who said we had 52 states. Or was it 53? I forget now.

You people are making more out of this than it's worth. He's right in the fact that there is already a safety net for the poor. They get the housing and welfare and foodstamps that WE pay for.

This won't be the last time Mr. Romney's words will be reported out of context

Yeah? Really? According to Romney taking words out of context is fine. He proudly defended his ad that took Obama's words so out of context even Republicans were shaking their heads in disbelief.

You wanna complain about words being taken out of context complain to the Marquis de Mittens.

Rob in ma-3189632

$57K per day & owns how many homes

Yup Romney is very rich. We could try hiring a failed community organizer instead of a successful entrepreneur. Oh wait, we did that already and it hasn't worked out. Maybe my lefty friends would like to interview some homeless folks for the most powerful job in the free world.

The job of President is not equivalent to CEO of a corporation. Since our government is comprised of three separate but equal branches, the President needs the cooperation of Congress and the Supreme Court--which Obama has not had--to enact his policies. In spite of all the roadblocks thrown in his path, Obama has done a fine job of moving this country in the right direction.

Romney is out of touch with reality if he thinks the very poor have a safety net in this country.

How do you keep the poor, poor? Get them on Government assistance.

That is one sure fire way to make sure they never make anything of themselves, why you ask?

Well on Government assistance they are allowed to only make very little without losing their assistance.

PBO keeps adding Government programs and more people are signing up for them.

So yes PBO 2012 if you are for keeping the poor, poor!

(FYI, Newtand Mit are no better)

Another thing, you know who else doesn't care about the poor? 99% of the people that make comments on this board!

"I'm not concerned about the very poor." - haha ... yeah, we'll never see that in a video, tv spot, email, or newspaper column again. This guy is on track to pass up the last 12 years of Biden and Bush gaffes combined even before the general election in 2012. There's a record to run on.

I read this morning that Mittless is getting Secret Service protection now, but all I could think of is who is going to protect us from Romney?

You righties can not have it both ways... Romey, by his own admission, does not care about the poor. But you clamber to defend his statement by the fact that he mentions the safety net in place? Well guess who hates that safety net? CONSERVATIVES... Who uses the caricature of the welfare queen and would do everything in their power to diminish that net? CONSERVATIVES....

Nice try.

SickOfTheBickering

This is just another example of liberal media spin!

If you don't like it then pressure your reps to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine. If not, then shut it.

Douglas, kind of like the hatchet job done on President Obama's "interesting" without reporting the rest of the story. What's good for the goose is..... Defend Romney all you want but he spoke the words; he could have simply said "we have safety nets for the very poor and should fix them as needed; however, our primary focus should be to....."; instead he said "I'm not concerned about the very poor" then added the rest. MSNBC or the other media outlets did not create the perception, Mitt Romney did. Even taken in context, Romney's words represent his complete lack of empathy and inability to relate to ordinary people, especially the poor.

Even taken in context, Romney's words represent his complete lack of empathy and inability to relate to ordinary people, especially the poor.

Exactly. Wingnuts have this misguided belief that the social safety net gives poor people large sums of money, but it doesn't. It stops people from dying of starvation or exposure to the elements, but just barely, and sometimes not at all.

Jesus loved the poor too.......

Feisty Redhead Roselle, IL

They are poor and they are 'sleeping the the streets' and no one cares.

Diverdown,

You & me both!

Romneysaid that there is already a safety efor the very poor and if it needs fixed, he will fix it.

Raw,

Translated into GNOP gibberish - Willard will ELIMINATE them!

Fiesty,

That is exactly the GOP's plan concerning the poor - purge them.

Under the GOP, we will see many Americans sick and dying on our streets.

Vote Democratic in 2012!

JoAnnaSmith1

Dd1: They are poor and they are 'sleeping the the streets' and no one cares. . . . President Obama has shown he actually cares and has empathy for the forgotten.

If Obama cares, why are they sleeping in the street? Or is "caring" good enough?

"Caring" would be a huge leap for many. "Caring" is a great start... add to that "understanding", empathy", "live in their shoes", and you have what Republicans will never know or feel.

Dan-451372

Economic stimulus by the government doesn't work. Our current strategies for dealing with homelessness don't work.

Economics really isn't your strong suit, is it, Dan? Consider that it was government spending that brought us out of The Great Depression, and without the 2009 stimulus, we would be in a lot worse shape than we are. Here are a couple of references (notice the first is from Mark Zandi recommending a stimulus in January 2009!);

http://www.economy.com/mark-zandi/documents/The_Economic_Impact_of_a_750_Billion_Fiscal_Stimulus_Package.pdf

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/117xx/doc11706/08-24-ARRA.pdf

People, a country is not a business, nor is it a household, and it's economy can not be run as if it is either one.

Economics 101: Investment is only made when there is a possible return from making that investment. There is only the possibility of a return if there is a demand. If only 1% of the population has most of the money, and the other 99% do not have enough to purchase anything but food, and shelter (if that for the bottom 15 - 20%), then there will be no demand, no matter how much money is available for investment. The only 'job creator' there is, is demand. No demand? No investment.

Hint: Giving all of the money, and tax advantages to the top 1%, won't create a single job if the other 99% have no money to create demand. Even Adam Smith recognized this in his 'On the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations'.

Romney is showing his hypocrisy when he says that he will 'fix the safety net' while he is running for President in the party whose main goals, and policies will dismantle the safety net.

25 walker, you mean like those social planners that want to sterilize the un-wantables?

Frisky -

I see that 47% figure thrown out all the time on Fox News cable and the Fox website. Fox is the only news organization that focuses on that figure. They do so to demonize the bottom half of the income spectrum. Whether it's true or not, I don't know. What I do know is that Fox is an arm of the Republican Party - it's purely one-sided, and it's been proven that they manipulate viewers viewers through the use of propagandistic phrasing and catch words devised by Frank Luntz, one of the best wordsmiths in the business.

The reason 47% don't pay Federal income tax has explained time and time again. They don't make enough money. Yep, 47% of Americans are allowed by law to be exempt from paying Federal income tax.

But then there are the rich. And the mega corporations such as GE and others. GE not only paid no income taxes in 2010, they got billions back in refunds and credits. What percentage do the rich who live off their investments pay? Mitt pays what, 13.9%. Again, that's the law of the land. They aren't avoiding taxes any more than the lower income people are.

So, let's be honest. You (and many others on this board) have been swayed by the propaganda from Fox and are not looking at the issue from a fair perspective. Try CNN or MSNBC. Too liberal, you say? No more so, and probably less so than FOX. At least they provide news. And their prime-time talk people are only a counterpoint to the likes of Hannity and others.

So, take a good look at reality although you will probably refuse, because you (and others) are so entrenched in your right-wing ideology that you will just keep on believing what you choose to believe.

Jesus loved the poor too.......

No he didn't, he loved the "money changers" and fought hard so they would be allowed special privileges like lower tax rates.

No, Jesus hated sick people, that is who Jesus hated. He thought they were a drain on society.

Wait a second, are we talking about Republican Jesus or actual Jesus? They are not the same guy.

ROB NOS.

Obama's policies are bad, not because things like helping the poor or reducing unemployment are bad ideas, but because his policies don't work.

Uh, Rob....it's 02/2012. There are TONS of economic indicators that dispute your statement. Maybe our recovery isn't happening as quickly as you and most others would like, but it IS happening. I think you need to find a new reason to dislike this President.

Oh...and...wasn't Jesus a community organizer? (heck I'm an atheist and EVEN I KNOW THAT!!)

And that's what happened today when Mitt Romney uttered the words: "I'm not concerned about the very poor."

Of course he would not be concerned with those less fortunate. The filth of humanity known as the 1% don't care about anyone especially the poor. I can't believe anyone can think this arrogant member of the 1% can actually represent the People. He can't. He isn't one of us. He is an evil person and should be opposed throughout the nation.

Mitt is a mormon/christian who are supposed to use jesus's exploits as an example to live by. how did Jesus treat the poor? Jesus would probably denounce Mitt, W, Newt and almost all other politicians as hypocrites.

Yes, I agree that this taken out of context but not to the degree that you foxbots and Rush-sheeple argue. The safety nets he speaks of are being dismantled by the GOP (see underfunding medicare/medicaid) and the argument that since 49% of Americans pay NO tax (no income tax but they do pay all other taxes) that they should pay taxes on income so that they "share the load".

What "safety net" is Mr. Romney talking about? Food stamps? Welfare? Yeah, it's a great "safety net" when kids go to bed hungry because maybe their mom or dad is using welfare or selling food stamps just to get by. I'm sure some parents are using this money to buy drugs/alcohol, etc. Where is the "safety net" when that happens? Instead of making sure his campaign contributors and the rich people he associates with are taken care of, why doesn't he propose a better way to make sure no one goes hungry and that people have jobs, so no one has to struggle and barely get by. Oh, that's right...he really doesn't care about the very poor, poor or middle class. He has no idea what it takes to live in the real world.

Sorry, but Mr. Moneybags will not be getting my vote. Never had it, never will. Just keep up the facade, Mitt. We know who you really are and where your real interests lie.

And Gingrich? Forget about it. I don't want a whore as the First Lady, amongst other things. Some voters actually have morals.

Romney doesn't care about the poor. He never has. When he was Governor of MA he made it well known he didn't care about the poor. Cut health care, increased taxes,etc. If he was the ONLY person running for office I would NOT vote for him. I don't like Obama, he is to critical of the USA and it's people. He doesn't care about the poor, unemployed, homeless,etc.

Kris 1234, -"but Mr. Moneybags'

Yes because Mr. Obama has no money at all?

JoAnnaSmith1

If Obama cares, why are they sleeping in the street? Or is "caring" good enough?

JoAnna, judging from your response, it sounds like you feel the country is not doing enough to help the poor. That it should be easier to get food stamps and other forms of public assistance? That Obama just isn't liberal enough? Is that right?

Mitty you have obviously never met a homeless person. As someone who has actually taken two homeless people in to there home and life and helped them to become productive members of society I know that living on the streets and being cold and hungry is not what they choose. How arrogant of you to even assume you know what other peoples thoughts are.....just sad.

Mitty

Because contributing 13% of his income to one of the biggest providers of food and housing assistance in the country ins't enough? He's not concerned about the poor, because he has already done his part to help take care of them. Can you say the same?

@Diverdown

The homeless are homeless because they choose to be. There are plenty of programs to help give housing to people too poor to pay for it. They are either too proud to ask for help, or too self destructive to conform to the expectations of society.

This is one of the most delusional, and cold hearted post I've read in a long time. No, Mitty, there are not enough shelters for all of the homeless, there is not enough money to help all of the homeless, and most of the homeless do not chose to be homeless. What planet are you from? Or were you lying on purpose?

The 13% went to a religion that, while it does do good works, also uses that money proselytize, and it provides for a nice tax write off for Willard. Compassion? After what he did to his dog, I seriously question whether this man has any compassion, what-so-ever.

Nonna - "Cut health care, increased taxes,"

He actually socialized it, which was supposed to make it more affordable, of course it didn't. and raised taxes, both things that the Dems love and PBO wants to do, and you don't like it?

LMT: "Caring" would be a huge leap for many. "Caring" is a great start... add to that "understanding", empathy", "live in their shoes", and you have what Republicans will never know or feel.

Homeless person: I'm cold and hungry.

Liberal: I know, but I care, understand, and have empathy for you.

Homeless person: But I'm still cold and hungry.

Liberal: That's Bush's fault.

Economics really isn't your strong suit, is it, Dan? Consider that it was government spending that brought us out of The Great Depression, and without the 2009 stimulus, we would be in a lot worse shape than we are. Here are a couple of references (notice the first is from Mark Zandi recommending a stimulus in January 2009!);

Yikes! Where to start. First - WWII got us out of the Great Depression - not the New Deal. It has been argued that the New Deal actually kept us in the depression longer and made it much deeper. In any event we didn't get out of the depression until we went to war.

Second, to say the stimulus kept us from a depression is nothing but an empty rhetoric. The administration claimed that the stimulus prevent unemployment from going over 8%. It failed. Most analysts agree that the stimulus was just a huge payout to local government unions and had little impact on the economy. It certainly didn't make things better since the only defense I ever hear is that things would be even worse without it. Maybe. Maybe not. The truth is that it didn't do what it was supposed to do and therefore was a failure.

The sad thing reading all these posts........ is that so few people will admit that Romney is absolutely correct. I know it's MSNBC but I still hold out hope! The "very poor", as Romney stated, have a multitude of social safety nets. I know..... I volunteer at a few of them and am aware of many more that we network with. The wealthy folks don't need our help...... he's right there too. The groups getting squeezed are the middle class and the lower middle class. They don't qualify for taxpayer assistance and barely make enough money to get by. And BTW, I'm not saying the very poor are living large but they can get assistance so please don't twist my words.

At some point, we have to be able to discuss these things like big boys and girls and stop trying to "one-up" each other over every little thing.

SickOfTheBickering

Blasphemy like beauty are in the eye of the beholder ... you my friend are ugly and your mind is in close pursuit.

@Douglas: Get your source straight.....that quote is right from the CNN interview this morning, not from MSNBC, who was only reporting on the effect of that CNN interview. Please show us HOW MSNBC took this out of context.

In 1993, the "poverty line" was $12,900 for a family of 3. Since then, it costs roughly double for the same house, roughly double for a gallon of milk or a loaf of bread, roughly triple on gas (but gas didn't really go up with the cost of living for 3 decades), and roughly double for utilities. So the cost of living in the last 20 years has roughly doubled. But somehow the poverty line went up by more than triple. So poverty is a heck of a lot more comfortable than it was back then. If you are below the poverty line, you get free medicaid, so health insurance is a non-issue. You also qualify for food stamps, WIC if you have kids, and other government poverty programs. If you make less than $36k per year (combined income, family of 3) , you get back 100% of what you paid into FEDERAL TAXES. We ALL pay social security at the same rate, with a cap so that someone making $500k per year isn't paying more in one year than he can EVER collect, even if he lives to be 120 years old. Unless you die early, you will get much of your social security money back eventually. State and local taxes are based on where you live, so if you live in an area with more social programs, you pay more in state and local taxes, but chances are you will get that all back too. Sales taxes and property taxes only apply if you can afford to buy "stuff", but if you are "below the povery line", you shouldn't be buying "stuff" anyway, right? So those taxes don't apply. So yeah many Americans don't pay taxes, and there are many programs already in place for them. If it isn't enough for you then you don't know your place. The world needs ditch diggers, sorry. You still live in the best country in the world.. if you don't like it, take your entitled butt to some other country and see how well it works out for you there. The poor here live better than anywhere else in the world, yet it isn't enough. It isn't enough that those of us who WORK and pay for their life style are also struggling to make it work, they want MORE. I say TOUGH SH!T ! Obama has done nothing for me, the middle class, middle America worker who just wants to be able to put a couple dollars in the bank, raise my 3 kids, and maybe even put one or two of them through college so their life can be a little better than mine. Unfortunately, he spent more than any other President in the history of the U.S. and mortgaged my grandchildren's future for a health plan that will do nothing to fix the real problems, and a bailout that gave a few thousand people a way to work for their welfare for a couple years. In the end, those jobs will be gone and we will still be out a trillion dollars. Is Romney any better? Yes, I think so.. Is he perfect? Hell no! I choose the one who will do the most for middle America, not for the poor, and who cares if the rich pay slightly less and there is a few hundred million less in the budget for some dumb program that won't benefit anyone anyway..

So make up all the numbers you want, whether it is 99%, 53%, 100%, 1%, or whatever. The fact is, most of us in this country are middle class, not poor, not rich, some wealthier than others, but we make enough to make it work unless we make poor decisions and think we should live better than we can afford. The "99%" are actually the 10% who made poor decisions, don't have the life skills to make it work out, or are just too lazy to do something for themselves. The "1%" are rich and people hate them for that, but most of them provide jobs for Americans, and allow them to be somewhere in between. Sure, I want to be wealthier than I am, but I will never be in the 1%, and I hope I never fail at my life enough to be one of the so-called "99%".

SickOfThBickering:

BTW you tard... the Fairness Doctrine was a policy of the FCC. It was eliminated in 1987 while Clinton was the guy in charge... Quit painting it as if the conservatives were to blame for that too!

Before you call anyone else a 'tard', you might want to check your facts. First, President Clinton was not the one who got rid of the fairness doctrine, it was Reagan. The best part is you saying that Clinton was in charge in 1987.

Can you say, "Oops."?

What "safety net" is Mr. Romney talking about? Food stamps? Welfare? Yeah, it's a great "safety net" when kids go to bed hungry because maybe their mom or dad is using welfare or selling food stamps just to get by. I'm sure some parents are using this money to buy drugs/alcohol, etc.

Is that the picture of what have in Obama's America? Sad, sad, sad. So much for hope and change. What a sad legacy.

ideology - sorry, by todays "community organizer" definition Christ was far from being one.

Peace - Jesus loved the poor... Actually one can make the case that he loved everyone. Don't forget that he also made the statement "that the poor will be with us always" and I don't believe he was just referencing those that were poor wrt monetary standards.

Nisl - you have no clue.

Wait a minute... according to Romney the "very poor" have a "safety net" to help them, and that is why he is not worried.

But THAT is what Republicans are against. Every day I see Republicans on here blaming our economy on the poor, and the entitlements they receive. Every day I see Republicans demand to stop all entitlements, and remove that "safety net".

So tell me, Republicans... how do you feel about your candidate maintaining the "safety net" that you all hate so much?

Well, if this aritcle and a bunch of non-sense name calling is all the Dems have then things look good for a change in the White House this year!! :)

ABO 2012

Sickof....: "BTW you tard... the Fairness Doctrine was a policy of the FCC. It was eliminated in 1987 while Clinton was the guy in charge... Quit painting it as if the conservatives were to blame for that too!"

==========

............from wikipedia:

"In the mid-1980s, under FCC Chairman Mark S. Fowler, a communications attorney who had served on Ronald Reagan's presidential campaign staff in 1976 and 1980, the commission began to repeal parts of the Fairness Doctrine, stating in 1985 that the doctrine hurt the public interest and violated free speech rights guaranteed by the First Amendment.

Fowler said in February 2009 that his work toward revoking the Fairness Doctrine under the Reagan Administration had been a matter of principle (his belief that the Doctrine impinged upon the First Amendment), not partisanship. Fowler described the White House staff raising concerns, at a time before the prominence of conservative talk radio and during the preeminence of the Big Three television networks and PBS in political discourse, that repealing the policy would be politically unwise. He described the staff's position as saying to Reagan:

“
The only thing that really protects you from the savageness of the three networks — every day they would savage Ronald Reagan — is the Fairness Doctrine, and Fowler is proposing to repeal it!^[13]
”

Instead, Reagan supported the effort and later vetoed the Democratic-controlled Congress's effort to make the doctrine law.

In August 1987, the FCC abolished the doctrine by a 4-0 vote, in the Syracuse Peace Council decision, which was upheld by a panel of the Appeals Court for the D.C. Circuit in February 1989"

..........Now.....when was Clinton President??? This is just another reason why I am a "former" GOP supporter, today's new, improved GOP/TP is not exactly the poster child for intelligence and truthfulness.

the Fairness Doctrine was a policy of the FCC. It was eliminated in 1987 while Clinton was the guy in charge... Quit painting it as if the conservatives were to blame for that too!

DOH!

Allow me to correct my absolutely stupid statement...

What I meant to say was...

the Fairness Doctrine was a policy of the FCC. It was eliminated in 1987 while Reagan was the guy in charge... Quit painting it as if the current batch of conservatives were to blame for that too!

(have fun libs... my eagerness to type a reply led to my totally stupid comment.... go ahead... Have fun poking at me.... I can take it. 8-P)

Vermont girl, the economic indicators show little or no progress, and some regress. Unemployment is pegged at 8.9%, with another 8% off of compensation, and no longer counted. Cost of gasoline is up 83% since 2009. Cost of food is up 43%, cost of clothing up 210%, all since 2009.14% of the US population is on foodstamps, due mostly to unemployment.

For those throwing around the 47% tax number, look at the truth. 50% of Americans earning $50,000.00 a year pay no Federal income tax. 37% of those get back more than the paid in, thus creating a negative income tax. 6% of personal income tax payers pay 84% of the income tax collected. ( per IRS numbers). We are talking personal income tax, not all taxes.

"Democracy as a form of government cannot survive. As soon a the voters discover they can vote themselves perks from the national treasury, the candidate who promises the most perks will always win. The government will then collapse on it's own fiscal mismanagement, and is always followed by a dictatorship." read history. BTW: ours is a constitutional republic, based on democracy.

Q22, obviously economics isn't your strong suit either. Did you even think about following the links provided?

The WWII brought us out of the depression myth has been roundly debunked many times over. Try reading history. And if you still believe the myth, guess what military spending is? Government spending that provides a stimulus.

The administration claimed that the stimulus prevent unemployment from going over 8%. It failed. Most analysts agree that the stimulus was just a huge payout to local government unions and had little impact on the economy.

That paragraph you wrote is a flat out lie. The 8% claim was an early estimate made before they had access to all of the data on just how bad the situation was before they even took office, and was changed as soon as they had all of the data. And most economists actually say the exact opposite of what you claim. The only people making the claim you say, are Faux Noise (aka Fox News), Rush Limbaugh, and a few other non-economists. You might want to try going to factcheck.org.

Auto 101: "I was serious it is your own poor choices for the most part that gets you there."

=======

...........Could you please give us a clear cut, easily understandable, and specific quid-pro-quo of how this applies to the 13 million Middle Class workers who lost their jobs due to the toxic mortgage backed financial derivatives that Wall Street pulled out of their butts and which put us in the current economic mess that we are in?

Since when did the 1% ever care for the poor and middle income people? Like never!! They're too busy thinking and setting up for themselves while reaping off the benefits from the real working class people. It's more important for them to prepare for the next exemption before the ink is dry on the current tax exemption. So when is the majority of the population going to take off their blindfolds to see what the corporate elite and wealthy are doing to separate the classes even more while busy calling them lazy and ineffective workers? The elite, often handed politically high positions, keep raising the college tuition fees with all kinds of excuses to keep the others from gaining additional education enabling them to challenge the so called upper status (with money and not necessarily for intellect) for higher salaries and success. After all they should not be educating "too many of those lazy. good for nothing, poor folks". Corporate elite tell us that an attorney from a good state college isn't as good as an attorney from an Ivy League college. Therefore, their salaries must reflect that status and other such B.S. The new young elites are handed down their positions (regardless of their skills and leadership) from grandpa to pop to son. Most of them didn't have to work as hard as the non-elite, who obtained their education with their own earned money to cover college expenses. That should be the "real core value of a strong society" and not the "greedy gold spoon" attitude. A vote for the Republican Party will just expand the income disparity, benefits, and rights. Republicans have already discussed eliminating the minimum wage salary, taken away health benefits, shortened lunch time, taken arbitration rights away, etc., etc. How much more are you willing to allow the elite keep stomping all over your rights?????? Romney's off-the-cuff comments are exactly what he thinks and intended to say. He doesn't need to consider the poor at all, which says those people are not of any worth or value to his existence or success. Now it's time for the 99% to stand up and show them otherwise!!

Sickof....got caught in a lie, nice try to wriggle out of it though....

@Neko

I deal with the people being kept off the street by government funds. I've met plenty of homeless and struggling individuals. I know for a fact that anyone who can't afford, a home can receive assistance from the government to do so. And I've also dealt with people who chose to terminate services because they could not abide by the rules that came with it (drug abuse). That is where my statement comes from.

@Matt in Houston

You may be correct in one respect. There isn't enough money for everyone. Do you know why that is? If people don't apply for services, then those agencies can't petition the government for more funds based on the need. Like those who choose to terminate services because they can't abide the law.

You do show your own ignorance here though. None of Romney's charitable donations went to proselytising. All Mormon missionaries, whether the young single ones, or elderly couples pay for their own missions. All of their food and housing is supplied by their families, not the church.

Oldman young eyes, don't forget that over 1,400 people in the top 1% also paid no federal income tax and are part of that debunked 47%. Also, please provide sources for your data, those numbers look like they came out of your South facing orifice, as you were walking North.

nisl post 1.58,

You are absolutely right that the safety net for the poor only provides them with the basics, and there's a reason for that, the same reason unemployment doesn't pay $50,000 a year. It is to help you through a tough time, not to become a way of life. They both only take care of the basics because a person should want to live better than that and also have the gumption to take advantage of the free job training and educational opportunities provided to those who are on these programs in order to make their lives better. Otherwise nobody would get off unemployment or welfare if they were paid $50,000 a year to stay at home. These programs are meant to be temporary during tough times as well as an incentive to improve your situation while going through these programs.

Many people who have been on welfare have taken advantage of the training and educational opportunities offered and gone on to have a better life than they had before, while others just wait for the check.

I heard that statement by Mr. Romney and thought to myself. OMG that one peice is going to extracted and printed in huge letters across liberal land by skywriters in donkey clothes everywhere. He could have said anything after that short sentences such as ( fairies wear boots) and it would not made a difference. And by the time I got back to my office......boom there it was! With the usual band of merry fairies trumpeting in across the last...... with fingers and bull (fairie) horns pointing and blasting in all directions. It reminds me of my favorite yorkie, she just sits for hours staring at a ball hoping it will move so she can bark at it.

"I'm not concerned about the very poor."

Now that's shocking. Who a thunk it a rich guy that doesn't care about the poor?

Yes, Mr. Romney misspoke again.

However, some of these other ridiculous comments actually defending "NOT caring for Americas poor" for whatever reason...if THIS is how the Evangelical Christian Right is intepreting Jesus's command to care for the poor, widow, orphans...ALL OF THE LEAST OF THEM, then they have truly sold their soul to the devil for politics and taking this country to hell in a handbasket. They will be surprised that Mr. Obama will not there.

God help us!

Paris:

Jesus never siad that we had to care for anybody for an entire lifetime, while they do absolutely nothing to help themselves. Matter of fact, the guy who was given talents by God and went out and buried them, got dealt with quite severely by God. Quit taking scripture out of context.

DaveK

You are a conservative and your statement captures the mindset of way too many from your political philosophy:

I hope I never fail at my life enough to be one of the so-called "99%

Is everyone who has no job a failure? Is everyone who believes that wealthy individuals and corporations have advantages in our system a failure? Do you even know why the people on the streets declare themselves to be "99%ers"?

I'm sure you truly believe that the "99%ers" are failures, but I'm equally sure that you do not even know why most of those people do declare themselves in the 99%. The issue is FAIRNESS. Despite the misinformation presented by FOX, Rush, Glenn and the rest of the talking heads, the 99%ers are mostly disgusted with the system that allows the wealthy in this country to have the overwhelming influence in making the rules of our economic and political system. A current shining example is the tax rates paid by Mitt Romney, hedge fund managers and others who make money from money. Their maximum tax rate is 15%, while the maximum for money earned as wages is 35%. Nice for them, but is that something that you favor.

Perhaps you believe the current GOP hype that the wealthy must have low taxes so that they can create jobs. Who can be foolish enough to believe that line? People must believe it, because it seems to work, but it makes no sense. People hire others because the person they employ can make them money, right? And all of the expenses of that employment are tax-deductible. No one hires another person just because they have some extra money in their pocket unless they are hiring their ne'er do well brother in law or shiftless son.

The 99%ers have many valid arguments. You should listen to some of them.

With apoligies to JoannaSmith, a slight correction:

Homeless person: I'm cold and hungry.

Auto 101: I know, but it's your own damn fault, you should have made better choices, like moving to Australia or being born wealthy.

Not only that, don97524, you can make a little over $100,000.00/yr, and still be in the 99%. Those on the right who are disparaging the 99%, are, in 99% of the cases, disparaging themselves.

Ironic, no?

At some point, we have to be able to discuss these things like big boys and girls and stop trying to "one-up" each other over every little thing.

Ace, you're right. We know what Romney meant by what he said (the article above certainly doesn't hide it). But we need to ask, will Romney really fix the safety net if it is broke, and does he really care about the middle-class? Truth is the non-partisan Tax Policy Center does say Romney's tax plan mostly benefits the rich. Also, I thought Newt 'fixed" welfare? So why do Republicans continue to criticize those programs? What have the Republicans done to stop poverty? Why do the Republicans keep saying welfare and unemployment just create a permanent class of poor when experts say it doesn't? And why do most Republicans say we should have let the banks fail while every legitimate economist says it kept us from a depression?

It's just like Newt says: If you let the other side distort, tell half-truths, and take things out of context, you have to fight back. Fact is, negatives do work, headlines do sell, and both sides will continue to use them. It's only going to get worse with time until the money gets out of politics. Until people get away from the idea that winning is everything, we'll be fighting over everything.

So, did Romney really make his dog ride on top of his car for 12 hours?

I've worked in soup kitchens and spent time on the street talking to homeless folks. Many of the homeless are veterans (as far back as VietNam), released psych ward patients and yes, some who can't put two cents together to 'make it' in today's mainstream society; they are still human beings.

The homeless veterans issue concerns me most. We send them off to fight for us and then we do minimal for them in return. The 'benefits' are so stretched that the VA sends them away to fend for themselves and places the burden on families and NGO's to pick up the pieces. Yes, they 'volunteered' but shouldn't we return that committment to our country?

The problem with the economy is that housing prices are way down and no one has any equity to draw from to spend. Home equity is what fueled the boom and now it is lack of equity that is fueling the bust. The president set funds aside to try and get banks to work with people on thier loans but the banks are not doing it. If you want some real recovery then get the house equity issues out of the way then things will begin to pick up.

"So, did Romney really make his dog ride on top of his car for 12 hours?"

===========

..............Better than behind his car.....I don't think dogs can run 65 MPH.

"Yes, they 'volunteered' but shouldn't we return that committment to our country?"

==========

............If they're Nam, more than likely they didn't "volunteer", however, I still wholeheartedly agree with your sentiments. Of course, if they did volunteer, Auto 101 would say they just made bad choices.

This is NOT a gaffe. By any means at all. This man truly does NOT care about the very poor, poor, middle class, former middle class in fact he cares not for anyone but himself. His time at Bain provides the evidence to this point. To be able to make money off of the misfortune firing destruction and hard ship of other that YOU yourself are the cause of is enough to convince most people. ; ] He sees America from his own private bubble. Where its YOUR own fault you didn't inherit money or privilege that allowed you top notch not public education. In fact the man is buying his way to the ticket [which he has already lost the election] because he thinks it is normal to do so.

Mr. Romney believes corruption is cool, buying politicians is cool and the RIGHT thing to do. Kicking folks when there down and being NEGATIVE all of the time which the bible says NOT to do is OK charlie with him. Because this is the culture he breeds. That he has been a part of growing up. And he remains unable to recognize any different or why people do not wish to vote against there own interest to align with his own. ; ]

So of course he is incapable of caring for the very poor or anyone else. He finds you benath him and would not be caught dead even touching you to shake hands. ;]

Cheers

@ Fiesty you obviously didn't read the rest of the story. The poor as in the people who are NOT baring the entire weight of this economy on their shoulders!!! The poor in his regards could be the people who sit on their butts and do nothing while they milk the system. Why should he focus on them when the middle class is about to collapse and become the poor people.

I for one want someone who is going to focus on the middle class, which I am a part of! I work hard, and I barely stay afloat. I LIKE hearing a candidate say that he isn't going to focus on the rich or the poor but the ones who really carry BOTH.

But I guess you wouldn't know, as you must be well off or being carried by us hard working middle class personal.

SickOfTheBickering

So you don't deny that it is nothing more than liberal media spin?

OK. Thanks!

No, I won't deny it if you admit that there is also conservative spin in the media. You won't favor the Fairness Doctrine because you know it will severely hamper your talking points outlets. Fox news would be forced to completely revamp their programming and pundits like Beck, Limbaugh, etc. would be taken completely off the air. Then where would you receive all your misinformation from?

Is John Boner drunk?

Matthew, Houston, TX

Has Mark Zandi ever been right??

It's premature to say the economy is reviving in a consistent way, but I think it is fair to say the economy isn't going to weaken any further." - Mark Zandi on July 6, 2007

And what happened after July 2007? There is no empirical evidence of the Keyensian "multiplier" whereby a dollar of government spending magically turns into 2 dollars of benefit. It didn't work in the 1930's and it didn't work in 2008.

As for the Depression read this from a UCLA study:

http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/FDR-s-Policies-Prolonged-Depression-5409.aspx

It's truly sad to me to see the hatred and obvious twisting of words that is going on with the Romney quote. I'm not a Romney fan, but come on people - let's discuss real issues and not twist whatever the "other side" says to score political points.

Romney said his focus is the middle class and he would fix the social safety net for the very poor if needed. He never said he would remove or even cut the safety net. He also never said he was focused on helping the rich.

We will never solve our problems until we learn to have adult conversations focused on solutions - not scoring points. We complain about a dysfunctional congress - but we, the voters, are just as dysfunctional. It's truly sad to me.

FriskyFrauline stated "There is the 53% who actually contribute to society by paying taxes (comprised mostly of conservatives), and there is the other 47% who contribute nothing to society and pay no taxes (comprised mostly of liberals, and other individuals too illiterate to take a stance either way)." She is so very out of touch. California is a solid "liberal" state with a Democrat for Governor and 2 women Senators. If California were an independant nation, it would be the 7th richest country in the entire world. We pay a huge part of the nations taxes. As for "liberals too illiterate", California is host to America's most advanced high tech industries because the educational and intelligence level here is higher than anywhere else in the nation. We are "liberal" and we have compassion for our poor....and the poor in your community. And before any of us "look down our noses" at the poor, just remember that any one of us could become "poor" tomorrow. "Honey, I have breast cancer", "Honey, the doctor says I need a kidney transplant". There goes the family farm.

I’ve noticed that many of you constantly minimize the importance of President Obama’s experience as a “community organizer” when in fact it is the community organizer who is the most effective person to “get things done!” Community organizers work on behalf of the interests of a particular group or community who as representatives of their community get involved with local leaders and decision makers in a multitude of issues, regarding government, business, and social reform. In this way, they educate and encourage their community to come together to achieve their goals. It can be a grassroots movement, faith-based, or political. The Civil Rights Movement, the anti-war movement, women’s lib and gay rights movements, as well as anti-poverty programs were all influenced by the ideas of neighborhood organizing. For those of you who disparage the work of a community organizer as “not important” THINK AGAIN!

typical fiesty 1st one to give a partial truth and give it a liberal spin againgt a GOP candidate. She wrote.

I'm not concerned about the very poor.

Romney's true quote was printed in the MSN article.

I'm not concerned about the very poor. We have a safety net there. If it needs repair, I'll fix it.

Nice spin Feisty.

Because contributing 13% of his income to one of the biggest providers of food and housing assistance in the country ins't enough? He's not concerned about the poor, because he has already done his part to help take care of them. Can you say the same?

I love this. Mittens gave to the Mormon Church so that they could send their missionaries to France. After all, he benefited greatly from the experience himself - and not just because he got to dodge the war.

lol... he's the elitists elitist.

Spider hit the nail on the biblical head. The Bible also says the poor will always be with us. Most churches are helping with this social malady and the government has very little to do with it.

Whether you believe in Jesus or not, just set a good example and all will be "cool."

Yeah, Romney wants to fix the "safety net" (ie Social Security) by getting rid of it. He also wants to get rid of the new healthcare plan. He's really concerned about the poor. Not!

Mitt is right! I'm not concerned about the "very" poor either! There always will be the very poor, a lot of them by choice due to THEIR choices in life - and the very poor get the welfare!

Nothing but leftie-progressive spin. Pathetic how people like Fiesty, the lazy, and those that choose to be poor feel they are entitled to take what I work for! She clearly does not have a life as she seems to spend most of her days hopping on every glimmer of an article that has something negative to say about the right and conservatives. And then spends ungodly amounts of time spewing her hate of the right (yes, the right) throughout the thread.

Get of your a s s and earn it yourself!!!

Standard leftist headline, inaccurate, as usual. Its time for the Chicago Nightmare to be replaced.

There is a parallel between the ideas of Romney and Pres. Obama.

O doesn't care about poor, either. So many promises, the poor are angry at "O". He wants all of us to be poor, so we can depend on the Government to give handouts, living in a Socialistic Society---R is out of touch with Average Americans, and so is Obama.

What has Obama done for the poor?. Have their lives improved? Does he associate with them? Attacking the rich for more greedy money, and keeping all us at the same level of lifestyle---now he proposes a lower fee for those who's houses happen to be "under water". That means more taxes on all of us---Those people should have known to live within their means, and the banks should have held back giving them loans.

Gingrich may now be in front---get used to Newty.

With the dissatisfaction of Most Americans, a RABBIT will be elected in the year 2012---anyone from the GOP to get rid of the old Admin. Even Eric Holder is crying---he'll be out the day O runs for a second term.

Cash for Clunkers was the most successful program.

It's all about Politics---a nasty business..

DUANE

tell me what IS the safety net?

is it unemployment?

isnt he so very ready to dump that?

stop trying to sugar cone him

this GOP hopeful isnt going to make it anyways

also look at roanoke1's post

he can SEE HOW WE LIVE, oh the terror, so what am i having for dinner? lolz

your post is a joke, whats next? ur the new prophet for god D:<!?!?

Am I the only one who abruptly thought of Ebenezer Scrooge?

"Are there no prisons? Are there no workhouses?"

I could actually hear that being said as I read this. I think both parties suck, to be honest, and don't expect either to do anything to really help this country for years to come - but this guy just keeps stepping in it...

I mean - seriously??

Frisky Frauline, Are you on crack? You think only conservatives pay taxes and make up the middle class? You knock others for spouting lies, but re-read your (collapsed) comment toward the top. You say that liberals aren't paying their taxes? I hate to break it to YOU, but you are DEAD WRONG! And you are as much as a raging extremeist as the liberals you keep trying to bash. Wake up!

Romney's true quote was printed in the MSN article.

I'm not concerned about the very poor. We have a safety net there. If it needs repair, I'll fix it.

Nice spin Feisty.

Duane he and yourself probably are even less concerned about the safety net than you are the very poor. His narrative has been clear. Dismantle and privatize SS and medicare so that people who don't have any concern for the very poor can be in charge of their destiny. Really! The only thing spinning is your party as in descends down the toilet tube buddy. You rightards always have the same play in your book. Waa waa whine and insult liberals by describing yourselves. Rather antiquated game plan at this point. Bush ran up a 5 trillion dollar debt but the 1.5 Obama ran up trying to stimulate a recovery is the problem. Self diluted hackery damn sure won't save our ailing economy.

The really fat lady, you know the one who's cheeks completely hide the seat on the walmart scooter, has not even filled her lungs yet to sing. And it aint over til she sings.

The point is, Mark Zandi is a right wing economist you all liked to point to when he agreed with trickle down our legs economics. This was in response you your lie about most analyst agreeing that the stimulus did nothing to help the economy. Nice try at deflection, but you failed.

Q22, I have read that article from UCLA, as well as several other books on the subject. I have also read analysis's (analysi?) of that article that shows it to not be a very accurate analysis. In fact, it is the only analysis that you guys clinging to the 'WWII got us out of the depression, not the New Deal' myth always point to. No matter how many times you use it as a source, it is still not a good source to use.

What the heck are you talking about with your July 2007, and 'Keyensian[sic] multiplier' comment? You don't connect them in any way. Actually there is quite a bit of empirical evidence to support that a dollar of government spending creates more in economic activity, you just don't want to know about it. Try here:

http://econ.ucdenver.edu/beckman/Econ%206053/blanchard-taxes.pdf

http://economicsintelligence.com/2011/05/11/what-the-mafia-teaches-about-fiscal-policy/

Why do you keep telling lies? You obviously do not know what you are talking about, and all of your 'arguments' are straight out of Faux Noise/Rush Limbaugh talking points.

Okay, I am willing to forgive Romney on this; hey, people make mistakes. But I would advise him to at least tone down on the hypocritical stance he has on how the media has distorted this. I mean, this is POLITICS. The one thing the people have an advantage over politicians is that WE can vote yea or nay for them if they verbally slip up. He also takes advantage of this, from Obama's "Americans are lazy" quote to Newt Gingrich saying that "Spanish is the language of the ghetto." So I think Romney ought to be a bit less critical on the media and a bit more critical on himself. We all know that humans make mistakes. But if you want to show some decency, tone down the criticism of distorters and start fixing YOUR OWN MOUTH. Okay, Willard????

Oh, and by the way....

OBAMA BIDEN 2012

Yeah, it's a great "safety net" when kids go to bed hungry because maybe their mom or dad is using welfare or selling food stamps just to get by. I'm sure some parents are using this money to buy drugs/alcohol, etc. Where is the "safety net" when that happens?

Food stamps is a card that can only be used to get food, so selling a card that gets you food? to get by? You can't use Food stamps to buy drugs, toys, or even prepared food, maybe you should know how the system works before you comment about it, food stamps are exactly that, for food.

For some reason my last comment was deleted! What a shocker!

Okay....WOW to the fact that MSNBC would allow this title to be used. This is not journalism, well it is but without ethics! This story should be in the opinionated section with that title! This morning Mitt was on tv and had to tell the lady to finish what he said, in its entirety! That cracked me up!

I can understand why MSNBC is in the toilet bowl, not just the ratings (You are last) but in fairness! CNN whooped you on fairness! But one day NBC will stop throwing money down the drain in supporting this so called 'News Channel'. More people tune into the Comedy Channel for news than what come here! I do love comming in here to see all the LIB craziness! Before I come to this website, I always ask myself will there still be a website for this laughable newsite!

I love the trolls who are always in here, especially Fiesty! She is funny, but believes the stuff she spews, only because this network spoonfeeds her their information! You know how when you see someone embarrassing themselves on tv and you just cant watch it anymore, Fiesty fits that description! hahahhaha

So if Obama called Bush 'Unpatriotic' for going to the Bank of China and spending money like crazy, then what exactly is Obama? The guy has outspent Bush in a little over 3 years than Bush in 8! I couldnt stand Bush when it came to spending, but Obama is out of control! I love the libs who whine about the so called Bush tax cuts, but for some reason their peabody brains can't comprehend that those are now called Obama tax cuts! Libs you have to remember when they expired and the Mesiah extended them! Not only did he extend them, but did so with full control of both the house and senate!

Should be a fun year with Obama having to defend his record! He cant blame Bush anymore. (well he can, but majority of the people arent buying it)

Do the LIBS in here, get a funny feeling up their leg when Obama talks, like Mathews? hahahha If Obama is so grand then why didnt the dems dominate in the 2010 elections? Hardly any DEMS ran on that election backing up Obama.....why not? He is sooooo great! lol

I hesitate to post but... here goes; it seems like the posters have read the slug line and little else. The discussion that followed (I'm being kind) seems like small children throwing sand in the sandbox.

God, why is it that conservatives get so hard about some dude who has made alot of money? It's like some kind of symbol of success to them that this guy has made 200 million and nothing else matters. Not his short fuse, not his sociopathic personality, not his flip flops, nothing! It's really weird, but then I think about the conversations I have with my conservative friends. It inevitably centers around what they bought, what they want to buy and how much of it they can get. I have never understood this mentality, although I love them dearly because they have good hearts, it's just a weird way to look at life. There is more to life than money, really.

You want to bring a fist to a gun fight and dance around like Rocky cause you think you can win the fight with statements like nice spin msn and I know you are but what am I... You are doomed to spend another 4 years crying about your failures and I would suggest you use them trying to get your act together rightie tighties. The first black president was elected and instead of congratulating black folks and rejoicing in their happiness and reaching across the fence to shake hands and mend our countries wounds you instead chose to further polarize and divide us and defecate on their achievements. SHAME is the only thing you should be feeling.

Okay, I am willing to forgive Romney on this; hey, people make mistakes

Freshiee,

I usuallu agree with you but have to disagree on this one.

This isn't a one time gaffe out of Willard, he has a clear pattern of total lack of comprehension about anyone who wasn't born with a silver spoon in their mouths.

Likes to fire people.

$373,000 per yr for speaking fees is small change.

And so on...

A funny story that helps explain the stupidity of the Liberals thinking here:

TAX SYSTEM EXPLAINED IN BEER

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100...

If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this...

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that's what they decided to do..

The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve ball.
"Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20". Drinks for the ten men would now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his fair share?

They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer.

So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by a higher percentage the poorer he was, to follow the principle of the tax system they had been using, and he proceeded to work out the amounts he suggested that each should now pay.

And so the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% saving).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% saving).
The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28% saving).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% saving).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% saving).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% saving).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But, once outside the bar, the men began to compare their savings.

"I only got a dollar out of the $20 saving," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man,"but he got $10!"

"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar too. It's unfair that he got ten times more benefit than me!"

"That's true!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back, when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!"

"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison, "we didn't get anything at all. This new tax system exploits the poor!"

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had their beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and government ministers, is how our tax system works.

Technically, James, Obama didn't have a choice. He HAD to borrow, mainly because raising taxes or cutting spending during a recession is MADNESS. He even tried to cut the deficit by $4 trillion using balanced measures, but the GOP said no and we STILL have to borrow from China. And Bush DIDN'T have a choice. I mean, he had a $5.6 trillion surplus and turned it into a $4-5 trillion deficit. THAT IS over $9 TRILLION!!!!! Bush didn't NEED those tax cuts or Medicare Part D OR the Iraq war, but he still had them, and he SCREWED US UP.

spider - and who said that Jesus said

that we had to care for anybody for an entire lifetime, while they do absolutely nothing to help themselves

You certainly don't see that anywhere in MY comment! So follow your own advice and stop taking me and Jesus out of context! And then pray a little and ask Jesus to open your eyes to the poor people he is indeed referencing in his scripture and to have a little compassion and care for them as He does. Yes even Today!

Stupid story, Cob, and it does not capture how the tax system actually works. That's the problem with people like you, you do not present actual facts, and your similes/metaphors do not reflect reality. On top of it all, you think that a country's economy can be run like a business, or a household budget, which it cannot.

Cob the Crazed (1.148)

Boy are you going to get it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

*I've always been rich and never been happy* ~ Arthur

*I've always been poor and always been happy* ~ Liza

*Hogwash ... I've always been rich and always been happy* ~ Arthurs' wealthy 'ol spinster aunt

~ final scene from the movie *Arthur*

DaveK,

You've clearly never had to apply for any of these entitlement programs and are clueless as to what THEY consider to be the poverty line. What government calls the poverty level and the poverty level for qualifying for these programs are two different things. I make roughly $25K a year supporting a family of 3, working a full-time job and helping my husband run a struggling small business that barely pays for itself, and I still don't qualify for any of the programs you listed. Maybe you should do a little more fact checking before you speak of things you've not experienced personally.

Oh and since I don't qualify and my employer doesn't offer medical benefits we just don't get to go to the doctor, and I spend most days hoping my son doesn't have any major accidents that will require a trip to the hospital.

Feisty Redhead Roselle, IL

Under the GOP, we will see many Americans sick and dying on our streets.

25 Walker,

Exactly - is it any wonder the GNOP is against affordable healthcare for everyone?

When they have us all working in factories for a 0.25 per day and tossing us some 'cake', the last thing they want is for someone to receive medical attention.

Having overturned Roe V.Wade, they will have plenty of 'fetuses' to grow up and replace us...

Feisty, yes...the GOP seems to think that America needs a purge.

It is quite strange that the GOP insists that America is too broke and too poor to provide all of our citizens with health care.

Yet, in the Medicare part D prescription program the Republicans slyly gave their wealthy pals a "cash giveaway." This political party has found ways to bestow more and more cash on the wealthy. These gilded folks have told us that corporations need lower tax rates because these entities are "the job creators." The GOP has found ways to serve the elite...but oddly, they always find insurmountable challenges to serve and protect the middle class and poor.

It is unfortunate that too many middle class and poor people fall for and vote for the GOP's cons.

if the people are living on the street then they're not working which means they aren't producing money for coorperations. So if all the people go out of work, how will the coorperations gain from this. if your going to comment on something at least leave a coherent response.

I agree with bruce!!!!!

There is no real conversation in these comments, but rather a bunch of posts trying to get the highest amount of votes by making the funniest shut down.

Well I was looking for a word to get in edge wise. Jesus said to his flock "feed the poor" It is not our governments responsibility to do that nor should it be. Gov. Romneys comment may have been a little better stated BUT if you want to be a socialist?, go to anywhere else!!!!!!!

Yet another glaring example of MSNBC's Yellow Journalism.

Clearly, this was taken out of context.

comeback 2012

if the people are living on the street then they're not working which means they aren't producing money for coorperations. So if all the people go out of work, how will the coorperations gain from this. if your going to comment on something at least leave a coherent response.

comeback 2012,

With reverse psychology, you have summarized the GOP's plan for America quite well.

The party's "supply-side" theories and greed have caused America to experience an economic collapse.

Yet, selfishly the party wants to continue to these failed strategies.

Without intending to be correct...you are correct - the GOP's policies are crazy.

Well at least one of the clown show came out and told the truth and BTW I read the entire sentence. The second part of it was when he realized he had let the cat out of the bag. In this country today poor people get assistance at the same level they did in the 60's while the price of everything including food has skyrocketed along with the 1%'s salaries while the middle and lower class's salaries have remained almost the same.

Clearly, this was taken out of context.

Beg to differ no it was not they printed what he said. He don't give a crap about poor people and his ilk and their followers also do not. Trying to smooth over his slip was juvenile

Firsky, how does it feel to walk around with that stick so far up your arse all the time?

Cob

That was a long, boring story without a valid point. By inference you are suggesting that everyone should pay the same amount of taxes. Since some have no income and therefore can pay no taxes, then it must be your conclusion that no one should pay any taxes.

Fiestyredhead,

It must be miserable for you to live a life of bitterness and hate. I sincerely feel sorry for you.

Someone made the comment that it is easy to get a job. That is the first I have heard that in awhile and it is just not true. Someone also said that homeless people want to be homeless. Sweeping generalizations. Granted there are people that would rather live on the street but working in a downtown area and seeing homeless people everyday, talking to them, they really would rather not be homeless. It just shows how out of touch some people are. I also stated that I feel like Obama cares. Caring isn't good enough, but when you have a the republicans, who have said, they will do whatever it takes to make President Obama a one term President, then he will not be able to do anything and hasn't been able to do all that he set out to do. This is just fact.

Fiesty are you giving all my republican friends hell again today???

I am pretty sure we've had homeless for well over 20 years, so that argument is dumb!!

Romney's statement really isn't off base. Recall the statement "the needs of the many, out weight the needs of the few. So on both ends of the spectrum, the very rich and the very few......where does the many fall?

If the issue is the very poor with regard to income taxes, they do not pay federal income tax. In fact, with the "earned income credit", many pay a negative income tax. That sure sounds like an existing safety net.

So where was the "gaffe"? Don't read more into the comment than intended and don't twist the words around to mean what you wanted to mean. Basically what he is saying is the very poor already have programs in place to be helped. Since most programs are FOR the very poor then we don't need to worry about that.

What we DO need to worry about are the lower to middle class who do NOT have that safety net and THEY are the ones who are being incredibly hurt right now. Replacing the current Community Organizer in Chief and replacing with Mitt Romney who understands how an economy and business works will be critical. The very poor already have their safety net and Mitt will help this economy grow which will help the lower to middle class.

Only those individuals who do not have an understanding of economics and business would think anything OTHER than the above. So try to look at this rationally and logically and if you have an IQ above a turnip it all becomes very clear that Mitt was simply stating this awful economy is due to the Obama anti-business policies and it is the lower to middle class that primarily need the help right now because they DON'T have the benefit of policies in place to get help.

Romney said that there is already a safety efor the very poor and if it needs fixed, he will fix it.

By "If it needs fixed", he means if it starts taking too much money that could go to the wealthy, and by
"Fix it" he means the same way he'd "fix" his dog.

If your in the soup line chances are it is your own fault.

Chances are, your job was "offshored" by some billionaire CEO who wants a bigger paycheck. So how is corporate greed the fault of the workers? It isn't.

It is easy to get a job. it just takes a few hours.

Oh, sure, if you just happen to be one of the elite, I'm certain that a quick phone call will get you a cushy job at Daddy's company, or maybe tapping a former preppy classmate running a multinational corporation will easily nab you an executive position. But for ordinary working class folks that have been searching for months and not even finding a McJob serving burgers, that "just takes a few hours" sounds like the sick joke that it really is.

If you really believe what you wrote, then prove it. Take a day off, go down to an employment center, and see just how many people you can get employed "in just a few hours". Bet you can't do it.

So, how many of you listened to or read the whole article/soundbite?

"I am not concerned about the poor; we have a safety net in place for that, and if it's broke, then we need to fix it. I am not concerned about the rich, they can take care of themselves. The one's that I am worried about are the middle class."

And he has every right to be. If no one cares about the middle class, then who the hell is going to take care of the poor? Answer me that?

@ Pedestrain in SF

Nice cherry pickin hit'n run. If you read any other comments, you'd see that I already adressed that in 1.104. Missionaries for the Mormon Church pay their own way. None of the contributions to the church go towards sending them anywhere.

don97524 and Matthew - While my story was designed to inject a little sarcasm and humor into this debate, the general premise still holds. Matthew, rather than just disagree with the story, please explain why you think there is such a difference?? Don, I didn't think he story was boring, nor do many people who are amused at the concept. Since you read the whole thing, it obviously was interesting enough to hold your attention. Sadly for your comment though, people who make little or no money already pay no taxes!!! But they will lash out at the same "rich" people out there that are covering the majority of taxes paid, despite the fact that these same rich people are the ones that will offer jobs and create potential for the poor to join the middle class. Tax the rich more, and all that you will do is force them to hire less people for the company that is making them rich in the first place, while at the same time ask more from the people who maintain their jobs without paying them any extra. (You either do the extra work, or you lose your job and join the unemployed.) So yes, as amusing as the story was for me, the general premise holds true. I don't envy the rich for being rich, as I am not rich myself. And I also know we have to close the corporate loopholes that comapnies like GE use to avoid paying their "fair share" as Obama states. (Why he has GE's Immelt on his council and you guys aren't screaming at him, I still have no idea.) I do however know that biting the hand that feeds me unfairly will only lead to a greater separation between rich and poor, as that bite will wind up throwing me in the poor house.

I think the "fisting" redhead has met her match. Nice going Frauline!!!

And Mitty, might I add also, that a large percentage of the contributions he made last year were to help feed, clothe, and provide medical care for those that couldn't.

If any of the bleeding heart liberals can say that they contributed as much as he did to charity on any given year, I'd like to hear them speak up, and then prove it. That act alone proves that he cares enough about the poor to help them. But the bigger picture is to provide them the means to take care of themselves. Obama sure ain't doing that with his "spread the wealth" ideas. In every society, that Utopian idea has NEVER worked for the greater good.

Fairness Doctrine = censorship = fascism

Not surprising - it's a common liberal trait to honestly believe that the thickheaded majority has no ability to think for themselves, are gullible, and therefore must do as all liberals think they should do. In fact, liberals must have faith in this concept (and the belief that the majority is incapable of personal responsibility for their choices and actions), otherwise they have no mantra. Fortunately for America, only 12% of the U.S. population labels itself "liberal," and it's a declining percentage.

Well, you may be right, Feisty. But, if the same can be said for Romney, it can be said for anyone, even Obama (note: I am a Obama supporter). Not that I am a Romney fan; quite the opposite. All I want is to show the humanity of our politicians. On the other hand, one can call Romney hypocritical, as he has taken his rivals' comments out of context. One might say that this is retribution. It may be. I say that Romney has a big mouth and doesn't necessarily know when to speak and when to shut up. A lot like the GOP...

As for Miller, MSNBC is not the only media outlet with bias. So is Fox News and Huffington Post and newsmax, plus the Economist. Oh, and Obama's "Americans are lazy" quote was also taken out of context. Yet Fox News and the conservative media (note: there is a liberal media AND a conservative media) had a field day nonetheless.

Quo,

It would be nice to have a candidate who isnt a figurehead for George Soros, The Koch Brothers, Warren Buffett, etc. How refreshing to have a candidate who doesnt owe someone for their time in office.

Cob,

The 10th man actually doesnt pay the bill. He gets his buddies to startup a 501c3 charity beer company and he gives his money to the charity instead of the bar keep. So the bar keep runs out of cash because the 10th man, with all the money, never buys anything.

Why do you think Romney donates 15% to charity??? It's tax deductible! Why do you think every rich person has a foundation or society?

Why do you think most rich people donate money to third world countries instead of here in the good ole U.S.A.?

The sad thing is, as you can readily see if you spend an hour watching FOX, rich people think the majority of you are idiots.

I saw that British pos and the blond bimbo utter the following line. "The common person doesnt understand how destructive a tax increase would be on someone making over 800k a year."

That's what these people, on both sides of the aisle, think about the majority of Americans. As Nancy Pelosi once said, "The little people cant be expected to make important decisions."

ViVa America!~

@Dan-451372

"As for the main point of this article, Mitt's comment isn't even a verbal gaffe. It makes perfect sense in context. Quoting that one line without the surrounding text is intellectually dishonest."

Intellectually dishonest, eh? Oh, you mean like the ad Romney ran which "quoted" President Obama saying something along the lines of "If we keep talking about the economy, we'll lose", when in reality then-candidate Obama was actually quoting something one of McCain's campaign staffers said? It is interesting to point out that although the Romney camp later acknowledged that President Obama was, indeed, simply repeating something one of McCain's surrogates had said, they still considered it to be fair to attribute the comment to the president since he actually spoke those words. I guess, then, by Willard's standards, since the words "I'm not concerned about the very poor" really did come out of the former governor's mouth, it is perfectly reasonable to argue that this statement is representative of Willard's position.

In reality, the Romney ad purporting to "quote" President Obama is FAR MORE dishonest given that Willard's campaign admitted the President was simply repeating something the McCain campaign had said, yet Romney continued to run the ad attacking the POTUS and argued that it was a "fair" interpretation of what the President had said. Taking that into consideration in this particular instance, Willard, his campaign, and his supporters have absolutely no legitimate argument. After all, Romney's comment about the very poor wasn't a statement made by someone else that the former governor was repeating -- those words popped into Willard's brain and, as is so often the case when he isn't relying on a teleprompter or a prepared statement, Romney's "filter" malfunctioned and his mouth blurted out his TRUE feelings on the matter. Realizing he had just made another HUGE unforced gaffe, he quickly threw out the line about "the safety net" to try to cover his "brain fart". In my opinion, it is not only Willard's body language that indicated he truly DOESN'T care about the poor but, perhaps more telling, the outright LIE he spouted when he said that he doesn't care about the wealthy, either.

So let me get this right, liberals:

But my campaign is focused on middle income Americans. My campaign – you can choose where to focus. You can focus on the rich. That's not my focus. You can focus on the very poor. That's not my focus.

You people have the attention span of a cockroach. Romney said his FOCUS is not on a CATEGORY of people - nor SHOULD it be. We've already had FIFTY YEARS of FOCUS on the so-called poor in this nation and guess what? People are STILL POOR. Generation after GENERATION. The Great Society of LBJ has FAILED America. But our so-called "poor" actually live it up pretty good and this is EXACTLY where Romney was coming from:

http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/feds-%E2%80%98poor%E2%80%99-consume-rich/348206

I love how the liberal media COMPLETELY ignores his comment about the rich group not being a focus - that liberals use so much in their rhetoric - yet make an example of the comment about the poor group in the same blasted sentence! And this is irrespective of the fact he said the poor are already taken care of and that his primary focus is on the middle Class, the same group the Democrat liberals wet themselves over all the time in speeches. MAKE UP YOUR MINDS PEOPLE! Get ready for more of this from the Obamamedia.

Hey liberals, check this out...see you Obamabots in November at the voter booths!

http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/gallup-state-numbers-predict-huge-obama-loss/352881

They took him completely out of context. Didn't you hear him say that it was because he felt that there were enough measures to help them?

This article is stupid in the way they tell it. At the first of the article they make Romney look like he could care less about the poor. If you read on (which a lot of folks don't) it says that the poor are covered, which they are.

This article won't change any minds. The Dems will take out the words they want to attack the Republican, and the Republican's will put them back in. No minds changed, but a heck of a lot of hatred and anger expended. The media has pitted the people against each other, the media is most of what's wrong in this country.

• Your choice for GOP:

1. a family man of decent character and good background who sometimes makes a poor choice of words that are then taken out of context
2. family abandoning, ethics violating, race baiting Newt Blingrich

Freshieee,

You need to look at what you stated again. At no time did Bush or any other President have a 5 trillion dollar surplus. Saying something because it sounds great doesn't make it true.

Wouldn't things be great if people actually knew what they were talking about and could stick to actual facts. Maybe this country could actually be fixed instead of spewing lies and hatred.

Fisty....you most certainly DO NOT speak for all the others here on the vine!

It is not your place to tell others on the vine to "go home. No one wants you here."

I'm sure there are those who would rather you go to another blog site, but they also know the rules here, so here's your caveat:

Just say your piece without making remarks that will get you banned. Sheesh...

He can SAY he is fighting for the middle class, but how does that fit with his tax plan that causes both the poor and the middle class to pay more, while cutting taxes even more for the wealthy?

NewtIapig- My choice is not anyone backed by the GOP! I live in WI with a Gov up for recall, who is the main target for the DOJ john doe investigation. It will only take time to prove Walkers corruption in his campaign for gov in 2010. Since he knew WI was collecting signatures to recall him for his way or no way policies, he went into campaign mode and has collected millions and millions from OUT OF STATE donors! Why are people donating from out of WI? It is to keep the GOP anti-government agenda of anti-union, eliminating EPA standards, reducing education budget by over 8.5 billion in WI alone, appointing large donors to state head offices. It does not matter if they even have and education or work knowledge for that position. Our State Supreme Court is a joke! One of the judges- Gableman ruled on the budget bill drafted by a law firm who gave him free council! He did not have the knowledge or will to recuse himself! If Walker does not like any restriction he will find a judge who is in his back pocket to rule for his cause. Not once, but EVERY TIME he comes across a problem he or his cronies have not yet changed legislation to fit out of state donors or instate wish list! Every one who believes the GOP agenda is for all US citizens only need to go back to the Bush era and multiply by say 100 X's the corrupted, lying muniplatioin ethics. The only words I believe in out of the mouths of republicans is when they are totally silent!!

OBAMA 2012!!!!

Romney needs to understand that his focus needs to be on everyone in this country. What a giant azz. No surprises here, but OMG, the things that come out of this guy's mouth are pretty unbelievable!

and just . . . well . . . go home

No way sweetheart - I get too much pleasure from bitch slapping you! :o)

Problem is, you seem to enjoy it since you're always begging for MORE! lol

Now lace up you jack boots and go troll your corner...

Don't forget to bring your knee pads & Vaseline babe! Doing so may soothe your already agitated soul (or what passes for it)!

Rob-523523

Fairness Doctrine = censorship = fascism

Not surprising - it's a common liberal trait to honestly believe that the thickheaded majority has no ability to think for themselves, are gullible, and therefore must do as all liberals think they should do. In fact, liberals must have faith in this concept (and the belief that the majority is incapable of personal responsibility for their choices and actions), otherwise they have no mantra. Fortunately for America, only 12% of the U.S. population labels itself "liberal," and it's a declining percentage.

It's also not surprising that some right wing nut has to come out spewing ridiculous rhetoric in attempts to make the left look evil. It is not censorship, its policing... like Dragnet. Just the facts ma'am. What you really don't like is that it also says opinions are like a$$holes, everyone has one so keep it to yourself.

The Fairness Doctrine was a policy of the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC), introduced in 1949, that required the holders of broadcast licenses to both present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was, in the Commission's view, honest, equitable and balanced.

You can almost imagine one of these politicians, either side really, saying, "The trouble with America is its filled with Americans."

Someone call Manbearpig!

Mitty, you obviously do not know the meaning of 'proselytizing'. Here is a hint:

From dictionary.com

pros·e·lyt·ize

[pros-uh-li-tahyz]

verb (used with object), verb (used without object), -ized, -iz·ing.
to convert or attempt to convert as a proselyte; recruit.

To all the Republicans out there. Either way you look at it your potential candidate doesn't look very good. If he really doesn't care about the very poor well then he's out of touch. That probably means he doesn't care about the regular poor either. And most likely truly doesn't care about the middle class. On the other hand if it's true, as you Republicans say, that his words are being taken out of context by Liberals then it shows him to be a man who doesn't know how to choose his words carefully so it doesn't show a lot of intelligence. So either he's either out of touch or he's not too brite. Either situation isn't very good. And since his income put him in the top 1% of the top 1% i'd say he's probably way out of touch, AND, not too smart.

Do the 'Rich' pay their fair share of taxes?

Out of curiosity (not personal experience, unfortunately) I decided to figure out how much a 'Rich' person would pay in taxes over their lifetime. For a self employed person who earns taxable income of $1 Million per year for 50 years, lives in California, saves half of their after-tax income and invests it at 5% interest, and is subject to the new tax rates starting in 2013 and pays payroll taxes on all of their earned income, and then dies - here are the results;

Total Earned Income = $50,000,000

Total Taxes Paid

Federal Income Taxes = $22,764,000

State Income Taxes = $ 5,778,000

Payroll Taxes = $ 6,925,000

Sales Taxes = $ 716,000

Estate Taxes = $ 4,684,000

Total Taxes Paid = $40,868,000 = 81.74% of total earned income

I guess everyone has to decide for themselves whether they pay enough.

Verbal "slip-ups" are fun. Personally, I am more a fan of:

1) "If asking a billionaire to pay the same tax rate as a Jew...uh...as a janitor, makes me a warrior for the working class, I wear that with a badge of honor. I have no problem with that."

2) "No, no. I have been practicing...I bowled a 129. It's like -- it was like Special Olympics, or something."

3) "One such translator was an American of Haitian descent, representative of the extraordinary work that our men and women in uniform do all around the world -- Navy Corpse-Man Christian Brossard."

4) "The Middle East is obviously an issue that has plagued the region for centuries."

5) "I've now been in 57 states -- I think one left to go."

6) "The point I was making was not that my Grandmother harbors any racial animosity. She doesn't. But she is a typical white person, who, if she sees somebody on the street that she doesn't know, you know..."

7) "We’re the country that built the Intercontinental Railroad..."

There are a lot more actually... And all from a Harvard 'scholar' no less!!! You liberals really crack me up. So hypocritical.

Roy, nice job of pulling figures out of your a$$. Wanna try backing those up with real numbers? Try telling us where you got those numbers from that you used. I'm betting they have absolutely no basis in reality.

Roanoke1, do you really want to go there? How about we pull out the books with all of the Bushisms? Whatdya think, sparky? You're the 'fan'.

To Cob the Crazed (post # 1.148)

To quote you:

A funny story that helps explain the stupidity of the Liberals thinking here:

It sounds like you are speaking for youyrself!

Matthew,

Nice deflective tactics, but I understand...you're a liberal. Now, you are more than welcome to bring up Bush for your old and tired scapegoat quotes. I was more interested in staying in the "here and now" with our very own Harvard scholar. If you notice, everyone was harping on Romney for his "slip-up" and I was merely pointing out the fact that even "Harvard scholars" say the most ridiculous things...like not knowing how many states are in the U.S. I mean...WOW. LOL.

Feisty, I've realized the real Romney. The man is a hypocrite. I mean, he says that he wants to help the middle class (and fix the safety nets for the poor if need be), while supporting the privatizing of Medicare and HUGE cuts from welfare programs like food stamps. In addition (see herehttp://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/01/06/10010062-wealthy-would-benefit-most-from-romney-plan?threadId=3313426&commentId=61335691#c61335691), his tax plan offer 6.9% in tax breaks (over $145,000) to millionaires while those making $50,000-$75,000 get 3.3%, or just $250. IN ADDITION, those who make under $40,000 a year would not get ANY tax breaks. Instead, they'd get a tax INCREASE. DAMN YOU ROMNEY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! YOU LYING, THIEVING, SLAVE OF THE ONE PERCENT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

OBAMA BIDEN 2012

Look, here's the solution. With a Romney presidency and the likes of Rep. Paul Ryans desire to rip into entitlements, you go to PetsMart and try the dry dog food samples at the checkout and see which one is more palatable, add A-1 steaksauce mybe cheese, microwave it and you probably can survive off it since the poor and middle income class will be screwed. Drink plenty of water so you prevent constipation, it's not that hard.

Well now I will put a Mitt Romney Bumper Sticker on my car. Just a direct quote from him...no need to comment at all...Just his own words

I'm not concerned about the very poor

Mittens has foot in mouth disease. I have listened to him at times in the distant past and he seemed perfectly reasonable. Photographs of him and his family are attractive enough to qualify for an early 60's sitcom. Ozzie Nelson or Dick Van Dyke have nothing on him. I can even imagine him as Jim Anderson in "Father Knows Best" or Ward Cleaver dealing with the antics of the "the Beaver" and poor old Wally.

That image may go over well with us old farts. The truth is; that image is 50 years old. The truth is that Ozzie, Rob, Jim or Ward would never do a 180 on their core principles to appease a group of extremists in quest of political office.

I would like to remember Mitt as the young wholesome Mormon emissary that served his church and the people of France. (France? What happened to the destitute in Africa, Eastern Europe and South America?) I would like to remember Mitt as the moderate Republican that won the hearts of the people in Massachusetts with policies such a public health care and womens right to choose.

Instead, the memory of Mitt fighting the filthy lizard with even more filth fills my mind. The memory of Mitt denying his few meager accomplishments to placate the filthy lizard's supporters turns my stomach. He even mouths ridiculous words such as demonstrated in this article to gain their support.

No, Mitt Romney was never a Ward Cleaver. He was always an Eddie Haskel willing to tell you whatever you wanted to hear and get you in all kinds of trouble. A clown that should not be allowed to visit the Oval Office, much less sit behind the desk.

For all that don't yet have one foot in the grave, the internet will provide with you with an episode of "Leave it to Beaver". It may give you some insight to my ancient comparisons.

THE problem, THE issue, THE focus and blood gushing wound right NOW is the economically gashed backbone of this country - the working, tax paying, home buying, consumer spending middle class. EVERYONE, EVERYBODY will benefit ONLY when that wound is healing. It will and SHOULD take the overriding attention of elected, by-the-people, FOR-the people executives and legislators until the blood is stopped. Otherwise the whole country, very poor and very rich and everyone in between will be econimically dead no matter how much CPR caring attention they have been getting while the body of the country bled to death by the neglected back-bone.

It's not a gaffe, it's a news media, out of context headline.

fiesty- unfortunantly i will be standing in the soup lines with the obama care. not to mention how it will further destroy the economy when no one will afford to spend. maybe you rich dems think differently. and if you don't think so then you already have health care paid by employer.

Having read many of these cmments I can make some cliff notes:

Despite his warmongering, lying, torturing, domestic surveilling, NDAA indefinite detention signing, neoconservative first 4 years I'll blindly pull the lever for Obama again because I hate rich people and blame all my troubles on the fact I didn't get anywhere in life besides a dead end job and a mortgage on a house that's upside down thanks to government interferences in the housing market. War is Peace, Slavery is Freedom, Ignorance is Strength, Interventions are Humanitarian, and Pepper Spray is a Vegetable...Orwell 2012!

And on the other side...

I support Newt the Progressive who said his favorite President was Teddy "I'm a Jingoist" Roosevelt (the guy who started the Progressive Party). Newt, who said proudly "I'm a Rockefeller Republican"...that's Rockefeller, as in the anti-conservative guy who ran against Goldwater in the 1964 Primary and reputiated conservatives as "extremists". Yeah, that Newt.

And...

I support Romney...the most liberal moderate Republican since McCain. A guy who said just a few years ago he thought his Romneycare plan was a blueprint for the whole nation (despite his lies today that it's not the blueprint for Obamacare). Romney, they guy who has taken 2-3 positions on every issue known to man. The guy who is anything but a conservative. The guy who is the poster child for Cronie Capitalism. The guy who makes that Big Government big spending Santorum look like a conservative! Yeah, that Romney.

It makes me suck you sheep keep rooting for warmongers, neocons, egomaniacs, sociopaths, habitutal and compulsive liars, and TYRANTS. You have an alternative and won't choose him because you're not the brightest Crayons in the box, or you have a crappy code of ethics (like you think the answer to the over extortion/taxation of the middle and lower class is to extort MORE from the upper class, not to lower the extortion rate on those being abused...go figure).

It's true, we get the government we deserve...hence why I'm moving out of this country before you sheep run it off the cliff for good.

Just remember sheep, organizing a society by votes is just a manifestation of argumentum ad populum (appeal to votes or the crowd), an informal logical fallacy. The dumb and unethical choose the dumb and unethical to represent them, who then screw up everything they touch out of idiocy (including education), and then having made the populace ven dumber and less ethical, they elect even worse people...in a downward spiral of suicidal stupidity. They vote their neighbors more extortion, and vote themselves every benefit...until no one benefits and everyone is fully extorted.

If it wasn't true, it's be damn funny.

I hate you all...RepubliBloods, Democrips, ProGangsters, NeoConArtists...a fascist by any other name still stinks like hot garbage on a summer day. You're all to blame for this countries disgusting state, and yet you all point fingers at each other.

Lord knows, we've tried to help you, to educate you, to BEG you...but I'm done believing in the fairytale you'll ever wake up. I'm out of this hellhole. Enjoy the cesspool you've cultivated, losers.

...........Could you please give us a clear cut, easily understandable, and specific quid-pro-quo of how this applies to the 13 million Middle Class workers who lost their jobs due to the toxic mortgage backed financial derivatives that Wall Street pulled out of their butts and which put us in the current economic mess that we are in?

Tell me where were the stupid home owners that were greedy and got the ARM? Why does the home owner not understand that he does not own a home until the mortgage is paid for? The government should give you a helping hand when it all comes apart however Government should not be their to hold your hand when ever you make a stupid mistake.

What do you want the government to do? pay off all mortgages? let every one live in any home for as long as they want.

Homeless person: I'm cold and hungry.

Auto 101: I know, but it's your own damn fault, you should have made better choices, like moving to Australia or being born wealthy.

There are Charity's and the Government has programs to help. What do you want pay ever poor/ homeless person 60K a year for doing nothing? that would be charitable they would be out of the poverty line.I would suppose you think they did every thing perfect in life and made no wrong choices.

You just have to learn how to live your wage and not like the smiths down the street that are hiding the fact they are more broke then you.

ROY WILSON

Your figures (#1.194) are ridiculous.

You have federal income taxed at the rate of 44% BEFORE DEDUCTIONS. The current maximum rate is approximately 35% AFTER DEDUCTIONS.

You fail to understand that payroll taxes apply only to the first $106K of income each year ..... a maximum of about $7K per year. Therefore your calculation was based on a working life of about 1000 years.

I stopped reading your figures because my head was beginning to hurt.

I notice everyone on here that says Feisty is not wanted on here has a fraction of the up votes she gets. When you are so delusional that you convince yourself that you are more popular on a liberal newsvine than a liberal that gets 10 times the love you do. YOU should go away and find a mirror to adore yourself in. Talking to you Fraulein and a couple others on here. Couple being the operative word. This is why your party is as popular as you are. Only douche bags like douche's!!! Cheers Feisty.

Right. And you, of course, are an objective observer with no political bias of his own. Obama has done more for working Americans in three years than Bush did in eight, but God forbid you give him any credit. That would be admitting you may have had him all wrong, something no Republican would ever admit. You wouldn't have given him credit for killing OBL if he pulled the trigger himself.

@Rob in ma-3189632

The #1 problem in America is that people have been brainwashed. People are voting for or against a candidate based on the color of his skin, his religious beliefs, whether or not he supports gay marriage. Anyone who uses above criteria for voting is a burden on America.

But Frisky, you've made no point all. What exactly is the lie you are applying to acoustic? Further up you provided some pretty specific percentages. Where exactly did you get those from? Please share the link/source with all of us. These kinds of statements with no supporting facts are meaningless.

@Romney. You are more right that you know. Those are the main reasons Obama is in office today. It certainly wasn't based on his work experience or previous success in leadership roles.

Rob in ma. You are truly sad. Mitt said it from his own mouth, there is no disputing that. Here's a man worth a quarter of a billion dollars, and he gives $50 to a lady, now that's what I call reallly caring.

Rob in ma-3189632

The number #1 problem in the US today is that Obama doesn't care about anyone or anything except for his own re-election.

Sure...that's because he's is the first EVER to run for RE-ELECTION. No other President in history has ever spent time during his 1st administration running for a 2nd. And it's nearly impossible for the man to multi-task don't you imagine? I think you are a sore loser. Geesh...get over it.

How about we discuss something more important...like the fact the Congress has to do this mess every 2 YEARS...so at best we're getting 1 YR of work (well, not currently, this crop is worthless). And they do this over and over and over again. Give 'em a 4 year term and limit it to 2 terms. 7 years is plenty. As far as the presidency is concerned...I'd be happy with 1 6-year term. No campaigning...just 6 yrs of work. What do you think?

So very true!

and he gives $50 to a lady

Iteresting...He gave money and you criticize him on the amount.

How much did you give her, And the money he gave her was his and not money he took by tax from someone else!

This country runs best when the middle class are working , That is why he is is not concerned with the poor, he wants the middle class back to work, When the country is prosperous is when our government has money to fund programs for the poor, You do not help the poor by making more people poor.

You think Obama trying to get himself re-elected is the US's #1 problem? Turn the corner, open your eyes.

So far I have heard no Republican candidate, specifically, say what they are going to do if they get elected. I mean specific solutions and how they are going to accomplish that. I'm more than willing to keep an open mind to any candidate but I have heard nothing that sways my vote to a Republican candidate. No, I am not registered as a Democrat.

Anyway, weren't our posts supposed to keep in with the story? Rommney was the subject.

Jim...

Yes....Romney was the actual subject in the article...but don't worry almost anything on this site ends up being about "repugs, George Bush, Dick Cheney, rethugs, republicants, Rush Limberg, and most importantly...Faux News".

2.23: Norway has depleted their oil supply to get the trust fund and are now in the process of allowing drilling in a protected area to get more! They are living high on the hog at the expense of their grandchildren, just like public servant Obama is trying to do.

ABO 2012!

Neither Gingrich nor Romney care about the Republican party. If they did, they wouldn't be hacking each other to pieces. Democrats don't have to jump on Romney for this flub.....Gingrich will undoubtably do a far better job. This Republican campain is about getting in the history books....not about the future of America.

Accoustic, what exactly has The President done for working Americans? I know he signed free trade agreements with Peru and South Korea which will do nothing but drain more jobs out of this country. How are the Peruvians going to buy our products when so many of them can barely put food on the table?

Matt: well for starters: Two million jobs added to this economy, which is 5 times as many added in Bush's entire 8 years. Obama brought us back from the brink of Bush's (he who must not be named) recession and we're actually now in recovery, despite the Republican's best efforts. The auto industry is alive and kicking (again, despite the republicans best efforts) and that's just a start. It's not the RICH who fought in Iraq and Afghanistan...two wars Obama is ending..

Mitt Romney's father was born in Mexico and he was a citizen of Mexico. I found the paper work when he crossed the border. It list his country as Mexico, but I have not been able yet to find papers that show he became a citizen, Ancestry.com. Romney won't vote for the dream act, but he can stayed here and went to college. Romney is a cruel person, the way he treated his dog show that he is mean. The candidates that the GOP have running for the nomination are pathetic. Romney earned his money by out sourcing American jobs, bankrupting companies and taking the employees retirement money.

AP...

Do you really think that nothing happens...that thousands of businesses go into hibernation...businessmen sit on their hands...and everyone spends their time thumb-twiddling until some politician speaks from on high on some new plan to get them all working again ???

In the last few years...I went to work in a new job for a new company, my wife changed jobs within the company she works for, my son started up a small construction company, and my daughter graduated from college and started her new job today. The guy who owns my company added two employees...after laying off 3 a couple years back...and my son hired two carpenters.

Is this all to Mr. Obama's credit ??? I'm sure in his self-esteemed opinion, he put all those people back to work and counts those 8 spots as jobs he'll be taking credit for.

We could be in the middle of World War III and businesses would still be starting up and people would be getting hired.

tony, do you know anyone in the pacific nw who might hire me? I definitely need work and this is part of my script-- to network all the time....

Bright, hard working, mature female; interested in customer service positions as well as social service positions working for and on behalf of the poor.

And, by the way, Mitt's clueless and crass at the same time, but most of all, no heart.

Acoustictherapy 3.1

Seriously? Where have you been the last 3 years? With your head in the sand?

It is interesting to see that the majority of the comments collapsed by the community are those pointing out the extreme nature of those that take the story out of context. Isn't an intelligent discussion/debate supposed to allow good logic from both sides/views?

To quote Romney :

'I'm not concerned about the very poor'

Later, he added that he is not concerned about the poor because there is a "safety net" in place for them; but neglected to comment that it is this "safety net" which the Republicans are determined to eliminate completely. They have gone out of their way for gerrymandering elections that favor Republicans, and making it much more difficult for the poor to vote along with no assistance for transportation. The reason for that being, the poor tend to vote Democratic. So much for their concerns for the Constituents and democracy!!

I did my taxes yesterday. I had over 3,000 in medical expenses. I made $17000. last year. And I paid 18.88 % in taxes. How's that for broke? I thought most of the poor people didn't pay any federal income taxes?

I am sorry BuckNaked but your name still sounds like a Gay Porn Stars name. OK to be fair it is (or was) the name of a Gay PornStar.

Just sayin'

If liberals don't know what Romney meant, than they are either really stupid, or so ideological, they'll believe whatever the left feeds them.

I understand the he was taken out of context, but as a side note, I don't think he cares about the lower tier working class and poor and if entitlements are cut severly as a Rep.Paul Ryan would like to do, the impact on children, working single parents majority women would be devastating. They would trim that ole deficit all right but the consequences would be enormous. You know that debt that they keep screaming about which they had no problem with when George left office at 10.5 trillion and an auto industry collapsing and home foreclosures starting to avalanche out, I don't recall them concerned about the national debt back then.

You are right, it's a shame that negative ads from both sides will be taking the candidates comments out of context.

Right after it will be the tidbit that the average American family could live for nearly 500 years on what he earned in one year.

The very poor are the homeless and people who would be living in shanty towns if shanty towns were still possible. You have to be destitute to qualify for Medicare, food stamps (primarily for children, not adults), etc. -- Destitute as in an income of $800/month or less.

What about the people below the poverty level making more than $800/month, but below $24,000 to $40,000 for a family of four? There are no safety nets for them. They have no health care. They can barely put food on the table and gas in their car (if they have one). Even those earning above $40,000 for a family of four can be wiped out in an instant due to medical bills, job loss, or death of a bread winner.

Will the church pay those medical bills, or will a doctor accept payment in the form of a chicken? Sure, and a bake sale will pay for retirement too after the Teapublicans destroy Social Security. Puleeze, how daft can conservatives be?!

Don't listen to those who have thrived from the status quo, who benefit from plutocracy. What works IS "European-style socialism" (though exaggerated for purposes of demonizing) and what has not been working in Europe is austerity. What caused Greece to collapse wasn't just spending, rather the bigger problem was too many weren't paying their taxes, especially Farrari owners.

What works is fair taxation in which the rich and corporations actually pay taxes. That means not sheltering money in the Cayman Islands and Swiss Banks. That means ending loopholes so corporations actually pay the 35% tax rate instead of 9% (or zero). That means ending loopholes so the rich pay taxes on all their income instead of an effective tax rate of 15% only.

If Romney can only focus on one thing at a time, and can only represent certain segments of our country (the rich, the fundamentalists, the extreme right-wing), then obviously he is not fit to be POTUS. The president MUST represent ALL Americans.

If we were all living in cardboard boxes under bridges, we still wouldn't be "poor enough" for the Republicans to see the need for government programs.

Because, you know, we still have access to cardboard boxes. Not everyone has those.

Since when did the 1% ever care for the poor and middle income people? Like never!! They're too busy thinking and setting up for themselves while reaping off the benefits from the real working class people. It's more important for them to prepare for the next exemption before the ink is dry on the current tax exemption. So when is the majority of the population going to take off their blindfolds to see what the corporate elite and wealthy are doing to separate the classes even more while busy calling them lazy and ineffective workers? The elite, often handed politically high positions, keep raising the college tuition fees with all kinds of excuses to keep the others from gaining additional education enabling them to challenge the so called upper status (with money and not necessarily for intellect) for higher salaries and success. After all they should not be educating "too many of those lazy. good for nothing, poor folks". Corporate elite tell us that an attorney from a good state college isn't as good as an attorney from an Ivy League college. Therefore, their salaries must reflect that status and other such B.S. The new young elites are handed down their positions (regardless of their skills and leadership) from grandpa to pop to son. Most of them didn't have to work as hard as the non-elite, who obtained their education with their own earned money to cover college expenses. That should be the "real core value of a strong society" and not the "greedy gold spoon" attitude. A vote for the Republican Party will just expand the income disparity, benefits, and rights. Republicans have already discussed eliminating the minimum wage salary, taken away health benefits, shortened lunch time, taken arbitration rights away, etc., etc. How much more are you willing to allow the elite keep stomping all over your rights?????? Romney's off-the-cuff comments are exactly what he thinks and intended to say. He doesn't need to consider the poor at all, which says those people are not of any worth or value to his existence or success. Now it's time for the 99% to stand up to the 1% and show them otherwise!!

I have a question for you all. In your opinions where is the line you draw that separates "rich" from "middle class" and "poor"? I personally feel that any individual/ family making $100,000 per year is wealthy. I also feel that those under $25,000 are poor. what is your view?

What's out of context? He even brought it up again, but he added he wasn't interested in the "very rich" either. What safety net? He never explains anything. He really needs to make a beeping noise like a truck when he backs up like that. Mitt's a twit.

"The only thing that could have made that Romney quote worse is if he ended it by laughing manically and lighting a cigar with a $100 bill."

http://twitter.com/#!/Slublog/statuses/164711206349836288

Romney wants only one thing with his narrow-minded tunnel vision!!! And that is: Who is good for him and who can do what for him??

Lynn...

Mr. Romney "never explains anything" ???

If that is important to you...how much time did President Obama spend "explaining" his new health care plan, one of the biggest government intrusions into the American economy in history ???

If requiring that our politicians "explain" the things they do...perhaps we should start with the largest items first.

Its election year, so look out for more of the "collapsed by community" censorship. Its a shame that good comments with high ratings somehow get collapsed by either haters, or political censors that don't want to make it easy to read these threads.

As for magic underwear Romney, of course he doesn't care about the poor, and I doubt that he cares about the middle class either. He is just blabbering out sound bites to get elected, just as every other candidate is. If anyone thinks that any of them actually care about anything other than money and power, your a fool.

I would love to see a candidate make a campaign contract with Americans. This would involve sticking to what they promise during a campaign rather than going into "business as usual" mode once they are elected. I would also like to see a resume posted online for everyone to see what qualifies them to be our elected officials. I am tired of the commercials that use sound bites to give a one sided view of a candidate. I have resolved to watching movies during major election years as I can't stand the lying and deceiving political ads. Our government has turned into a 3 ring circus full of carnies running for office. Its a shame that it has come down to this, and I am disgusted with what I see every year.

I think its time for a real change, to bad there are too many sheep that are asleep at the wheel.

Jemma...

The biggest difference between them is that at least Mr. Romney would light his own cigar with his own $100 bill...while Mr. Obama would borrow a cigar from me and then light it up with a $100 bill that would be added to current debt.

It already is showing up. We aren't understanding what Romney is trying to say here. If we don't save the reality of a very large portion of our society being middle class, there won't be any rungs to climb up for the poor. What you will have is anything but freedom. It will be even worse than it is now. You will have an entire nation of "have-nots" controlled by an elite minority of "haves". You may say that this is what we have now. You ain't seen nothin' yet if we don't resuscitate the middle class. We cannot lift up our poor without a thriving economy.

If everyone was very poor and there was no one rich or ambitious enough to create jobs, then each single person would have to forage the earth to sustain themselves, and that might include murdering others for their fortunes and there would be no card boxes or even clothes to wear.

Will this be taken out of context in a campaign ad? Probably. However, Romeny took a clip of then-candidate Obama quoting then-candidate McCain and passed it off as Obama's sentiments. They then basically justified it as 'Well, he did say it. That's him saying it.' So, I got no sympathy for Romney.

sfcret,

What 'out of context' are you referring to? When asked to clarify his position, he repeated it, word for word. The context is that he is unable to go to the bathroom and chew gum at the same time and is incapable of even caring about the poor, let alone doing anything for them, while he concentrates on the Middle Class. This is one rare instance where the context is every bit as damning as the statement, if not more so.

I sure hope if he wins it all we don't have a terrorist attack while he is stuck thinking about the middle class.

Romney knows a certain segment of Americans will vote for him no matter what he dosent care. Watch how he looks at voters like they are dirt beneath his feet.

just don't replace him with "family abandoning" Gringrich/"ethics violations" Gingrich

i don't want that turd anywheres near the white house ...

Tony

If you watched something other than Fox news, Obama spent quite a lot of time explaining his healthcare plan. Go check out archives in Google, there's no reason to make inaccurate statements like yours in these days of effortless research.

Also in your comparison, don't you mean that Obama would light his exploding cigar that W gave him with the receipt from the trillions that Bush gave the bankers before Obama was elected, let alone took office? Or did you conveniently forget that this is the excuse you gave for why McCain lost? Funny how you want it both ways

RT, you absolutely right. The mormon cult community will vote for him just because he is a mormon. The rich will vote for him just because he is a republican. The poor will vote for him because they can't see their nose to spite their face, well at least until he made this comment. This country will be in a world of @!$%#e if he gets elected, plain and simple.

Note to Romney speech writers: Mr. Romney, you may not be too concerned about the very poor, but you still kinda have to include them in the campaign speeches (at least until you get elected)...<giggle>

Hey Frisky, I had to laugh at your post since I just finished reading an article on LiveScience.com about the IQ level of right wing conservatives and how low they are. When you think of right wingers you think of bigots, red necks, religious folk all are mostly low IQ's. While liberals are usually teachers, people with degrees and scientists, and people who have the ability to use logic and reason to which no conservative is able to do. Given your post it's obvious that the article was right on. Stupid is as stupid does...LOL

I love watching comments taken out of context by the media. I am sure there is a perception about Romney that he needs to be very careful about during his campaign, but I read the WHOLE comment and not just what the media posted.

I am sure democrats will repeat this over and over again. I like Mitt more and more and look forward to having a successful business man run this country. Tried the other, and I dont want to make that mistake again. YOU GO MASS. MODERATE!!!

R Terr

More MSM bias! Read the whole story and if you are honest, it's true. Romney is trying to keep middle class from falling into government supported poor class.

Absolutely, ridiculous...

Romney "cared" so much about the middle class that through Bain Capital, he fired numerous workers!

This 250 Million Dollar candidate has a "strange" way of demonstrating his concern for the middle class. Do not buy Romney's smooth "line" about his "heavy heart" about the economic woes of the American people...otherwise, we are toast.

Again, with the anti-Republican, anti-Democrat insults. EVERY candidate for national office has an agenda, the biggest portion is to protect their own self interests. And every one of them has more money than Mr. and Mrs. Average American could even dream of earning. This is ridiculous folks.

It is time we stopped listening to "sound bites" or "video snips" and started questioning every single one what their TRUE agenda is. As they all have "handlers" and publicity experts, bank on no straight answer.

SNAPPA,

You must have that backwards. When people think about liberals they think of poor, uneducated welfare recipients that can't get or don't want jobs because of their laziness and/or sense of entitlement. A majority of the people that identify as Republicans are the ones with college degrees, have good jobs, are pillars of their communities and PAY TAXES.

@tony-268769

how much time did President Obama spend "explaining" his new health care plan, one of the biggest government intrusions into the American economy in history ???

there are people out there who have absolutely zero intellectual honesty and should not be allowed anywhere near a voting booth.

the most controversial part of ACA was the mandate (which must be what you think is the so called 'government intrusion') is a republican idea that was hatched up in 90's and implemented by romney in massachussets. furthermore, the mandate amounts to: if you have healthcare, we give you a tax break/incentive/whatever you want to call it at the end of the year.

you cant find one liberal or one progressive who thinks ACA was a wonderful idea. what we do think is that it was a compromise and a step in the right direction.

the ACA is neither obama's health care plan, nor a government intrusion.

these are facts. the reason why we cant get anything done in this country is that some people would like to relitigating the past and dispute empirically provable facts.

I don't see Obama saying "My main concern is the poor" either. It's always "We need to help the 'middle class'.

So what's the difference, except the 'spin' that First Read tries to put on the story?

It's easy to see why msnbc is considered a 'Lap Dog' for Obama.

No Roy,

Obama didn't say "My main concern is for the poor" neither did he say "I don't care about the poor" which Romney did. When asked to clarify it, he said it again.

All MSNBC did was quote Romney's own statement as said on CNN.

Oops, never mind, I can easily see why you would think that anyone who uses what ROMNEY ACTUALLY SAID is a 'lapdog for Obama'. It certainly reads that way, doesn't it?

David, please read Roy's first sentence again. He did not accuse the President of saying anything, just stated what he hasn't said.

Geeze give it a rest, give it a rest already.

When people think about liberals they think of poor, uneducated welfare recipients that can't get or don't want jobs because of their laziness and/or sense of entitlement.

What YOU think is not in line with the facts. For one, the more education you have the more likely you are to be Liberal. Only 6% of scientists call themselves Conservative, while 52% call themselves liberal. The reason for this isn't some overwhelming conspiracy by liberals to brainwash students, despite the rights belief that this is the case. It is the fact that reality tends to have a liberal bias. For example you say Liberals are welfare recipients, but most Red states spend more on welfare than they collect in taxes. That means Blue, or liberal, states pay federal taxes that go to support red states, that operate at a net loss. The wealthiest areas in the country tend to be Liberal, and most if not all Unions, which are organizations of workers, support Democrats.

Finally, look at unemployment numbers. Red states and Blue states are not quite equal for unemployment. The top 3 states are Nevada with 12%, a generally republican state, California a generally democratic state and Rhode Island a democratic state occupied by wealthy people that don't work. In fact below that there are 8 Red states and only one Blue state. So it looks like the numbers, or facts, are pointing toward the Liberal bias.

Just another Freudian slip of the lip for Ro-money. His handlers are going to have to duck tape his feet together to keep them out of his mouth. Maybe Dick Chaney is available to put his hand up the "plastic man's" butt to keep his mouth on message. It kinda worked for Dumbiyah, remember! This is going to be so much fun. LMAO!!!!

Work harder

You need to read harder. (Maybe take off the Republican colored glasses)

All i did was to first agree with Roy about what Obama didn't say and then compare it with the odious statement that Romney did say. Then I went on to point out that Roy was accusing MSNBC of bias for repeating the full Romney statement, in context.

I made the observation that quoting Romney had the effect of appearing to have bias towards the President.

Glad I could clear this up for you. Any reading problems you have in the future, don't hesitate...

We aren't understanding what Romney is trying to say here. If we don't save the reality of a very large portion of our society being middle class, there won't be any rungs to climb up for the poor. .... You ain't seen nothin' yet if we don't resuscitate the middle class. We cannot lift up our poor without a thriving economy.

You're exactly right, except that the conservatives aren't trying to resuscitate the middle class. Most of the benefits of Romney's tax plan will accrue to the wealthy who will save, not spend, the tax savings. If we want a thriving economy, we need consumer demand. Giving a millionaire another $50K in savings won't get him to spend more. Giving someone making $50K a year another $2-3K most certainly will spur spending. Concentrating the nation's wealth in 1% of the population isn't good for anyone, including the 1% (Apple doesn't make billions of dollars a year selling iPhones to 1% of the population).

We also can't help the middle class if we don't invest in it. That means, principally, spending on effective education ... elementary, high school, college and trade schools. Yet, conservatives seem to recoil from proposing ANY spending increases.

Hey, Amused

Remember the 'little box' on "W's" back under his jacket, at the debate? I alway thought it was holding the hand wipes for Cheney after he made W's lips move.

David...

Sorry dude...but the only reason I ever gave for John McCain losing the election was that he was a lousy candidate.

An pleeeease...."his healthcare plan" ??? He never even wrote a draft for healthcare reform...the House wrote and he signed it. I read plenty of newspapers and magazines..."his" (ahem) plan was very poorly explained and that's why a majority of Americans didn't want it back then and do ot want it now.

And also...please....ditch the "Fox News" retort...do you really think the only reason Mr. Obama is a lousy leader is because of Fox News ???

As I write I look up to see what ??? Another second-graders attempt at a George Bush joke. If there are other second-graders on this site, they might get a laugh !

Watch tony back up. Turn that beeper on tony.

I work full time but make too much to get food help, but don't make enough to pay my bills, but make too much...blah, blah, same as a lot of other Americans. I would not have health care because of pre-existing conditions, IF I DID NOT HAVE MY JOB, until President Obama came into office. He is trying to help those that can't get health insurance. I could not afford it because it was too expensive...and still couldn't afford it if my employer didn't cover it. It is a basic need, like food. What is so difficult to understand. I am convinced that not only are Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich out of touch, but a lot of you, on this thread are also WAY out of touch, with comments like "homeless people want to be homeless" and others have eluded to people not wanting to work. There are people that can't work. I work in Developmental Disabilities...those people work if we can find something for them to be able to do. Some are bed ridden. Some are just too mentally disabled to function. My state has a waiting list of thousands of people that can't even GET BASIC SERVICES...meaning lodging and food. That is a reality people. Open your eyes.

Tony,

Your side calls it Obamacare, not House-of-Representatives-care. In your own post, DUDE, you referred to it as "his" plan. I've heard of cherry-picking words, but usually that's confined to other people's words not your own. So what ever you thought of McCain, you still seem to want it both ways.

I couldn't agree with you more that whoever's healthcare plan it is, was very poorly explained. However your statement, if i may quote:

If that is important to you...how much time did President Obama spend "explaining" his new health care plan, one of the biggest government intrusions into the American economy in history ???

Your assertion above, was that he spent no time explaining it, not that he didn't do it very well. Those things are not comparable. Not to mention that YOU are the one calling it "HIS" healthcare plan. Make up your mind.

You have completely changed your argument since my criticism of it.

The box on Bush's back was never explained in any way, leaving it open to speculation. Sorry you don't like my humor, DUDE. At least it's my humor that's second grade and not my ever changing arguments.

Romney's tax plans don't necessarily pan out with me. I mean, if you check an earlier MSNBC news post, Romney's plan would save millionaires big bucks while forcing people who make under perhaps $40-50k to pay more in taxes. Let me get this straight: I want more Americans to pay income taxes, and I want the upper class to pay more in taxes. HOWEVER, giving tax breaks TO the wealthy on the backs of the working class is CLASS WARFARE. How does that feel, Romney??? How does that feel, GOP???? I mean, we have already given the wealthy too many tax breaks. I say we went to far during Bush, but eventually I hope to place tax rates for the top at Reagan levels while the rest at about Clinton levels.

This is MY fiscal and economic package:

I. Reduce the debt by $8 trillion over 10 years.

• $750 billion in defense cuts: cut waste in private contracting; reduce investments in new military projects to more sustainable levels; reduce active military personnel by about 8%; demolish 200 bases to save over $55 billion a year; prioritize investments for drones, efficient weapon systems, and cyber-defense systems.
• $1.25 trillion in entitlement savings: Raise payroll cap to 90% of income; reinstate COLA; reinstate estate taxes; raise premiums for beneficiaries who make over $250,000; progressive indexing.
• Cut $1.5 trillion from discretionary spending except from NASA and Department of Education. Find ways to remove waste, trim costs, etc.
• Save $3.5 trillion by repealing Bush tax cuts.
• Institute Buffet Rule and save $500 billion.
• Total savings=$7.5 trillion plus perhaps $800 billion or more in interest savings.

II. Economic Recovery Package

• Education reform. Increase funding for Department of Education, adopt RAND education policy and further Head Start programs.
• Create Department of Tourism with $36 billion budget to support 150,000 employees to speed up process for foreign tourists to apply for visas to US and make system more efficient.
• $90 billion in infrastructure bank to leverage capital for infrastructure repairs to employ millions of Americans.
• Incorporate policies of Obama's Jobs Bill.
• Offer incentives for businesses to buy US-made equipment and to employ people in America to the tune of perhaps $2,000-$3,000 per head; includes only people earning the median salary that the companies provides for its workers.
• Increase duties and tariffs for Chinese goods to 35% until China appreciates its currency and lowers subsidies; place more cases on Chinese fraud and stealing,
• $60 billion in incentives and federal loans and grants to green technology.
• Regulatory overview to decrease unnecessary regulations for economy and add regulations were needed.
• Reinstate Glass-Steagall.
• Lift moratorium on offshore oil drilling and open up certain areas for energy exploration WITH safety and environmental precautions and insure safety.
• Invest $40 billion in new R&D projects.
• Offer more scholarships and Pell grants; prioritize scholarships to promote getting degrees in engineering, technology, etc.
• Negotiate lower tuition deals with private institutions in return for aid and invest more money public higher education. Negotiate with states for a state education surtax to pay for public universities.
• Help housing market: tighten regulations on housing and financial markets, reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac; create partnership programs between the government and the private sector to buy houses and rent it out to former owners; persuade banks to write off parts of underwater mortgages; quicken time for foreclosures; demolish old buildings to open up to construction projects.
• Increase federal gasoline tax to $.225/gallon and use extra revenues to revamp infrastructure.
• Extend payroll tax cut.

Would be funded by a surtax on millionaires and additional spending cuts.

David-SF Bay Area. "Then I went on to point out that Roy was accusing MSNBC of bias for repeating the full Romney statement, in context."