fjl2nd

Sure. http://www.gallup.com/poll/15370/party-affiliation.aspx http://www.people-press.org/2012/06/01/trend-in-party-identification-1939-2012/

He is saying the exact same thing except he omits the boogeyman word of "redistribution" who simpletons freak out over. A lot of economists believe in some form of redistribution. It's not rare...

I don't think he has it wrapped up. Merely a prediction, but he is a big favorite right now. Is it bad I'd consider voting for a Jeb/Huntsman ticket??

Obama wins in 2012. Republicans win in 2016. They actually have a soild up and coming young group of politicians. I don't see anyone on the Democratic side that really compares. I may even make a thread about this. Hillary will lose if she's the candidate...

Democrats do outnumber Republicans nationally, so there is almost always going to be some gap. And I want the secret inside info that B-Man has that has Romney so close to victory! LMAO

It's been a pleasant to read through all of the garbage in this thread. Still not finished either. I can't believe people think these are true: A. Romney was right B. This isn't politically toxic His view that he doesn't need any of those 47% is ridiculous, and his views on who they are and what they do. What is ironic about the entire debacle is that REPUBLICANS are the reason for so many people not paying federal income taxes. The Reagan and Bush tax cuts had major effects on this and rose the rate. Romney is literally rallying against his own party's "accomplishments".

Agreed. BillFan, you're giving the other Obama supporters on here (which is very few to begin with) a bad name...

Of those 47 of "freeloaders" according to you, 61% of them paid Federal payroll taxes. Check out this article. Just shows Romney's comments are just bad politically, but just wrong overall. http://www.washingto...why-it-matters/ No, that is not what I said or even implied.

Wow, this is bad.

It's cool. No hurry. Haha. I just like to point out that the lack of demand and in turn, the low tax collections, high unemployment, and low economic growth not only hurts short term, but really affects us long term.

Yes, increasing demand is what is needed IMO. Short run injection by the government can increase demand because the private sector can do that on it's own. Interest rates are at record lows and it's still not working. Sure, the stock markets looks good but the real economy is still hurting. What would you like see done to alleviate unemployment? What would you propose?

The deficits are more of a product of lowered tax revenue than actual government spending. We are taking in less than 16% of GDP in taxes. That's not really sustainable which makes are #1 goal to get more people back to work and paying taxes. Borrowing and spending money at record low rates (we're basically getting paid to borrow) can help put teachers/police/firefighters back to work. Not only do tax collections go back up, but consumption will go up. A 3-4% inflation rate would also help Americans with a lot of their built up debt they prevents them from taking risks and/or consuming. The savings rate has been higher in recent years, so the government should be picking up the slack. The more inaction by the government, the worse long term growth becomes. The problem between us is that we have a fundamental difference of opinion of government action during times of high unemployment or weak growth.

Pretty sure I've made my views fairly clearly on here on wanting more government spending on jobs programs, infrastructure, education, and putting teachers/state/local workers back to work. Tough proposition to get through Congress, but I do think some of it can be done. I know we obviously disagree on this, but it would be my plan, at least a starting point.

Here is where the 47% comes from: http://taxvox.taxpolicycenter.org/2009/07/08/who-pays-no-income-tax/ I guess Romney doesn't want the elderly's vote either. He's not worried about 55% of them... I don't think that's true and I certainly don't believe that.

Wanting the government to do more is not the same as not paying income tax though. I personally believe Congress and the President should be doing more to get the economy going. But, that has nothing to do with what Romney is talking about.

Comment from someone on Politico: • 11 of the 15 “federal welfare” states, those that get back more than $1.00 for every $1.00 they send to the federal government, are Red States; U.S. Census Bureau and Congressional Budget Office • 9 of the 10 states with the lowest percentages of college graduates are Red States; The Lumina Foundation for Education • 12 of the 15 states with the highest high school drop-out states are Red States; National Center for Education Statistics, and the 7 states with the highest high school drop-out rates are Red States; National Education Association • The 10 poorest states are Red States; Deseret News, Fox News • The 12 states with the highest rates of credit card debt relative to income are Red States; Equifax • 9 of the 10 states with the highest percentage of sex crime offenders per capita are Red States; Criminalpages.com • 8 of the 10 states with the highest number of internet porn subscribers are Red States; CNBC • 11 of the 15 states with the highest rates of illiteracy are Red States; National Center for Education Statistics • 9 of the 10 states with the highest percentage of citizens without health insurance are Red States; Gallup Poll • 9 of the 10 states with the highest percentage of citizens living in trailers are Red States; U.S. Census Bureau • 9 of the 10 states with the greatest number of persons in criminal custody per 100,000 citizens are Red States; U.S. Census Bureau Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0912/81312.html#ixzz26mnct681

The problem is what Romney is saying just isn't reality. Like I said, it's not a constant 47%. The people within that number change. People move the ladder. And there is plenty of Romney supporters within that 47% as well. The southern Republican states have higher percentages of people that don't pay income taxes. You do the math. I guess those are all of the Democrats in those states huh??

I'll put what you or I read daily on the side. Doesn't matter and I shouldn't have brought it up. I don't think the race is "over", but it looks bad for Romney and these comments could really hurt him. I don't get how you don't find these comments offensive and insulting to a lot of people? Keep believing what? What's a real job? For once, stop talking with terrible right wing talking points.

Every single one of us has probably depended on the government at some point. The 47% of people is not constant people. They are people a lot of times that are not where they want to be yet. There working to make a better life for themselves. I bet most of us have been apart of this evil 47% at some point in the past. And if you haven't, congratulations you did on your own!

Says the guy who gets ALL of his news from right wing media outlets. Come on B-Man! And this thread is not spin. These are Mitt Romney's WORDS.

I'm not saying I agree with these things, I'm just pointing out all of the people Mitt is alienating with his comments.

I know we are a republic and of course the majority doesn't always know best (Ex. Interracial Marriage, Segregation, Gay Marriage now, etc.) To say people are voting for Obama just to keep getting a check for the government is not only mostly false, it's insulting to his supporters and to Americans within that 47% (some which are most definitely Romney backers) who are hard working people and are still moving up in the world. IT'S INSULTING. Period. This isn't about just handouts of food stamps or medicaid. Within that 47% are people who really work hard every day to get by. A lot probably have kids to provide for and have bought or have dreams of buying a house. They get tax breaks/credits to help them do so. And then Mitt Romney has the nerve to just throw away their votes?? Ridiculous. It won't. Do you really believe out of those 47%, all of them are just sitting on their ass? How dumb are you? I've already explained this above. These are terrible comments for Mitt Romney. Just looks really bad.

It's sad that you're so wrong. How is ignoring 47% of America wasting time exactly?? You can't tell why this looks terrible for Mitt Romney?! Really? He is a very wealthy man who will not disclose his own finances more than the bare minimum and has now just thrown the "poorest" 47% of Americans under the bus?? All while taking advantage of his own tax loopholes.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/09/17/poll-more-approve-of-obamas-response-to-embassy-attack-than-romneys/ Poll: More approve of Obama's response to embassy attack than Romney's Posted by CNN's Kevin Liptak (CNN) – Americans who were closely following developments in last week's attacks on American diplomatic posts in Egypt and Libya were more likely to favorably rate President Barack Obama's handling of the dilemma than they were Mitt Romney's, according to a poll released Monday. The survey from the Pew Research Center found 45% of Americans who said they were closely following the news approved of Obama's handling of the situation, compared to 26% who approved of Romney's statements. Conversely, 36% disapproved of Obama's handling of the situation, and 48% disapproved of Romney's response. Nineteen percent didn't have an opinion on Obama, and 26% couldn't rate Romney. – Follow the Ticker on Twitter: @PoliticalTicker – Check out the CNN Electoral Map and Calculator and game out your own strategy for November. The partisan breakdown of those who said they were following the news closely was largely even. Forty-eight percent of Republicans and 41% of Democrats said they were following the developments closely. The attacks last week on the U.S. embassy in Cairo and an American consulate in Benghazi, Libya, drew sharp reaction from Romney. The GOP presidential nominee initially issued a statement last Tuesday night, as reports indicated an American diplomatic worker in Benghazi had been killed in an attack. The Republican candidate's statement was sent before news broke that the American ambassador to Libya, J. Christopher Stevens, had been killed in the attack. In separate protests in Cairo, several men scaled the walls of the U.S. embassy and tore down its American flag. The violence in both Libya and Egypt stemmed from anger about an online film considered offensive to Islam. In his statement, Romney said he was "outraged" by the attacks in Benghazi and Cairo, but took harsh aim at the Obama administration for what he characterized as a weak response to the violence. "It's disgraceful that the Obama Administration's first response was not to condemn attacks on our diplomatic missions, but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks," Romney wrote, an apparent reference to a statement from the U.S. Embassy in Cairo that denounced the anti-Islam film that is the source of the protesters' anger. The embassy's statement was released before protesters stormed the American embassy in Cairo on Tuesday. Reaction to Romney's remarks was mixed. While some Republicans defended their party's presidential nominee, others were more critical, saying Romney had acted too quickly to inject politics into the still-developing situation. The Pew Research Center poll surveyed 854 Americans who said they were closely following the news in Libya and Egypt. The poll was taken by telephone between September 13-16, and the sampling error was plus or minus 3.9 percentage points.