Let’s see, Romney has to defend, walk back or flip-flop
on at least one comment every few days.

By the time we get to the Convention there will be enough
comments to publish a coffee table book.

Romney wants to start something between the poor and the middle class. And there are those in the middle class who will be more than happy to oblige the "President Obama isn't helping the middle class" crap that we've been hearing for ages.

President Obama saved the auto industry, he is helping those with foreclosures, he put regulations in place. We have seen a resurgance in the Rust Belt because he is working with Corporate America - to get people back to work.

To get people in the middle and working class BACK TO WORK.

What is Romney doing?

Nothing but shootin' his condescending mouth off.

I'd feel a tad bad for Romney if he hadn't proudly defended taking things out of context a few weeks ago when his attack ad against Obama so blatantly took Obama out of context that even Republicans were calling it disgusting.

Given Romney's constant gaffes, maybe he should apologize to Obama for that ad. Otherwise his complaints about being taken out of context are pure hypocrisy.

All romney needs to do is follow obamas play book on this. We see FR progressives folowing it every day.

The man has cringe factor in spades.

Think first ... then speak. Kinda like put your socks on first, then your shoes.

Again, if Romney's statement that he is not concerned about the RICH were true then why give them a substantial tax break?

Actions speak louder than words in this instance. His plan calls for more tax cuts for the rich.

Look it up.

Daily Kos:

Well, well. Looks like another Republican talking point is full of holes. Every House Republican, and their prospective standard-bearer Mitt Romney, have relentlessly attacked President Obama and the Affordable Care Act for, in Romney's words being a "Medicare-cutting monster." (Subtle, he ain't.)

WASHINGTON – Premiums for the Medicare program that allows recipients to choose private insurance have dropped an average of 7% while enrollment has grown by 10%, according to Department of Health and Human Services statistics to be released today. [...]

The premium decline exceeded that predicted in September by HHS analysts, who said the premiums would drop 4%. Since 2010, records show, premiums have fallen 16% and enrollment has increased 17%.

**************

Mitt Romney is a liar.

The only thing Willard can say with conviction and clarity is "You're fired"!

don't carry it... Let's see he is willing to extend the obama (bush) tax cuts across the board. To bad you want to ignore the other 98%.

I find it interesting that America has not had any type of comprehensive tax reform since 1986. My take is that only the tea party has been trying to focus on taxes and that obama and mainstream politicians really don't give a shlt.

Wonder if, the Secret Service can protect the poor from Willard?

WOW - I should think this word, Romney-Problems, out there is real. A manifestation of 1%? Time time time......will tell more.

Willard miss his calling. there is no middle class. You are either poor or rich.

American -- As a democrat I strongly advocate for total tax reform every chance I get! There is no freedom when our officials use the tax code to control the masses. Blame Congress and lobbyists!

we have a safety net for the poor............food stamps.

the rich are doing so well ........... paying no or less taxes and accounts in exotic islands.

Meaning, both sides including him, Romney, are living off Government subsides. This is TRUE.

News Flash....

"In the last three years, we've worked hard to get out of this mess and we've made some remarkable progress," the first lady told a group of about 135 supporters at a private campaign event for her husband

And she said it with a straight face!!!!!!

Talk about a political ad in the making.

Mitt can gingrich obama over the head witih this one day in and day out.

Rob - Ha ha ha ha! That's the best you have?

Go for it. Use Michelle's comments. I love it!!!!!

That's some funny stuff man. I love the smell of wingnut desperation in the morning, it smells like victory!

nisl - check my post below and tell me what odor you're smelling.

Just an observation here. Read the last paragraph of the article above. It is very telling. And will hurt Mr. Romney some, if he wins the nomination.

Rob - The problem I think should be if she lied........but she didn't. We've made a great progress from what Bush left behind but as we all know, it's not in GOP DNA at anytime to tell the truth. Funny stuff indeed, nisl.

Rob - I'm smelling your desperation, that's what I'm smelling. Anyone with any knowledge about polls and politics in the USA knows polls taken in January bear little if any resemblance to final outcomes. And your thinking Michelle's comments are somehow a weapon to use against Obama, well that is the funniest thing I've heard all day.

Well, correction, it is the second funniest thing. The funniest thing would probably be Mittens being caught in another lie, this time about the family dog he strapped to the car roof for a 12 hour road trip to Canada. Ends up the dog didn't live a long life, it ran away the first chance it got.

It looks like the American people are having the same response to Mitt that Mitt's former dog did.

But you go ahead and keep groping for a defense of Mittens. I think it is hilarious!

Romney is looking out for himself and his friends at the country club. He is right, he doesn't care about poor people, and he surely doesn't care about middle class people either. He wants to make the middle class poor so that he only has to keep two classes straight in his mind.

Speaking of the poor, the Komen Foundation has cut off funding for breast cancer screening to Planned Parenthood because they are under investigation by Congress. Now, I don't want the argument about pro-choice or pro life here. Planned Parenthood has helped thousands of women who are poor or low income with breast cancer screening. This is a blow to them.

So, this is where our partisan politics have brought us to. And it is going to cost lives.

I almost feel sorry for the right to have to defend these revealing mouthfuls Willard drops on us with ever increasing regularity. It always seems to happen when he is speaking either in an interview or in off the cuff remarks at a campaign event.....when he is not using a teleprompter!!

His campaign insist he use one after each primary or caucus, fearful he will further leave himself open to ridicule.

Poor Willard, he cant help it. They are so revealing, because they show his mindset, he has no thought of those so less fortunate than him, and as far as the middle class, he'll endure them for as long as it is necessary to get what he thinks he's entitled to.

Planned Parenthood has always played an important part in women's health. People will indeed die in this country to impress one issue voters in a presidential election year. I get it, republicans want the president to be a one termer, but to allow even one woman to die for a cause like that is literally and by definition a crime. Criminal negligence comes to mind.

"Wonder if, the Secret Service can protect the poor from Willard?"

@Sandy....Poor Willard...he's afraid of the poor, but definitely, everyone should be afraid of Willard!

Wayne,

Thanks for reading my comment. I thought it was an important fact to share.

Phinephancy,

I read all of your comments. I look for your avatar whenever I am on line. Thanks!

Wayne,

I will keep watching out for your comments, too!

"Oh I'm sure there are. I'm sure there are places where people fall between the cracks. And finding those places is one of the things that is the responsibility of government. We do have a very ample safety net in America, with Medicaid, housing vouchers, food stamps, earned income tax credit. We have a number of ways of helping the poor," Romney said. "And yet my focus and the area that I think is the greatest challenge that the country faces right now is not, is not to focus our effort on how we help the poor as much as to focus our effort on how to help the middle class in America, and get more people in the middle class and get people out of being poor and becoming middle income."

Does he not understand how many people have moved from the middle class into the poor over the last three years? Romney's plan, "help the middle class." If you are one of the thousands to millions that have moved into the poor, sorry, you aren't my concern anymore. You have a safety net full of people like you, but I'm sure it will hold.

Good luck

O beautiful for spacious skies,

For amber waves of grain,

For purple mountain majesties

Above the fruited plain!

I just had to share this observation from conservative pundit Bill Bennet on CNN:

His win comes partly from substance and partly from a substantial advantage in resources. Romney is now a much improved candidate. His tactics and message are sharper, particularly defending his wealth.

Talk about bad timing!

http://www.cnn.com/2012/02/01/opinion/bennett-romney-vision/index.html?hpt=hp_c1

[Romney defends 'poor people' remark]

...yeabut...yeabut...yeabut...

Keep back-pedaling that GOP Circus tricycle, Mittens!

Hey, Feisty, just heard that there is a rumor that mittens got a glitter shower in MN! Pretty sure he thought that princelings could not have that happen to them.

Romney glitter bomb!! Was just on Martin Bashir. He also made some weird comment about not the only thing in his hair and gluing it on.

Romney is suppose to get Secret Service soon, hope someone doesn't get killed doing that.

Hey, Feisty, just heard that there is a rumor that mittens got a glitter shower in MN!

Hey, NDD, no longer just a rumor, it's been confirmed. Willard's response was something about 'gluing his hair on'.... WTF???

Well if he is really for the middle class then he must support the income tax cut.

I haven't heard it yet - has anyone else?

Hysterical! Hope there is a video. Wait. What? Gluing his hair on? Translation please?

God, I love MN!

Phine - I read about the divorce between Planned Parenthood and Komen yesterday. Truly a sad day when politics enters the health care arena in the form of lost services. Of course, that has been an ongoing dialogue ever since the passage of AHCA, which Romney vows to dismantle. I do not understand the utter contempt 1/3 of Americans have when it comes to giving all Americans access to healthcare. Romney must not be really be concerned about the middle-class if he wants to undo AHCA.

The Komen Foundation should be ashamed.

They caved to the pressure from the right-wing. Guess there are no right-wing women who use the services of Planned Parenthood, have reproductive concerns, or even support the Komen Foundations 'Race for the Cure".

All right-wingers are rich and healthy!

Translation please?

Wish I had one, you know what happens when Willard goes off script! lol

meh meh meh!

Red,

I just came across the article today. It truly sadden me. I don't how to make people understand that Planned Parenthood offers so much to the health and well being of women, abortion argument aside. It seems women's health is not going to be safe under GOP control. At least, that is the impression I am getting now.

chilled,

It is so ironic to me that my 11 year old granddaughter has participated in different Komen events. Shame, shame, shame on the Komen Foundation!

We have a safety for the rich. The Republican Congress.

There is a good commentary on Slate that calls shame on the Komen foundation. Short, but to the point. Check it out if you get the time.

I fail to see what the big deal is honestly. I dont think there is anything wrong with his comment, his primary concern is the middle class - which is the majority of america. Granted, im neither a liberal nor a conservative - so im in the minority here, but again - i see nothing wrong with his comment when taken in context.

BoBo, study his tax plan. You will see how much he supports the middle class vs. the upper crust.

There isn't a politician alive that doesn't stick his foot in his (or her) mouth a hundred times. This includes our current president. To be a truly informed voter you must look at everything. And dig deep. You can't trust headlines or soundbites. That is the media spinning the story the way they want you to perceive it. Vote for the candidate you think best but please don't fall for every dopey, out of context, story that crops up on the nightly news or the internet.

Spike Lee is throwing a $38,500 per person fundraiser for Obama, I wonder how many of those poor people that Obama claims to love are going to be there.

Whether a gaffe in terms of wording something poorly or not, we all know Republicans are the party of Wall Street and Big Oil, not of Main Street and the working class. And there's never been a better poster child for the richest 1% than Romney.

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 Medicaid, 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 in Italy.

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.

Which Romney is going to Nevada ?????????????????????????????????

Phinephancy, It is a shame about Planned Parenthood. I have a friend who is a survivor and is active in the Susan B Komen Foundation I'm going to give her a call. Let you know what I find out.

sandy-1851937

Wonder if, the Secret Service can protect the poor from Willard?

And to Greg in NY, etc. -- Romney is so stiff and plastic, why not save the tax payer's money and just use decoys?

Eeehhhhh..........

Romney is creating an issue for himself. He is feeding the narrative.

This is very dangerous for him, and this is why....

The vast majority of voters are not political junkies, and their opinions are driven by the over all narratives. They do not see all of the back and for that goes on in blogs or talk shows. They generally only see what filters down to them.

It only takes them hearing something like this once, maybe twice, and the narrative is reinforced.....and it is very, very hard to break back through.

And there is still a long way to go...

Believe it or not, on this one I kinda feel sorry for Mitt. He got caught in an "open mouth, insert (golden) foot" moment. No one really believes he doesn't care for the very poor, he is not a total duesch.

This one is not really any different than President Obama's "Campaign in all 57 states" statement. Both are sound bites, taken at a time when the caffeine is low, the adrenaline is gone, the blood sugar level is low and the candidate is tired, yet still has to try to keep talking. Politicians truly don't know how to not talk.

Romney donates about 20% of his income to charity. (all you haters out there please take time to look at his tax returns and get the facts). I am much more concerned that he thinks goverment should actually be involved in these safety net programs than his out of context comment. The government is incompetent and can't do anything effectively. 100% of the safety net in this country should be private charity. NO government programs, they don't help who they are supposed to help, they are full of waste and fraud and charity isn't a government responsibility. It is a religious responsibility and the government should not intrude on religions, take money from individuals who want to choose which charity they donate to and instead spend the money wastefully on some poorly designed and managed government program. The only single thing the government does well is waste our money.

It is a good thing Romney is charitable and donates aboput 20% of his income to helping the poor, it is a bad thing that he thinks government should be responsible for social safety net programs. Government should be small and inexpensive, that way the rich will stop trying to purchase congressmen, senators and presidents and we can all take care of the poor in the way WE want to take care of the poor not the way some government bureaucrat thinks is a good idea.

Hey dirp, I second that and look how fast Newt popped up with his big dirty mouth. ...#1.53

What Willard really meant was, "I don't care about the Poor...OR...the Middle Class."

Boyd-4008127 -- No one claims Romney doesn't give, albeit to the Mormon church and/or for tax write offs. Better yet, those as insanely rich as Romney should pay it forward and pay it back to this nation for giving them educated workers, infrastructure, security, and opportunities to become insanely rich. His tax evasion (money offshore) and 13.9% effective tax rate, not serving his country in the military, etc. are not as patriotic as the songs he sings.

In regard to to safety nets, of course waste and fraud are always a problem (in the private sector as well--especially the fraud part, you know Enron, Worldcom, heck Bain Capital ripping off tax payers and Medicare), but I'll repeat this part of my post above:

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?!

Small government means nothing, especially when the very large military, wiretap surveillance, and religious impositions are exempt from the conservative definition. What we need is Smart Government, because government most definitely has an important and necessary role to play. Away with the Teapublican anarchists and their nightmare view of every man, woman, and child for his/herself - Away with you.

We have a safety net for the poor in, and if there are holes in it, I will work to repair that. And if there are people that are falling through the cracks I want to fix that,

IF there are holes in it.?? IF people are falling through the cracks.?? These sentences are also quite telling. That he can not see that there are gaping holes in the "safety net" and that people are "falling through the cracks" as he speaks, then he certainly is out of touch.

Can anyone read and comprehend the meaning of an "entire sentence"? Its like the Calvin Johnson rule in the NFL. When catching a ball one must maintain control through the entire process. In other words "NO TOUCHDOWN"

Mittens Rob-us-blind Flip Flop, the 1%'er CORPORATE RAIDER and one time governor of Liberal Mass but now he is an arch conservative. Has supported Abortion, Gay Rights, Gun Control, Stem Cell Research and has reverse himself on all of these issues.

He took both sides on the financial bailout, the stimulus bill, the auto loan package;

His biggest Flip-Flop of all Health Care Reform The national Law is modeled on the one that he championed as governor in Mass that requires every citizen to have health insurance. Now he has Flipped-Flopped. Mr. Flop has taken a hard slide to the right pandering and boot licking to the tea party.

Mitt Flip-Flop Rob-us-blind, a wishy-washy, flip flopping spineless politician without any core convictions, principals or believes a man who will say or do anything to get elected telling one crowd one thing and another crowd another. You simply can’t trust this guy to tell you the truth.

Now Mr. FLOP 1% has exposed himself as being totally out of touch with reality

Mr. Rob-Us-Blind Rom-Nut= an A$$

Mitt Romney is not concerned about the very poor. Nor do I believe he is concerned about the middle class or even the rich. I believe Mitt "Ban Capital" Romney's only concern is his next enterprise, his crowning glory, buying the Presidency and the US of A . Romney does not have a clue about what it takes to survive and get by in this country, to try to have a decent, modest life. Not a clue. His mechanical adding machine mentality is figuring up how to buy the country for himself and his rich friends, save their tax breaks, and ship their magnificent capital gains income offshore to the Cayman Islands or a Swiss bank for safekeeping for his progeny to come until the end of time.

Romney wants to achieve what his father couldn't achieve. He wants to be president and has has no other reason for doing so other than to say " see, Dad, I was able to do it." What the hell does he want to be president for??? The money??He has more money hidden off shore than he knows what to do with. the power? The President is only as powerful as those who give him power to enact his policy or proposals. Go ahead Mitt, play on the fear of change, fear of anyone that may look different, sound different or have a different belief than what you and yours might adhere to. Take your right wing social engineering and shove it. And that goes for Mitch Daniels , Mike Pence and all GOP/TP @!$%#s in Indiana, too. The sooner I can move out of this @!$%#ed up state the better.

Romney has more than this one issue to deal with. Such a small portion of republicans have voted so far; many more by Super Tuesday.

Adding up the "anyone but Romney votes" makes it an even split among republican voters. That really says little because so few voted, it's hard to judge in Florida. A 15% drop in republican voters compared to 2008 should tell you that Romney is not winning big. One could say that the options are so poor, the republican voters aren't voting for any of them. Those non-voters go into the anti-Romney pile too.

The arsenal continues to build. This is just one to add to the fire power the president will have when the two debate.

Corporations are people too. (Almost sounds like, "pity the poor billionaires")

I like to fire people. (that contradicts his doing "something", not yet disclosed, unless you are counting the tax increase on the poor and decrease to the rich, to help the middle class)

$10,000 bet? (from a good mormon life time member)

This, with his standing record that proves he isn't concerned for the poor, does not a president make.

I seen a poster above boasting about a 20% charity donation from Romney. They must realise that charitable donations are tax deductable, right?

Romney: "I don't give a sheet about the very poor."

American Public: "Hey!"

Romney: "No, nononono, you have to look at the whole sentence. What I said was that my focus is on the very poor!"

one of mitties talking points is obamas statement that if he didnt turn the economy around in 3 years he didnt deserve a second term. lets see, we went from losing 700,000 jobs a month to gaining about 200,000 jobs a month. that is about 900,000 jobs a month different. to me that is a huge turn around. just imagine how good things would be if it werent for the hundreds of fillibusters the greedy old people/republicans didnt use the last few years. i disagree with a lot of what obama has done (mainly caving in to the gop), but he is a saint compared to any gop running for office.

News Release
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
February 1, 2012

Contact: CMS Press Office
(202) 690-6145

Medicare Advantage premiums down 7 percent on average, enrollment up 10 percent
Medicare Advantage premiums have fallen by 7 percent on average and enrollment has risen by about 10 percent since this time last year, HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius announced today.

The enrollment numbers confirm projections from last September that enrollment in Medicare Advantage plans would continue to rise and average premiums would continue to fall. Average premiums have fallen from $33.97 in 2011, to $31.54 in 2012, while enrollment has risen from 11.7 million in 2011 to 12.8 million in 2012.

"The Medicare Advantage program is stronger than ever," said Secretary Sebelius. "Premiums are down on average, enrollment is up, and thanks to the Affordable Care Act we have unprecedented new tools to ensure that seniors and people with disabilities are getting the best value out of their coverage."

In addition to today's enrollment and premium numbers, there is more evidence that the Medicare Advantage program remains strong:

On average, there are 26 Medicare Advantage plans to choose from in nearly every county across the country;
Access to Medicare Advantage remains strong: 99.7 percent of Medicare beneficiaries have access to a Medicare Advantage plan; and
Since 2010, when the Affordable Care Act was passed, Medicare Advantage premiums have fallen by 16 percent and enrollment has climbed by 17 percent.
"Not only are average premiums lower, but plans are better, with more beneficiaries enrolled in 4 and 5 star plans," said CMS Acting Administrator Marilyn Tavenner. "The Affordable Care Act has strengthened Medicare Advantage by motivating plans to improve the quality of their coverage."

In 2012, thanks to the Affordable Care Act, Medicare Advantage plans will start receiving incentives to achieve high quality scores through the use of quality bonus payments. As an extra incentive for high quality performance, CMS is allowing Five-Star Medicare Advantage and Part D plans to continuously market and enroll beneficiaries throughout the year.

To find the most recent publicly available MA and Part D contract and enrollment data, visit: http://www.cms.gov/MCRAdvPartDEnrolData/MCESR/list.asp#TopOfPage

###

Dude, Thursten Howell III is running for POTUS! W. T. F. "The poors!!! Do we have poors in this country??? Who are the poors? Do they spend time with the browns???"

Holy crap, listen Romeny, I'm going to say this again... People would like you much better if you just embraced your inner fat cat. There's nothing wrong with being rich, there is something wrong with pretending to not be effected by your riches. Nobody begrudges you them, I do begrudge the fact that you're trying to represent my social class through disingenuous means.

It's sad to me that the news media takes portions of statements like this out of context and twists them to try and create sensationalist news stories. What is really disappointing is how many people fall for these stories.

Boyd - the flaw in your belief that charities(religions) should be handling the safety net, is that churches dont really want to help anyone that doesnt look/think/behave like them...

furthermore...as Dave Ramsey says, if churches/ect WERE DOING THEIR JOB - the govt wouldnt have a job to do here, right? I dont have FAITH in american churches...since they cant manage to "do better than the govt" right now...something tells me eliminating the safety nets, wont make the churches figure it out any sooner.

people need jobs, not handouts...but, 1/2 this nation seems allergic to having people work jobs that pay a living wage. apparently, it's insult to suggest someone needing help be GIVEN a job...apparently GIVING jobs, is the worst thing one could suggest. apparently WORK is something that should be scarce and something workers fight over for low wages...

thats how 3rd world nations thrive...thats how 1st world nations die...

lol.

'no no, you have to take the whole sentence in context! i dont care about the poor because im going to care about the middle instead!'

yeah. even when you take it in context, it sounds exactly just as bad haha.

It is a good thing Romney is charitable and donates aboput 20% of his income to helping the poor, it is a bad thing that he thinks government should be responsible for social safety net programs.

Hmm, I've heard Mitts charity at "10%", then "13%", then "15%", and now 20%! If that magically keeps growing, then he'll be donating 110% of his income to charity! But whatever the figure, his donations are mostly or entirely to the Mormon church, and only a small portion of those donations actually go to their charity work, most of it goes to build and maintain churches and extravagantly luxurious Temples. Also, most of the Mormon charity goes to Mormons.

Which brings up the problem of private charities - they are limited, and not evenly distributed. If private charity was sufficient, there would be no Government run welfare programs. Mitt understands that, why doesn't Boyd?

Government should be small and inexpensive, that way the rich will stop trying to purchase congressmen, senators and presidents

Nope, they'll still want favors, such as tax breaks for themselves, and sweetheart deals for fat Government contracts (see: Military contractors, Halliburton, Blackwater, etc.), and doing away with regulations that keep them from dumping toxic waste and screwing the public. Making the Government "small and inexpensive" will only make it cheaper for the rich to buy - at a bargain price, they'll "purchase" even more!

"Willard" was right on. The poor are not going to bring this economy back. The poor, of those who vote, cast their vote for idiots like ObamaLangaDingDong who promise to give them things for free. It worked once why not twice?

What better way to get idiots to vote for you than have the UN-BIASED media stir up some controversy for you.

And since we now know that 50% of Americans are "Poor". Well................

Believing this story wasn't manufactured by the "Un-Biased" media to inflame the idiots of this country is like believing the "Fiesty Red Head" has been blowing the Koch brothers on her spare time.

Romney said. "...my focus in the campaign is on middle income people. Of course I'm concerned about all Americans -- poor, wealthy, middle class, but the focus of my effort will be on middle income families..."

What a "fibber."

Romney was so concerned about the middle class and the poor that through Bain Capital he FIRED numerous working class people.

Ostensibly, the GOP is looking to dismantle America's social safety net through:

- the elimination of Social Security

- the elimination of Medicare

- the elimination of Medicaid

- the elimination of W.I.C.

- the elimination of food stamps

- the eliminationof the minimum wage

Romney is still in the GOP race because he is wealthy enough to spend his own money - to stay in the race.

Only by default, will this candidate become the GOP's presidential nominee.

Romney is in the top most percentage of the 1%.

He is far from representing the "average" American.

Poor Republicans. I guess they need some ammunition to go after Obama when the time comes. But then there's plenty of that to go around. Seen the one where his VP is praising the financial genius of the former NJ governor? We can expect that to be played over and over later this year. Biden and Obama will have a hard time explaining that one.

“I’m not concerned about the very poor. We have a safety net there. If it needs repair, I’ll fix it," Romney told CNN's Soledad O'Brien. "I’m not concerned about the very rich, they’re doing just fine. I’m concerned about the very heart of the America, the 90 percent, 95 percent of Americans who right now are struggling.”

Not concerned about the very poor. Of course you are not. Why should you be. For you they are invisible and expendable. Economic Slavery and all.

Also not concerned about the very rich because your party's trickle up economics assures executive with bonuses by too big to fail bailout policies.

America's middle class does not make up 90 to 95 percent of the population.

Class models such as Dennis Gilbert or Thompson and Hickey estimate that roughly 53% of Americans are members of the working or lower classes and the upper middle class constitutes 15% of Americans. That brings us to a total of 68% of Americans with which you concern yourself with. The other 32%, minus the 5% rich, we can use as cannon fodder in your party's famous wars for WMD destruction.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_middle_class

Is that right? Isn't that what Romney did with President Obama's words during his campaign with McCain? Completely took his words out of context - intentionally.

President Obama also passed health care reform legislation, which helps the middle and working and poor classes. It is saving a lot of money for our senior citizens. Middle class senior citizens.

A guy who has been running for President for five years should have better control of his tongue. And why does he have to keep saying "the wealthy are doing fine?" Of course the wealthy are doing well, they have enjoyed historically low tax rates for ten years.

This is what political discourse has devolved to

Yes, this is true, and Mitt Romney defended it in November when he said, "It was instead to point out what's sauce for the goose is now sauce for the gander." He said that while defending this tripe:

The Romney campaign ad, which began airing in New Hampshire on Tuesday, uses footage from an Obama campaign event in Londonderry, N.H., in the final weeks of the 2008 race, when the Illinois senator and Democratic nominee was making his case to voters on the economy.

At issue is this soundbite that the Romney campaign used from Obama: "If we keep talking about the economy, we're going to lose."

In fact, Obama that day was quoting an unnamed campaign advisor for Sen. John McCain, the Republican nominee. The full quote: "Sen. McCain's campaign actually said, and I quote, if we keep talking about the economy, we're going to lose."

Yes Amy and a guy who has been President should have better control of his:

"We have created 22 million jobs"

Amy, don't hate the wealthy. It makes you sound small. You should strive for their success not belittle it.

The Romney campaign has not seen anything yet. I don't think Mr. Romney is going to be able to effectively complain about negative advertising, after all "this ain't beanbags". It certainly would be hypocritical for him to complain about taking things out of context.

He also said he don't think there is no hole in the net.

White Collar why should we strive for their success. They kept the money and sent the jobs over seas.

Amy--if the "wealthy are doing just fine"---why haven't they created more jobs? According to the Republicans, we give the wealthy the tax cuts so they use the money to create jobs---well, where are the jobs? What is the unemployment rate in the Cayman Islands, I wonder.

Yeah, I should have mastered in "leveraged buyouts" in college, instead of education, then I too, could be retiring on $20 million a year, like Romney. I'll crawl back into my cardboard box now.

President Obama also passed health care reform legislation, which helps the middle and working and poor classes. It is saving a lot of money for our senior citizens. Middle class senior citizens.

You would think with such success Gallop would have better news for Obama than the drubbing that's on the way....

Gallup released their annual state-by-state presidential approval numbers yesterday, and the results should have 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue very worried. If President Obama carries only those states where he had a net positive approval rating in 2011 (e.g. Michigan where he is up 48 percent to 44 percent), Obama would lose the 2012 election to the Republican nominee 323 electoral votes to 215.

Gallup adds:

Overall, Obama averaged 44% job approval in his third year in office, down from 47% in his second year. His approval rating declined from 2010 to 2011 in most states, with Wyoming, Connecticut, and Maine showing a marginal increase, and Massachusetts, Wisconsin, Minnesota, New Jersey, Arizona, West Virginia, Michigan, and Georgia showing declines of less than a full percentage point. The greatest declines were in Hawaii, South Dakota, Nebraska, and New Mexico.

I almost feel sorry for the libbies....

Well not really. Spin away moonbats spin away

Life is all about choices Amy. Don't hate the people that made better choices than you did.

White Collar

Oh please. I've known a few millionaires in my life. I didn't hate them, they were ordinary people. Not any different from me. Not better educated, or harder working. Most of them inherited the big bucks. The one millionaire I know who made it on his own is a quasi-psychopath. I don't hate him, but I am pretty scared of him.

So in otherwords Amy, rich people are like anyone else, eh? They just have more accumulation. Now do you believe that they should give more of their accumulation? If so, who should they give it to? Who should receive their benefits? Poor people? Why? Middle class? Why? What justification is there for them to be forced to give more than anyone else? They already pay more dollars in taxes. How much more would satisfy the left in their pursuit of the rich people's wealth?

they should give more of their accumulation? If so, who should they give it to?

If he wasn't dead brian, you could ask John Kennedy and probably get a straight forward, correct answer.

Since he is not available, you and the wealthy should research & study his (and Bobby's) life, philosophies, and politics and you should be able to get a solid answer to your question.... many have already.

And Rob....

either you are looking at some different gallup poll, or you are not able to read and comprehend things. The one out today indicates a solid WIN for President Obama if the election were today.

But hey... we understand that all you have is spin and inaccurate advertisements since you can't seem to find any viable candidates.

Brianb,

I don't see that Amy made any mention of the rich needing to give more of their money to anyone.

Are you trying to justify the "thesis" that the left is after the wealth of others?

http:/ /www.gallup.com/poll/152372/Obama-Approval-Above-States-2011.aspx

Here is the poll I mentioned Rob; dated Wed., Feb. 1 2012

Wanna trade spins off these numbers?

Obama, solid 206 electoral votes with above 50% approval PLUS

another 42 electoral votes from the states showing above 47% approval for a total of 248 electoral votes out of 438 possible; add in the borderline battleground states who show approval of 45% or better and it is obvious that President Obama remains President.

Here's the poll Stupid:

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

Gallup released their annual state-by-state presidential approval numbers yesterday, and the results should have 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue very worried. If President Obama carries only those states where he had a net positive approval rating in 2011 (e.g. Michigan where he is up 48 percent to 44 percent), Obama would lose the 2012 election to the Republican nominee 323 electoral votes to 215.

Spin that.

It was a hypothetical question run like hell. But now that you mention it, I'd say the left is after rich people's money. They continually rail against the 1% not paying their fair share. The one thing they never quantify is what is fair. Fair may mean one thing to me and another to someone on the left.

The left always cites that the tax cuts originating from Bush, but continued by Obama has effected the deficit and the national debt. No one ever puts pen to paper to show how much those tax cuts equate to in real dollars. They never show how extra money in people's pockets generate sales and additional purchases afforded by those same tax cuts.. even if it means one extra bought out meal a week. Those that cite tax cuts are bad, are pushing a rope. The figures and mathematics are way to complicated to cypher, so they are counting on that fact to validate their argument.

In turn they want to justify raising taxes on the 1%, which is in effect, taking from those 1%ers.

Maybe i am missing something here. I don't see how the comment I am not worried about the poor can be taken out of context. He must feel they are doing OK and should be content with their plight. Maybe it is because he sees a few empty highway islands and feels they have not taken advantage of all their resources.

White Collar Auto

Life is all about choices Amy. Don't hate the people that made better choices than you did.

What choices are you talking about, WCA? I'm assuming--and please correct me if I'm wrong--that you think all the wealthy people somehow made better life choices than those of us who are not millionaires and billionaires? The flip side of that is the belief that the impoverished people of America are poor because of bad choices they made.

That's a very simplistic approach that fails to factor in difficult economic situations such as bankruptcy from catastrophic illness, loss of job and loss of home, or loss of pension through mismanagement, just to name a few.

It also fails to take into account how many fortunes were made through crime, especially on Wall Street. Don't ask honest, hard-working middle class people to admire rich crooks like Bernie Madoff. Don't forget all the people like Romney who were born with silver spoons in their mouths.

If you're not poor, be grateful for your good fortune. Remember how large a role luck plays and don't forget that there, but for the grace of God, go you.

Everyday a new poll. Many polls have the President in the lead. Remember, the election is a long way off.

WCA"

Spin that.

BWAAAHHHHAHAHAHA!

Re-read my user name and have another drink of tea....

You really, actually posted a link to Washington Examiner and want readers to take what IT says instead of Gallup??????

How assinine!

Would you like me to get the take from Lef Action , I will vote for Obama, Veracity Stew, or one of the other left- slanted media to post wca?

Should have known.

Try to have a meaningful dialogue with a GOP-TEA nut and this is what happens.

See, there is the major difference; I posted the truth, straight from Gallup.

Typical Republican/Tea philosophy: "If you can't win, BUY it... if you can't buy it, CHEAT!"

IR12

I don't see how the comment I am not worried about the poor can be taken out of context.

What he actually said was "Im not worried about the poor, they have a safety net, and if its broken Ill fix it".

Thats how the left takes things out of context.

Which Romney is going to Nevada ????????????????

Romney ?

Mitt ?

Willard ?

Mitt Romney ?

Brianb: if the wealthy are looking for somewhere to send an extra million or two, I vote for sending it to me. :)

Here is the complete quote:

Breaking from Newsmax.

"I'm not concerned about the very poor, we have a safety net there," he said, adding, "If it needs repair, I'll fix it."

Romney also said he would leave concern for the poor to the Democratic party.

"We will hear from the Democrat party the plight of the poor," Romney said. "And there's no question it's not good being poor and we have a safety net to help those that are very poor. But my campaign is focused on middle Americans.

"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.

So... debate "out of context" on the quote all you like - And remember that Willard took President Obama's quotes out of context and out of time to make an ad against him, saying he [Romney] thought it was "okay" to do that.... -

Fact is, without doubt, that Willard Romney is NOT focused on the poor, and he admits it.

dirp - I second that! Problem is... they aren't looking.

@White Trash Auto You're referring to ONE poll taken a YEAR before the election, pitting President Obama against a generic opponent. And even then, he's only behind by a few percentage points in the swing states. The message of the poll isn't that Obama isn't going to win. The message is that it's probably going to be a close election either way.

More recent polling has shown Obama's approval numbers steadily rising. Furthermore, his Republican opponents are far more disliked than he is, meaning that they'll probably do worse in the election than an unnamed Republican would.

All that being said, anyone (such as yourself) who purports to know how the election in November will turn-out is an intellectually lazy moron. It's impossible to accurately guage the election this far out. Neither side should be even thinking about popping the champagne cork right now, nor should either side feel as though they have any sort of bragging rights given how widely these polls fluctuate from week to week.

Now that I've got your vote and my vote, a few more votes (maybe from Romney, the Walton Bros, and the Koch brothers ? ) the money will come my way and then I'll join the 1% and become a Republican.

Kris: the other thing about that poll, it was related to "a generic Republican" against Obama. Unfortunately, the true generic Republican dropped out after New Hampshire, after pinning his entire campaign on winning the state.

Bush won in 2004 with 47% approval without the Great Recession (thanks to his Texan-styled leadership). Obama 's number is within the margin. He has not yet in full swing campaign mode.

The slate of GOP candidates is full of nuts, crazies, and fakers.

The joke is Mittens doesn't get how badly the poor have it. Even if you take his quote in context it shows he's utterly clueless how horrible life is if you're living below the poverty line, and he doesn't seem to realize our safety nets are practically nonexistent compared to other developed nations.

A lot of people are "very poor" compared to Mitt Romney. All he proved with this entire statement is that he doesn't have the slightest clue on what is in the best interest for the people of the United States, only what is best for his yacht club buddies. Disgusting...

Yes, Mitt's remark about not caring for the poor included "because they have a safety net". And some of you think that should let him off the hook. But many of those same commentators accuse anyone who takes advantage of that safety net of being deadbeats, and freeloaders, living off of other people's money. Mitt, the republican party, and those commentators all want to dismantle that safety net.

So, in reality, maybe we don't have to look at the whole statement, because his own positions cancel out the second half of the statement, and the not caring part is the complete truth.

• 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

Mittens Rob-us-blind Flip Flop, the 1%'er CORPORATE RAIDER and one time governor of Liberal Mass but now he is an arch conservative. Has supported Abortion, Gay Rights, Gun Control, Stem Cell Research and has reverse himself on all of these issues.

He took both sides on the financial bailout, the stimulus bill, the auto loan package;

His biggest Flip-Flop of all Health Care Reform The national Law is modeled on the one that he championed as governor in Mass that requires every citizen to have health insurance. Now he has Flipped-Flopped. Mr. Flop has taken a hard slide to the right pandering and boot licking to the tea party.

Mitt Flip-Flop Rob-us-blind, a wishy-washy, flip flopping spineless politician without any core convictions, principals or believes a man who will say or do anything to get elected telling one crowd one thing and another crowd another. You simply can’t trust this guy to tell you the truth.

Now Mr. FLOP 1% has exposed himself as being totally out of touch with reality

Mr. Rob-Us-Blind Rom-Nut= an A$$

with such Lousy Political Choices, it's No Wonder We are ALL going; NO WHERE............

I would think that the POTUS would consider all American's equal, and not place them in separate groups because of their economic status.

Hello Mitt, OBAMA campaigned on "The Middle Class" and ignored the poor, how are you any different?

Hello Obama supporters, the working poor have NOT received any health insurance assistance, and having to wait till 2014 to get it is NO HELP at all.

Hello all middle Class, walk a mile in my shoes, i dare you.

So Stevie, you think people should be living on social safety nets. I guess that is how the right thinks people should live. He did not say that he would make their lives better, just fix the net so they do not hit the ground. Sad, Sad, Sad, and more Sad. Of course if we created some jobs for them, maybe they could work their way out of poverty. Your problem is you really believe because of your bigotry that they do not want to work.

Half a brain would have told you not to say it the way he said it. He could have indicated that the economy is number one on his agenda without throwing the poor under the bus. His remark indicates that the poor are already cared for, as are the rich. You see, the problem is that he really IS totally disconnected! The very poor are NOT "taken care of"... they are hungry, they are homeless, they are being treated like political pariah by the right, and there is no opportunity anywhere in sight for them. If THAT is "taken care of" then I guess we're okay with Romney, 'cause they ain't gettin any more from him.

Romney seems to have little talent for tongue. Payback for the bullsh_t he put on Newt during the FLa campaigne, so my opinion is he gets what he deserves. He's an imbecile. Hope you're happy with your choice you idiots in FL.

After seeing those outrageous, right-wing, talking points, SuperPAC "attack ads" on prime-time TV, this is one of the many reasons why I'm not voting for any one of these Republican Tea Party candidates:

"I'm Mitt Romney, and I support this message."

"I'm Newt Gingritch, and I support this message."

"I'm Ron Paul, and I support this message."

"I'm Rick Santorum, and I support this message."

"I'm Rick Perry, and I support this message."

"I'm Michele Bachmann, and I support this message."

Hello Radical - the REASON nobody is getting health coverage until 2014 is that the GOP insisted on it.

They didn't want anyone getting benefits before the next Presidential election.

Mitt's major problem is much like Trump's major problem: they both think they're to rich to watch what they say. Whatever hits his brain comes out his mouth, and he somehow thinks people should genuflect and agree. Money seems to destroy that part of the brain that controls social interaction and empathy.

I have a great idea! He should self-deport.

I agree it was taken out of context. He said "I'm not concerned" to mean, "I'm not worried about them," not to mean, "I don't care about them," even though the latter is likely to be just as accurate.

But the real problem is the whole sentence when taken in context. He says there's a safety net for the very poor and if there are problems with it, he'll fix it, blah blah blah. This, of course, is a HUGE lie. Mitt Romney has led the charge to cut Medicaid funding. Mitt Romney has voted to severely cut SNAP (food stamp) programs. Mitt Romney has publicly stated he'd happily sign the Paul Ryan budget plan, about 2/3rd of whose tax cuts come directly from programs that... wait for it... support and benefit low-income Americans. So ol' Newt actually got it right: Mitt Romney is a liar, surprise surprise. Mitt Romney has shown himself time and time again to be a candidate who will throw "the least of these" right under the bus.

If you want to see the Ryan budget that Romney endorses... the Ryan budget that guts billions of dollars from programs from lower-income Americans... the budget that literally takes nearly 70% of its cuts from the very safety net that Romney purports to want to strengthen, see here: cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=3451

Brianb-999431......And you feel they should give less than those less fortunate ? How about an even playing field, everyone pays same percent, no deductions, no tax havens, no moving money to offshore accounts. Why is it ok for wealthy to pay less than 15% when working stiffs pay over 25% ?

Even if Mitt isn't taken out of context...

"I’m not concerned about the very poor. We have a safety net there. If it needs repair, I’ll fix it, I’m not concerned about the very rich, they’re doing just fine. I’m concerned about the very heart of the America, the 90 percent, 95 percent of Americans who right now are struggling."

... he implies that the very poor are not part of the 90-95% of Americans who "right now are struggling" because the "safety net" to take care of them works well enough to alleviate their plight, and if not, he'll prop it up.

Now who's the socialist?!

Just kidding (above)... Mitt Romney couldn't be a socialist if he tried! He's way, WAY too out-of-touch with both the very poor and their magic safety net that obviously must be working for them since he's not worried about it, AND the 90-95% of Americans who "right now are struggling"... I suppose he'd classify them as only mostly poor.

Now who's the elitist?!... he's probably a secret muslim too.

HAve to wonder just when Romney because concerned with the middle class..since he has helped send jobs for the middle class away from this country in the name of profits. Just what kind of help is he looking at ? So far all I have seen is where he wants to reduce his taxes....even more..or maybe get rid of them altogether if he can continue to draw his funds from other country's and their banks...For the middle class to grow as it did in the past, jobs are needed...and living wages paid...I have not seen statements from any republican stateing that...nor do I expect to. Only thing heard so far is for less taxes so , according to the republicans, more jobs can be created...well created where..so far it has not happened here in the states. CDompanies today are making millions, at least their CEO's are..and where is it being made from...countries that control their people and wages..?

tweet-2832581

I would think that the POTUS would consider all American's equal, and not place them in separate groups because of their economic status.

Another case of apostrophe abuse, I see. "When in doubt, put an apostrophe before every word ending in s" seems to be the mantra for half our population.

"Americans" is plural, not possessive, and therefore does not require an apostrophe.

Romney has made very similar statements many times. This time it just caught fire due to the timing and the audience. It was not a slip of the tongue. It's part of his stump speeches.

Regardless, this is going to get Romney in deep problem with the GOP, though.

If the wealthy are doing just fine as he says, where are the private sector jobs? And why would they need any more tax breaks?

If he supports a strong safety net for the poor and it needs fixing, then he's at odds with the rest of the GOP who want to cut funding for that safety net and not increase it.

• Your choice for GOP:

1. a race-baiting family man who hides money overseas so he can pay less in taxes than the working poor or middle class; whose children have paid NO taxes on income of over $100 million; who fled the country to avoid military service as a youth; and who sometimes makes a poor choice of words that reveal his lack of compassion for those Americans who actually work for a living, or
2. race baiting Newt Blingrich

And to think the GOP was once the party of Lincoln!

The only thing all this is telling me is that there are many ignorant voters in he USA. If they need to twist the facts and pull things out of context and exaggerate to criticize him, he must be pretty good.

LMarcT - but that would be making the assumption that Mitt HAS half a brain. Way too much credit to Mitt!

DON9876543 - leaving the comment in context sounds no better. He is not pretty good or almost good or anywhere near good.

Has the media gotten around to asking obama what he means by "fair", "affordable" or "balanced"? His words fits in well with his 2008 rhetoric of "hope and change". Campaign speak not policy or action speak.

ABO 2012!

kind of like fox news, fair and balanced?

american every time he tried to pass a bill GOP was in the way. Old mitch was stand behine his people with a sledge hammer.

MISS PIGGY: It's almost as laughable as accusing Fox News as, you know, being news.

I know progressives desperately want the President to be re-elected but have you ever thought what would happen if Newt Gingrich got the nomination and by some fluke won?

lisa: well, it is 2012..... and 12/21/12 is a very short time after the election, maybe the Mayans would be right.

According to the U.S. Census Bureau data released Tuesday September 13th, 2011, the nation's poverty rate rose to 15.1% (46.2 million) in 2010.

The government's definition of poverty is based on total income received. For example, the poverty level for 2011 was set at $22,350 (total yearly income) for a family of four.

Mr. Romney, an unapologetic elitist, can try to spin his own words to try and show that he is in tune with 90-95% of the American public. However, when 15% of those Americans live at the poverty level, making less than 22K a year for a family of four, it is baffling that anyone can excuse this behavior as "the liberal agenda." Mr. Romney considers 300,000+ dollars to be inconsequential, so why should he be bothered with anyone who isn't wealthy.

Reagan-style economics do not work. It furthers the divide between the rich and poor. Mitt Romney wouldn't know what middle class was if it kissed him full on the mouth every day for a century.

I think you've hit the nail right on the head there. Mitt the twit's "Middle" class would be sayyyy...the CEO of a small company (let's say ~ $10 million/year in revenue). Now this dude makes a mil five and fits nicely into 'ol Mitten's middle income group. those of us who make under $250K a year would be defined as his "LOW CLASS" only need em for their votes every four years, working poor. And people with no incomes aren't people to him at all. CORPORATIONS are people to Romney...

Surely if there truly is a HELL, this man will one day end up there. A more arrogant, disingenuous, privileged, anal retentive, plutocratic bore I have never seen. This guy is some piece of shh..h...er...work.

"No no no no. No no.

You've got to take the whole sentence, all right, as opposed to saying, and then change it just a little bit, because then it sounds very different."

~ Romney

You know its bad when even Fatbo Limburger froths & babbles in right-wing asylum torment in trying to explain the *Great Cultural Poor People Conflict* with regards to this Willard gaffe ... problem is, Mittler believes it and means it ...

Drives the right-wing wackos further into bat-sh!t nutz lunacy when it comes to this thing called the 2012 GOP / Tea Bag Prez hopefuls who sound like escaped asylum inmates in spouting-off in *Conservative Principles* as the second-coming-of-Reagan as something *new* ... and never mentioning Bush who created this wretched-horror of the *new middle-class-poor* ... who never-existed ...

Jus' damn ... LOL.

ksw62118 he did not add the rest until he was call on the statement he made.

Mitt Romney: “Well, you had to finish the sentence, Soledad. I said I’m not concerned about the very poor that have the safety net, but if it has holes in it, I will repair them.

@JT again you only read this particular article. The previous article stated the sentence in entirety including the part about safety net. It was not added when he was questioned. You made my point perfectly about selective headlines, articles and the reader grabbing at that as the entire truth.

Yes, it is clear what Romney meant with the comments. Romney is still engaged in backwards Republican thinking.

If Romney would talk about what he IS concerned about, what his priorities are, what we can expect from him as President - then he would not have these distractions. Being Republican though, Romney focuses on the unimportant and irrelevant. Republican policy priorities are so bad that Republican candidates desperately try to avoid talking about them.

Keep in mind that Romney's new momentum is because 7.5% of registered voters in Florida voted for him. That's almost the margin of error in a 'fair and balanced' poll ...

Bla, Bla Bla, Republican or Democrat they are mostly all the same.

Most people don't know it but the people who own and run the U.S. changed our economy in the mid to late 1970's. It was capitalism before and it was capitalism after but from 1933 to the mid 1970's it was "Demand" side, Keynesian capitalism (dominated by the economic ideology of John Maynard Keynes). The economic Ideology of the New Deal and the FDR administration.

Keyesian economists wouldn't like me saying this but basically it was a hybrid between Capitalism and Socialism.

Economic policies associated with this ideology: Social programs like Social Security, Unemployment Insurance, Medicare, Pro-union, a large public sector, high taxes on the rich and corporations, low interest rates. etc.

Policies that put money in many peoples hands and stimulate "demand".

After the 1970's our economy was increasingly dominated by "Supply Side" "Free-market" capitalist ideology or as economists call it: "Neo-liberal" economics.

Don't be confused, this is not because it has anything to do with "liberals" (although "liberals" like Bill Clinton and Barack Obama have now embraced it) or cultural liberalism but because it involves the liberalization of capital. Indeed the first political leaders to embrace "Free-market"/ Neo Liberal economics were conservatives like Ronald Reagan, Barry Goldwater etc. (Milton Friedman is the economist most associated with this economic ideology).

Economic polices associated with "Free-market"/ Neo-liberal ideology: Deregulation, privatization, anti-union,

low taxes on business and the wealthy, etc.

This policy is similar to Laissez Faire the economic ideology which dominated the 1920's. You know, right before the stock market crashed and we had the Great Depression.

Even though 30 years of Free-Market/Neo-liberal economics crashed the economy in 2008 and brought about another profound economic crises like it's ancestor did at the end of the 1920's (when it was called Laissez Faire) this ideology still rules in the minds of U.S. politicians, policy makers and for the most part in corporate media.

That's why both Barack Obama and the Democratic leadership and all Republicans push many of the same "free-market"/"Neo-liberal", ideas about "fixing the economy" and "creating jobs": Slashing government spending, lowering taxes on business and the wealthy, (Obama calls them "tax incentives" and his proposals for raise taxes in the rich by token amounts are election year gimmicks)

Here's some graphs and text that shows the difference in effects the two opposing ideologies have produced"

U.S. unemployment rate during the 1930s with New Deal programs. Notice in the graph below it is generally going down at a pretty rapid rate during: Federal jobs programs (WPA, etc), creation of Social Security and Unemployment Insurance, etc. etc).

By the way that jog upwards in the unemployment rate around 1937 was when the FDR administration briefly REVERSED it's New Deal policies and started CUTTING the federal deficit. They realized their mistake and resumed spending at the previous levels and unemployment started going down again.

Even so conservative critics who say that New Deal programs did not end the depression are right.

It ended after we entered WWII and spent EVEN more than we had been during the New Deal Period. After WWII we had the Cold War and space race which kept federal spending high and the unemployment rate low.

http://www.examiner.com/images/blog/wysiwyg/image/depression(6).JPG

Wages adjusted for inflation (also includes inflation rate). Wages, adjusted for inflation were much higher on average than now.

http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/images/2008/us-wages-june08.gif

It's popular for politicians of both parties to say we have the highest corporate tax rate in the industrialized world but they are blowing smoke and they know it. They are talking about the NOMINAL tax rate, the tax rate that is on the books but which few corporations pay.

60% of U.S. corporations pay NO TAXES some years and the tax rate for corporations has generally been going down since the end of the 1940's. This gives the lie to claims that further lowering taxes for businesses will "stimulate the economy" and produce "jobs". If you look at the graphs above you will see that unemployment was lower and wages higher even when corporate taxes were much higher in the 1960s for example.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/key-elements/business/images/corptaxrates_graph_2.jpg

http://cdn.investinganswers.net:81/images/09-02-11-taxes3.jpg

There is also a lot of BS about the share of taxes the richest americans pay. They pay a large percentage of federal taxes not because they have a high rate of taxation but because so much of the national wealth is going to them. In fact the rich are paying historically low rates of taxation.

http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user5/imageroot/hildebrand/WG%201.png

Here's the history of the tax rate. Notice it was 90% during the 1950's which was mostly a Republican Administration (Eisenhower).

http://static5.businessinsider.com/image/4e1c5b08ccd1d50779000000/us-income-tax-top-bracket.jpg

The result of all of this? From roughly 1950's to the mid 1970's we had what economist Paul Krugman calls the "Great Compression". The period of time when wealth inequality was the lowest it's ever been since they have been taking records (and probably in U.S. history)

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/09/18/introducing-this-blog/

As Krugman points out the period of the Great Compression is also when the large prosperous middle class that the U.S. used to be famous for was created and was at it's greatest.

Today, from both political parties and constantly in the corporate media we have calls for more of the same "Free-market"/Neo-liberal" policies that, for the last 30 years, have been eroding the middle class, assaulting the poor and that pushed us off a cliff in 2008: "austerity" (drastically cutting federal spending), lowering taxes on billionaires and reliance on "the free-market" to produce jobs instead of a huge federal jobs program like the WPA in the 1930's that would really work.

In spite of all the happy talk in the corporate media (TV and online) and from politicians things really won't get better (and could get a lot worse, again) if we don't make radical change in the economy and learn some lessons from history.

Even if it can't be done in exactly the same way it can still be done.

Maybe you should watch the video clip so you can hear the statement direct from his mouth

ksw62118.....I agree, it was never his intent for it to come off the way it did. On the other hand, the fact that he would even say something that could be used that way against him says a lot about his judgement or lack thereof. If he cannot speak without putting his foot in his mouth, maybe he is not qualified for the position he is seeking. We already went through eight years with a president who could not clearly express his thoughts, look where it got us !

By the way, I don't think Bush was such a bad guy, just unqualified to be president, while someone like Clinton who was a sleazeball was very qualified.

Mitt meant it exactly the way it sounded. HE IS NOT CONCERNED ABOUT THE POOR.

Wow, Arch, very well said. Can't argue with your history, and the statistics you present because I have also found that same data. In fact, the only part I would disagree with is the proportion of blame that you give to the Democrats. There certainly are many Democrats that are neo-liberals (the blue dogs come to mind), but I do not agree that President Obama is a neo-liberal. I would say that he is more of a hybrid economics person, and a little too susceptible to people like Summers, and Geitner, but on the whole, definitely not neo-liberal. I would also say that there are a few Republicans who are not neo-liberals. Painting them all with a wide brush, sullies the good, with the bad.

Matthew,

One of Obamas hero's is Ronald Reagan who really got the neo-liberal back-lash going. If you google the right words you can find Obama gushing about the free enterprise system very much like his hero Reagan.

His reply to people who push him about the disasterous level of unemployment is that they have to wait for the private sector to start hiring.

He picked arch neo liberal Larry Summers to run the his economics team.

Now he's giving his prescriptions for lowering unemployment and helping the economy: slashing corporate regulations and cutting corporate taxes, pure neo liberalism.

Here's some more:

http://www.skeptically.org/ow/id3.html

http://blackagendareport.com/content/rahm-emanuel-barack-obama-neo-liberalism-are-daleys-gifts-chicago-and-nation-thanks

How dare them be rich and not give you your fair share of their money. I keep hearing you libs say all this money was stolen, but you never say how.

So Mutt seems to think that the don't-haves are jealous and envious of the money that he and his ilk have. Well, Mutt, you are WRONG, WRONG, WRONG. People in the class that I am have REAL, TRUE friends-- that we don't have to buy.

I had a dream the other night-- I mean a NIGHTMARE. I pictured a win come November for Mutt and his chosen VP-- who happened to be Lizard (isn't that what a newt is?). A zoo, that's for sure.

In reality, Mutt and Lizard are residents of the local ACORN CASTLE.

Mittens stole that money by getting the corporations he bought at Bain on government corporate welfare and allowing him to make millions.

Therefore Mittens is a socialist parasite.

To borrow an Obama phrase...

Dealing with the libbies on this vine is...."it's like, it's like the Special Olympics of something"

No one is buying the moonbat class warfare talking points, except the leftist loons in here.

Envy and steal from the rich, and get a handout from the government. That is the sum of the Obama failed policy.

Dear fellow "Moonbats",

I don't recall getting any government handouts as suggested by "Bob". Did any of you get any handouts or is this just another delusional talking point?

The president apologized for his Special Olympics remark. I thought being a God fearing Republican meant forgiveness. What happened? I have yet to hear an apology from Romney or any other Republican candidate. All I hear from them is excuses. He certainly owes the poor and even the middle class an apology for his remarks and that skewed tax plan of his.

DanNoid, my fellow moonbat;

I actually skipped my government handout this month, found a millionaire named Bob followed by a lot of numbers, held him at gun point (I used my cap gun) and forced him into handing over his hard earned money. I was nice and only took the equivalent of the proposed tax increase for millionaires. It was two pennies.

This means someone who earns $1,000,001 would pay just under two cents extra next year, and 19 cents over ten years.

http://robertreich.org/page/3

DaNoid - I have repented and atoned for my thuggery by returning the two pennies to the millionaire. Seems the conservatives are right. After losing the 2 cents, said millionaire laid off thousands of workers, the local economy collapsed, the banks failed, every non-millionaire in town lost their homes to foreclosure and gasp, the price of gas soared to $25 a gallon. Everyone in town now sits at home, twirling their thumbs, surviving off food stamps and welfare checks. I would never have guessed the economic calamity caused by my (erroneous) thoughts on those two cents.

Red that is too funny my fellow moonbat...I too did not get guberment assistance this month. I got up this morning and went to work, can you imagine a moonbat actually going to work...ugh!!!

Denise - can you imagine poor Mitts if the millionaire tax had passed. Instead of taking home $57k per day, his income would have dropped to a paltry $55,794.52 per day. How can anyone be expected to live off $55.7k per day?

Spoken like a person with not much stuff! Envy can kill a man or women!

It certainly did in France, late 1700's and Russia circa 1917. Can happen again, coming soon to a theater near you.

Yes my fellow moonbattions.After45 years of work, military service, and paying taxes it may be time for me to relax and draw all this government welfare I am alledgedly benefiting from. After 31 years of trickledown economics there has to be a silo of money ready to burst and trickle down all over we working poeple. I will no longer look at the minivan full of ragamuffins with the child not a choice bumper sticker or the guns don't kill people, people kill people sticker and wonder why these folks are voting for a republican. They are just helping fill the silo.Well, that and thier preacher told them they where going to hell if they voted for a Democrat. So grab your butterfly nets my moonbattion friends. There is going to be a tsunami of money trickling from above.

Romney makes $20 million per year.

Instead of that money going to Romney, let's use take that money to hire one thousand Americans. That would provide 1000 Americans an honest wage of $20,000 per year.

With those kind of ideas Im sure Obama wuld love to give you a cabinet position.

As long as you're a family of 1. Otherwise, you're just on the higher end of poverty.

Dan

If somebody wants an honest wage, go get a job, or are they just looking for another handout. I notice that you didnt mention taking all of Kerry's money, or Pelosi or any of the other rich democrats, or are you just planning on stealing from Republicans.

Yep, and with no remorse either. Don't care if its constitutional, let 'em get a lawyer with no money.

Rob in ma-3189632

If I remember correctly, this is the republican position on taxation. Cut taxes on business and the wealthy, and this will create jobs. If they aren't going to create jobs, why should they continue to receive these tax breaks?

10,000 dollars on a bet is, "a drop in the bucket," for the Mitt's pockets.

So if he puts down money for four bets with his pals on poker night, it's more than what many Americans make in a year.

Yep, the man's really out of touch with most of us. Must be so generous for him to say that he doesn't care about the poor.

A real, shining example of a Republican leader.

@Steve 2081387

If somebody wants an honest wage, go get a job

Yup, because as we all know, jobs are just falling out of the sky (along with the pink unicorns and leprechauns).

So? He's right.

The Obama economy is "trickle up poverty" and since more people are on food stamps now than ever before the middle class most definitely been hurt by Obama. More of them are in lower class now instead of being in the middle class.

Matthew, you said we have been decimated by over 30 years of "trickly down our legs" economic policies by the Republican/TP party. I believe you meant to say we've been getting a "golden shower" over the last 30 years..... We've been getting pissed on for over 30 years.

Tracy, more prople are on food stamps now thanks to the great Bush recession. Get a grip on reality, Beich!

"Beich!"

WTF? When are pussies like you going to let Obama take responsibility for his BS?

BTW the Mr. to you.

Tracy1973, here is a little metaphoric story I like to tell when people try to blame President Obama for the things he dd not cause.

Driver A of car B, kills pedestrian C in a hit and run incident. Before the police figure out it was driver A who was the culprit, driver A sells the car to driver D. The police finally find out it was car B that hit the pedestrian, and was driven by driver A. Who should they arrest? Driver A who drove the car when pedestrian C was killed? Or driver D, who is now driving the car?

Using your logic non-logic, the police should arrest driver C.

Just so that I'm clear: President Bush put the finishing touches in place that broke it, so I refuse to blame President Obama for the bad actions of President Bush, and his supply side predecessors.

Historical facts: the two tax cuts, and the unpaid for Medicare Part D policies implemented by President Bush, are two of the major things driving the deficit (http://www.cbpp.org/research/index.cfm?fa=topic&id=121), and it was the greed of sub-prime mortgage originators and the banks that securitized those bad mortgages that caused the recession, which is the other major cause of the deficit, and, therefore, the debt.

How did all of those banks get away with this? Deregulation, and defunding of the enforcement arms of the people who were supposed to be policing the mortgage industry.

Okay, it's late.

Using your logic non-logic, the police should arrest driver C.

should read:

Using your logic non-logic, the police should arrest driver D.

"so I refuse to blame President Obama for the bad actions of President Bush, and his supply side predecessors."

I never said that Bush wasn't to blame, but you refusing the accept the fact that Obama has made the situation worse because of his non pro growth BS policies making this sloooooow (record slow BTW) recovery being unnessarily being prolonged is pathetic. You must be one of those fools who believe that Obama's Keynesian economic ideas will work much less in a timely manner so as not to continue to keep record numbers of people on food stamps.

"Historical facts: the two tax cuts, and the unpaid for Medicare Part D policies implemented by President Bush, are two of the major things driving the deficit "

Tax cuts did not cause this problem. The overspending with Bush's BS pushing for part D coverage for precription drugs coupled with keeping the tax rates the same contributed. If you are going to cut taxes you can't overspend....it's that simple and Bush was a fool not vetoing a SINGLE spending bill put before him. The Dems and the Repubs were both at fault in the second term and Bush was the leader the didn't lead when it came to all the overspending. Fiscally Bush was NOT a conservative.

"...and it was the greed of sub-prime mortgage originators and the banks that securitized those bad mortgages that caused the recession, which is the other major cause of the deficit, and, therefore, the debt."

And you are going to sit there and not tell the whole truth? How typical. Greed on the sub-prime originators, yes, but the government thru Fannie and Freddie pushing the whole "everyone needs to own their own house" CRAP is just as much to blame. Yes Barney "It's not my fault" Frank was one of the biggest culprits in this whole bubble bursting and for you to think other wise just show how illogical your are or your are just a typical liberal partisian.

"How did all of those banks get away with this? Deregulation, and defunding of the enforcement arms of the people who were supposed to be policing the mortgage industry."

Defunding? Yeah right! They were just policing what the law told they could and if you really want to get to the genisis of this we can go back to the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act which president CLINTON happily sign in to law in 1999.

Tracy... Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act was signed by Clinton. Unfortunately it was written by the REPUGNICAN congress and they had a veto proof majority. Not absolving Clinton but atleast he balanced the budget and gave W a 200 million surplus which he used to cut taxes for the wealthiest Americans (yes, others benefited from the tax cuts but the benefits were SUBSTANTIALLY larger for the wealthiest).

"and they had a veto proof majority"

Are you sure about that? Veto proof requires 2/3 majority in each chamber.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/106th_United_States_Congress

"...but atleast he balanced the budget and gave"

The Congress balanced the budget. Clinton if you remember REFUSED the first time to sign the balanced budget amendment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balanced_budget_amendment

"In 1994, many Americans viewed reducing the deficit as one of the most important public policy objectives.^[24] To that end, in that year's Congressional election, Republicans campaigned against Clinton's revenue choking tax increase and took control of both the Senate and the House. The Republican led Congress immediately engaged in a battle with President Clinton, because the President refused to sign the balanced budgets the Congress sent him. Finally, in 1995 the Republican Congress stood firm, and refused to send Clinton any budget that was not balanced. Clinton fought this for as long as he could, and vetoed the budget which resulted in a brief shutdown of the Federal government. After negotiations with both sides giving in on some changes, they could not agree on the pace of spending cuts. The Republicans eventually cut a deal with Clinton that was not much different than what they could have gotten before the shutdown. ^{[25] [26][27]} One provision of their "Contract with America" campaign document called for a balanced-budget amendment.^[28] In 1995, such an amendment passed the House of Representatives and came within one vote of passing the Senate.^[24]"

Strange, I was always doing fine until Obama and group came along. NJ taxes under Dems was grinding me down, but every state is a bit different. I'm tired now of being middle class and being sucked dry by the liberal Dems, which will become unbearable with another four years of his socialist BS.

Oh gee, maybe kill the golden geese, take all their money, and maybe it'll last a couple of weeks at the rate the left wants to spend.

Tracy1973, you used so many right wing talking points that have been shown to be distortions, and outright lies, it is not even worth the time to refute everything you said. And, no, you did not say anything about Bush, so your 'just because I didn't say Bush wasn't at fault doesn't mean I don't think he had a part in it' excuse carries no weight. If you think he did have some blame, say it, otherwise, you are just trying to do the typical right wing backtrack when they say something that isn't true. Also, from your comments, you obviously have not done any research as to the when, or the why's of the recession, you just spout Republican/TP Inc. talking points without understanding what you are saying.

Strange, Mari-1045269, since President Obama came into office, your taxes have been cut. Interestingly, the Republican/TP Inc. party recession was getting deeper as President Obama took office, and his stimulus is credited with keeping it from being worse than it was. And when was it that Chris Cristie took office? Strange, Mari-1045269, you lie so easily.

"Tracy1973, you used so many right wing talking points that have been shown to be distortions, and outright lies, it is not even worth the time to refute everything you said"

Shown by who? The liberal MSM? You should know better than to listen to those lying pricks. By all means attempt to refute them...otherwise you are useless to this debate and we would all be better served by someone far more capable who could.

"so your 'just because I didn't say Bush wasn't at fault doesn't mean I don't think he had a part in it' excuse carries no weight."

"Also, from your comments, you obviously have not done any research as to the when, or the why's of the recession"

Just because I didn't prempt you by saying Bush was also to blame doesn't mean that he wasn't or that I don't think he had a role in the recession. For you not to accept the fact that Obama has made the situation WORSE is no different, so you can just get off your little perch of Obama isn't to blame for this pathetically slow recovery. Also you mentioned NOTHING about the fact that Fannie and Freddie were one of the main culprits of this recession and that Frank and Dodd were neck deep in re-writing the regulations of the mortgage industry.

Also I find it interesting that you don't mention Barney Frank in this whole discussion and must know by now that the reason he retired is because there was no way he was going to be re-elected because of the pathetic performance while being chairman of the banking committee.

Also you mentioned NOTHING about the fact that Fannie and Freddie were one of the main culprits of this recession and that Frank and Dodd were neck deep in re-writing the regulations of the mortgage industry.

I did not mention this, because it is not true. Again, you have shown that you have done zero research, and are depending on Faux Noise, and the right wing talking heads for your information. I read books, lots of books, by authors who actually know what they are talking about. You can find a short (very short) list on my Newsvine page (just click on my name, if you dare), if you are interested in actually finding out what the facts are. I suspect, however, that you will not, that would require some effort to get the facts rather than having lies spoon fed to you by people like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Eric Ericson, Ann Coulter, Bill O'Reilly, etc., etc., etc. So, no, I do not get the vast majority of my facts from the MSM, it is too right wing to trust (read Eric Alterman's 'What Liberal Media?').

"I did not mention this, because it is not true."

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/08/business/08gret.html

http://www.aei.org/article/fannie-freddie-caused-the-financial-crisis/

http://reason.com/archives/2011/03/04/the-truth-about-fannie-and-fre/singlepage

For you to sit there and say the Fannie and Freddie had NOTHING to do with housing crisis is an outright lie and I have no time for liars. BTW don't cite Krugman...he is another political hack with degree in economics.

read Eric Alterman's 'What Liberal Media?"

Alterman? You do know he is well known liberal partisian hack don't you?

I also remember Alterman getting arrested for criminal tresspassing and in his usual prick self threatened the officer to write about the incident on his blog. Please cite someone who doesn't make a living being at liberal political hack.

http://news.investors.com/Article/596833/201201051650/fed-sees-fannie-mae-freddie-mac-roles.htm

"Even the Obama administration, in alternatives laid out last year to reform the U.S. mortgage finance system, supported reducing the government's role in housing finance."

This should tell you something when even the Obama administration calls for a more limited role the government and Fannie and Freddie in the mortage industry dispite what the Fed wants.

I see, you get to cite right wing political hacks, and use extreme right wing sites to try to prove your points, but I am not allowed to do the same? Are you claiming that your sources aren't partisan in any way?

Paul Krugman is another political hack with a degree in economics? Really? Wanna try again, there, Sparky? He has a Doctorate in economics with a Nobel Prize in Economics to go along with it. And your qualifications are what?

So what if Alterman was arrested, that does not mean he was wrong. Did you read the book? How does his arrrest disprove anything he wrote? You have engaged in classic examples of deflection, throwing out a red herring, and an ad hominem argument. Oh, and you might want to get your story right about the arrest: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/06/03/columnistauthor-arrested-in-spin-room/

I guess that since you have no argument, you have to resort to disparaging the sources, and not the facts.

I never said they ". . . had nothing to do with the crisis.", you are the liar claiming that I did, and you lied with your claim that ". . . they were one[sic] of the main culprits of this recession . . ." when that is not true. Did they have a part? Yes, they did have a small part, but they did not cause it, and they actually came late to the game.

Again, you have shown your lack of research. All you did was to point to a NY Times article that does not prove anything you said, and two opinion pieces by right wing political hacks, on extreme right wing sites.

Here is an article that you might want to read. It actually gives its sources, and relies on actual economic data, unlike the AEI, and reason.com (two right wing political hack sites) articles.

http://motherjones.com/mojo/2008/12/gops-fanniefreddie-fixation

or here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subprime_mortgage_crisis

better yet, here (this one not only uses one of your sources, it also refutes another one of your sources with the facts):

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/24/opinion/nocera-the-big-lie.html

Are you going to answer this, further showing your lack of knowledge of this subject, or are you going to go and do some reading? I'm guessing that you are going to come back, call me a liar, a liberal (as if that is a bad thing . . . it isn't, but you guys think it is insulting us liberals, besides, I'm actually a populist), and other nasty names. Then you'll provide links to more right wing political hacks lying about the causes of the recession, and think you have bested me, but you'd be wrong. You see, the facts are on my side, and while you are entitled to make up your own set of opinions, you are not entitled to make up your own set of facts.

I have no more time to spend with an uninformed person like you.

"Oh, and you might want to get your story right about the arrest:"

Yes and your article doesn't get all of it bud.....

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2007/6/3/222955/3025

"When they learned I was a writer and planned to write about this incident, they wanted to make sure that I knew that the cop who had arrested me was not one of theirs, but was from another town and had been working on an "reciprocity" arrangement."

"He has a Doctorate in economics with a Nobel Prize in Economics to go along with it."

And you point is? That doesn't prove he isn't a political hack. For every OPINION article you cite about Fannie and Freddie having nothing to do with the housing crisis I can cite you one for one by authors who are just as much quailfied as Krugman or Alterman showing how those two GSEs had significant part of the downfall of the housing market. I guess we are going to agree to disagree because the Financial Crisis Commission's Report of 2011 says otherwise.

"Did they have a part? Yes, they did have a small part, but they did not cause it, and they actually came late to the game"

That is your OPINION that they had a small part and the article your cite are OPINIONS. Their part was on level with any of the other institutional firms who got a huge part of the TARP bailout...

If you want to debate the conclusions in this report then oh well....be my guest.

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GPO-FCIC/pdf/GPO-FCIC.pdf

"These two firms were guarantors and securitizers, financial institutions holding enormous portfolios of housing-related assets, and the issuers of debt that was treated like government debt by the financial system. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac did not by themselves cause the crisis, but they contributed significantly in a number of ways."

"Any realistic assessment of Fannie Mae’s capital position would show the company is currently insolvent. Accounting fraud has resulted in several asset categories (non-agency securities, deferred tax assets, lowincomepartnership investment) being overstated, while the guaranteeobligation liability is understated. These accounting shenanigans add upto tens of billions of exaggerated net worth. Yet, the impact of a tsunami of mortgage defaults has yet to runthrough Fannie’s income statement and further annihilate its capital. Such grim results are a logical consequence of Fannie’s dual mandate toserve the housing market while maximizing shareholder returns. In trying to do both, Fannie has done neither well. With shareholder capitaldepleted, a government seizure of the company is inevitable."

Did they have a part? Yes, they did have a small part, but they did not cause it, and they actually came late to the game"

You are flat WRONG to say they had a small part. The institutions that got TARP money were ALL culpable and Fannie and Freddie securitized 80% of all mortages in 2008. The report cites Fannie and Freddie by name along with AIG, Lehman, Bear Sterns, ect... Your firm didn't get mention unless you had a significant role in the crisis. Fannie and Freddie also had the backing of the Treasury being GSE which is why the were the least exposed and "late to the game i.e. the panic and meltdown".

"You see, the facts are on my side, and while you are entitled to make up your own set of opinions, you are not entitled to make up your own set of facts"

All of the article that you posted are OPINIONS. LOL!!!! Nick Baumann article = OPINION, the NY Times article you cite by Joe Nocera = OPINION.

"You see, the facts are on my side, and while you are entitled to make up your own set of opinions, you are not entitled to make up your own set of facts."

That is your OPINION because all of the articles you cited were OPINON articles.

YES!

Brian----I like 'Mitt-Witt'---it's perfect!

Sorry Brian, you couldn't be further than the truth.

Looks like I have to repost this here due to the usual right wing collapse fest. By the way, I think everyone that posts on here should know by now, reporting a comment/s vicariously may result in losing your reporting privileges.

Romney wants to achieve what his father couldn't achieve. He wants to be president and has has no other reason for doing so other than to say " see, Dad, I was able to do it." What the hell does he want to be president for??? The money??He has more money hidden off shore than he knows what to do with. the power? The President is only as powerful as those who give him power to enact his policy or proposals. Go ahead Mitt, play on the fear of change, fear of anyone that may look different, sound different or have a different belief than what you and yours might adhere to. Take your right wing social engineering and shove it. And that goes for Mitch Daniels , Mike Pence and all GOP/TP @!$%#s in Indiana, too. The sooner I can move out of this @!$%#ed up state the better. Take your right to work, creationism bull@!$%# with you, too.

How about this - 3 million people making $50,000 a year, paying 23% in taxes, and stimulating the economy with their purchases - or 15000 millionaires paying 0 capital gains, 14% in taxes on the rest of their income, investing their money overseas, and hiding their money in the caymans.

The trillion dollar deficits are a direct result of 7 million workers thrown out of their jobs - can't tax people who aren't working. And they aren't working because of the recession. A recession that was 30 years in the making - and brought on by a "war" president who used populist "patriotism" to pass legislation that included: handouts to pharma, deregulation of the banking industry, tax breaks for corporations who moved jobs overseas, and tax rebates to Americans that got sucked up by $4.50 a gallon gas prices. GW was a buffoon, and presided over the greatest rape of the middle class since Hoover.

Class warfare - you bet! The rich have been waging this war on the middle class for decades - it's time they reinvested this stolen wealth in the form of American jobs.

Mitt's saying he's unemployed? Ahh, poor guy. Let's keep him that way.

Must be nice to take home $21.5 million a year while being unemployed. Now that's some "safety net"!

More like pity him cuz he thinks he is in touch when he is so out if touch with Middle Class (whatever is left of them thanks to the GNOP) Americans.

I don't think he comes across as truly concerned for the poor. They have a safety net? Oh yeah, forgot about keeping warm at the Senior Center.

@King...they are just looking for attention, they lonely and remember negative attention is better than no attention at all, just ignore them. Maybe they should get a dog

.... maybe it pays well?

His accounts offshore are perfectly legal. And if you have links to back up your supposition of Romney's offshoring jobs - please post them.

Why does he need defending?

Clinton was a businessman, Obama was a businessman etc. Dumb comment. Know your facts.

"I like firing people" "I don't care about the very poor".............PERFECT Republican!!

Indeed, he maliciously took a statement President Obama made in a speech quoting words MNcCain said out of context, refused to apologize or pull the ad....

Mittens old boy, you've been hoisted on yor own petard son. Suck it up and deal wiht it.

Because with the others it's more a case of a slip of the tongue. With Romney, it's the truth slipping out.

What are you talking about? We're still laughing about Newt's colonization of the moon. But I don't think he's quite figured out how to get those 13,000 people up there.

longdin

What are you talking about? We're still laughing about Newt's colonization of the moon. But I don't think he's quite figured out how to get those 13,000 people up there.

If Newt will promise to take himself and all the Teapublicans to the moon, I'll vote for his moon program.

My thought exactly, Sueb1. "We'll fix your safety net... right out of existence!" Is more like it.

I doubt very seriously that Willard's very concerned about those middle income folks either - after all, they're just jealous of his success at selling their jobs out from under them and pocketing their pensions.

Great post, Sue. Let's not forget that Romney's tax plan would give the most benefits to the wealthiest Americans, some benefits to the middle class and cost the poor money. That's fixing the safety net, isn't it?

That would actually be a good answer, NO government safety nets 100% private charity. Very little fraud waste and abuse that way. And as a country we aren't likely to end up like Greece. What do all you liberals imagine all this government spending is going to accomplish. Take a look at Greece, Italy, Spain, France--THAT is what government safety nets accomplish. 20% unemployment and riots in the streets.

If the EU were healthy then you could tell me I am stupid, But the EU is on the verge of financial collapse and it is because of "fairness" policy like Obama preaches, safety net programs, and confiscating the wealth and income of the one percent. When your leftest government gets all the money from the 1% there is no one left to invest and create a job for you and me. Therefore NO middle class, the only way to help the middle class is to make sure there are a lot of one percenters and that they don't have better places to invest their money to create jobs than here in the US. Actually take a look around the world and then deal with reality. Get out of this fantasy land that Obama is creating for you. Stop believing the LIE.

Boyd, I dont think Ive heard it said better, but get ready to hear it! I live in Detroit, I know people who deserve assistance and get it. And I know a lot more who abuse it and teach others how to abuse it also.

Actually, Boyd, Greece's problems are partly the result of a lot of people not paying their taxes. Anyway, the comparisons between the U.S. and Europe (where i currently live) don't hold a lot of water.. And if YOU take a look around the world, you will find that tax policy is not going to bring back off-shored jobs. Even with 0% corporate tax, companies can always make things cheaper in places with no labor, environmental or other standards. I guess that's what conservatives are getting at when they attack "regulation." To be attractive to your "job creators," we have to adopt the sweat shop model.

So i figure you turned in those cheaters , right jolly ? I mean since you know them and all .

Boyd is correct, and I can hardly listen to anymore of our Class-Warfarist in Chief's campaign rhetoric as he runs for office with one of the largest campaign war chests ever amassed in history.

It really is time to give some new ideas a chance. How about simplifying our tax-code, eliminating loopholes and implementing a federal individual Flat Tax. That will take care of Mr. Buffet's problem, although I still think the simplest solution was for him and other's who feel similarly guilty to put their money where their mouth is and write a check to support our nation. In the meantime, let everyone pay their fair share with a flat across the board tax such as 12-20%, whatever, the budget requires. And let's shrink the size of Government programs . . everyone can see this is required to bring down our ballooning deficit.

The current president will Never Allow such Serious Reforms to occur. It is much easier for him to play DIVISIVE POLITICS and spew Class Warfare Rhetoric. Definitely NOT what our nation needs right now!!