empty vessel
Member
But that's been a core talking point of the Democrats since Reagan was in office.
You crazy. Democrats since Reagan have been Republicans before Reagan.
But that's been a core talking point of the Democrats since Reagan was in office.
I had respect for Romney until his recent comment about how the income gap isn't real and it is just "envy." Screw him. Talk about completely out of touch.
It's that attitude that, if it keeps up, is going to destroy the GOP in the future. The gap between the rich and the poor keeps growing. Middle-class keeps getting pushed further down thanks to stagnant wages and higher fuel/food costs. To think it's "class warfare" and "envy" is infuriating.
He didn't say it wasn't real - he just said it's driven mostly by envy, which it is.
I had respect for Romney until his recent comment about how the income gap isn't real and it is just "envy." Screw him. Talk about completely out of touch.
It's that attitude that, if it keeps up, is going to destroy the GOP in the future. The gap between the rich and the poor keeps growing. Middle-class keeps getting pushed further down thanks to stagnant wages and higher fuel/food costs. To think it's "class warfare" and "envy" is infuriating.
But he has said that Obama "Draws his inspiration from the socialist welfare of Europe" and that he "Wants to make us an entitlement society where government takes from one and gives to the other." He's said Obama wants to make this an entitlement society. He also said, in comparison to Obama, that "America needs a President that believes in freedom."
So maybe the guy doesn't outright say it as much as some of the other candidates, but he's using a lot of fluff language that's meant to incite that sort of thing.
He didn't say it wasn't real - he just said it's driven mostly by envy, which it is.
There's a huge line of distinction between calling Obama someone that wants to emulate European government and a straight upsocialist. I don't think there is anything incindiary or incorrect about that first assertion either.
He didn't say it wasn't real - he just said it's driven mostly by envy, which it is.
It's not envy. Its driven by a sense of unfairness. They didn't earn their way there and other people work their tail off and get fired by these people so they can renovate their houses a 4th time.
There's a huge line of distinction between calling Obama someone that wants to emulate European government and a straight upsocialist. I don't think there is anything incindiary or incorrect about that first assertion either.
That's just conjecture on your part. The guy doesn't say it at ALL. Especially when you compare-contrast his rhetoric to someone like Perry.
Maybe your problem was that America rejected the squatters nonsense and 1% bogeyman, because they had no arguments of substance, cohesion, or respect for the law.
'The system' doesn't pick anyone. People pick candidates. Wealthy people are more likely to be a candidate. There's a vast disparity in these two concepts.
Again, this is more 'the man' goobeldegook.
People inherently favor family, friends and colleagues. That's just what human beings do. You hope that those in public service do not fall into that trap, but they do and always have. This doesn't excuse it or make it right .. but it is what it is. 'The people' know it. The saying, 'It's not what you know, it's who you know' didn't just become fashionable overnight. That cuts across all socio-economic stratas.
I don't think 'behind the scenes talks' was what Romney was referring to. That's interjecting words that aren't there.
But you are right, it is your right to rally against it. In the same way it's people's right to calve off other segments of the population and affix blame to them for problems. It's called scapegoating and it's another common human foible. It seems to work.
Who wants to take away their wealth? Did I put some communist poster on ignore and missed all that?
BREAKING: Romney has now created "thousands of jobs."
http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/updates/4046
President Barack Obama will ask Congress on Friday for greater power to shrink the federal government, and his first idea is merging six sprawling trade and commerce agencies whose overlapping programs can be baffling to businesses, a senior administration official told The Associated Press.
Obama will call on Congress to give him a type of reorganizational power last held by a president when Ronald Reagan was in office. The Obama version would be a so-called consolidation authority allowing him to propose mergers that promise to save money and help consumers. The deal would entitle him to an up-or-down vote from Congress in 90 days.
It would be up to lawmakers, therefore, to first grant Obama this fast-track authority and then decide whether to approve any of his specific ideas.
Really? Where as he emulated them? I'm really sick of this "Obama wants us to be Europe". European governments are vastly different than the American. Much more centralized, much more government intervention. Maybe its because I read a lot about European politics but the differences are vast and are not getting any closer.
Social Welfare doesn't equal Europe. Japan, Australia, New Zealand, South America, and more have social welfare. People really should take comparative politics classes. I had no idea how different America really was. That's not a knock at the US since many, probably most (save for healthcare and maybe college), I prefer the US system.
It's just opinion on my part, but I believe if Obama had his way, he would model the country more towards a style you find in European Democracies than the style we have today. Which means more taxes, more control over industry, more support to unionized labor and more programs for the poor. I don't think it's out of line to think such a way. Especially when you evaluate a piece of legislation like ARRA, which included many of those same themes.
Enjoy it. Demint looked like he wanted to crawl into a little hole and hide during that entire interview.
Exactly.
The fact that we have senators like Demint and Paul saying how awful government is, yet happily lap up government paychecks and government benefits, should show you how absolutely full of shit they are.
Who didn't earn their way?
It's just opinion on my part, but I believe if Obama had his way, he would model the country more towards a style you find in European Democracies than the style we have today. Which means more taxes, more control over industry, more support to unionized labor and more programs for the poor. I don't think it's out of line to think such a way. Especially when you evaluate a piece of legislation like ARRA, which included many of those same themes.
Mitt Romney certainly didn't.
Mitt Romney certainly didn't.
That's his fault?
Paul saying how awful government is, yet happily lap up government paychecks and government benefits, should show you how absolutely full of shit they are.
That's his fault?
Rand Paul returned $500k from his Senate office budget to the Treasury:
http://www.politico.com/blogs/on-co...ns-k-in-office-budget-to-treasury-110637.html
Like father like son? Ron Paul returned $140k last year and has returned over $1 million in the last decade. (I believe in 2003 he returned $250k.)
http://paul.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1841&Itemid=28
I'm not sure about Rand, but Ron Paul says he will not participate in the congressional pension program where he could be getting over $100k a year.
Who didn't earn their way?
Rand Paul returned $500k from his Senate office budget to the Treasury:
http://www.politico.com/blogs/on-co...ns-k-in-office-budget-to-treasury-110637.html
Like father like son? Ron Paul returned $140k last year and has returned over $1 million in the last decade. (I believe in 2003 he returned $250k.)
http://paul.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1841&Itemid=28
I'm not sure about Rand, but Ron Paul says he will not participate in the congressional pension program where he could be getting over $100k a year.
Are you complaining that Ron/Rand Paul could have returned more money from their congressional office budget by dropping their own salaries to $0? How many people in Congress are even returning their excess budget instead of just giving it to themselves or their friends?And what about their congressional salaries? If you think government is the problem, work for free.
Are you complaining that Ron/Rand Paul could have returned more money from their congressional office budget by dropping their own salaries to $0? How many people in Congress are even returning their excess budget instead of just giving it to themselves or their friends?
It almost sounds like you would criticize Ron Paul for getting $201 in lobbyist money instead of refusing it.
He didn't say it wasn't real - he just said it's driven mostly by envy, which it is.
A lot of people who had their parents money. Born with a silver spoon in their mouth.
I don't think that they should have money taken away but I don't think they should have policies that just reinforce this extreme centralization of wealth. Eliminated the estate tax, capital gains tax being much lower than the income tax, etc.
No, I'm criticizing Paul and others like him in congress who say that the government doesn't create jobs, yet take a government job with all its benefits.
No, I'm criticizing Paul and others like him in congress who say that the government doesn't create jobs, yet take a government job with all its benefits.
You mean the Bill that was around 35% tax cuts? 18% for helping state and local government?
The LARGEST portion of ARRA was the tax cuts. Apparently that is so socialist of Obama.
No, I'm criticizing Paul and others like him in congress who say that the government doesn't create jobs, yet take a government job with all its benefits.
Really? You don't think that the poor and working poor benefited greatly from the tax cuts in ARRA? Expanded EITC, increased Child Care credit? The Making Work Pay credit (which has since morphed into a payroll tax cut)? A 250 dollar payment to people with SSI? First time home buyers credit? The average federal return for a family of four (making 25k) was 8000 dollars last year.
That money earmarked for state and local was to save union jobs. It helped alleviate budget shortfalls so they didn't have to make such drastic cuts.
But he doesn't take the job /because/ of the benefits.No, I'm criticizing Paul and others like him in congress who say that the government doesn't create jobs, yet take a government job with all its benefits.
Apparently people liked his message so much, he's serving is 12th term in Congress.
So they shouldn't run for public office because they think that the government doesn't create jobs?
But he doesn't take the job /because/ of the benefits.
Eh, he was obviously trying to bait Gingrich. Politicians are always playing games with semantics.I had respect for Romney until his recent comment about how the income gap isn't real and it is just "envy." Screw him. Talk about completely out of touch.
It's that attitude that, if it keeps up, is going to destroy the GOP in the future. The gap between the rich and the poor keeps growing. Middle-class keeps getting pushed further down thanks to stagnant wages and higher fuel/food costs. To think it's "class warfare" and "envy" is infuriating.
Eh, he was obviously trying to bait Gingrich. Politicians are always playing games with semantics.
But he doesn't take the job /because/ of the benefits.
Perhaps he does?Why not give the money to charity?
Arguably, taking the money and giving it to charity might be better than paying down the national debt.
Really? You don't think that the poor and working poor benefited greatly from the tax cuts in ARRA? Expanded EITC, increased Child Care credit? The Making Work Pay credit (which has since morphed into a payroll tax cut)? A 250 dollar payment to people with SSI? First time home buyers credit?
The average federal return for a family of four (making 25k) was nearly 8000 dollars last year.
Another huge chunk of those tax cuts went to small business. The very type of jobs that would most likely hire working poor people.
That money earmarked for state and local was to save union jobs. It helped alleviate budget shortfalls so they didn't have to make such drastic cuts.