Romney: Obama voters are the 47% who are dependent on the government

MadYaker

That video exaggerates so much that its impossible to take seriously. Why don't you just answer his question?

Waestrel

Amerika wrote: »

I'll let Reagan and Obama explain it from a US point of view regarding social economics.

Seems to make sense, except it is not reflected in the reality of society in Europe. Germany, Sweden, highly socialist , free healthcare, free 3rd level education, rode out the Financial crisis pretty well and have generally low unemployment. Far from being a nation of dependants, Germany has the highest level of economic growth in the eurozone recently. They pay fairly high taxes and in general do not have high wages.

But I am no economist, just my own observations from visiting and having friends from all over europe. Maybe rugged individualism will create the cohesive society that america needs to embrace the smart economy.

Amerika

Waestrel wrote: »

Seems to make sense, except it is not reflected in the reality of society in Europe. Germany, Sweden, highly socialist , free healthcare, free 3rd level education, rode out the Financial crisis pretty well and have generally low unemployment. Far from being a nation of dependants, Germany has the highest level of economic growth in the eurozone recently. They pay fairly high taxes and in general do not have high wages.

But I am no economist, just my own observations from visiting and having friends from all over europe. Maybe rugged individualism will create the cohesive society that america needs to embrace the smart economy.

If may work for those countries you listed, but not in the US. Too many of our people are just plain lazy and rely on government to take care of them. And the industrious here will not put up with working hard just to have someone else reap the benefits.

Waestrel

Amerika wrote: »

If may work for those countries you listed, but not in the US. Too many of our people are just plain lazy and rely on government to take care of them. And the industrious here will not put up with working hard just to have someone else reap the benefits.

You might well be right. The germans are a single minded, industrious society. Transplanting that model to the states might not work. I think that is sad that the US society is so fractured, that some are so lazy and the others so greedy that a happy medium cannot be reached. .

Brian?

Amerika wrote: »

Waestrel wrote: »

Seems to make sense, except it is not reflected in the reality of society in Europe. Germany, Sweden, highly socialist , free healthcare, free 3rd level education, rode out the Financial crisis pretty well and have generally low unemployment. Far from being a nation of dependants, Germany has the highest level of economic growth in the eurozone recently. They pay fairly high taxes and in general do not have high wages.

But I am no economist, just my own observations from visiting and having friends from all over europe. Maybe rugged individualism will create the cohesive society that america needs to embrace the smart economy.

If may work for those countries you listed, but not in the US. Too many of our people are just plain lazy and rely on government to take care of them. And the industrious here will not put up with working hard just to have someone else reap the benefits.

Nonsense.

You've swallowed that 47% speech by Romney whole

Brian?

Waestrel wrote: »

You might well be right. The germans are a single minded, industrious society. Transplanting that model to the states might not work. I think that is sad that the US society is so fractured, that some are so lazy and the others so greedy that a happy medium cannot be reached. .

He is not right. It's a common fantasy of the right that a large minority of people are lazy, don't want to work and would happily live on handouts. There is ZERO data to support this.

There will always be a small minority of people that live on hand outs, unless you turn off the social safety net completely.

Want to some data to support my view point? Approx 92% of people eligible to work are currently employed in the US. That gives us an unemployment rate around 8%. So at worst 8% of the people in this country are happy to live on handouts. At the very worst. However, historically what is the unemployment rate in better economic times? Between 2002-2007 the rate was in or around 5%. Between 1920, when the metric was first recorded and 2012 the lowest it hit was 1.2% during WW2. Outside wartime it was 4% in the 50s and again in the 2nd half of the 90s.


So it looks like the welfare lovers are at worst 4% of the population. At worst.

Amerika

briankeating wrote: »

Want to some data to support my view point? Approx 92% of people eligible to work are currently employed in the US. That gives us an unemployment rate around 8%. So at worst 8% of the people in this country are happy to live on handouts.

92% employment? Really? What about the discouraged workers are those who have given up looking for a job that brings up the real unemployment rate to somewhere between 16% - 20% as I’ve read. Or the able-bodied people on various forms of government assistance. Many people here work only because they have to. We would beeven worse off than Greece, if similar options available to them were provided to the US populous IMO.

Mjollnir

Amerika wrote: »

If may work for those countries you listed, but not in the US. Too many of our people are just plain lazy and rely on government to take care of them. And the industrious here will not put up with working hard just to have someone else reap the benefits.

This nonsense again? Don't you ever get tired of being proven laughably wrong?

Guess not.

Contrary to "Entitlement Society" Rhetoric, Over Nine-Tenths of Entitlement Benefits Go to Elderly, Disabled, or Working Households

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3677&fb_source=message

joseph brand

briankeating wrote: »

He is not right. It's a common fantasy of the right that a large minority of people are lazy, don't want to work and would happily live on handouts. There is ZERO data to support this.

There will always be a small minority of people that live on hand outs, unless you turn off the social safety net completely.

Want to some data to support my view point? Approx 92% of people eligible to work are currently employed in the US. That gives us an unemployment rate around 8%. So at worst 8% of the people in this country are happy to live on handouts. At the very worst. However, historically what is the unemployment rate in better economic times? Between 2002-2007 the rate was in or around 5%. Between 1920, when the metric was first recorded and 2012 the lowest it hit was 1.2% during WW2. Outside wartime it was 4% in the 50s and again in the 2nd half of the 90s.


So it looks like the welfare lovers are at worst 4% of the population. At worst.

Yes, but. Using facts on a Republican is akin to throwing mud at a spinning wheel. Bounces right off. Just like if you were to use facts, reason and logic in a debate with a christian, muslim or a mormon. (fingers in the ears)

Anyway, here's an article from Forbes magazine which tries to find another angle from which to view Romney's 47% gaffe.

The truth is that they [Americans] believe they have a right to government funds because that’s what they have been taught, and no alternative has been offered to them (unless you count Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged).

The problem is not that people want to be dependent but that the political system makes them dependent–and that the code of morality they’ve been taught tells them that they have a right to be dependent.

The problem is not taxpayers vs. non-taxpayers. The problem is that Americans on all income levels have been indoctrinated with the entitlement morality–the idea that need is a claim. That is the idea that must be blasted out of the culture. Instead we must recognize that each man is an end in himself not a means to the ends of others. Only then will the entitlement state be replaced by the original American conception of the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

The author makes the mistake of thinking that all government funds/ handouts go to the poor, only. Conveniently he ignores all the help that large companies and corporations receive from the government. (Subsidies for oil companies and tax subsidies for corporations)

Some politicians might believe that "corporations are people," as former Gov. Mitt Romney declared last year.

At tax time, however, corporations enjoy better treatment than ordinary folks. While millions of individual Americans file last-minute income tax returns this month, some major corporations won't pay a dime despite reaping record profits.

From 2008 to 2010, the 280 most profitable U.S. corporations sheltered half of their profits from taxes, thanks to tax subsidies totaling nearly $224 billion, according to a 2011 analysis by Citizens for Tax Justice. A dozen large companies, including Exxon-Mobil, Boeing, and General Electric, reaped $175 billion in profits, but their combined tax rate was negative 1.4 percent, thanks to $64 billion in subsidies from oil depletion allowances, write-offs from overseas profits, and other loopholes, according to the study.

“It’s not like these are companies that can’t stand on their own,” Obama said in prepared remarks delivered in the White House Rose Garden. Last year, the three biggest U.S. oil companies took home more than $80 billion in profit, with Exxon Mobil Corp. collecting almost $4.7 million each hour, he said.
“And when the price of oil goes up, prices at the pump go up, and so do these companies’ profits,” he said. “Meanwhile, these companies pay a lower tax rate than most other companies on their investments -- partly because we’re giving them billions in tax giveaways every year.”
At Ohio State University March 22, Obama ridiculed Republican presidential candidates as the “flat Earth crowd,” who’d “rather give $4 billion in taxpayer subsidies to oil companies this year than to invest in clean energy.”
“We have been subsidizing oil companies for a century. That’s long enough,” he said.

If 47% of voters are dependent on the government, does that percentage include these mega rich corporations and oil companies? Aren't they feeding from the government teat? They too feel entitled to their subsidies, but one cannot feel that their subsidies are more justified than food stamps that help stave off hunger in American families. Basic morality, not politics causes me to side with the hungry adults and children, those families who have lost their homes and the sick in need of hospital care. The only trait which could make a person ignore their fellow man and kick him while he is down, is greed. The GOP is all about greed. They should be renamed the 'Greedy Old Party'. I detest greed, always have and always will, . . . . unless my faculties fail me later on.

To a Republican, the idea of caring for your fellow man, helping the poor and the sick is pure communism. Some say socialist. Others say christian. I find it odd that, as an Atheist, my views are closer to those of jesus, than say, the evangelical and christian GOP supporters and even those Tea Party people.

As I've been reading about Paul Ryan, I was struck by several aspects of his life story which resonated with my own. We were both just sophomores in high school when our fathers died. We both saved our Social Security survivor benefits to help fund our college educations. We were both beneficiaries of federal and state government support for higher education.
"when the country was suffering and people were in need, Roosevelt knew that it was the role of the government to lend a hand to lift people up and give them a boost."
So when I hear conservatives talk about "my money" and speaking about government as some evil, alien force, I think about my mother and her generation rescued from the Depression by federal programs that put people back to work and provided a safety net for those most affected by economic dislocation. I think of the millions of families who were able to survive and progress because of Social Security, the GI Bill, Medicare, and more. I also think how much safer and more secure we are because of federal legislation that has cleaned up our air and water, inspects our food and medicine, and regulates our banking system. And I think more recently of the hundreds of thousands of teachers, police and firefighters, and auto and construction workers whose jobs were saved by the action taken by the federal government. And I think of the millions of Americans with "pre-existing conditions" who because of the Affordable Care Act need no longer fear being denied health coverage.

All of this may not be appreciated by conservatives eager to protect "my money." But despite their vain attempts to elevate selfishness and narcissism to a lofty-sounding political philosophy, it remains what it is -- infantile selfishness. My mother would have wagged her finger in their faces and told them "get over yourself. This is not about you, it is about us." And she would be right.

Article here

Greed is not a virtue. It's a condition. But luckily it only affects just over 1% of Americans. Romney is both greedy and a mormon. He needs to sort out these issues before running for POTUS.

Amerika

LOL... "greedy." Would you believe me if I told you that Mitt Romney's effective income tax rate (what he pays as a percentage of his income once deductions and other benefits are factored in) is actually higher than what 97% of Americans pay?

Brian?

Amerika wrote: »

briankeating wrote: »

Want to some data to support my view point? Approx 92% of people eligible to work are currently employed in the US. That gives us an unemployment rate around 8%. So at worst 8% of the people in this country are happy to live on handouts.

92% employment? Really? What about the discouraged workers are those who have given up looking for a job that brings up the real unemployment rate to somewhere between 16% - 20% as I’ve read. Or the able-bodied people on various forms of government assistance. Many people here work only because they have to. We would beeven worse off than Greece, if similar options available to them were provided to the US populous IMO.

The unemployment rate is the only objective metric I could think of. I like objective data, I feel it's far superior to opinion.

Your opinion is simply that, opinion. There is no logical reason to hold this opinion. I challenge you to support it with evidence.

Amerika

That Food Stamp participation doubled among able-bodied adults after President Obama illegally suspended the work requirement of the Welfare Reform Act of 1996, seems to be pretty good proof.

Brian?

Amerika wrote: »

That Food Stamp participation doubled among able-bodied adults after President Obama illegally suspended the work requirement of the Welfare Reform Act of 1996, seems to be pretty good proof.

No it's not. All that is evidence of is lower wages and higher food prices.

Suryavarman

briankeating wrote: »

He is not right. It's a common fantasy of the right that a large minority of people are lazy, don't want to work and would happily live on handouts. There is ZERO data to support this.

There will always be a small minority of people that live on hand outs, unless you turn off the social safety net completely.

Want to some data to support my view point? Approx 92% of people eligible to work are currently employed in the US. That gives us an unemployment rate around 8%. So at worst 8% of the people in this country are happy to live on handouts. At the very worst. However, historically what is the unemployment rate in better economic times? Between 2002-2007 the rate was in or around 5%. Between 1920, when the metric was first recorded and 2012 the lowest it hit was 1.2% during WW2. Outside wartime it was 4% in the 50s and again in the 2nd half of the 90s.


So it looks like the welfare lovers are at worst 4% of the population. At worst.

As of August only 63.5% of Americans eligible to work were working.

joseph brand wrote: »

To a Republican, the idea of caring for your fellow man, helping the poor and the sick is pure communism. Some say socialist. Others say christian. I find it odd that, as an Atheist, my views are closer to those of jesus, than say, the evangelical and christian GOP supporters and even those Tea Party people.

Conservatives (most of whom are Republicans) actually care about poor people a lot more than liberals (most of whom are Democrats). Some might say they care up to twice as much:

Arthur Brooks, the author of a book on donors to charity, “Who Really Cares,” cites data that households headed by conservatives give 30 percent more to charity than households headed by liberals. A study by Google found an even greater disproportion: average annual contributions reported by conservatives were almost double those of liberals.

Greed is not a virtue. It's a condition. But luckily it only affects just over 1% of Americans. Romney is both greedy and a mormon. He needs to sort out these issues before running for POTUS.

Only 1% of Americans are greedy? All humans are greedy, not just a few successful ones.

Mjollnir

Amerika wrote: »

That Food Stamp participation doubled among able-bodied adults after President Obama illegally suspended the work requirement of the Welfare Reform Act of 1996, seems to be pretty good proof.

Except that:

A. He didn't do that, and what he did do wasn't illegal.
B. The republicans actually did.
C. So the number doubled in only a few months? LOL, really?

Mjollnir

Suryavarman wrote: »

Conservatives (most of whom are Republicans) actually care about poor people a lot more than liberals (most of whom are Democrats). Some might say they care up to twice as much:

They care about people so much that overwhelmingly the states in the US that suck up largess from the gov't are conservative and republican, as are the poorest states and those with the highest number of filers with no tax liability.

http://taxfoundation.org/blog/monday-map-nonpayers-state

Whoopsie.

joseph brand

Amerika wrote: »

LOL... "greedy." Would you believe me if I told you that Mitt Romney's effective income tax rate (what he pays as a percentage of his income once deductions and other benefits are factored in) is actually higher than what 97% of Americans pay?

What then, was the reason for Romney sending his money on holidays overseas? (Cayman Islands, Switzerland)

If what you say is true, which I don't believe it is, why not release his tax returns? According to you, Romney has nothing to hide.

We know he gives money to the mormon cult, which he was a bishop in, but I doubt he gives a full 10% of his income. A rich man like him (inherited wealth) would have a team of accountants to advise him on how to cook his books. The mormon church, most likely wouldn't be too happy if they found out he'd been shafting them out of their agreed 10%.

Brian?

Suryavarman wrote: »

briankeating wrote: »

He is not right. It's a common fantasy of the right that a large minority of people are lazy, don't want to work and would happily live on handouts. There is ZERO data to support this.

There will always be a small minority of people that live on hand outs, unless you turn off the social safety net completely.

Want to some data to support my view point? Approx 92% of people eligible to work are currently employed in the US. That gives us an unemployment rate around 8%. So at worst 8% of the people in this country are happy to live on handouts. At the very worst. However, historically what is the unemployment rate in better economic times? Between 2002-2007 the rate was in or around 5%. Between 1920, when the metric was first recorded and 2012 the lowest it hit was 1.2% during WW2. Outside wartime it was 4% in the 50s and again in the 2nd half of the 90s.


So it looks like the welfare lovers are at worst 4% of the population. At worst.

As of August only 63.5% of Americans eligible to work were working.

joseph brand wrote: »

To a Republican, the idea of caring for your fellow man, helping the poor and the sick is pure communism. Some say socialist. Others say christian. I find it odd that, as an Atheist, my views are closer to those of jesus, than say, the evangelical and christian GOP supporters and even those Tea Party people.

Conservatives (most of whom are Republicans) actually care about poor people a lot more than liberals (most of whom are Democrats). Some might say they care up to twice as much:

Arthur Brooks, the author of a book on donors to charity, “Who Really Cares,” cites data that households headed by conservatives give 30 percent more to charity than households headed by liberals. A study by Google found an even greater disproportion: average annual contributions reported by conservatives were almost double those of liberals.

Greed is not a virtue. It's a condition. But luckily it only affects just over 1% of Americans. Romney is both greedy and a mormon. He needs to sort out these issues before running for POTUS.

Only 1% of Americans are greedy? All humans are greedy, not just a few successful ones.

Haven't time to rebut this properly now, but I will say that this notion that all humans are greedy is another myth often pedalled by the right and basically the core principle of libertarianism.

So in the same thread it's being claimed that all humans are greedy and most Americans are lazy. Sums up the philosophy of the right for nicely to me.

Brian?

joseph brand wrote: »

briankeating wrote: »

He is not right. It's a common fantasy of the right that a large minority of people are lazy, don't want to work and would happily live on handouts. There is ZERO data to support this.

There will always be a small minority of people that live on hand outs, unless you turn off the social safety net completely.

Want to some data to support my view point? Approx 92% of people eligible to work are currently employed in the US. That gives us an unemployment rate around 8%. So at worst 8% of the people in this country are happy to live on handouts. At the very worst. However, historically what is the unemployment rate in better economic times? Between 2002-2007 the rate was in or around 5%. Between 1920, when the metric was first recorded and 2012 the lowest it hit was 1.2% during WW2. Outside wartime it was 4% in the 50s and again in the 2nd half of the 90s.


So it looks like the welfare lovers are at worst 4% of the population. At worst.

Yes, but. Using facts on a Republican is akin to throwing mud at a spinning wheel. Bounces right off. Just like if you were to use facts, reason and logic in a debate with a christian, muslim or a mormon. (fingers in the ears)

Anyway, here's an article from Forbes magazine which tries to find another angle from which to view Romney's 47% gaffe.

The truth is that they [Americans] believe they have a right to government funds because that’s what they have been taught, and no alternative has been offered to them (unless you count Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged).

The problem is not that people want to be dependent but that the political system makes them dependent–and that the code of morality they’ve been taught tells them that they have a right to be dependent.

The problem is not taxpayers vs. non-taxpayers. The problem is that Americans on all income levels have been indoctrinated with the entitlement morality–the idea that need is a claim. That is the idea that must be blasted out of the culture. Instead we must recognize that each man is an end in himself not a means to the ends of others. Only then will the entitlement state be replaced by the original American conception of the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

The author makes the mistake of thinking that all government funds/ handouts go to the poor, only. Conveniently he ignores all the help that large companies and corporations receive from the government. (Subsidies for oil companies and tax subsidies for corporations)

Some politicians might believe that "corporations are people," as former Gov. Mitt Romney declared last year.

At tax time, however, corporations enjoy better treatment than ordinary folks. While millions of individual Americans file last-minute income tax returns this month, some major corporations won't pay a dime despite reaping record profits.

From 2008 to 2010, the 280 most profitable U.S. corporations sheltered half of their profits from taxes, thanks to tax subsidies totaling nearly $224 billion, according to a 2011 analysis by Citizens for Tax Justice. A dozen large companies, including Exxon-Mobil, Boeing, and General Electric, reaped $175 billion in profits, but their combined tax rate was negative 1.4 percent, thanks to $64 billion in subsidies from oil depletion allowances, write-offs from overseas profits, and other loopholes, according to the study.

“It’s not like these are companies that can’t stand on their own,” Obama said in prepared remarks delivered in the White House Rose Garden. Last year, the three biggest U.S. oil companies took home more than $80 billion in profit, with Exxon Mobil Corp. collecting almost $4.7 million each hour, he said.
“And when the price of oil goes up, prices at the pump go up, and so do these companies’ profits,” he said. “Meanwhile, these companies pay a lower tax rate than most other companies on their investments -- partly because we’re giving them billions in tax giveaways every year.”
At Ohio State University March 22, Obama ridiculed Republican presidential candidates as the “flat Earth crowd,” who’d “rather give $4 billion in taxpayer subsidies to oil companies this year than to invest in clean energy.”
“We have been subsidizing oil companies for a century. That’s long enough,” he said.

If 47% of voters are dependent on the government, does that percentage include these mega rich corporations and oil companies? Aren't they feeding from the government teat? They too feel entitled to their subsidies, but one cannot feel that their subsidies are more justified than food stamps that help stave off hunger in American families. Basic morality, not politics causes me to side with the hungry adults and children, those families who have lost their homes and the sick in need of hospital care. The only trait which could make a person ignore their fellow man and kick him while he is down, is greed. The GOP is all about greed. They should be renamed the 'Greedy Old Party'. I detest greed, always have and always will, . . . . unless my faculties fail me later on.

To a Republican, the idea of caring for your fellow man, helping the poor and the sick is pure communism. Some say socialist. Others say christian. I find it odd that, as an Atheist, my views are closer to those of jesus, than say, the evangelical and christian GOP supporters and even those Tea Party people.

As I've been reading about Paul Ryan, I was struck by several aspects of his life story which resonated with my own. We were both just sophomores in high school when our fathers died. We both saved our Social Security survivor benefits to help fund our college educations. We were both beneficiaries of federal and state government support for higher education.
"when the country was suffering and people were in need, Roosevelt knew that it was the role of the government to lend a hand to lift people up and give them a boost."
So when I hear conservatives talk about "my money" and speaking about government as some evil, alien force, I think about my mother and her generation rescued from the Depression by federal programs that put people back to work and provided a safety net for those most affected by economic dislocation. I think of the millions of families who were able to survive and progress because of Social Security, the GI Bill, Medicare, and more. I also think how much safer and more secure we are because of federal legislation that has cleaned up our air and water, inspects our food and medicine, and regulates our banking system. And I think more recently of the hundreds of thousands of teachers, police and firefighters, and auto and construction workers whose jobs were saved by the action taken by the federal government. And I think of the millions of Americans with "pre-existing conditions" who because of the Affordable Care Act need no longer fear being denied health coverage.

All of this may not be appreciated by conservatives eager to protect "my money." But despite their vain attempts to elevate selfishness and narcissism to a lofty-sounding political philosophy, it remains what it is -- infantile selfishness. My mother would have wagged her finger in their faces and told them "get over yourself. This is not about you, it is about us." And she would be right.

Article here

Greed is not a virtue. It's a condition. But luckily it only affects just over 1% of Americans. Romney is both greedy and a mormon. He needs to sort out these issues before running for POTUS.

Fantastic post.

Overheal

Amerika wrote: »

That Food Stamp participation doubled among able-bodied adults after President Obama illegally suspended the work requirement of the Welfare Reform Act of 1996, seems to be pretty good proof.

Just plain false.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/sep/10/bill-clinton/bill-clinton-says-obama-administration-trying-boos/

Amerika

Overheal wrote: »

Just plain false.

I contend it is illegal and does not boost job growth. I’ve seen several people interviewed from both sides of the political isle that were involved in writing the 1996 act. All the republicans I’ve heard from, and a few of the democrats, say that what Obama did was illegal. I tend to favor what comes directly from the horse’s mouth.
http://blog.heritage.org/2012/07/16/obamas-gutting-of-welfare-reform-is-illegal/

Duck Soup

A genuinely moving personal experience. One of the 47% writes...

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/23/opinion/sunday/taking-responsibility-on-welfare.html

dublinman1990

Duck Soup wrote: »

A genuinely moving personal experience. One of the 47% writes...

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/23/opinion/sunday/taking-responsibility-on-welfare.html

Well, what a superior woman. I hope she, her family and friends have a great future.

Thanks for sharing Duck Soup.

Amerika

I was listening to the Mark Levin show last night. A caller noted she was on government assistance and was going through bankruptcy. But she also said she was voting for Romney, as she could not vote for Obama because she didn’t want her children and grandchildren to have to suffer because of her bad mistakes made in life, and under Obama’s policies it is the future generations who will be paying for what this administration recklessly does.

So I guess Romney does attract some of the 47%.

joseph brand

Amerika wrote: »

I was listening to the Mark Levin show last night. A caller noted she was on government assistance and was going through bankruptcy. But she also said she was voting for Romney, as she could not vote for Obama because she didn’t want her children and grandchildren to have to suffer because of her bad mistakes made in life, and under Obama’s policies it is the future generations who will be paying for what this administration recklessly does.

So I guess Romney does attract some of the 47%.

So your point is, she's still making bad mistakes? Hasn't learned her lesson?

dublinman1990

Amerika wrote: »

I was listening to the Mark Levin show last night. A caller noted she was on government assistance and was going through bankruptcy. But she also said she was voting for Romney, as she could not vote for Obama because she didn’t want her children and grandchildren to have to suffer because of her bad mistakes made in life, and under Obama’s policies it is the future generations who will be paying for what this administration recklessly does.

So I guess Romney does attract some of the 47%.

:eek:

Are you for real?

Bethel mentioned in the last paragraph of her NY Times article that destroying the lives of the poor is against American Values. Do you agree with statement or not? If not; why not?

Simply, what are your opinion's of America's poorer class and Why?

You forgot to mention the name of that caller from The Mark Levin Show. Also, is there a mention of the show's website were we can really listen to the show, if there is one.

From what station is that radio show broadcast from?

Amerika

dublinman1990 wrote: »

Are you for real?

I type, therefore I am.

Bethel mentioned in the last paragraph of her NY Times article that destroying the lives of the poor is against American Values. Do you agree with statement or not? If not; why not?

I agree with this. But I'd venture a guess we have a difference of opinion on what "destroying" means.

Simply, what are your opinion's of America's poorer class and Why?

"Give a man a fish, you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish, you feed him for a lifetime."

You forgot to mention the name of that caller from The Mark Levin Show.

I don't recall, if I had known there would be a pop quiz I would have taken notes. I think she was the caller before "Rosary" (who I did remember becasue of the odd name) - the tough Italian Catholic caller from south Philadelphia who loved Frank Rizzo the tough-as-nails mayor from decades ago.

Also, is there a mention of the show's website were we can really listen to the show, if there is one.

http://marklevinshow.com/home.asp

It is broadcast live 6PM - 9PM EST Monday to Friday. Really good show... he pulls no punches.

From what station is that radio show broadcast from?

790 AM - WAEB is the local station I was listening to which picks it up, but I think the home station is 770 AM - WABC in NY. But it's funny... he opens his talk radio show with... "from a concrete-and-steel bunker"...




Did I pass, or was this only round one of the Spanish Inquisition?

dublinman1990

Amerika wrote: »

http://marklevinshow.com/home.asp

It is broadcast live 6PM - 9PM EST Monday to Friday. Really good show... he pulls no punches.

To my surprise you didn't mention that he is a Republican supporter.

I find it hard to connect with the view's from his show as I am a Liberal.

Why would I support a man from his radio show who calls Obama a political child abuser? This is a point that I just don't get with Levin.

Even, you do realise that the Republicans are so dominating now, at this point in US Politics, that you couldn't even admit it?

Amerika

dublinman1990 wrote: »

To my surprise you didn't mention that he is a Republican supporter.

SURPRISE! (but he's a conservative and often takes the republicans to task.)

I find it hard to connect with the view's from his show as I am a Liberal.

You don't say. I'm sure most liberals hate him.

Why would I support a man from his radio show who calls Obama a political child abuser? This is a point that I just don't get with Levin.

Obama says he doesn't worry in the short term about all the debt he has created... only the mid and long term. I guess that's going to be the person after him that has to clean up his mess.... and the children who will have to pay for his incompetence.

Even, you do realise that the Republicans are so dominating now, at this point in US Politics, that you couldn't even admit it?

Then why do you think are we behind in the polls?

Reekwind

Amerika wrote: »

Obama says he doesn't worry in the short term about all the debt he has created... only the mid and long term. I guess that's going to be the person after him that has to clean up his mess.... and the children who will have to pay for his incompetence

What a disgusting sentiment. Calling Obama a child abuser because you happen to disagree with his economic policies is nothing less than a slap in the face to all those who have suffered actual abuse as children. It's a disgraceful hyperbolic slur

dublinman1990

Reekwind wrote: »

What a disgusting sentiment. Calling Obama a child abuser because you happen to disagree with his economic policies is nothing less than a slap in the face to all those who have suffered actual abuse as children. It's a disgraceful hyperbolic slur

You made a slight error there Reekwind. As you can see from my previous post that radio host Mark Levin made the point of calling Obama a political child abuser as it was noted on his website. Amerika had mentioned his name while listening to his programme before I saw that comment.

See here

Why would I support a man who he listens to from a radio show who accuses Obama as being a political child abuser? This is a point that I just don't get with Levin.

Amerika's previous post wasn't entirely his fault; he just had a hand in making his argument looking more worse than it actually was.