The-Hogs.net - Washington Football Discussion, Redskins to Commanders Era

I see Romney said 47% of the American population were more or less worthless, lazy slugs who want everything from the government (health care, food, etc.) and don't want to work or take responsibility for their lives (in so many words). Presumably, this group of slugs includes my ninety year old parents who use medicare and draw social security after fifty years of work, as well as my kids, who are going to college; and even my cousin, who's autistic; and yet another cousin, who is supported by the government in pennies while fighting in Afghanistan. As a matter of fact, most of the slugs I know who don't pay federal income taxes have two or three part-time jobs and incomes too low to pay income taxes. They do, however pay state, city, and pay-role taxes, which amounts to about 15 percent of their income. Romney himself pays about 13% on millions of dollars each year..
May the man burn in hell. Just what we need-- a President was says he doesn't give a damn about half the population.

Isn't Romney trying to get a government job?

crazyhorse1 wrote:I see Romney said 47% of the American population were more or less worthless, lazy slugs who want everything from the government (health care, food, etc.) and don't want to work or take responsibility for their lives (in so many words). Presumably, this group of slugs includes my ninety year old parents who use medicare and draw social security after fifty years of work, as well as my kids, who are going to college; and even my cousin, who's autistic; and yet another cousin, who is supported by the government in pennies while fighting in Afghanistan. As a matter of fact, most of the slugs I know who don't pay federal income taxes have two or three part-time jobs and incomes too low to pay income taxes. They do, however pay state, city, and pay-role taxes, which amounts to about 15 percent of their income. Romney himself pays about 13% on millions of dollars each year..
May the man burn in hell. Just what we need-- a President was says he doesn't give a damn about half the population.

Wow, you're really working it to be offended, aren't you? Don't pull a muscle. Romney actually believes in private charity and he gives far more generously then his opponent. Obama believes in public "charity" and he gives nothing other then what he is required to. Which makes "Romney" against helping your family. The difference is the solution, not the intent.

It's cool being a Democrat. No matter how stupid and ineffective their solution is, they get to be judged by their intent. And if you don't agree with their idiotic solutions, then you are actually against the goal as well. Don't believe in government schools? Well, you're anti-education. Don't believe in government giving artificial power of guns to unions? Well, you're anti-union. Don't believe in government charity? Well, you're against charity.

Your argument is noted.

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

crazyhorse1 wrote:I see Romney said 47% of the American population were more or less worthless, lazy slugs who want everything from the government (health care, food, etc.) and don't want to work or take responsibility for their lives (in so many words). Presumably, this group of slugs includes my ninety year old parents who use medicare and draw social security after fifty years of work, as well as my kids, who are going to college; and even my cousin, who's autistic; and yet another cousin, who is supported by the government in pennies while fighting in Afghanistan. As a matter of fact, most of the slugs I know who don't pay federal income taxes have two or three part-time jobs and incomes too low to pay income taxes. They do, however pay state, city, and pay-role taxes, which amounts to about 15 percent of their income. Romney himself pays about 13% on millions of dollars each year..
May the man burn in hell. Just what we need-- a President was says he doesn't give a damn about half the population.

Wow, you're really working it to be offended, aren't you? Don't pull a muscle. Romney actually believes in private charity and he gives far more generously then his opponent. Obama believes in public "charity" and he gives nothing other then what he is required to. Which makes "Romney" against helping your family. The difference is the solution, not the intent.

It's cool being a Democrat. No matter how stupid and ineffective their solution is, they get to be judged by their intent. And if you don't agree with their idiotic solutions, then you are actually against the goal as well. Don't believe in government schools? Well, you're anti-education. Don't believe in government giving artificial power of guns to unions? Well, you're anti-union. Don't believe in government charity? Well, you're against charity.

Your argument is noted.

ch1 only spoke on what Romney said when Romney didn't know he was being recorded, You spoke on neither what ch1 posted nor what Romney was recorded saying. I'll admit the Dems might not be the brightest bunch out there but they're all living off our dime while treating most of those they consider "on the other side" as second class citizens.


ch1 was simply pointing out that, of that 47% that Romney spoke of not all of them are living off the "government" because they're lazy... some of those checks that are cut for that 47% go to people that have "earned" them, and most of those people are getting less than what they are due. Some of those checks go to the very people that Romney was thinking of yet he grouped them all together. Some of those that he was really talking about might have been thinking about voting for him in November, we may never know now.

You can't bash Obama and think people will forget what Romney said, he wants to throw half the population away and let on that he wished he Mexican... granted when he responded to questions about his comments, he pointed out he wasn't talking about those in the Military, those that paid no taxes because tax breaks or retired seniors. Some of the 47% that Romney spoke of are actually worth millions, and we know he wasn't really taking about them.

It's all politics... why else was the recording linked back to the relaitive of a former POTUS? Those that want what he said to be negative will spend it that way... those that don't will try to change the subject. Romney is far from stupid but being recorded saying what he said was not only stupid, but might have been a setup

crazyhorse1 wrote:I see Romney said 47% of the American population were more or less worthless, lazy slugs who want everything from the government (health care, food, etc.) and don't want to work or take responsibility for their lives (in so many words).

That is not what he said. "in so many words" you exaggerate and misrepresent his mistake giving an opportunity to the Republicans to call you a liar.

However, HIS actual true remarks will be remembered as one of the biggest mistakes of his presidential political campaign.

From a strategic perspective, Romney puts himself on a defensive position and trying to clarify and spin what he really meant. Great ammunition for the Democrats.

The question I have is the following:

If all governments (not only the US) policies are for sale, what is the moral difference between

a) corporate or political organization lobby campaign donations from all kinds of right, left, or simply self-serving or profit/policy hungry groups

and

b) social programs, budget allocations, and subsidies put in place by BOTH Republican and Democratic Parties designed to bolster their respective election results????

For the record, both groups of buying votes strategies seem pretty corrupt to me.

So, why do social programs alone created by BOTH parties to bolster election results become all the rage now?

What is next? Blame farmer's subsidies supported by both parties for votes going to one party or another?

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

crazyhorse1 wrote:I see Romney said 47% of the American population were more or less worthless, lazy slugs who want everything from the government (health care, food, etc.) and don't want to work or take responsibility for their lives (in so many words). Presumably, this group of slugs includes my ninety year old parents who use medicare and draw social security after fifty years of work, as well as my kids, who are going to college; and even my cousin, who's autistic; and yet another cousin, who is supported by the government in pennies while fighting in Afghanistan. As a matter of fact, most of the slugs I know who don't pay federal income taxes have two or three part-time jobs and incomes too low to pay income taxes. They do, however pay state, city, and pay-role taxes, which amounts to about 15 percent of their income. Romney himself pays about 13% on millions of dollars each year..
May the man burn in hell. Just what we need-- a President was says he doesn't give a damn about half the population.

Wow, you're really working it to be offended, aren't you? Don't pull a muscle. Romney actually believes in private charity and he gives far more generously then his opponent. Obama believes in public "charity" and he gives nothing other then what he is required to. Which makes "Romney" against helping your family. The difference is the solution, not the intent.

It's cool being a Democrat. No matter how stupid and ineffective their solution is, they get to be judged by their intent. And if you don't agree with their idiotic solutions, then you are actually against the goal as well. Don't believe in government schools? Well, you're anti-education. Don't believe in government giving artificial power of guns to unions? Well, you're anti-union. Don't believe in government charity? Well, you're against charity.

Your argument is noted.

Romney believes in private charity? Wow. Being born into millions might be part of that eh? If I had Twit Romney money I'd give a lot.more to charity too... How many millionaires give to charity because they feel obligated vs actually give a crap? Hmmmm Twit thinks almost half the country is worthless slobs who don't work, yet he WANTS to give them money? Yaaaaa ok.

*I wish I could throw a $60,000 dollar a plate dinner for a couple hundred!

cowboykillerzRED wrote:Romney believes in private charity? Wow. Being born into millions might be part of that eh?

You hate him, got it

1niksder wrote:You spoke on neither what ch1 posted nor what Romney was recorded saying

I directly addressed it. First of all, I pointed out the gyrations he was going to be offended. Romney didn't say any of the crap ch1 "inferred." Quoted because he didn't infer it, he made it up.

Second, I was pointing out that Obama supports ch1's view in support of public "charity." Romney supports private charity and gives far more than he's required to (which is zero), Obama supports public "charity" and doesn't give a dime he isn't required to.

1niksder wrote::shock: ch1 was simply pointing out that, of that 47% that Romney spoke of not all of them are living off the "government" because they're lazy... some of those checks that are cut for that 47% go to people that have "earned" them

Zero go to people who earned them. Regarding social security and medicare, our parents loaned money to themselves, spent it, and handed us the bill. They gave us zero assets to pay any of it. It's welfare. I didn't agree to that system. If you loan yourself a mil, are you a millionaire?

1niksder wrote:You can't bash Obama and think people will forget what Romney said, he wants to throw half the population away

When did he say that? He didn't in the quote ch1 was referring to. Do you have a link?

KazooSkinsFan wrote:Romney supports private charity and gives far more than he's required to (which is zero), Obama supports public "charity" and doesn't give a dime he isn't required to.

Obama's required to give, but Romney isn't?

KazooSkinsFan wrote:Regarding social security and medicare, our parents loaned money to themselves, spent it, and handed us the bill. They gave us zero assets to pay any of it.

Not sure how "our parents" "spent it." And, I know I've been paying into SS and medicare every paycheck I've ever gotten, haven't you?

Deadskins wrote:

KazooSkinsFan wrote:Regarding social security and medicare, our parents loaned money to themselves, spent it, and handed us the bill. They gave us zero assets to pay any of it.

Not sure how "our parents" "spent it."

SSA = Federal Government
Treasury = Federal Government.

Surplus payments to the SSA were "loaned" to the Treasury who issued notes then spent the money. I.E., the Federal Government "loaned" to the Federal government who spent the money. In fact social security is part of the general fund.

Our parents gave us a Social Security Trust fund, which is "invested" in treasuries. Then they gave us the bill to pay the treasuries. Oh, and they told us we owe them checks from the trust fund ... the trust fund we're paying for.

It's beyond a lie, it's a scam. But they are giving us a tip. Screw your children like we screwed you. I actually oppose doing that. They are getting welfare, call a spade a spade.

And it's a Ponzi scheme, it's unsustainable.

Deadskins wrote:And, I know I've been paying into SS and medicare every paycheck I've ever gotten, haven't you?

Yes, not sure what the relevance of the question is. Our parents taxed themselves and spent the money. We tax ourselves and spend the money. And what conclusion am I supposed to draw from that?

Deadskins wrote:

KazooSkinsFan wrote:Romney supports private charity and gives far more than he's required to (which is zero), Obama supports public "charity" and doesn't give a dime he isn't required to.

Obama's required to give, but Romney isn't?

Romney advocates private charity first. He is not required to give anything, but gives millions to the solution he advocates.

Obama advocates government "charity" first. And then gives zero other then what he is required to pay.

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

Deadskins wrote:

KazooSkinsFan wrote:Romney supports private charity and gives far more than he's required to (which is zero), Obama supports public "charity" and doesn't give a dime he isn't required to.

Obama's required to give, but Romney isn't?

Romney advocates private charity first. He is not required to give anything, but gives millions to the solution he advocates.

Obama advocates government "charity" first. And then gives zero other then what he is required to pay.

You just repeated the same thing. Obama gives zero above what he's required to, but Romney gives more than he's required to (which is zero). So, if Romney is not required to give, why is Obama?

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

Deadskins wrote:

KazooSkinsFan wrote:Regarding social security and medicare, our parents loaned money to themselves, spent it, and handed us the bill. They gave us zero assets to pay any of it.

Not sure how "our parents" "spent it."

SSA = Federal Government
Treasury = Federal Government.

Surplus payments to the SSA were "loaned" to the Treasury who issued notes then spent the money. I.E., the Federal Government "loaned" to the Federal government who spent the money. In fact social security is part of the general fund.

Our parents gave us a Social Security Trust fund, which is "invested" in treasuries. Then they gave us the bill to pay the treasuries. Oh, and they told us we owe them checks from the trust fund ... the trust fund we're paying for.

It's beyond a lie, it's a scam. But they are giving us a tip. Screw your children like we screwed you. I actually oppose doing that. They are getting welfare, call a spade a spade.

And it's a Ponzi scheme, it's unsustainable.

Deadskins wrote:And, I know I've been paying into SS and medicare every paycheck I've ever gotten, haven't you?

Yes, not sure what the relevance of the question is. Our parents taxed themselves and spent the money. We tax ourselves and spend the money. And what conclusion am I supposed to draw from that?

So our parents are the Federal government?

If you can't dazzle 'em with your wit...

I give my own money to charity. Romney gives his own money to charity. Obama takes from us to give to charity. That's the difference.

Well the republicans want to give tax breaks to the filthy rich, in turn giving Romney MORE money when he's filthy rich to begin with instead of helping th e poor worthless middle class take a break and get ahead.. then by giving some of
Said tax break money to charity he is a savior?
Makes perfect sense.

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

cowboykillerzRED wrote:Romney believes in private charity? Wow. Being born into millions might be part of that eh?

You hate him, got it

KazooSkinsFan wrote:It's cool being a Democrat. No matter how stupid and ineffective their solution is, they get to be judged by their intent. And if you don't agree with their idiotic solutions, then you are actually agains the goal as well.

And you prefer bumbling retards in office, got it . Good assumptions.

Countertrey wrote:I give my own money to charity. Romney gives his own money to charity. Obama takes from us to give to charity. That's the difference.

If Romney actually gives money to charity, I'll give him credit for one of the only true statements he's made on the campaign trail. Your remark about Obama makes no sense except as a clever turn of phrase. Actually, Obama doesn't take anything from us. He didn't set current tax rates and hasn't raised taxes, nor has he given our money to "charity." Republican and Democratic presidents, together, created, reformed, and shaped our welfare programs.
Most of the spending attributed to Obama is actually the consequence of programs/policies being carried over from former administrations, both Republican and Democratic. He initiated about one and half trillion of new expenditures, which is extremely low (the lowest total since before Reagan) and actually proposed four trillion in deficit reductions, which was killed by Republicans.

KazooSkinsFan wrote:If you can't dazzle 'em with your wit...

Exactly!

crazyhorse1 wrote:

Countertrey wrote:I give my own money to charity. Romney gives his own money to charity. Obama takes from us to give to charity. That's the difference.

If Romney actually gives money to charity, I'll give him credit for one of the only true statements he's made on the campaign trail. Your remark about Obama makes no sense except as a clever turn of phrase. Actually, Obama doesn't take anything from us. He didn't set current tax rates and hasn't raised taxes, nor has he given our money to "charity." Republican and Democratic presidents, together, created, reformed, and shaped our welfare programs.
Most of the spending attributed to Obama is actually the consequence of programs/policies being carried over from former administrations, both Republican and Democratic. He initiated about one and half trillion of new expenditures, which is extremely low (the lowest total since before Reagan) and actually proposed four trillion in deficit reductions, which was killed by Republicans.

Expansion (not carry over) of entitlements, such as Obamacare, is a direct increase on the tax power of the government... additionally, continued acceleration of deficit spending decreases the value of the cash in your pocket... taken from me... by Obama. Obama policies pushing increased conversion of food to inefficient, and, obtw, corrosive fuel increases pressure of food prices across the board... a tax that seeks to serve the Obama agenda. Obama is on record, now, as being a proponent of the redistribution of wealth... something conservatives knew all along... but the guilty limosine liberal class has been pretending was a dirty trick... Surprise! His agenda is to move the wealth from one group to another... and is not above creating new confiscatory authority to do so.

cowboykillerzRED wrote:Well the republicans want to give tax breaks to the filthy rich, in turn giving Romney MORE money when he's filthy rich to begin with instead of helping th e poor worthless middle class take a break and get ahead.. then by giving some of
Said tax break money to charity he is a savior?
Makes perfect sense.

You hate him... we get it... but, it's clear that you have no idea why, since there is not a single fact in your rant...

I'm assuming it's because Michael Moore told you to... but, whatever...

Countertrey wrote:

crazyhorse1 wrote:

Countertrey wrote:I give my own money to charity. Romney gives his own money to charity. Obama takes from us to give to charity. That's the difference.

If Romney actually gives money to charity, I'll give him credit for one of the only true statements he's made on the campaign trail. Your remark about Obama makes no sense except as a clever turn of phrase. Actually, Obama doesn't take anything from us. He didn't set current tax rates and hasn't raised taxes, nor has he given our money to "charity." Republican and Democratic presidents, together, created, reformed, and shaped our welfare programs.
Most of the spending attributed to Obama is actually the consequence of programs/policies being carried over from former administrations, both Republican and Democratic. He initiated about one and half trillion of new expenditures, which is extremely low (the lowest total since before Reagan) and actually proposed four trillion in deficit reductions, which was killed by Republicans.

Expansion (not carry over) of entitlements, such as Obamacare, is a direct increase on the tax power of the government... additionally, continued acceleration of deficit spending decreases the value of the cash in your pocket... taken from me... by Obama. Obama policies pushing increased conversion of food to inefficient, and, obtw, corrosive fuel increases pressure of food prices across the board... a tax that seeks to serve the Obama agenda. Obama is on record, now, as being a proponent of the redistribution of wealth... something conservatives knew all along... but the guilty limosine liberal class has been pretending was a dirty trick... Surprise! His agenda is to move the wealth from one group to another... and is not above creating new confiscatory authority to do so.

For the last thirty years, the Republican party has been aggressively moving money from the poor and middle class to the rich. This, of course, is blatant
redistribution. There is such an abundance of the above that I'm surprised you haven't heard. The redistribution is so onerous that it's threatening to turn the United States into a banana republic.

Countertrey wrote:

cowboykillerzRED wrote:Well the republicans want to give tax breaks to the filthy rich, in turn giving Romney MORE money when he's filthy rich to begin with instead of helping th e poor worthless middle class take a break and get ahead.. then by giving some of
Said tax break money to charity he is a savior?
Makes perfect sense.

You hate him... we get it... but, it's clear that you have no idea why, since there is not a single fact in your rant...

I'm assuming it's because Michael Moore told you to... but, whatever...

Michael Moore is a douche... Romney is ignorant even beyond George W. Obama is the lesser of the evils, and my vote would go to Gary Johnson if I thought he had a fighting chance. Paul would have been my republican candidate of choice but flip flop Romney won over the "intellectual" crowd. Now that's a first putting Romney and intellectual in the same sentence!
I am
Pro choice, indifferent on gay marriage, for taxing millionaires, for separation of church and state, for legalizing marijuana, against playing big brother/anti war (but understand that's a pipe dream), but most of all prefer a leader that isn't a complete moron. I don't care about Romney's tax returns or Obamas religion. I care about giving the lower middle class a chance to climb out of the debt and succeed. I support small businesses and want big corporations to keep jobs in America.

Saying I hate Romney but don't know why is unfounded... I'm just not rich enough to buy a $60,000 plate to make it to one of his dinners. No president is perfect, but I'm part of the 48% that Mitt thinks will never try to provide for my family. If he was Hispanic he still wouldn't get any Hispanic votes. He's a fool, i don't hate fools I pity the fool

This whole redistribution talk is crazy.

How much of that money redistributed would the American people see? Really that money taken from the rich would go to the government. They will do what they always do. Waste it. Might as well throw the cash in the fire.

We have to realize the government does not know how to manage money. Think about it. They already receive an average of 2 Trillion dollars annually from tax revenues. 2 Trillion Dollars!! Honestly any decent money manager could make sure the country was running well with 2 Trillion dollars a year. Come on seriously think about it.

The way I see it we should lower taxes across the board. Sure we have a 16 Trillion dollar deficit. But if you squeeze the economy and business in general it is going to get worse. I say lower the taxes let the American people thrive. Unleash the brilliant minds and watch what we can do. Pay back the debt over a twenty year plan. Slowly but surely.

I think we should have a tax holiday for all new small businesses. Maybe tax free for the first six months. Then ten percent after the first six months. If that same company can employ 50 workers they should receive additional tax breaks.

Now a lil bit on the health care bill. Huge issue right now. Well the way I see it is business owners in general are having a hard enough time trying to stay above water. What do you think a mandate to provide health care for all your employees will do?

A small example. If the health care law states you must provide health care benefits for full time workers if you employ 50 or above.

Well many companies will just hire under 50. I spoke to my best friend last night. He is planning on doing just that. Sad but true. I know many business owners out there may do the same.

I think if you have a health care mandate. Well at least provide a tax break. If you provide health care for 50 employees and above drop the tax rate to 10 percent.

Ah just a few thoughts for you guys to chew on.