Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: Mitt Romney is very concerned.

Posted 7 years ago on Nov. 3, 2012, 7:54 a.m. EST by factsrfun (8239) from Phoenix, AZ
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Governor Romney is concerned about the fact the people like him have to pay tax on their dividends and capital gains and he is concerned about 47% of Americans that pay no income tax at all. Those that say Mr. Romney is an uncaring man just don’t understand him, or how wrong it is that he pays so much in tax.



Read the Rules
[-] -3 points by factsrfun (8239) from Phoenix, AZ 7 years ago

a lot of anger, a little understanding at least he's pissed off and he's right on a point or two, too bad he spins off and adds to the problem in the end, the Greens helped Bush beat Gore, war ain't always what you want it to be, it's just what it is....

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 7 years ago

Maybe Gore should have just added Green Party ideals to his platform and he could have won the green vote too.

Money in politics, connections, and corruption are why Bush won. Blaming the Green Party takes blame away from the real problem. Its a lie the system pushes to cover it's tracks.

[-] -1 points by factsrfun (8239) from Phoenix, AZ 7 years ago

Gore also supported public funding for elections.


[-] -1 points by factsrfun (8239) from Phoenix, AZ 7 years ago

The only hit the Greens had on Gore was that he took money from rich people, and that's like saying he breaths air.

[-] -1 points by factsrfun (8239) from Phoenix, AZ 7 years ago

Really??? Climate Change does it get "GREENER"?

[-] 2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 7 years ago

Go read the Green Party platform and you'll see the difference.


[-] -3 points by factsrfun (8239) from Phoenix, AZ 7 years ago

here's the thing Trevor, I really believe the GOP is ripe for the killing and that really will bring about real change, this third party crap has been tried for a hundred years and never works...

[-] -3 points by factsrfun (8239) from Phoenix, AZ 7 years ago

I am sure there are many working hard to build the Green Party, as there are many working for the Democratic and the Republicans, and they all write stuff they think will help them do that. My point is they all lie to build their party so I have to look at other things when voting and just try to stay as close to the truth as I know it. Try it out see how it feels.

[-] -3 points by Nowsmichigan (-310) 7 years ago

Gore blames cows farting on Global warming. He should consider holding his own farts in

[-] 2 points by GirlFriday (17435) 7 years ago


Yeah, when it is all over with, we will discover he is really a bot.

[-] -1 points by factsrfun (8239) from Phoenix, AZ 7 years ago

The Royals view the peasants as an expense, they always have.

[+] -5 points by KevinLark (-103) 7 years ago

vote obama out on 11/6/12

[-] 3 points by GirlFriday (17435) 7 years ago

Anything else to add to that or is this the only line you know?

[+] -5 points by KevinLark (-103) 7 years ago

I forgot to say "tell all your friends"

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 7 years ago

Hmmm...you were far more colorful in your pm.....

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (8239) from Phoenix, AZ 7 years ago

on to the next one now, the first time somebody says "reach across the aisle" look for somebody else, we got to send people who want to win not give in

[-] 2 points by gsw (3324) from Woodbridge Township, NJ 7 years ago

F him?

He is just representing his constituents who think job creators should not pay any tax.

How dare you question that good hard working man's motives?


In fact, he believes job creators should be reimbursed, such as big oil. But don't pick winners and losers. Don't choose renewable energy.

F Mitt! The silent majority who don't call him on it, let them eat cake!


[-] -1 points by factsrfun (8239) from Phoenix, AZ 7 years ago

If only you could see how the Royals live you would understand, it is such a burden to have great wealth, so many cars so little floor space, decisions decisions...

[-] 1 points by gsw (3324) from Woodbridge Township, NJ 7 years ago
[-] -1 points by factsrfun (8239) from Phoenix, AZ 7 years ago

thanks for the link, I'll have to come back to it...

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 7 years ago

here is a little video for anyone interested in an explanation of the injustice of our tax system.





[-] 0 points by WSmith (2698) from Cornelius, OR 7 years ago

The Blackmail Caucus By PAUL KRUGMAN

Published: November 1, 2012 522 Comments

If President Obama is re-elected, health care coverage will expand dramatically, taxes on the wealthy will go up and Wall Street will face tougher regulation. If Mitt Romney wins instead, health coverage will shrink substantially, taxes on the wealthy will fall to levels not seen in 80 years and financial regulation will be rolled back.

Given the starkness of this difference, you might have expected to see people from both sides of the political divide urging voters to cast their ballots based on the issues. Lately, however, I’ve seen a growing number of Romney supporters making a quite different argument. Vote for Mr. Romney, they say, because if he loses, Republicans will destroy the economy.

O.K., they don’t quite put it that way. The argument is phrased in terms of “partisan gridlock,” as if both parties were equally extreme. But they aren’t. This is, in reality, all about appeasing the hard men of the Republican Party.

If you want an example of what I’m talking about, consider the remarkable — in a bad way — editorial in which The Des Moines Register endorsed Mr. Romney. The paper acknowledged that Mr. Obama’s signature economic policy, the 2009 stimulus, was the right thing to do. It also acknowledged that Mr. Obama tried hard to reach out across the partisan divide, but was rebuffed.

Yet it endorsed his opponent anyway, offering some half-hearted support for Romneynomics, but mainly asserting that Mr. Romney would be able to work with Democrats in a way that Mr. Obama has not been able to work with Republicans. Why? Well, the paper claims — as many of those making this argument do — that, in office, Mr. Romney would be far more centrist than anything he has said in the campaign would indicate. (And the notion that he has been lying all along is supposed to be a point in his favor?) But mostly it just takes it for granted that Democrats would be more reasonable.

Is this a good argument?

The starting point for many “vote for Romney or else” statements is the notion that a re-elected President Obama wouldn’t be able to accomplish anything in his second term. What this misses is the fact that he has already accomplished a great deal, in the form of health reform and financial reform — reforms that will go into effect if, and only if, he is re-elected.

But would Mr. Obama be able to negotiate a Grand Bargain on the budget? Probably not — but so what? America isn’t facing any kind of short-run fiscal crisis, except in the fevered imagination of a few Beltway insiders. If you’re worried about the long-run imbalance between spending and revenue, well, that’s an issue that will have to be resolved eventually, but not right away. Furthermore, I’d argue that any alleged Grand Bargain would be worthless as long as the G.O.P. remained as extreme as it is, because the next Republican president, following the lead of George W. Bush, would just squander the gains on tax cuts and unfunded wars.

So we shouldn’t worry about the ability of a re-elected Obama to get things done. On the other hand, it’s reasonable to worry that Republicans will do their best to make America ungovernable during a second Obama term. After all, they have been doing that ever since Mr. Obama took office.

During the first two years of Mr. Obama’s presidency, when Democrats controlled both houses of Congress, Republicans offered scorched-earth opposition to anything and everything he proposed. Among other things, they engaged in an unprecedented number of filibusters, turning the Senate — for the first time — into a chamber in which nothing can pass without 60 votes.

And, when Republicans took control of the House, they became even more extreme. The 2011 debt ceiling standoff was a first in American history: An opposition party declared itself willing to undermine the full faith and credit of the U.S. government, with incalculable economic effects, unless it got its way. And the looming fight over the “fiscal cliff” is more of the same. Once again, the G.O.P. is threatening to inflict large damage on the economy unless Mr. Obama gives it something — an extension of tax cuts for the wealthy — that it lacks the votes to pass through normal constitutional processes.

Would a Democratic Senate offer equally extreme opposition to a President Romney? No, it wouldn’t. So, yes, there is a case that “partisan gridlock” would be less damaging if Mr. Romney won.

But are we ready to become a country in which “Nice country you got here. Shame if something were to happen to it” becomes a winning political argument? I hope not. By all means, vote for Mr. Romney if you think he offers the better policies. But arguing for Mr. Romney on the grounds that he could get things done veers dangerously close to accepting protection-racket politics, which have no place in American life.

A version of this op-ed appeared in print on November 2, 2012, on page A27 of the New York edition with the headline: The Blackmail Caucus.

[-] -1 points by Brython (-146) 7 years ago

I tell ya what, I'm not rich but it's a really really sick country that yearly demands millions in taxes of individuals. What that is, is corrupt governance. But if they want to stay, they have to pay; why bother? Why would anyone bother?

[-] -1 points by factsrfun (8239) from Phoenix, AZ 7 years ago

like somebody said in the beginning, we shall all hang together or we shall all surly hang separately. .

If you're ready to close all the prison's, fire all the judges and send all the soldiers home we could talk but I subspect you're fine with taking money from people to keep the Royals safe

[-] -1 points by Brython (-146) 7 years ago

Do you have any idea what type of animals inhabit out prisons? Or are you one of those liberal whiteys that feels sorry for murders, rapists, perverts and thieves?

[-] -1 points by factsrfun (8239) from Phoenix, AZ 7 years ago

sounds to me like you're not so against demanding a few millions, I guess it's not the concept of demanding money from others so much as you don't like everything we do with it, neither do I. I'd start with stoppping putting people in prison for smoking pot, that's stupid and would empty quite a few cells.

[-] -1 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 7 years ago

Eh? Satire?

[-] -1 points by factsrfun (8239) from Phoenix, AZ 7 years ago

of sorts I do believe that Romney is concerned about the ability of the merely well off to build lasting family wealth and about the ability of the GOP to reach those who pay little to nothing in income tax

[-] -1 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 7 years ago

Personally I think he is only concerned about himself and his gravy train.

[-] -1 points by factsrfun (8239) from Phoenix, AZ 7 years ago

possibly he has shown clear sociopathic symptoms tying the dog to the roof, cutting a guys hair and forgetting about it, killing all those "corporations who are people my friend", hearing him talking about setting up trust funds for his grand-kids on "the tape" made me think he really does want to make more rich people, I think he may genuinely like rich people, but it could be an act...

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 7 years ago

Good morning frf. It "is" all an act. There is no substance to mittens - part of the reason he dumped all of his campaign BS of this last year and adopted Obama's. His campaign was driving himself into the mud.

[-] -1 points by factsrfun (8239) from Phoenix, AZ 7 years ago

I do see the actor in him, I may be a bit over quick to see it, as I had a very close friend for many years that turned out to be a sociopath, (we all sort of knew it), but I saw it in Bush many times and Romney shows a lot of signs, after all 1 in 25 are.


[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 7 years ago

Oh - No - He is not an actor - no no no - he is a liar - among other things - drops one picks up another - same somewhat disconnected look on his face each time.

[-] -1 points by factsrfun (8239) from Phoenix, AZ 7 years ago

I hope this time we elected a Democratic to the White House. (time will tell)

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 7 years ago

Well - we have to push for change - the people must be the fundamental change in government,

[-] -2 points by stevebol (1269) from Milwaukee, WI 7 years ago

People like Romney aren't the job creators. I don't know squat about economics but I'd guess it's the people who make about $150,000-400,000 are the ones that create jobs. Romney represents venture capitalism and deregulation. Democrats want to tax the hell out of people who actually create jobs. We're screwed either way.

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (8239) from Phoenix, AZ 7 years ago
[-] -2 points by KevinLark (-103) 7 years ago

Obama is the worst job creator in history

[-] -3 points by Brython (-146) 7 years ago

I'm concerned about that 47%, too. They should be paying federal taxes; why are they not paying taxes?

[-] -2 points by factsrfun (8239) from Phoenix, AZ 7 years ago

and why oh why are the rich so poor....

[-] -2 points by Brython (-146) 7 years ago

Get real... everyone with the exception of the infirm or incapacitated should contribute - how can one be labeled a citizen if they are not contributing members of society? If one's goal is to a continuous drain on society, then they are not "citizens," they are but enemies.

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (8239) from Phoenix, AZ 7 years ago

even those who are born rich? should they not be allowed to inherit and be forced to work and contribute?

[-] -1 points by Brython (-146) 7 years ago

They should be allowed to inherit yes; neither you or anyone else should be permitted to steal away the property of others, and how people work is their own business.

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (8239) from Phoenix, AZ 7 years ago

So the Founding Fathers were wrong to steal America from the King?


[-] -3 points by Brython (-146) 7 years ago

You've picked two rather poor talking points here: virtually everybody that is reasonably well employed has mutual and pension funds; they own houses - nobody wants to pay higher capital gains - and short of rewarding the poor for not paying taxes; what more can the Fed do for them?

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (8239) from Phoenix, AZ 7 years ago

So Romney would pay .84% that's less than 1% in tax under his proposal and you think a teacher with 10 grand in an IRA should be glad he brought us tax reform?

That's a huge pile of horseshit! (my apologies to horseshit everywhere)

As far as your question how about we start by getting the state out of the union negotiations so that companies and unions can sign contracts without the government forcing clauses that are favorable to the companies into them. (ie right to work) that would help a living wage would also help so employers are required to cover the cost of providing labor so that the government doesn't need to step in. I could go on....

[-] 0 points by Brython (-146) 7 years ago

Wha...? Do you have any idea what a right to work state is? Have you ever heard the statement, you have a right to be silent? Well that's what a right to work state is - you have the right to work and remain silent, and that's it. There are no unions, no minimum wages, no limits of the length of work day, no lunch hours, no breaks for coffee, no medical benefits, no safety protections - when they say you have a right to work, that's exactly what they mean - work or leave. And we're going to see a lot more of this in this country in the near future.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (8239) from Phoenix, AZ 7 years ago

you missed my point, but hell of a nice rant...

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 7 years ago

Can we raise cap gains tax on those that make more than $100k in cap gains?

That should eliminate all the "reasonably well employed".

And in regards to the poor much needs to be done to get them into middle class tax paying status. School, Job training, daycare, healthcare, housing, discrimination.

Are you against helping poor but in favor of helping wealthy cap gainer's?

[-] -2 points by Brython (-146) 7 years ago

What friggin' country do you live in? How is it you are so disconnected?

I'd raise your 100k cap; most of the working class in metro areas - those in need of pensions and retirement - make far more than that. If you want to raise capital gains on the multimillionaires and above, I'm fine with that.

I'm not against helping the poor - I am against the taxpayer support of the poor. If you wanted, for example, to extend our borders into Canada or Mexico and create a communist state for them to inhabit without the aide of tax dollars, I would favor this. Only there will they realize a better way.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 7 years ago

If you are making $100k profit (cap gains) in one year, you are probable a multi millionaire. You're certainly not middle class. I suppose the sale of your primary residence should be excluded but if you are making %100k annually you don't need the 99% advocating for you.

"Helping the poor" definitely means taxpayers helping with the things I mentioned. It does not mean and no one said "support the poor" That is you twisting my position.

I don't want to "support the poor" I want to help them get into the middle class.

The rest of your comment regarding borders and communism is not understandable.


[-] -2 points by Brython (-146) 7 years ago

I misinterpreted - sure raise the gains on those with 100k or more.

So tell me something: why is it the rich always want to help the poor with poor people's money? Why not start a non-profit and actually do something? You could create it within hours, within days, and within months you could be aiding the poor with a multimillion dollar organization - why dump your desire to aid the poor on other people? Your expression of guilt for having acquired more than your fair share is yet unable to overcome the very selfishness that created that wealth, and so you vent... to say it's the fault of other people, those that selfishly ignore the plight of their own. Americans are tired of this Leftist - White - non-sense.

Those who support Obama are favoring an agenda yet to be revealed - it is the agenda of a minority that you know a majority cannot and will not favor - if it were the desire of the majority there would be no need of an Obama with an agenda.

Or... they are in his pocket. Which is it?

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 7 years ago

i don't know what you mean.: "help poor, with poor peoples money"?

What are you referring to?

[-] -2 points by Brython (-146) 7 years ago

I'm referring to the working "comfortable" and lower middle class Americans - these people are not wealthy - and yet so many just like you insist we take food off our tables to give to others, who in many cases are wholly irresponsible, as if to say we are intellectually and morally deficient in the defense of our own.

Take your money and go help someone... rid yourself of the guilt. This is a personal deficiency, a personal angst - you alone must deal with it. Christmas is coming, embrace the Christian philosophy - go buy a Christmas goose and start there - the rest of us have been doing this forever.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 7 years ago

I don't want to take food from anyone. That is you mischaracterizing my position.

We all do better when we all do better. Helping the poor become self sufficient benefits everyone (even the wealthy who will have more middle class to suck up money from)

It is simple : Progressive = "we are all in this together" Conservative = "you're on your own" You can apply christian (or any religion) principles or just basic humanity, but we ALL must help those in need.

If we ALL help, the sacrifice is tiny and inconsequential. If you leave it to just those MOST concerned then the sacrifice is too great.

Shared effort. It's nice to share.

We can do it together.

Are you with me?

[-] -3 points by Brython (-146) 7 years ago

Hell no I'm not with you - we've been sharing the burden of the poor through tax dollars for over fifty years now. They are worse off now than they have ever been (as if this were possible) and much of it is due the moral dystopia that our tax dollars have enabled.

If you want to aid the poor, do it. But you will have no luck convincing employed Americans that they should. All it does is put more dollars in the hands of corrupt politicians who will use it to their political favor - look at all the grants to the poor that have been redirected since Obama took office - it's just more dirty politics.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 7 years ago

You are mistaken.

We MUST help those in need become self sufficient tax paying citizens.

It's the only way.

Mistakes, corruption of the past are only relevant in showing us what approaches to avoid. Not an excuse to abandon our fellow citizens.


[-] 0 points by KevinLark (-103) 7 years ago

New York Daily News joins growing number of newspapers switching endorsement to Romney

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 7 years ago

Useless does, as useless is! LMFAO

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 7 years ago

Rag. Let's see if it affects the new york city vote.


[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 7 years ago

Your offensive immature insults simply betray your ignorance.

I guess you have nothing of value.

Which means you have lost.

Consider yourself dispatched and dismissed.


[-] -1 points by Brython (-146) 7 years ago

They're not my fellow citizens - they're your federal citizens, you take care of them.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 7 years ago

I thought you were American. My apologize.