Mitt Romney Undercover Video
Replies
-
Make sure you also tell her that Ryan voted against the recent jobs bills that would have taken away tax breaks for companies that send jobs overseas AND the one that would have given a tax credit to companies that brought jobs back to the states. Most of the GOP voted that way on both those bills. They ran on "Jobs" but vote against anything that will actually create them because they care more about getting rid of Obama than putting millions of Americans back to work.But I have a hard time taking that criticism from a guy who inherited a fortune from his daddy and used it to buy struggling american businesses, fire all of our american workers, and outsource the jobs to thirdworld countries. Maybe if guys like Mitt would actually try to figure out a way to fix are workforce instead of just giving up and investing in communist China, we wouldn't be so screwed right now. But that would be patriotic and he would probably only be able to afford a regular mansion instead of the mega mansion.
I didn't know he did that, sounds about right, though, given what his mouth is saying. Scuse me while I run and tell my Republican voting but anti-outsourcing Mom what a slime this guy is.0 -
Make sure you also tell her that Ryan voted against the recent jobs bills that would have taken away tax breaks for companies that send jobs overseas AND the one that would have given a tax credit to companies that brought jobs back to the states. Most of the GOP voted that way on both those bills. They ran on "Jobs" but vote against anything that will actually create them because they care more about getting rid of Obama than putting millions of Americans back to work.But I have a hard time taking that criticism from a guy who inherited a fortune from his daddy and used it to buy struggling american businesses, fire all of our american workers, and outsource the jobs to thirdworld countries. Maybe if guys like Mitt would actually try to figure out a way to fix are workforce instead of just giving up and investing in communist China, we wouldn't be so screwed right now. But that would be patriotic and he would probably only be able to afford a regular mansion instead of the mega mansion.
I didn't know he did that, sounds about right, though, given what his mouth is saying. Scuse me while I run and tell my Republican voting but anti-outsourcing Mom what a slime this guy is.
Republicans voted against the bill because it included a tax increase on people making over 1 million per year. They are not going to vote yes to anything that includes a tax increase.0 -
Make sure you also tell her that Ryan voted against the recent jobs bills that would have taken away tax breaks for companies that send jobs overseas AND the one that would have given a tax credit to companies that brought jobs back to the states. Most of the GOP voted that way on both those bills. They ran on "Jobs" but vote against anything that will actually create them because they care more about getting rid of Obama than putting millions of Americans back to work.But I have a hard time taking that criticism from a guy who inherited a fortune from his daddy and used it to buy struggling american businesses, fire all of our american workers, and outsource the jobs to thirdworld countries. Maybe if guys like Mitt would actually try to figure out a way to fix are workforce instead of just giving up and investing in communist China, we wouldn't be so screwed right now. But that would be patriotic and he would probably only be able to afford a regular mansion instead of the mega mansion.
I didn't know he did that, sounds about right, though, given what his mouth is saying. Scuse me while I run and tell my Republican voting but anti-outsourcing Mom what a slime this guy is.
Republicans voted against the bill because it included a tax increase on people making over 1 million per year. They are not going to vote yes to anything that includes a tax increase.
Exactly, There was one other bill (I think the defense spending bill) that the Republicans voted down (which they don't historically) because there was some version of the DREAM act that they didn't like attached to it... this whole voting down such and such measure isn't as simple as black and white... there is usually some reason as to why they were voting it down and it's usually not because of the main bill... it's because of the other stuff that gets tagged onto it later. I wish that stuff would stop so we could really see what our congress(wo)men actually stand for instead of these grasping for straw attempts.0 -
I agree with him, and think it was an accurate comment. The sentiment, not the numbers.
This. I really don't think it matters at all. I don't think it will change any voters minds...0 -
"Mitt Romney's campaign came close to hitting the self-destruct button when he stood by a secret video recording suggesting that 47% of Americans are government-dependent "victims" who do not pay taxes.
In a hastily-convened press conference, the Republican presidential candidate confirmed the authenticity of the video and opted against disavowing the views expressed in it. He said only that the case was not "elegantly stated" and that he had "spoken off the cuff".
He was speaking after a secret video recording was posted on a website in which he was caught denigrating people who receive benefits from the government.
He went on suggest they could expect little help from him if he became president.
"My job is not to worry about those people," he said.
He added that all these government-dependent people would support Barack Obama. "
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/sep/18/romney-secret-video-government-dependent
slime does not even begin to describe it..0 -
"Mitt Romney's campaign came close to hitting the self-destruct button when he stood by a secret video recording suggesting that 47% of Americans are government-dependent "victims" who do not pay taxes.
In a hastily-convened press conference, the Republican presidential candidate confirmed the authenticity of the video and opted against disavowing the views expressed in it. He said only that the case was not "elegantly stated" and that he had "spoken off the cuff".
He was speaking after a secret video recording was posted on a website in which he was caught denigrating people who receive benefits from the government.
He went on suggest they could expect little help from him if he became president.
"My job is not to worry about those people," he said.
He added that all these government-dependent people would support Barack Obama. "
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/sep/18/romney-secret-video-government-dependent
slime does not even begin to describe it..
Meh... I really don't know why this is news anyway... he has pretty much stated over a year ago (?) that he isn't set out to help those on government assistance anyway, because the government is already "helping" them... So I really don't understand why this is news or surprising to anyone.0 -
Ok... it was earlier this year... it feels like close to a year... anyway... I guess it applies only to the "very poor".
http://news.yahoo.com/romney-im-not-concerned-very-poor-142659270.html
In any regard, he makes comments like this all the time... but to be honest, I don't see why this sentiment is even strange from his point of view... I vividly remember a youtube video going around in 2008 of this woman who couldn't wait until Obama was elected because then she wouldn't have to worry about paying her bills.0 -
He doesn't get it, and most voters don't, either. People are dependent on government. We have to be if we wish to remain within the law and not take things into our own hands in the style of militaries the world over.
You want us to behave? You make the corps behave, politicians, because someday if you don't, we're going to take them out.0 -
"Mitt Romney's campaign came close to hitting the self-destruct button when he stood by a secret video recording suggesting that 47% of Americans are government-dependent "victims" who do not pay taxes.
In a hastily-convened press conference, the Republican presidential candidate confirmed the authenticity of the video and opted against disavowing the views expressed in it. He said only that the case was not "elegantly stated" and that he had "spoken off the cuff".
He was speaking after a secret video recording was posted on a website in which he was caught denigrating people who receive benefits from the government.
He went on suggest they could expect little help from him if he became president.
"My job is not to worry about those people," he said.
He added that all these government-dependent people would support Barack Obama. "
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/sep/18/romney-secret-video-government-dependent
slime does not even begin to describe it..
Meh... I really don't know why this is news anyway... he has pretty much stated over a year ago (?) that he isn't set out to help those on government assistance anyway, because the government is already "helping" them... So I really don't understand why this is news or surprising to anyone.
I agree it's not surprising, but this was a little different for a couple of reasons.
1. The blunt acknowledgement that he had nothing to say to "those people" and, essentially, admitted that he was only concerned with being President for the "other" 53%. This was the policy of the bush administration as well, but we have rarely heard a Presidential candidate opening admit that he only planned to be "president" for those who agreed with him.
2. The assumption that, if you do not pay federal income taxes, that you have "no sense of personal accountability". Given that the "47%" he refers to includes seniors who have worked all their lives and members of the military on active duty, that may have been the most disgusting thing he said on the entire tape. And from a pampered, draft-dodging chickenhawk to boot.
I understand that, deep down, many people and many republican office holders feel exactly the same as Romney. But I think many Americans are not used to hearing politicians express it so openly and clearly. For 30 years, national republicans have tried to keep that part of their agenda hidden.0 -
He doesn't get it, and most voters don't, either. People are dependent on government. We have to be if we wish to remain within the law and not take things into our own hands in the style of militaries the world over.
You want us to behave? You make the corps behave, politicians, because someday if you don't, we're going to take them out.
People don't HAVE to be dependent on the government and people should NEVER be dependent on the government. That completely contradicts the concept of freedom! If the U.S. government actually followed the constitution, it would protect our borders and people when needed but allow the states and people to govern themselves. That is what America what built on but right now we have a centralized US government that controls the states, controls the people and tries to run the world.
Our federal government is completely out of it's bounds and citizens just keep giving it more and more control over theirs lives.0 -
He doesn't get it, and most voters don't, either. People are dependent on government. We have to be if we wish to remain within the law and not take things into our own hands in the style of militaries the world over.
You want us to behave? You make the corps behave, politicians, because someday if you don't, we're going to take them out.
People don't HAVE to be dependent on the government and people should NEVER be dependent on the government. That completely contradicts the concept of freedom! If the U.S. government actually followed the constitution, it would protect our borders and people when needed but allow the states and people to govern themselves. That is what America what built on but right now we have a centralized US government that controls the states, controls the people and tries to run the world.
Our federal government is completely out of it's bounds and citizens just keep giving it more and more control over theirs lives.
Except we do have to to a degree. Unless we want to go into complete anarchy and triabalism, we have to depend on the Government to make sure our country is not attacked, or if it is that it is defended. Constitutionally, we rely on them to get our mail to us on time... However, I do agree with you on the rest of it.0 -
He doesn't get it, and most voters don't, either. People are dependent on government. We have to be if we wish to remain within the law and not take things into our own hands in the style of militaries the world over.
You want us to behave? You make the corps behave, politicians, because someday if you don't, we're going to take them out.
People don't HAVE to be dependent on the government and people should NEVER be dependent on the government. That completely contradicts the concept of freedom! If the U.S. government actually followed the constitution, it would protect our borders and people when needed but allow the states and people to govern themselves. That is what America what built on but right now we have a centralized US government that controls the states, controls the people and tries to run the world.
Our federal government is completely out of it's bounds and citizens just keep giving it more and more control over theirs lives.
Except we do have to to a degree. Unless we want to go into complete anarchy and triabalism, we have to depend on the Government to make sure our country is not attacked, or if it is that it is defended. Constitutionally, we rely on them to get our mail to us on time... However, I do agree with you on the rest of it.
That's what I put the bit in there about the government's job being to protect our borders and people. :happy:0 -
He doesn't get it, and most voters don't, either. People are dependent on government. We have to be if we wish to remain within the law and not take things into our own hands in the style of militaries the world over.
You want us to behave? You make the corps behave, politicians, because someday if you don't, we're going to take them out.
People don't HAVE to be dependent on the government and people should NEVER be dependent on the government. That completely contradicts the concept of freedom! If the U.S. government actually followed the constitution, it would protect our borders and people when needed but allow the states and people to govern themselves. That is what America what built on but right now we have a centralized US government that controls the states, controls the people and tries to run the world.
Our federal government is completely out of it's bounds and citizens just keep giving it more and more control over theirs lives.
Except we do have to to a degree. Unless we want to go into complete anarchy and triabalism, we have to depend on the Government to make sure our country is not attacked, or if it is that it is defended. Constitutionally, we rely on them to get our mail to us on time... However, I do agree with you on the rest of it.
That's what I put the bit in there about the government's job being to protect our borders and people. :happy:
Yeah... I realized that and am just too lazy to amend my comment... :laugh: The caffeine hasn't made it to my brain yet and I'm still on edge about this stupid girl that pushed me out of my lane and I almost hit two other cars in the process.... but I digress.
.... Just deleted what I want to talk about because I don't want to derail the topic to a different topic.... So I will say this instead, the idealist in me would like to see people, at the individual level or at most the group/society/community level, take responsibility... for themselves... but also for their communities. Instead of relying on the Government to make sure people have a place to lay their heads or food to eat, I wish we would do it on our own.... I know that is idealistic... and I know it's not always that simple... But I do not like the idea of even a percentage of our population being beholdened to the Government... what ever happened to JFK's idea of "ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country"... it seems to me that lately more and more people are asking what our elected officials "what are you going to give me? what are you going to do for me?".... I get it that Government is meant to serve the people... but, that doesn't mean that the Government should be taking care of every need and desire of the people..... It's one thing to foster a business friendly economy so there are more jobs for people to go to work in.... it's a total different thing all together to expect the Government to pay all of your bills.0 -
Yeah... I realized that and am just too lazy to amend my comment... :laugh: The caffeine hasn't made it to my brain yet and I'm still on edge about this stupid girl that pushed me out of my lane and I almost hit two other cars in the process.... but I digress.
.... Just deleted what I want to talk about because I don't want to derail the topic to a different topic.... So I will say this instead, the idealist in me would like to see people, at the individual level or at most the group/society/community level, take responsibility... for themselves... but also for their communities. Instead of relying on the Government to make sure people have a place to lay their heads or food to eat, I wish we would do it on our own.... I know that is idealistic... and I know it's not always that simple... But I do not like the idea of even a percentage of our population being beholdened to the Government... what ever happened to JFK's idea of "ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country"... it seems to me that lately more and more people are asking what our elected officials "what are you going to give me? what are you going to do for me?".... I get it that Government is meant to serve the people... but, that doesn't mean that the Government should be taking care of every need and desire of the people..... It's one thing to foster a business friendly economy so there are more jobs for people to go to work in.... it's a total different thing all together to expect the Government to pay all of your bills.
Edited out some of those quotes so it wouldn't be so long..
I totally agree with you about responsibility. Which is why I agree with Romney's sentiment, even though his numbers are wrong. Many of the liberal leaning people here believe that people are entitled to help from the government, or that the majority of people who do use assistance are victims or truly needy. I will take what I see with my own eyes everyday, what I have lived through and witnessed over what some government statistic says about the matter.
There is enough charity/non-profit organizations/churches in the world right now to take care of the people who honestly need assistance or a hand up. If we are going to allow people to live off the government for generations, then that won't work. For those who aren't elderly or disabled, I think there should be a limit so we can quit these generations of people on welfare. You get assistance for 18 months or you get booted off. Or you have to show proof of actively seeking work or you get denied your assistance. Coming from someone who went from being jobless, hungry and basically homeless and pregnant to having a decent 3 bedroom house and a smart 5 year old and a great job, it takes a little effort but is NOT impossible for anyone to do. There are programs out there for women to get daycare vouchers for work, there are programs for people to get a house, like Habitat, as long as they are making an effort. The government has made it so easy for people to live off of welfare that it has become a burden to anyone who contributes to society. Welfare desperately needs reformed.0 -
Clearly there are not enough charities to provide for those in need. If that were the case, there wouldn't be the numbers we're seeing today.
Oh the irony. All those red states complaining about how much people live off the government when it's all those blue states that are paying for it. Well guess what. I'm in a blue state. I *gasp* pay federal income tax. Of course I also pay sales taxes, state taxes, property taxes, and all kinds of other taxes (payroll) that those 47% also pay but no even seems to mention. I'm happy to help those who need it, and I don't think they're avoiding responsibility for their lives as a default position.
It's a nifty trick Libertarians manage to do. They take young people who have an axe to grind about something and somehow convince them that they're special/exceptional snowflakes who have an equal shot at anything they want (or would if not for the big bad government). And of course, because everyone is a special snowflake anyone who doesn't do well, by necessity, must be at fault for that (or the government because it's evil). How centering it must be to view the world in such simple terms.0 -
Clearly there are not enough charities to provide for those in need. If that were the case, there wouldn't be the numbers we're seeing today.
Oh the irony. All those red states complaining about how much people live off the government when it's all those blue states that are paying for it. Well guess what. I'm in a blue state. I *gasp* pay federal income tax. Of course I also pay sales taxes, state taxes, property taxes, and all kinds of other taxes (payroll) that those 47% also pay but no even seems to mention. I'm happy to help those who need it, and I don't think they're avoiding responsibility for their lives as a default position.
It's a nifty trick Libertarians manage to do. They take young people who have an axe to grind about something and somehow convince them that they're special/exceptional snowflakes who have an equal shot at anything they want (or would if not for the big bad government). And of course, because everyone is a special snowflake anyone who doesn't do well, by necessity, must be at fault for that (or the government because it's evil). How centering it must be to view the world in such simple terms.
That's why I said, for me, that it's idealistic and not that simple.... just because that's what I want to happen doesn't mean it will... And I'm not griping about people that need help... there is ALWAYS going to be people that are impoverished and need help, even Christ acknowledged this... But I think it does a disservice to the community, when we as a people and beneficiary of the community don't first try to help our neighbors and let the government be a last resort. There was a church I went to while in college, that couldn't have had more than 100-150 people, most of them elderly or working poor, it was a pretty poor church (compared to many in that city and definitely compared to the mega churches that we always associate "church" with)... they did everything they could to help the surrounding neighbors pay their utlity bills, have access to food... regardless of whether or not they were members of the church.... yes, their resources are very limited... but their hearts are in the right place... And I would like to think (again idealistically) that if other churches and community groups would give out their resources to the point it was stretched thin, then there wouldn't be as big of a need for people to be beholdened to the Government to take care of their needs.
But again, it is what I would like to see happen, but that doesn't mean that it would.
Oh and I (just like everyone else I know) pay all those same taxes and have been since I was working at minimum wage jobs... even in our red state that complains... Hell, I even voted to raise our school taxes (thus affectively raising our property tax)... and will do it again if necessary. As I have no problem paying local taxes that go to local needs and desires.0 -
One of the biggest challenges to the 'Everyone should help everyone else" is the dilemma that most people can barely make a living for themselves much less have anything left over to give to someone else that isn't in their immediate family. Inflation keeps going up and yet the average wages of most people have not kept pace. The only people who seem to be doing well these days are those that were already 'well off'. Especially in the US but here in Canada as well it seems that the income gap between 'doing ok' and 'need help' is getting bigger and bigger.
In the 60's USA a new house cost around $12K, the average income per year was a little less than half of that at @$5600. A new car was about half of that at @$2,600. A family with a single income earner could reasonably expect to be able to have a new home and car as well as save for retirement, and send the kids to school. This was my parents generation.
In my generation if the formulas were still the same where a house was twice the average income and a car half of it we would still be doing fine but this is NOT the case:
http://money.msn.com/family-money/fast-growing-income-gap-in-us-wuorio.aspxUnfortunately, in the U.S., an average $40,000 income often means living paycheck to paycheck and, perhaps more significant, living beyond your means. To that end, the Federal Reserve reported a nearly 10% jump in overall consumer debt in November 2011, to $2.48 trillion -- the biggest one-month percentage increase in overall debt in more than 10 years.
"The average American struggles," says Ronald Hill, a professor at Villanova University who has studied poverty worldwide. "They have an old car they're struggling to keep on the road, they may be late with rent payments, and they can't afford to send their kids to college. At $40,000 a year, they probably haven't been on a vacation in five years. They feel great restrictions."
How are 'average' people even going to be capable of helping anyone? "According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the 2006 median income in the entire U.S. was $48,200. This means that half of all Americans earned less than $48,200. " http://moneytalks4teens.ucdavis.edu/faq.cfm?faq=89
The problem is not the lack of desire to help others.. it's the lack of resources. This is WHY the government needs to step in. Either people need to be paid more or prices of things need to come down WITHOUT having to outsource all the jobs overseas in order to protect the ability of people to even find a job that will pay them a living wage. Right now this isn't happening. The "job creators" are creating A LOT of jobs..too bad they are mainly in CHINA and INDIA. Here's a huge list of companies that are "exporting america" . These are U.S. companies either sending American jobs overseas, or choosing to employ cheap overseas labor, instead of American workers. http://www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/lou.dobbs.tonight/popups/exporting.america/content.html
Considering that Mr. Romney has a history of investing heavily in foreign companies that depend on US outsourcing I'd think that he wouldn't be such a good choice for HELPING anyone but himself.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/frederickallen/2012/07/12/how-mitt-romney-invested-millions-in-outsourcing/
Read more:
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_was_the_price_of_cars_in_1960#ixzz271oWeUxX
http://money.msn.com/family-money/fast-growing-income-gap-in-us-wuorio.aspx
http://www2.census.gov/prod2/popscan/p60-036.pdf
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_was_the_price_of_cars_in_19600 -
One of the biggest challenges to the 'Everyone should help everyone else" is the dilemma that most people can barely make a living for themselves much less have anything left over to give to someone else that isn't in their immediate family. Inflation keeps going up and yet the average wages of most people have not kept pace. The only people who seem to be doing well these days are those that were already 'well off'. Especially in the US but here in Canada as well it seems that the income gap between 'doing ok' and 'need help' is getting bigger and bigger.
In the 60's USA a new house cost around $12K, the average income per year was a little less than half of that at @$5600. A new car was about half of that at @$2,600. A family with a single income earner could reasonably expect to be able to have a new home and car as well as save for retirement, and send the kids to school. This was my parents generation.
In my generation if the formulas were still the same where a house was twice the average income and a car half of it we would still be doing fine but this is NOT the case:
http://money.msn.com/family-money/fast-growing-income-gap-in-us-wuorio.aspxUnfortunately, in the U.S., an average $40,000 income often means living paycheck to paycheck and, perhaps more significant, living beyond your means. To that end, the Federal Reserve reported a nearly 10% jump in overall consumer debt in November 2011, to $2.48 trillion -- the biggest one-month percentage increase in overall debt in more than 10 years.
"The average American struggles," says Ronald Hill, a professor at Villanova University who has studied poverty worldwide. "They have an old car they're struggling to keep on the road, they may be late with rent payments, and they can't afford to send their kids to college. At $40,000 a year, they probably haven't been on a vacation in five years. They feel great restrictions."
How are 'average' people even going to be capable of helping anyone? "According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the 2006 median income in the entire U.S. was $48,200. This means that half of all Americans earned less than $48,200. " http://moneytalks4teens.ucdavis.edu/faq.cfm?faq=89
The problem is not the lack of desire to help others.. it's the lack of resources. This is WHY the government needs to step in. Either people need to be paid more or prices of things need to come down WITHOUT having to outsource all the jobs overseas in order to protect the ability of people to even find a job that will pay them a living wage. Right now this isn't happening. The "job creators" are creating A LOT of jobs..too bad they are mainly in CHINA and INDIA. Here's a huge list of companies that are "exporting america" . These are U.S. companies either sending American jobs overseas, or choosing to employ cheap overseas labor, instead of American workers. http://www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/lou.dobbs.tonight/popups/exporting.america/content.html
Considering that Mr. Romney has a history of investing heavily in foreign companies that depend on US outsourcing I'd think that he wouldn't be such a good choice for HELPING anyone but himself.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/frederickallen/2012/07/12/how-mitt-romney-invested-millions-in-outsourcing/
Read more:
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_was_the_price_of_cars_in_1960#ixzz271oWeUxX
http://money.msn.com/family-money/fast-growing-income-gap-in-us-wuorio.aspx
http://www2.census.gov/prod2/popscan/p60-036.pdf
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_was_the_price_of_cars_in_1960
This.
On top of jobs being sent overseas, any corporation that doesn't pay a living wage is costing the tax payer because the definition of a living wage is a wage you can live on. If you can't live on it, someone is paying so you don't die of hunger, lack of medical care, lack of shelter, etc. The companies aren't paying for it, so the taxpayer does. They're harming everyone, not just the low paid workers in question.
Yet we cannot (or rather should not at this point) take the law into our own hands because violence always follows that sort of thing. Honestly, I don't think it will change, though. It will only get worse. My plan is that flight beats fight in this particular situation, so I shouldn't say 'we' anything when it comes to what 'we' should or shouldn't do now or ever, as there is no 'we'. I'm going to hightail it out of here like a scared rabbit the second I can!0 -
Anyone who thinks we don't have a dependency problem, or a growing class of people who think they are owed a living has not been paying attention. Look how long we have extended UE benefits for people in the last few years. If you can't find a job in two years, you are not trying. These jobs may not be the best jobs or the one that you want, but tough. Take what you can get for now and work at finding one better. It's not your neighbors job to support you until you find something in your field or what you like.
It isn't that all poor are evil blood sucking monsters, conservatives as a whole don't believe that. But it's too easy to let the state, federal and local governments provide enough money for someone so they don't have incentive to better themselves. It's happening people, a real discussion has to be had about what the role of government should be and how much help it should provide. Conservatives shouldn't be demonized because they believe it's more compassionate to get someone to be self-sufficient rather than be caught in a cycle of dependency.
Libs, get off the moral high ground for a second and tell me how the country can continue to prosper if those that are dependent on the government outnumber the those that do not. I don't want to hear a feeling backed idea of why we need to help.
Wanting reform isn't about pushing grandma off a cliff or shoving someone out into the street. It's about having a safety net that encourages people to better themselves and not vote for the guy who offers a bigger check. We have 86 welfare programs at the federal level, layers upon layers of government programs have been created and yet there are more and more people being added to the roles.
It's human nature to not work harder when your basic needs are met. It's not that these basic needs shouldn't be met, but there needs to be a limit to it and there needs to be an effort shown by the recipient that they are doing what they can to get off the government cheese. I'd bet everyone here knows, or has heard of someone saying they don't need to start looking for a job because they have x amount of UE coming. That should tell you there is something wrong with the system and our society has a serious work ethic problem. Again, not all poor fall into this, but we need to acknowledge there are more people willing to take a handout rather than make it on their own.
Demonize Mitt for what he said, his math was wrong, but the substance was right.0 -
One of the biggest challenges to the 'Everyone should help everyone else" is the dilemma that most people can barely make a living for themselves much less have anything left over to give to someone else that isn't in their immediate family. Inflation keeps going up and yet the average wages of most people have not kept pace. The only people who seem to be doing well these days are those that were already 'well off'. Especially in the US but here in Canada as well it seems that the income gap between 'doing ok' and 'need help' is getting bigger and bigger.
In the 60's USA a new house cost around $12K, the average income per year was a little less than half of that at @$5600. A new car was about half of that at @$2,600. A family with a single income earner could reasonably expect to be able to have a new home and car as well as save for retirement, and send the kids to school. This was my parents generation.
In my generation if the formulas were still the same where a house was twice the average income and a car half of it we would still be doing fine but this is NOT the case:
http://money.msn.com/family-money/fast-growing-income-gap-in-us-wuorio.aspxUnfortunately, in the U.S., an average $40,000 income often means living paycheck to paycheck and, perhaps more significant, living beyond your means. To that end, the Federal Reserve reported a nearly 10% jump in overall consumer debt in November 2011, to $2.48 trillion -- the biggest one-month percentage increase in overall debt in more than 10 years.
"The average American struggles," says Ronald Hill, a professor at Villanova University who has studied poverty worldwide. "They have an old car they're struggling to keep on the road, they may be late with rent payments, and they can't afford to send their kids to college. At $40,000 a year, they probably haven't been on a vacation in five years. They feel great restrictions."
How are 'average' people even going to be capable of helping anyone? "According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the 2006 median income in the entire U.S. was $48,200. This means that half of all Americans earned less than $48,200. " http://moneytalks4teens.ucdavis.edu/faq.cfm?faq=89
The problem is not the lack of desire to help others.. it's the lack of resources. This is WHY the government needs to step in. Either people need to be paid more or prices of things need to come down WITHOUT having to outsource all the jobs overseas in order to protect the ability of people to even find a job that will pay them a living wage. Right now this isn't happening. The "job creators" are creating A LOT of jobs..too bad they are mainly in CHINA and INDIA. Here's a huge list of companies that are "exporting america" . These are U.S. companies either sending American jobs overseas, or choosing to employ cheap overseas labor, instead of American workers. http://www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/lou.dobbs.tonight/popups/exporting.america/content.html
Considering that Mr. Romney has a history of investing heavily in foreign companies that depend on US outsourcing I'd think that he wouldn't be such a good choice for HELPING anyone but himself.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/frederickallen/2012/07/12/how-mitt-romney-invested-millions-in-outsourcing/
Read more:
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_was_the_price_of_cars_in_1960#ixzz271oWeUxX
http://money.msn.com/family-money/fast-growing-income-gap-in-us-wuorio.aspx
http://www2.census.gov/prod2/popscan/p60-036.pdf
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_was_the_price_of_cars_in_1960
If you want to stop businesses from going overseas, then you need to stop regulating and taxing them death. We have too many roadblocks in place and that is going to have to change if we want to attract and maintain businesses. I don't believe it's a coincidence that as government has grown, opportunity and buying power has decreased.0 -
Is the notion that people on unemployment benefits must not want a job (or they'd find one) supported by anything credible--other than random assertion? Most of the conservatives I hear complaining about how the government wrecked the job market will tell you about the hours and hours per day they spend looking for a job with no results. Who's fooling who here?0
-
I don't care for either candidate. That being said - I had no doubt before this year started that Obama would be re-elected, but it is extremely awkward to watch Romney tripping over himself as he scampers up the podium to hand over any chance he had to Obama, messily giftwrapped as it were.
Shook my head when I read about this today.
I agree with this completely.0 -
Is the notion that people on unemployment benefits must not want a job (or they'd find one) supported by anything credible--other than random assertion? Most of the conservatives I hear complaining about how the government wrecked the job market will tell you about the hours and hours per day they spend looking for a job with no results. Who's fooling who here?
The job market varies regionally. Keep in mind, unemployment statistics are based on people filing for unemployment and do not accurately reflect the job market.
Where I live, there are employers advertising jobs constantly. The few I have seen struggle are those that have had multiple interviews at different places and are being turned down. That is one them, either they don't have skills to interview well or they don't meet the requirements. If people are being interviewed or turning in applications, it's not the market, it's them. I have not once had a skilled, professional friend or family member struggle to find a job in this economy. Hell, I have a job that I have no intentions of leaving and I've had 2 random people call me in the past month asking me if I was interested in a position they knew of or had.0 -
Is the notion that people on unemployment benefits must not want a job (or they'd find one) supported by anything credible--other than random assertion? Most of the conservatives I hear complaining about how the government wrecked the job market will tell you about the hours and hours per day they spend looking for a job with no results. Who's fooling who here?
The job market varies regionally. Keep in mind, unemployment statistics are based on people filing for unemployment and do not accurately reflect the job market.
Where I live, there are employers advertising jobs constantly. The few I have seen struggle are those that have had multiple interviews at different places and are being turned down. That is one them, either they don't have skills to interview well or they don't meet the requirements. If people are being interviewed or turning in applications, it's not the market, it's them. I have not once had a skilled, professional friend or family member struggle to find a job in this economy. Hell, I have a job that I have no intentions of leaving and I've had 2 random people call me in the past month asking me if I was interested in a position they knew of or had.
But there seems to be no way to measure intent either way, which makes sense.
I think the math of the situation is a little important here. Basically, though, Romney is saying that those people who are depending on the government are also going to vote for Obama because they don't want to support themselves. We can't possibly know that.
It's like there's assumption that people on unemployment don't want jobs and feel like victims. Well how can we even make that assumption? Because they don't have jobs? That's ridiculous. So if there's more than assumption going on, if people actually have a reason for believing that, I want to know what it is. I'm sure some people probably feel like they shouldn't have to work--people like that happen in every economic demographic--but this implication that the government is turning people into unmotivated leeches seems a little unfair given all the complaining people do about wanting a job.0 -
I don't know about everyone... but I know my dad (who works as a manager for a major motel chain) will constantly have people coming in asking for an application, "looking for a job", but it's really only so they can get their document signed stating they "looked" for a job so they can continue to receive benefits... Now, I am no way saying this is EV.ER.Y. one... but I do believe it is somewhat prevalent and has been since the 90's. There was a documentary that we watched in Sociology class on the topic back in 2003(?) It was called "Ending Welfare as We Know It" from 1997 that touched on the frustration on even having to go through job training and the such to keep recieving benefits. There was even a news story about a guy in my region who couldn't find a job (I'm sure you heard about the "Obama helps guy look for job" angle)... but really it wasn't that he couldn't find a job so much as he didn't want to renegotiate his custody agreement with his ex-wife... and thus was staying on government assistance. And while I get not being able to be there for your kids on a constant basis sucks (I come from a blended family myself of the military persuasion and my step-dad had a son he didn't get to see regularly either... so I understand this need, frustration, hurt)... but you have to do what's best for the whole family and work out the other stuff as you go along.0
-
There are many many people who were not lucky enough to be born into a situation of privilege that allowed them to gain the experience and education to land a 'good' job or even 'any' job. It's easy as a member of the 'majority' class/race/background to speak for those who never have had the same luck without ever understanding that there are millions of people in our countries who because of their circumstances of birth will never have the opportunity to have what we have.
Anyone who is a member of a minority has additional barriers to overcome, barriers of sex, race, age etc.. which the government (and most other people) do not give a crap about. Not everyone has it 'easy'. There ARE people who need help, who are not lazy, who have the will to work... but because they are not from white, middle class families they are immediately discounted, they receive lower pay, go to "poorer" schools, live in rougher neighborhoods, are surrounded by higher crime and those factors disadvantage them. The "American Dream" is NOT available to everyone equally and just because - I - or "you" are capable of just walking in anywhere and finding work does not make it so for a member of a visible minority.
This is where Mr. Romney falls - his viewpoint comes from the highest position of privilege - he is a white man, who had wealthy parents and every opportunity to attend 'the best' schools that money could provide, he was employed by his family and was well paid. He has no regard for those who did not have the same opportunities and this video SHOWS it. This man scares the heck outta me..really.0
This discussion has been closed.