Mitt Romney Video (Page 2)

AcesFull - 2012-09-18 10:05 AM

Mitt is slightly wrong.  100% of US Citizens rely on the govt.  Raise your hand it you have NOT availed yourself of any of these services in your life.

Police, fire dept, public Schools, safe drinking water, properly inspected food, guaranteed student loans, national defense, food (farms are subsidized and the growth of farming in this country is directly related to the Homestead Act, which GAVE AWAY land), roads, national parks, hell, I could go on forever.

BrianRunsPhilly - 2012-09-18 11:42 AM

The next line in his talk is: "I'll never convince them (47%) they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives."  Seriously? So if you are able to take advantage of the tax code and that results in zero income tax, or you're a student, or on Social Security, e.g. you have no personal responsibility?

TriRSquared - 2012-09-18 12:16 PM

I had this same discussion on FB this AM.  Here was my reply there (so it might seem a bit out of context).

--------

(Other person posted about Mitt be a trust fund baby and how the OPs dad worked from nothing to being successful)

My parents were not rich either, they worked their off to provide for my brother and me. And from the age of 14 I had a job. I worked 20+ hours a week all through college to pay for school.

There is a SMALL percentage of people in this country who TRULY have no chance of making their lives better. Through disability or illness or lack of god given intelligence. I have zero issue supporting these people 100% until the day they die.

But drive through the "bad" section of town some time and look at the rims on the cars. Then look at the crappy homes. Now notice all the satellite dishes on the roofs. Notice the iPhones in the hands. Don't tell me for a second that these examples cannot better themselves. They chose not to.

Just because you have money does not preclude you from recognizing the systemic problems in this country. Did he (Mitt) chose the wrong words. Yes 100%. Does he have a good basic underlying point. Yep.

TriRSquared - 2012-09-18 11:16 AM

I had this same discussion on FB this AM.  Here was my reply there (so it might seem a bit out of context).

--------

(Other person posted about Mitt be a trust fund baby and how the OPs dad worked from nothing to being successful)

My parents were not rich either, they worked their off to provide for my brother and me. And from the age of 14 I had a job. I worked 20+ hours a week all through college to pay for school.

There is a SMALL percentage of people in this country who TRULY have no chance of making their lives better. Through disability or illness or lack of god given intelligence. I have zero issue supporting these people 100% until the day they die.

But drive through the "bad" section of town some time and look at the rims on the cars. Then look at the crappy homes. Now notice all the satellite dishes on the roofs. Notice the iPhones in the hands. Don't tell me for a second that these examples cannot better themselves. They chose not to.

Just because you have money does not preclude you from recognizing the systemic problems in this country. Did he (Mitt) chose the wrong words. Yes 100%. Does he have a good basic underlying point. Yep.

TriRSquared - 2012-09-18 10:16 AM

I had this same discussion on FB this AM.  Here was my reply there (so it might seem a bit out of context).

--------

(Other person posted about Mitt be a trust fund baby and how the OPs dad worked from nothing to being successful)

My parents were not rich either, they worked their off to provide for my brother and me. And from the age of 14 I had a job. I worked 20+ hours a week all through college to pay for school.

There is a SMALL percentage of people in this country who TRULY have no chance of making their lives better. Through disability or illness or lack of god given intelligence. I have zero issue supporting these people 100% until the day they die.

But drive through the "bad" section of town some time and look at the rims on the cars. Then look at the crappy homes. Now notice all the satellite dishes on the roofs. Notice the iPhones in the hands. Don't tell me for a second that these examples cannot better themselves. They chose not to.

Just because you have money does not preclude you from recognizing the systemic problems in this country. Did he (Mitt) chose the wrong words. Yes 100%. Does he have a good basic underlying point. Yep.

mr2tony - 2012-09-18 12:43 PM You're making a generalization, just like Mitt did, and neither of you see the folly in your arguments. Sure, there are some, but your implication is that MOST PEOPLE who lives in the `bad' neighborhoods are, first of all, on the government dole, and second, they're spending their welfare checks on iPhones and rims and satellite dishes. But you offer no data, you're drudging up old stereotypes and prejudices and presenting that as fact. And by saying people in `bad neighborhoods,' you're implying it's those who live in the inner-city. I have good friends from when I was a youngster in Iowa who are receiving government benefits and live in trailers yet have two Harley Davidsons and own probably $10,000 worth of guns and go hunting weekly. Guess who they're voting for.

crowny2 - 2012-09-18 1:15 PM

And if this map can be believed, (http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/09/02/red-states-are-the-real-welfare-states/) the red states are the ones with the most welfare.

Yes, it is a "liberal" blog site.  No I have not done research to see if it is true or not.  If someone can offer up an alternative site that states the opposite go for it.

AcesFull - 2012-09-18 10:05 AM

Mitt is slightly wrong.  100% of US Citizens rely on the govt.  Raise your hand it you have NOT availed yourself of any of these services in your life.

Police, fire dept, public Schools, safe drinking water, properly inspected food, guaranteed student loans, national defense, food (farms are subsidized and the growth of farming in this country is directly related to the Homestead Act, which GAVE AWAY land), roads, national parks, hell, I could go on forever.

TriRSquared - 2012-09-18 12:32 PM

D 1. New Mexico: $2.63
R 2. West Virginia: $2.57
R 3. Mississippi: $2.47
D 4. District of Colombia: $2.41
D 5. Hawaii: $2.38
R 6. Alabama: $2.03
R 7. Alaska: $1.93
R 8. Montana: $1.92
R 9. South Carolina: $1.92
D 10. Maine: $1.78

Doesn't look wildly skewed to me.  Would love to see all 50 states.  Besides that article is calling them red or blue based on one election.  Not sure we can gather much from this.

Mike_D - 2012-09-18 12:54 PM



I think your perspective on this is interesting. After reading this I tend to conclude your view of gov't is some sort of benevolent giver of 'things' to the populace to use. I'd suggest the government exists only at the behest of the populace, many of whom pay significantly 'to the common good' so these things exist. When I drive down a road I don't think "I'm so glad the government gave us this". Thats lunacy.

mr2tony - 2012-09-18 1:22 PM This is what I thought too but after I read it a few times, I'm thinking he meant that everybody uses these services. I dont see him saying that anybody GAVE it to the people, just that all people use it. WHich is true, unless you live on a compound in Montana somewhere ``off the grid.''

crowny2 - 2012-09-18 1:22 PM

Agreed.  I could have sworn I saw, at one point, one that actually did show all 50, but for the life of me I can't find the durn thing.  I swear my googling skills have gone the way of the dodo bird this week.  I was hunting for a very specific scientific paper yesterday as a reference for a project and I could not find it.  Still can't.  I know I've seen it.  Hell, I remember reading it.  AND see it presented.  But can't find it.  Even though I had found it about 1-2 months ago.

 

Anyway, yeah, I know it is one graph and based on one election.  But I honestly remember seeing something breaking down ALL 50 and how they traditionally leaned. 

Now, back to your regularly scheduled debate. 

mr2tony - 2012-09-18 2:22 PM This is what I thought too but after I read it a few times, I'm thinking he meant that everybody uses these services. I dont see him saying that anybody GAVE it to the people, just that all people use it. WHich is true, unless you live on a compound in Montana somewhere ``off the grid.''

TriRSquared - 2012-09-18 3:31 PM

Using services that are provided by the government via our tax dollars is vastly different than "100% of US Citizens rely on the govt"

TriRSquared - 2012-09-18 2:31 PM

Using services that are provided by the government via our tax dollars is vastly different than "100% of US Citizens rely on the govt"

mrbbrad - 2012-09-18 3:35 PM

Nope, not vastly different. Only slightly different. I could argue not different at all. There are plenty of services upon which I rely.

JoshR - 2012-09-18 11:45 AM

 

The problem with Romney's statement, is looking at the 47%. There is a sizable chunk of these people who are retired or very young and in school, like me 2 years ago. He just lumped all of us in with the "welfare queens". I don't like Romney or Obama and normally I take what they say with a grain of salt. This one really irks me though. It shows a profound lack of understanding about an issue facing this country. 

The biggest problem to me, is he was at some fundraiser probably raising $1,000,000+ and this what the people WANT to hear. They don't come to see him say he wants to be bipartisan. They pony up huge dough to listen to him treat half of the country like we're scum on his shoes. That's why we are facing the hostile political climate we are in.

TriRSquared - 2012-09-18 4:14 PM

 

re·ly/ri'li/

Verb:

Depend on with full trust or confidence. Be dependent on.

I guess it depend on your definition of rely.  IMO it implies a situation where the provider (government) has some power over the receiver (taxpayer).  Where the receiver could not live without the provider.  I argue it's the other way around, or at least should be according to the Constitution.  I cannot think of a single government provided service that I could not live without.  Many that make my life much easier and safer, but none I truly rely on.

jmk-brooklyn - 2012-09-18 4:15 PM I was reminded of his offhand $10,000 bet he tossed out during one of the debates last year. (G-d, has this been going on a year already? Ugh&hellip I understood that it was an off-the-cuff remark and that he was making a point, but it’s hard to convince the average working person that you understand them and can relate to their situation when you casually toss out a wager that’s a quarter of what they make in a year as if it’s pocket change.

mrbbrad - 2012-09-18 4:22 PM

I guess it does depend on your definition of rely, and your definition of live without. I rely upon things like passable roads, snow removal, storm drains, bridges over two major rivers in Philly, police, fire and ambulance services... little things like that. Sure, I could live without them, but life would really suck.

TriRSquared - 2012-09-18 3:23 PM

Please explain how a person's net worth is correlated to their ability to understand the "common man"?  By your same logic Obama does not understand the "working man" as he has never worked a day in the private sector.

...and it really bothers me that I feel compelled to defend a guy I'm not voting for.  I just get tired of the nonsense being tossed around.

ejshowers - 2012-09-18 4:47 PM

Another right-wing lie.  Obama worked as an attorney in Chicago and taught Con. Law at the U. of Chicago.