Gee, I wish I was born into a family worth an estimated quarter billion.
Fightingfan
I don't like Romney but I believe you are mistake. She earned it from the beginning. Hell Warren Buffett started his fortune with $400 with the purchase of some land.
Gee, I wish I was born into a family worth an estimated quarter billion.
Fightingfan
I don't like Romney but I believe you are mistake. She earned it from the beginning. Hell Warren Buffett started his fortune with $400 with the purchase of some land.
I didn't say poor people vote democrat. DevilMightCry
Yes you did.
If the Republican Party depends on the richer class, then the Democrat party surely depends on the poor and working class. Why then would the Democrat party encourage people from poorer, dependent class into a more self reliant richer one? That's less votes.
DevilMightCry
The link I posted contradicts that statement since it shows most working class vote conservative not democrat like you suggested.
[QUOTE="DevilMightCry"] I didn't say poor people vote democrat. kuraimen
Yes you did.
If the Republican Party depends on the richer class, then the Democrat party surely depends on the poor and working class. Why then would the Democrat party encourage people from poorer, dependent class into a more self reliant richer one? That's less votes.
DevilMightCry
The link I posted contradicts that statement since it shows most working class vote conservative not democrat like you suggested. The article did not contradict what I said. I never said only poor people vote democrat. I said it drives their narrative.I am not going in circles with you on this. I stand by what I said, and I am sorry if I am not articulating it well enough.
[QUOTE="TheWalkingGhost"][QUOTE="DrTrafalgarLaw"] I'm not sure you're implying europe has debt? All countries in the world do, since our economy runs through banks and not solid monetary systems. America shouldn't wage wars while their own people are crippled, can't pay medical bills or can't get medical aid at all, are dependant on food banks and charity. Bring back the pre-1942 American ideology back and you'll do fine. Securing oil profits and weapon contracts at the cost of your own people, the lives of your own soldiers and the lives of Iraki and Afgans will not help your people. RushKing
I am implying the US and Europe are crippled by debt. We need to get our deficit gone and then work on lowering the cost of health care first. Universal health care now would just cripple this lardbutt nation. Private Heath care is expensive because CEOs require private jets and large mansions. We can either save money or hand more over to private insurance companys.
[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="DevilMightCry"] Yes you did. [QUOTE="DevilMightCry"]
If the Republican Party depends on the richer class, then the Democrat party surely depends on the poor and working class. Why then would the Democrat party encourage people from poorer, dependent class into a more self reliant richer one? That's less votes.
DevilMightCry
The link I posted contradicts that statement since it shows most working class vote conservative not democrat like you suggested. The article did not contradict what I said. I never said only poor people vote democrat. I said it drives their narrative.I am not going in circles with you on this. I stand by what I said, and I am sorry if I am not articulating it well enough. I'm just quoting what you said. By the link it appears conservatives depend more on working class people than democrats but you said the opposite.
[QUOTE="RushKing"][QUOTE="TheWalkingGhost"]I am implying the US and Europe are crippled by debt. We need to get our deficit gone and then work on lowering the cost of health care first. Universal health care now would just cripple this lardbutt nation.SpartanMSU
Private Heath care is expensive because CEOs require private jets and large mansions. We can either save money or hand more over to private insurance companys.
Yeah! No.
And no counterargument. For profit system is only efficient for CEOs.
[QUOTE="Novotine"] regardless of what you do in your free time, having a part time job is lazy and is the reason why you're part of the 47%.Chargeagles1
You truly are a f*cking moron, and I bet you don't pay any federal income tax and are just too stupid to know it.
He's just trying to get attention and play the role (pretty poorly I might add) of devil's advocate. I wouldn't take anything personally.
The sad thing though is its believiable.. The right wing since the beginning of the mellenium went from tolerable to batsh!t crazy.. I would not be surprised if what he is writing he means it, because there are plenty out there that believe this non sense.
I know little, nor care about US politics, but this Romney prat sounds like he's out of touch with reality. The more I've heard of him and his dim witted remarks, the more I wonder if he was smacked around the head with the stupid stick a few thousand times a day.
[QUOTE="RushKing"] Private Heath care is expensive because CEOs require private jets and large mansions. We can either save money or hand more over to private insurance companys.RushKing
Yeah! No.
And no counterargument. For profit system is only efficient for CEOs.
Not worth arguing with someone who's clearly ignorant on the issue.
Well.. it half of US citizens are not paying the taxes that the other half are but receiving the same services then it is pretty unfair.
Guybrush_3
Half don't pay federal income tax. There are other taxes that people pay. Also, is it any less fair than people being born into a life of wealth?
Still, they are not paying one of the federal taxes, that is pretty unfair if they still have all the representation and social programs that people who do pay all the taxes do. I'm not saying I think they the poor half of the US should pay the same dollar amount, or even close to it, of the rich half, but they should all be paying their taxes.
Private healthcare is expensive because private insurance companies pay entire departments to search for pretext with which to deny people care. It's also expensive because the AMA has created an artificial shortage of doctors.
And no counterargument. For profit system is only efficient for CEOs.
Not worth arguing with someone who's clearly ignorant on the issue.
The United States pays 2 to 3 times more than any other country when it comes to health care but isn't as effective statistically compared to them.. Clearly there needs to be some significant improvements made to the system..
[QUOTE="RushKing"] And no counterargument. For profit system is only efficient for CEOs.
sSubZerOo
Not worth arguing with someone who's clearly ignorant on the issue.
The United States pays 2 to 3 times more than any other country when it comes to health care but isn't as effective statistically compared to them.. Clearly there needs to be some significant improvements made to the system..
We need to separate the healthcare system decisively from the government so lobbyists, big pharma, and crony-capitalism cannot jack up prices and push underground alternative medicine and cheaper treatments that are discovered but not as easy to monetize as the establishment.
Private healthcare is expensive because private insurance companies pay entire departments to search for pretext with which to deny people care. It's also expensive because the AMA has created an artificial shortage of doctors. Abbeten
Insurance companies actually have a very low profit margin. The highest profit margin goes to drug and medical device mfg.
[QUOTE="Abbeten"]Private healthcare is expensive because private insurance companies pay entire departments to search for pretext with which to deny people care. It's also expensive because the AMA has created an artificial shortage of doctors. DaBrainz
Insurance companies actually have a very low profit margin. The highest profit margin goes to drug and medical device mfg. Doesn't matter what their profit margins are, it matters what their costs are. But I agree about the pharmacological companies. Also a huge problem.
Romney is practically handing Obama the presidency. I would not want Mitt representing me or my country. He's aweful in foreign affairs, very indecisive, an outdated puppet that is probably too old fashion for Sesame Street. plus he keeps atleast one foot in his mouth at all times so you can't possibly understand what the hell he's talking about. I sure would like to know just who his ventriloquist is....
If you are part of the 47% of americans that doesn't make enough to pay federal income tax romney thinks you don't take personal responsibility and care for your lives. Way to be a disconnected douchebag.
Pretty rich coming from the guy who not only refuses to release his tax returns, pays most likely less than 15% in capital gains taxes (far less than most people who pay income taxes), and supports the Paul Ryan plan.. A plan that wants to slash the capital gains tax down to literally a percent or two..
[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="DevilMightCry"]Romney is not out of touch. This is exactly how I think about large portion of the electorate. It is by design. This is the governing way of the Democrat Party, and this is nothing revolutionary. Less than half of population doesn't pay or gets a surplus of federal taxes from the other half of who do pay. Once you get that number over 50%, Democracy is dead, and you get mob rule based on how much people get from other taxpayers. It's very simple. If the Republican Party depends on the richer class, then the Democrat party surely depends on the poor and working class. Do why then would the Democrat party move people from poorer, dependent class into a more self reliant richer one? DevilMightCry
Why is it then that the poorer states vote republican?? Income per capita is different. You can't compare a state like Connecticut with Louisiana that has more tech jobs and higher income residents to a state with more rural and suburban southern conservatives. Also the notion that poorer people only vote democrat is false or that rich people contribute more to Republicans. Top 10 richest counties in the US all contributed heavily towards Democrats. But once you are in a position where you depend on food stamps, government assistance programs, and subsidies... it is less enticing to vote for the party who wants to reform these programs? Once people adjust to these programs its very hard to go back. Why do you think the Democrats In every election in the last 40 years have allways said that if a Republican gets elected you will lose Medicare/social security/food stamps etc... yet it never happens.
For the most part Republican leaning states receive more in federal aid than what they pay into, and more in federal aid than Democrat leaning states do. For instance Illinois, reliably Democratic (at least in Presidential elections) gets around $0.75 in federal aid for every $1.00 we pay into to the federal. While our Red State neighbor to the south, Kentucky, gets $1.51 for every $1.00 they pay. In my experience (for whatever it's worth) has noticed this. I've met far more people on welfare in Kentucky than I have in Illinois.
Not worth arguing with someone who's clearly ignorant on the issue.
SpartanMSU
Lol then why the hell did you quote him to say no?? Maybe it's because YOU don't have much of an argument...
To quote someone means I wan't to get into an argument? Since when?
So what exactly is the purpose of quoting someone in a discussion forum if it's not to discuss things? don't you have better things to do? It seems pretty dumb to quote someone and reply and then tell that person that you don't want to talk to them...
[QUOTE="kuraimen"] Why is it then that the poorer states vote republican??worlock77
Income per capita is different. You can't compare a state like Connecticut with Louisiana that has more tech jobs and higher income residents to a state with more rural and suburban southern conservatives. Also the notion that poorer people only vote democrat is false or that rich people contribute more to Republicans. Top 10 richest counties in the US all contributed heavily towards Democrats. But once you are in a position where you depend on food stamps, government assistance programs, and subsidies... it is less enticing to vote for the party who wants to reform these programs? Once people adjust to these programs its very hard to go back. Why do you think the Democrats In every election in the last 40 years have allways said that if a Republican gets elected you will lose Medicare/social security/food stamps etc... yet it never happens.
For the most part Republican leaning states receive more in federal aid than what they pay into, and more in federal aid than Democrat leaning states do. For instance Illinois, reliably Democratic (at least in Presidential elections) gets around $0.75 in federal aid for every $1.00 we pay into to the federal. While our Red State neighbor to the south, Kentucky, gets $1.51 for every $1.00 they pay. In my experience (for whatever it's worth) has noticed this. I've met far more people on welfare in Kentucky than I have in Illinois.
But that tells us nothing. For example if you take Connecticut, a wealthy state, you may have a bigger tax collection due to higher standard of living and higher per capita income. There are few people dependant on those programs as opposed to a larger low income population % state like Texas. Texas has a much larger burden of lower income families and illegal immigrants, requiring more federal programs. And for the most part, those groups do in fact lean Democrat.
Doesn't Mitt pay people to tell him not to do sh*t like this a mere months away from the election?MrPraline
Yeah, I have absolutely no idea why no one is reigning him in. In the past week alone so many gaffes have surfaced. My favourite was the one about Russia being America's top "geopolitical foe", which led to Putin saying thanks for reaffirming Russia's position on the missile defence things. :|
Well.. it half of US citizens are not paying the taxes that the other half are but receiving the same services then it is pretty unfair.
comp_atkins
i know right? they're so lucky to be poor. otherwise they'd have to pay taxes. such bs. Do you even know what it means to be poor? Are you suggesting that 47% of Americans earning $75,000 or less are poor?
Bad choices should be punished, people who refuse to be born as a intelligent individual and refuse to be born in a wealthy family deserve to suffer the consequences. Making those people feel like they are entitled to anything will result in a huge society of lazy and leaching bastards.
Well.. it half of US citizens are not paying the taxes that the other half are but receiving the same services then it is pretty unfair.
DevilMightCry
i know right? they're so lucky to be poor. otherwise they'd have to pay taxes. such bs. Do you even know what it means to be poor? Are you suggesting that 47% of Americans earning $75,000 or less are poor?yes,no
Well.. it half of US citizens are not paying the taxes that the other half are but receiving the same services then it is pretty unfair.
DevilMightCry
i know right? they're so lucky to be poor. otherwise they'd have to pay taxes. such bs. Do you even know what it means to be poor? Are you suggesting that 47% of Americans earning $75,000 or less are poor? Are you suggesting that the Bush tax cuts were a bad idea?
[QUOTE="DevilMightCry"][QUOTE="comp_atkins"] i know right? they're so lucky to be poor. otherwise they'd have to pay taxes. such bs.sSubZerOo
Do you even know what it means to be poor? Are you suggesting that 47% of Americans earning $75,000 or less are poor? Are you suggesting that the Bush tax cuts were a bad idea? I am suggesting that 47% of Americans are not poor like someone had suggested. And that 47% does include people earning $75,000.
[QUOTE="MrPraline"]Doesn't Mitt pay people to tell him not to do sh*t like this a mere months away from the election?-Sun_Tzu-
The problem is that the people who pay Mitt want to hear this. I hope it continues. The more people see how bat sh!t crazy the right wing has become in the United States, the better..
"This is economic determinism at its worst, going against the very message the Republican Party was trying to sell to the world during its quadrennial national convention last month. Over and over again, we heard speakers there talk about how their immigrant grandparents came to this country, worked hard, built "that," never asked for a handout, and as a result their descendants have enjoyed the American Dream of ever-upward mobility. What the 53/47 dividing line says, to the direct contrary, is that income status is a permanent political condition, defrockingallAmericans of agency and independent thought."
[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="MrPraline"]Doesn't Mitt pay people to tell him not to do sh*t like this a mere months away from the election?white_wolf922
The problem is that the people who pay Mitt want to hear this.
But surely they know this is going to hurt him in the election.
Not necessarily. This has been a republican talking point for some time now, and when you listen to some conservatives explaining why Romney is losing, they say it is because he's not talking like this enough.
Log in to comment