-
After 15+ years, we've made a big change: Android Forums is now Early Bird Club. Learn more here.
Mitt Romney and the Cayman Islands
- Thread starter as439726
- Start date
T
TxGoat
Guest
We shouldn't, he doesn't, but there are too many stooges out there that are part of the religious right that think our government should preoccupy itself with policing morality over policing the people that fleece the American public.
Not that I'm naive enough to think that Obama nor the democrats don't practice similar strategies in their own personal life.
When you have "representatives" rig the system to benefit themselves, and select members of their party, it's only a matter of time before enough people get flat out tired of it and decide to take matters into their own hands. Facebook was a perfect example of how corrupt the system is. You have Morgan Stanley offer up information only to its most "privileged" clients so they can make money off the backs of everyone else. And when Morgan Stanley was confronted, they claim they were playing by the rules. Granted it's most likely rules that were set up by people knowing it would allow them to cheat the system.
And then you have the sheep of the Tea Party that claim if you strip regulation away, it will encourage growth. The only growth it would encourage is a growth in corruption.
But to answer your original question, I'm sure the powers that be are perfectly fine with burying that story as deep as possible. Wouldn't you want that story buried if the candidate you were pulling for represented even more policies that favored your tax bracket?
Not that I'm naive enough to think that Obama nor the democrats don't practice similar strategies in their own personal life.
When you have "representatives" rig the system to benefit themselves, and select members of their party, it's only a matter of time before enough people get flat out tired of it and decide to take matters into their own hands. Facebook was a perfect example of how corrupt the system is. You have Morgan Stanley offer up information only to its most "privileged" clients so they can make money off the backs of everyone else. And when Morgan Stanley was confronted, they claim they were playing by the rules. Granted it's most likely rules that were set up by people knowing it would allow them to cheat the system.
And then you have the sheep of the Tea Party that claim if you strip regulation away, it will encourage growth. The only growth it would encourage is a growth in corruption.
But to answer your original question, I'm sure the powers that be are perfectly fine with burying that story as deep as possible. Wouldn't you want that story buried if the candidate you were pulling for represented even more policies that favored your tax bracket?
T
TxGoat
Guest
They are a joke, but the joke is on us (make that the U.S.). When the tea party candidates held the U.S. debt ceiling hostage and thus wrecked the country's credit, that's exactly the result that the tea party was looking for. They will attempt to do the same again by putting more tea party candidates in office come November.
If you ever take the time to listen to a tea bagger, it's actually like watching Faux news without the commercials and with a little more colloquialism in their voice. But, for whatever reason a lot of people swallow up what Fox News says as gospel. God bless America, indeed....
A.Nonymous
Extreme Android User
Limbaugh has been #1 for decades. Nothing has changed there.
as439726
Android Enthusiast
as439726
Android Enthusiast
What confuses me more is that so many middle to lite income Americans are Republicans. I wonder if they realize that the party doesn't give a rat's butt about them. The party IS for and about the 1%.
If you don't believe me, check out the Romney expose that ABC did about all his undeclared assets in the Cayman Islands.
He should be locked up for tax evasion.
If you don't believe me, check out the Romney expose that ABC did about all his undeclared assets in the Cayman Islands.
He should be locked up for tax evasion.
T
TxGoat
Guest
There are a lot of people that vote Republican because they think they're just a few financial moves here and there from being in that 1%. What they don't realize is that the system is rigged to keep the 1% on top.
I equate it to those people that suck up to the boss hoping that the boss will give them that one raise, that one project that will rocket them up the corporate ladder. The only problem is that managers don't promote based on talent or hard work. They promote based on who they like, but they'll keep letting that one brown-noser continue to suck up. It helps stroke their ego.
And then you look at what the Democrats have to offer, and there's not much there. They're like an estrogen version of the GOP IMO. Some people actually think that Democrats are all about handouts, and in all honesty, they haven't done much to shed that reputation. I've heard some people in the media claim that there are many people that vote GOP not because they like what the GOP have to offer, but because the Democrats only represent the welfare cases.
I know I wish there was a party out there that represented me.....
A.Nonymous
Extreme Android User
The Democrats don't care about the middle class either. Don't kid yourself.
as439726
Android Enthusiast
I agree the system needs an overhaul, but matched up proposal to proposal the Democrats do offer more for the average person than Republicans. The problem imo is that they need to fight harder and expose every person who fights real change in America.
T
TxGoat
Guest
The March of Ides with George Clooney is a decent flick about how a politician is forced to make deals with the devil and how those deals turn what he believes in into the perversion that is our political process. Granted, it's a Hollywood version of what goes on in Politics, but I would bet that it's not too different than what really takes place in our political system.
Also, these types of statements from Romney are enough to get me to vote against him.
Mitt Romney doesn't care about poor people - YouTube
And these types of statements SHOULD scare most Americans since what he's saying is that if you're in decent financial shape he's concerned for you, but an illness, a loss of a job, any other loss that will cause you financial ruin, then he's not that concerned with you because we have a "safety net". This guy is severely out of touch.
T
TxGoat
Guest
I swear some posts just read like this to me....
T
TxGoat
Guest
And yet you prove our point. No one here is claiming the Democrats are any better, yet the name callers come out when some people refuse to drink the GOP koolaid.
as439726
Android Enthusiast
as439726
Android Enthusiast
Ding ding ding. You win. My point exactly. I am coming from the avenue of " if you are asking which is the better choice of two". I am definitely NOT saying the while system isn't broken.
A.Nonymous
Extreme Android User
Picking between the two is like choosing whether you want your right arm chopped off or your right leg chopped off. Neither decision is particularly palatable and both are enough to make you vomit.
T
TxGoat
Guest
It is, but then you get the rabid followers from one side that are so disillusioned in their hyperbolic description of a candidate that it makes you want to vote against that one person just as a vote against stupidity.
For instance, when someone claims that Obama is the most "radical president in our history". "Yeah he's a radical Muslim that's not even "mericun!" (You have to pretend that I'm breathing through my mouth as I say this btw) He's not the most radical president. If that were true, wouldn't he already have pulled our troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan? Look at his cabinet appointments, they're some of the same people that were insiders when Wall Street started to tank.
All this current president is doing is continuing things per the status quo, which is par for course IMO. Granted, he's not the same color as other presidents, so he's obviously "the most radical president in the U.S. history!"
Personally, I think it's the right wing's way of exciting the part of their base that's preoccupied with skin color. And if there's a large enough portion of your base that's ignorant enough to judge someone based on their color of their skin, well that's enough to get me to vote against your party. Sadly though, that doesn't leave me much of a choice come November.
A.Nonymous
Extreme Android User
Honestly, I don't think the vast majority of Republicans care about Obama's race. Certainly some of them do, but they're probably the same percentage as the Democrats who vote for Obama just because he's black.
Obama is fairly liberal which is probably why the base hates him more than anything. Both guys are in the pocket of the corporations. Romney makes no secret about it. You can tell by who Obama appointed to the cabinet that he's in their pocket too.
I don't know which is worse. The guy who makes no secret about being in the corporation's pocket or the guy who is but won't admit it. Be nice if none of them were, but apparently that's asking too much.
Obama is fairly liberal which is probably why the base hates him more than anything. Both guys are in the pocket of the corporations. Romney makes no secret about it. You can tell by who Obama appointed to the cabinet that he's in their pocket too.
I don't know which is worse. The guy who makes no secret about being in the corporation's pocket or the guy who is but won't admit it. Be nice if none of them were, but apparently that's asking too much.
T
TxGoat
Guest
If you remove yourself from the rhetoric from both sides, and remember Clinton's 2nd term, we had a budget surplus, unemployment was low (hell we were worried about inflation), and hell there were even MIDDLE EAST PEACE TALKS, I don't see how anyone except the wealthy would not want to go back to that type of prosperity.
When the middle class have more wealth then there is more demand placed on goods and services. Employers then have to pay more than meager wages to their employees in order to meet demand (and in order to ensure they have good employees) and demand goes up even more with a well paid middle class. If our middle class earns better wages then corporations don't earn as much per good/service sold, but they earn money by having more demand.
Of course the GOP would rather have low middle class wages because then it means more to the company's bottom line. Why anyone that's not earning over $200,000 a year would vote for the GOP is beyond me. Granted, there are a lot of brainwashed idiots out there that believe the whole, "we must make the 'job creators' MORE rich so that they can hire more minimum wage employees".
The Democrats aren't the answer, but the GOP isn't the answer by a long shot.
When the middle class have more wealth then there is more demand placed on goods and services. Employers then have to pay more than meager wages to their employees in order to meet demand (and in order to ensure they have good employees) and demand goes up even more with a well paid middle class. If our middle class earns better wages then corporations don't earn as much per good/service sold, but they earn money by having more demand.
Of course the GOP would rather have low middle class wages because then it means more to the company's bottom line. Why anyone that's not earning over $200,000 a year would vote for the GOP is beyond me. Granted, there are a lot of brainwashed idiots out there that believe the whole, "we must make the 'job creators' MORE rich so that they can hire more minimum wage employees".
The Democrats aren't the answer, but the GOP isn't the answer by a long shot.
A.Nonymous
Extreme Android User
Actually, the deficit went UP during the Clinton year. No surprise though as it's gone up during every single President since FDR and probably further back than that. I've seen some economists argue that Clinton's economic policies set the stage for the recession that stated under Bush. I've seen others argue that the recession actually started under the Clinton years and merely continued under Bush. I'm no economist so I can't say. I will say that things have not gotten any better under Obama so if the Democrats are a solution, they're not a good one.
Instead, the Democrats seem to think the proper solution is to further punish the wealthy and those foolish enough to become successful. Never mind that this drives people like Eduardo Saverin to leave the country and drives companies to headquarter their business off shore to avoid taxes. The Democrats solution to that is simply to punish them more on the flawed reasoning that corporations won't pass those costs on to either their employees or customers. Not that the Republicans fiscal policy is any better but pretending that either party has any answers at all is insanity IMO.
Instead, the Democrats seem to think the proper solution is to further punish the wealthy and those foolish enough to become successful. Never mind that this drives people like Eduardo Saverin to leave the country and drives companies to headquarter their business off shore to avoid taxes. The Democrats solution to that is simply to punish them more on the flawed reasoning that corporations won't pass those costs on to either their employees or customers. Not that the Republicans fiscal policy is any better but pretending that either party has any answers at all is insanity IMO.
T
TxGoat
Guest
The Democrats definitely haven't provided much substance for their cause I agree.
And some people will say that the prosperity under Clinton's 2nd term happened because of the internet boom (which turned bust around 2000).
If you look at what each side has championed recently, the Democrats wanted to extend unemployment benefits (which you can say was to attempt to let the jobless continue to put food on their table, or provided the jobless less incentive to find a job and suckle on the government teet) while the Republicans championed extending the Bush tax cuts (which everyone tends to claim benefits the wealthy, which the GOP argues will create jobs, which subsequently didn't really create jobs when it first passed), thus the Democrats seem to want to champion the poor, while the GOP want to champion therich job creators. Thus, the middle class get the shaft.
Thus, you have to consider other things when voting since it's obvious that neither side is championing middle class issues. What really irritates me about the GOP is their constant assault on individual freedoms. They have no problem giving corporations person-hood (if you've ever met a person that doesn't have a moral compass), but when it comes to individual freedoms, they want to limit it. A person's sexual preference and a person's reproductive health is their own business.
On this topic, I have never understood how the GOP can claim they want less government unless it's the government enforcing someone else's morality. I'm a heterosexual male that does NOT believe in abortion, but who the hell am I to tell someone else how they should live their life? I don't believe in gluttony when you consider how many people in the world are starving, but that doesn't mean that I want my government to start mandating how much food each person is allowed to eat. It's called personal responsibility and I wish the GOP would afford the same consideration for individual citizens that they extend to large corporations and campaign contributors.
The Democrats actually have the right idea on this one topic, it's no one's business, least of all the government's business. I wish people would learn to mind their own business when it comes to gay/lesbian rights and reproductive rights. We should all have the right to live our life as we see fit as long as it does not infringe on someone else's right and that includes two guys or two girls marrying if that's what they wish or a woman using abortion as a form of birth control because her and her lover were too irresponsible to practice safe sex, even though I personally think it's irresponsible to use an abortion as a form of birth control, but as I stated, it's not my business.
But sadly, that's one of the few issues that I wholeheartedly agree with the Donks on, as far as economic issues, I don't see them fighting for the middle class, but I don't see the GOP fighting for the middle class either.
And some people will say that the prosperity under Clinton's 2nd term happened because of the internet boom (which turned bust around 2000).
If you look at what each side has championed recently, the Democrats wanted to extend unemployment benefits (which you can say was to attempt to let the jobless continue to put food on their table, or provided the jobless less incentive to find a job and suckle on the government teet) while the Republicans championed extending the Bush tax cuts (which everyone tends to claim benefits the wealthy, which the GOP argues will create jobs, which subsequently didn't really create jobs when it first passed), thus the Democrats seem to want to champion the poor, while the GOP want to champion the
Thus, you have to consider other things when voting since it's obvious that neither side is championing middle class issues. What really irritates me about the GOP is their constant assault on individual freedoms. They have no problem giving corporations person-hood (if you've ever met a person that doesn't have a moral compass), but when it comes to individual freedoms, they want to limit it. A person's sexual preference and a person's reproductive health is their own business.
On this topic, I have never understood how the GOP can claim they want less government unless it's the government enforcing someone else's morality. I'm a heterosexual male that does NOT believe in abortion, but who the hell am I to tell someone else how they should live their life? I don't believe in gluttony when you consider how many people in the world are starving, but that doesn't mean that I want my government to start mandating how much food each person is allowed to eat. It's called personal responsibility and I wish the GOP would afford the same consideration for individual citizens that they extend to large corporations and campaign contributors.
The Democrats actually have the right idea on this one topic, it's no one's business, least of all the government's business. I wish people would learn to mind their own business when it comes to gay/lesbian rights and reproductive rights. We should all have the right to live our life as we see fit as long as it does not infringe on someone else's right and that includes two guys or two girls marrying if that's what they wish or a woman using abortion as a form of birth control because her and her lover were too irresponsible to practice safe sex, even though I personally think it's irresponsible to use an abortion as a form of birth control, but as I stated, it's not my business.
But sadly, that's one of the few issues that I wholeheartedly agree with the Donks on, as far as economic issues, I don't see them fighting for the middle class, but I don't see the GOP fighting for the middle class either.
as439726
Android Enthusiast
I still agree that the system is broken, but I do believe that the Dems are dead on about the fact that those who make over 200k should not post a lower tax rate than those making 60 k.
Case in point: Mitt Romney openly stated his tax rate is no more than 15%. Yet his worker making 45k pays a higher rate and can barely cover supporting a spouse and 3 children. That, my friends, is one reason just on it's own to never vote Republican.
Just ask Warren Buffet. He has the right idea on the disparity between the classes.