Romney: Obama voters dependent on government, entitled, don't pay taxes

[Anonymous]

Using "Mittens" for Mitt isn't offensive; it's just pathetic and shows immaturity. It says much more about the liberals using it than Romney or his campaign, that's for sure.

Still, this issue in the thread is deflecting from Obama's poor performance after our Libyan ambassador was killed. I wonder if Obama now knows whether Egypt is our ally? Or is he, the leader of the free world, still confused on that point? Yeah, great guy you've got there.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:Using "Mittens" for Mitt isn't offensive; it's just pathetic and shows immaturity. It says much more about the liberals using it than Romney or his campaign, that's for sure.

Still, this issue in the thread is deflecting from Obama's poor performance after our Libyan ambassador was killed. I wonder if Obama now knows whether Egypt is our ally? Or is he, the leader of the free world, still confused on that point? Yeah, great guy you've got there.

Sorry, the award for "Worst Performance after our Ambassador to Libya was Killed" goes to Mittens. It wasn't even close.

[Freeman]

jsteele wrote:Are you aware of the social problems that are rampant in heavily-Republican rural areas? There are deep historical reasons for the problems in both areas. Attempting to link them to political parties is pretty lame.

Yep, I grew up in the rural south, and it has most of the exact same problems you find in inner cities. While there are some differences, they are generally where one problem is swapped for another.(Fewer drug sales, a lot more drug production, etc.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Using "Mittens" for Mitt isn't offensive; it's just pathetic and shows immaturity. It says much more about the liberals using it than Romney or his campaign, that's for sure.

Still, this issue in the thread is deflecting from Obama's poor performance after our Libyan ambassador was killed. I wonder if Obama now knows whether Egypt is our ally? Or is he, the leader of the free world, still confused on that point? Yeah, great guy you've got there.

The President wasn't confused at all. It isn't a simple question with a simple answer. But maybe it is too nuanced for you to understand.

[Anonymous]

Would this family be part of that 47%?

http://www.politicususa.com/shame-liar-mitt-romneys-mother-talks-father-welfare.html

[Anonymous]

Sanctorum says the "elite and smart" won't vote for republican. Romney says the people on welfare (I am sure he was including the rich who do not pay tax when he commented) won't vote for republicans... I hope they mean these are two groups... if they both beleive in what they say what is the profile of a typical republican voter?

[Anonymous]

The unemployment rate is at last check 8.1%. One of the issues in the presidential campaign is the fact that the unemployment rate has been unusually high during the past several years. A subsequent debate has been whether or not the Federal Reserve should continue trying to stimulate the economy by maintaining low interest and should the government continue its policy of deficit spending.

My thoughts are that both policies are mistaken because no one has addressed the real problem of this recessionary period.

It is possible that the normal unemployment rate of approximately 5% may never return. Up until the eighth decade of the 20th Century the majority of American consumer goods were domestically produced which in turn translated in millions of decent paying industrial labor jobs. Beginning ing the 70s the U.S. began running trade deficits meaning we were importing more goods then we were exporting. Since then this trend has only excelarated to the point where literally most of the household goods we purchase today have been manufactured in other countries.

For years I marveled at the fact that we could have so few manufacturing jobs left in America, but our unemployment rate remained close to the optimal level of 5%.

My belief is that the current debate over the economy and unemployment is essentially based on empty rhetoric, because the new normal unemployment rate is 8% and that 5% unemployment is gone forever.

Just about any problem can be resolved and as such our budgetary issues are resolvable as well. However, our politicians will debate our budgetary and debt issues endlessly without resolution until they recognized and deal with the fundamental problem that 8% unemployment is the new normal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Would this family be part of that 47%?

http://www.politicususa.com/shame-liar-mitt-romneys-mother-talks-father-welfare.html

and PS, I wonder if that family paid any income taxes while on welfare? Although, wink wink, nudge nudge, they CERTAINLY don't pay any income taxes now!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ha! I'm doing something wrong. I support Obama, fall into Mitt's definition of middle class, and (unlike Mitt) pay 25% federal taxes.

Get a new accountant. You are wasting your money if your accountant doesn't know the laws.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The unemployment rate is at last check 8.1%. One of the issues in the presidential campaign is the fact that the unemployment rate has been unusually high during the past several years. A subsequent debate has been whether or not the Federal Reserve should continue trying to stimulate the economy by maintaining low interest and should the government continue its policy of deficit spending.

My thoughts are that both policies are mistaken because no one has addressed the real problem of this recessionary period.

It is possible that the normal unemployment rate of approximately 5% may never return. Up until the eighth decade of the 20th Century the majority of American consumer goods were domestically produced which in turn translated in millions of decent paying industrial labor jobs. Beginning ing the 70s the U.S. began running trade deficits meaning we were importing more goods then we were exporting. Since then this trend has only excelarated to the point where literally most of the household goods we purchase today have been manufactured in other countries.

For years I marveled at the fact that we could have so few manufacturing jobs left in America, but our unemployment rate remained close to the optimal level of 5%.

My belief is that the current debate over the economy and unemployment is essentially based on empty rhetoric, because the new normal unemployment rate is 8% and that 5% unemployment is gone forever.

Just about any problem can be resolved and as such our budgetary issues are resolvable as well. However, our politicians will debate our budgetary and debt issues endlessly without resolution until they recognized and deal with the fundamental problem that 8% unemployment is the new normal.

8% doesn't have to be the new normal. The market can and will change, but it will require more educated workers. So the time and money invested in creating and maintaining those workers will be longer (and more costly).

[Anonymous]

Romney's math doesnt add up.

If almost 50% of people will automatically vote for obama (ignoring the fact that this is just people not registered voters), obama just has to get 1 person from the other 50% to vote for him to win.

Seeing that Obama has fundraisers with many rich people who pay taxes and are not part of the first 50%, I dont think that its that hard.

Thats just purely speaking on the math aspect of it all.

[Anonymous]

How is the farmer bill looking?

[Anonymous]

Mittens has had his "Whitey, Kill" moment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I used to live in the South. The republic voters I knew lived in trailers, had the lowest paying jobs on campus, could hardly scrape by without family assistance. I always wondered why they would vote against their own interests.

To be fair, you could say the same thing about my family, with our mid six-figure HHI, voting for Obama. I prefer to beliebe the majority of the low-income Republican voters aren't evil, or even stupid - they honestly believe they are doing what is best for the country, just like I am, even if is isn;t exactly in their own interests.

[Anonymous]

"Are there no prisons?"
'Yes, Mittens plenty of prisons.'
"And the union workhouse-are they still operational?"
'Yes, Lord Mittens, still operational.'