Romney: 'I'm not concerned about the very poor'

[Politico]

And FTR before anyone gets too pissy I think TheGlobalizer is being a bit Randroidish here.  By far the biggest scumbags are at the top, not the bottom.

I strongly disagree. The biggest scumbags are child molesters followed by murderers and then rapists. You can find these people among all levels of the economic spectrum.

I once read an article by a sociologist whom stated the best place to find sociopaths for study was in prison, and, after that, corporate board rooms. He used the example of Al "Chainsaw" Dunlap whom would take over corporations and systematically fire people. His alleged basic inability to empathize with the disruption in the lives of the people whom he fired allowed him to act in a completely ruthless fashion to make a buck.

You see the same dynamic at work at Bain capital. The same indifference that permitted Romney to strap his dog to the roof of his car for twelve-hour highway drive served him well at Bain Capital.

The question is whether, or not, it is a good attribute for a President?

Are you supporting Gingrich or Obama?

If Gingrich crosses the line like you have above, you better believe it that the dirty secret Nancy Pelosi spoke of is going to make Gingrich the next Thomas Eagleton because the above rhetoric is going too far. There are also Republicans who know the secret, it's not just Pelosi, and they will preemptively drop that nuke on Newt if Newt talks like you in the above post. He will be disgraced like no politician before if he crosses this line, and it will happen even though he is not really a threat to the nomination. But talking like that will just be asking for it.

You are going too far, buddy.

[Averroës Nix]

Ah, of course. Those destructive Obama tax increases...

[Politico]

Ah, of course. Those destructive Obama tax increases...

Yes, that's about all anybody is going to get from a second term. Read my lips: Lots and lots of more taxes, and forget about the economy returning to normal.

[Averroës Nix]

Ah, of course. Those destructive Obama tax increases...

Yes, that's about all anybody is going to get from a second term. Read my lips: Lots and lots of more taxes, and forget about the economy returning to normal.

I fail to see the connection between your prediction and the cartoon, in which the second panel is clearly labelled, "now."

[Vote UKIP!]

Politico, do you have anything else better to do than just act as a hack for Romney?

[Politico]

Ah, of course. Those destructive Obama tax increases...

Yes, that's about all anybody is going to get from a second term. Read my lips: Lots and lots of more taxes, and forget about the economy returning to normal.

I fail to see the connection between your prediction and the cartoon, in which the second panel is clearly labelled, "now."

I fail to see how you cannot see the simple choice facing America: Tax hikes under Obama, to fund all of this worthless crap he has burdened America with, or Romney giving the government a haircut (a buzz-cut, to be more precise).

You don't really think $1+ trillion deficits can be run for four more years, do you?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

At this point I've given up any hope in the economy of any kind. Romney clearly does not actually care. Obama probably doesn't particularly care at this point either. Neither can magically fix things. The modern Presidency is too much work for any one person. I'm supporting Obama for reelection based on the fact that a President Romney would almost certainly sign off on the insensible ravings in non-economic (or less-economic) as well as in economic spheres of a Tea Party Congress and appoint justices to the Supreme Court who would rule horribly for decades to come.

[Politico]

At this point I've given up any hope in the economy of any kind. Romney clearly does not actually care. Obama probably doesn't particularly care at this point either. Neither can magically fix things. The modern Presidency is too much work for any one person.

This is a defeatist attitude. America's destiny is not decline and stagnation. It may be if Obama gets re-elected, but that does not have to happen. It should not happen, anyway.

Nothing is more important than real economic growth. America needs a leader who is going to take care of Washington's BS, and show the government what it means to trim the fat and set markets free. Get Romney in the White House, and we can achieve 4% real GDP growth each year from 2015-2020.

Or re-elect Obama and get more of the same. You may lose your job, but Obama will still have his, I guess. And good luck finding a job...

[Averroës Nix]

Ah, of course. Those destructive Obama tax increases...

Yes, that's about all anybody is going to get from a second term. Read my lips: Lots and lots of more taxes, and forget about the economy returning to normal.

I fail to see the connection between your prediction and the cartoon, in which the second panel is clearly labelled, "now."

I fail to see how you cannot see the simple choice facing America: Tax hikes under Obama, to fund all of this worthless extra spending he has burdened America with, or Romney giving the government a haircut (a buzz-cut, to be more precise).

You don't really think $1+ trillion deficits can be run for four more years, do you?

Changing the topic to mask your incoherence? Nice try, but you'll have to do better than that.

[BigSkyBob]

And FTR before anyone gets too pissy I think TheGlobalizer is being a bit Randroidish here.  By far the biggest scumbags are at the top, not the bottom.

I strongly disagree. The biggest scumbags are child molesters followed by murderers and then rapists. You can find these people among all levels of the economic spectrum.

I once read an article by a sociologist whom stated the best place to find sociopaths for study was in prison, and, after that, corporate board rooms. He used the example of Al "Chainsaw" Dunlap whom would take over corporations and systematically fire people. His alleged basic inability to empathize with the disruption in the lives of the people whom he fired allowed him to act in a completely ruthless fashion to make a buck.

You see the same dynamic at work at Bain capital. The same indifference that permitted Romney to strap his dog to the roof of his car for twelve-hour highway drive served him well at Bain Capital.

The question is whether, or not, it is a good attribute for a President?

Are you supporting Gingrich or Obama?

If Gingrich crosses the line like you have above, you better believe it that the dirty secret Nancy Pelosi spoke of is going to make Gingrich the next Thomas Eagleton because the above rhetoric is going too far.

This is a classic example of the pot calling the kettle black given your insinuations concerning Newt's mother.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

First, while it is clear you are talking for Romney, probably due to some form of compensation be it direct or indirect, I am here to speak for myself.

Second, how stupid do you think I am. If unnamed "Republicans,"  Pelosi and you all know
"something" then it isn't a "secret," is it? While whatever "it" is is certainly not a "secret," it might very well be a hoax. Why don't you go ahead an enlighten us? That is, if you are not bluffing, which I strongly suspect that you are.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I will simply note that you slurred Newt Gingrich's mother for having an illness.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Nothing is more important than real economic growth. America needs a leader who is going to take care of Washington's BS, and show the government what it means to trim the fat and set markets free. Get Romney in the White House, and we can achieve 4% real GDP growth each year from 2015-2020.

I can think of any number of things that are vastly, vastly more important than 4% real GDP growth each year from 2015-2020, even assuming that President Romney would lead to this happening, which he would not.

I'm in a field where the process of finding work is relatively insulated from the vicissitudes of amoral  markets but is very sensitive to people needlessly cutting funding for social programs to redistribute wealth further upwards.

[Politico]

Second, how stupid do you think I am. If unnamed "Republicans,"  Pelosi and you all know
"something" then it isn't a "secret," is it? While whatever "it" is is certainly not a "secret," it might very well be a hoax. Why don't you go ahead an enlighten us? That is, if you are not bluffing, which I strongly suspect that you are.

Nancy Pelosi was doing Gingrich a favor by tipping her hat about it like she did. I hate to say it, but she's probably got a heart somewhere down there for doing such a thing for Gingrich. Whether or not Gingrich can come to grips with the fact he is never going to be president is another question, but that does not mean he should sabotage America's last hope by trying to drag down Romney with his own failing campaign. Even Ted Kennedy had more dignity going down than Gingrich...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Not true. I merely suggested that somebody with bipolar disorder does not belong in the White House. Anybody who has ever associated with somebody with bipolar disorder can attest to this fact. Obviously people should seek treatment and try to live a fulfilling life. There is no shame in being debilitated by mental illness.

[Politico]

Nothing is more important than real economic growth. America needs a leader who is going to take care of Washington's BS, and show the government what it means to trim the fat and set markets free. Get Romney in the White House, and we can achieve 4% real GDP growth each year from 2015-2020.

I can think of any number of things that are vastly, vastly more important than 4% real GDP growth each year from 2015-2020, even assuming that President Romney would lead to this happening, which he would not.

I'm in a field where the process of finding work is relatively insulated from the vicissitudes of amoral  markets but is very sensitive to people needlessly cutting funding for social programs to redistribute wealth further upwards.

Where do think resources for social programs come from? Santa Clause?

We need consistent economic growth, or the whole house of cards comes crashing down eventually. There is only stagnation and ultimately decline without consistent growth. You can certainly forget about your social programs.

[Vote UKIP!]

Politico, Gingrich maybe inflicting damage to.Romney, but Romney's "cut-them-off-at-the-knees" approach is going to make it difficult for him to bring conservatives.on board his campaign.

[Politico]

Politico, Gingrich maybe inflicting damage to.Romney, but Romney's "cut-them-off-at-the-knees" approach is going to make it difficult for him to bring conservatives.on board his campaign.

There would be no problem if Gingrich behaved like Santorum. It's not like Romney didn't give him a chance to properly behave. Romney's team took the foot off Gingrich's throat after New Hampshire, and look at how Gingrich paid Romney back. Instead of settling for a respectable showing in South Carolina, Gingrich needed to stick his hands in the cookie jar one too many times.

Personally, I am in favor of continuing to nuke Newt right through Super Tuesday. He deserves it, and nobody can trust him to do the right thing if you run the prevent defense against him instead of running up the score.

[Vote UKIP!]

Politico, Gingrich maybe inflicting damage to.Romney, but Romney's "cut-them-off-at-the-knees" approach is going to make it difficult for him to bring conservatives.on board his campaign.

There would be no problem if Gingrich behaved like Santorum. It's not like Romney didn't give him a chance to properly behave. Romney's team took the foot off Gingrich's throat after New Hampshire, and look at how Gingrich paid Romney back. Instead of settling for a respectable showing in South Carolina, Gingrich needed to stick his hands in the cookie jar one too many times.

It doesn't matter.if Romney took off.his boot.from Newt's neck. The fact is that Mitt placed it on Newt's neck in the first place when Newt tried to run a civil campaign.

These kind of tactics have inspired hatred among his rivals in both 2008 and 2012.

[Politico]

Politico, Gingrich maybe inflicting damage to.Romney, but Romney's "cut-them-off-at-the-knees" approach is going to make it difficult for him to bring conservatives.on board his campaign.

There would be no problem if Gingrich behaved like Santorum. It's not like Romney didn't give him a chance to properly behave. Romney's team took the foot off Gingrich's throat after New Hampshire, and look at how Gingrich paid Romney back. Instead of settling for a respectable showing in South Carolina, Gingrich needed to stick his hands in the cookie jar one too many times.

It doesn't matter.if Romney took off.his boot.from Newt's neck. The fact is that Mitt placed it on Newt's neck in the first place when Newt tried to run a civil campaign.

These kind of tactics have inspired hatred among his rivals in both 2008 and 2012.

Allowing Newt to run a civil campaign would have been a disaster if he won Iowa, then New Hampshire, then South Carolina, and basically wrapped up the nomination by now. October would have been an October-surprise-a-day. 2008 would have looked close compared to a Gingrich/Obama match. I am talking a 1932-level loss, not even a 1964-level loss. The type of mandate that Democrats and Obama could only dream of being handed.

Gingrich is nuts. He's going on about turning the moon into the 51st state, launching mirrors into outer space to light highways, and making kids janitors. He looks at himself in the mirror and sees Brad Pitt. He's talking like Ted Kennedy now with his class warfare rhetoric. He's like a ten year old kid that was told he cannot be president, he cannot have his moon base, and now he's hellbent on helping Obama rather than gracefully letting the clock run out.

[Хahar 🤔]

There are a lot of bleeding hearts on here. I suspect age has a lot to do with it. As a wise man once put it:

If you're not a liberal at 20, you have no heart.
If you're not a conservative at 30, you have no brain.

I wouldn't exactly call Guizot wise, myself.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Nothing is more important than real economic growth. America needs a leader who is going to take care of Washington's BS, and show the government what it means to trim the fat and set markets free. Get Romney in the White House, and we can achieve 4% real GDP growth each year from 2015-2020.

I can think of any number of things that are vastly, vastly more important than 4% real GDP growth each year from 2015-2020, even assuming that President Romney would lead to this happening, which he would not.

I'm in a field where the process of finding work is relatively insulated from the vicissitudes of amoral  markets but is very sensitive to people needlessly cutting funding for social programs to redistribute wealth further upwards.

Where do think resources for social programs come from? Santa Clause?

We need consistent economic growth, or the whole house of cards comes crashing down eventually. There is only stagnation and ultimately decline without consistent growth. You can certainly forget about your social programs.

You really don't understand what I'm saying at all. (The fact that you're describing the economy as currently constructed in a manner similar more than anything else to a metastasizing tumor is revelatory, so thank you, but that wasn't really what I was addressing.) America isn't going to magically become a Third World country economically speaking under Obama, nor is it under Romney. It does, however, run the risk of becoming a Third World country in terms of inequality of opportunity, in terms of policy towards minorities, and in terms of political discourse on an at least token level of sanity with a weak President with no core beliefs and a Congress run by people somewhere to the right of John Ashbrook.

Also, stop insulting Ted Kennedy.

[Vote UKIP!]

I am equally convinced that if Romney sewed up the nomination by winning Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina, not only October, but September, and August, and July would all b a suprise-a-minute, even if they have to make some of it up. Don't be so naive as to think the Democrats or the media won't try to destroy him like they would Newt.

As for class warfare, your guy accepts the President's premise on class warfare by embracing the $200,000 cut off point, and implies that the poor are perfectly fine in their safety net without any chance of upward mobility.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

This thread has a very interesting relationship with reality... and I mean, interesting.

[BigSkyBob]

Politico, Gingrich maybe inflicting damage to.Romney, but Romney's "cut-them-off-at-the-knees" approach is going to make it difficult for him to bring conservatives.on board his campaign.

There would be no problem if Gingrich behaved like Santorum. It's not like Romney didn't give him a chance to properly behave.

Please, Gingrich gave every Republican candidate the opportunity to run positive campaigns. Romney as a matter of free choice decided to engage in the politics of personal destruction. Gingrich only did not act like Santorum in that he beat Romney in the South Carolina debates, very badly, while Santorum did not.

Blaming Gingrich for Romney targeting him with the politics of personal destruction is blaming the victim. Romney used the same tactics against McCain and Huckabee in 2008. Did they make him use the same tactics then?

At some point Romney needs to man up and take responsibility for his actions.

[Vote UKIP!]

Politico, Gingrich maybe inflicting damage to.Romney, but Romney's "cut-them-off-at-the-knees" approach is going to make it difficult for him to bring conservatives.on board his campaign.

There would be no problem if Gingrich behaved like Santorum. It's not like Romney didn't give him a chance to properly behave.

Please, Gingrich gave every Republican candidate the opportunity to run positive campaigns. Romney as a matter of free choice decided to engage in the politics of personal destruction. Gingrich only did not act like Santorum in that he beat Romney in the South Carolina debates, very badly, while Santorum did not.

Blaming Gingrich for Romney targeting him with the politics of personal destruction is blaming the victim. Romney used the same tactics against McCain and Huckabee in 2008. Did they make him use the same tactics then?

At some point Romney needs to man up and take responsibility for his actions.

Plus, McCain and Huckabee.formed a makeshift alliance to circumvent Romney.

There's a reason why Thompson endorsed Gingrich, and Giuliani has bad-mouthed Romney.

[opebo]

..Obama knows nothing about economics and business. He basically has the neanderthal attitude, "GOVERNMENT GOOD. MORE GOVERNMENT BETTER."

Good - that's all he needs = the simple truth.

[Ebowed]

I fail to see how you cannot see the simple choice facing America: Tax hikes under Obama, to fund all of this worthless crap he has burdened America with, or Romney giving the government a haircut (a buzz-cut, to be more precise).

Only in Politicoworld is Obamacare 'worthless crap' and Romneycare evidence of a hypothetically impending 'haircut'.

Please continue to refer to increased health care coverage and improvements in infrastructure as worthless crap, and advise the Romney campaign to adopt this worthwhile rhetoric.

Imagine no possessions; I wonder if you can?  No need for greed or hunger: a brotherhood of man.