The Cellar - The Real Mitt Romney

The Cellar (http://cellar.org/index.php)

- Politics (http://cellar.org/forumdisplay.php?f=5)

- - The Real Mitt Romney (http://cellar.org/showthread.php?t=28046)

Quote:

Romney's tithing goes to his church, just like any church members tithing goes to their church. No difference in the Mormons, compared to say, any other church, Protestant or Catholic, if they are tithing members (committed).

Romney has also contributed hugely to other charities, besides his church. His tithing has been just a start of his charitable giving.

What do you mean by "black equal marriage laws"?

If you mean "block", marriages being equal - in most religions, all marriages are equal.

If you mean gay marriage, that is because gays can't traditionally, make a marriage. Gays can make civil unions which can have the same rights as a marriage, by law, but they can't procreate (as a married couple might), and the ability to procreate has always been somewhat protected by the Bible, and by the Book of Mormon.

It's the lesson of Sparta. Sparta was a powerhouse for years in Greece, but their style of warfare did not evolve, while others did (notably Athens and Thebes). Sparta began losing more warriors, and because their birth rate was so low, they were subjugated before they could adjust to the new and more efficient style of warfare.

To provide a wide variety of specialists and soldiers/sailors, you need a lot of citizens - and that was a major concern to the writers of the Bible. They gave a strong preference to the marriage, because it was viewed as essential for the continuation of the nation.

Yes, the Thebans had the famous "Band of Brothers" who were most feared in their day, and consisted of all gay partners. But they also died out as a unit, because they had insufficient children to take the place of those who had fallen.

Mormons ALWAYS feed the hungry, etc. They're way more active than your average church. Not as active as the Mennonites, and a rare few active Evangelical christian churches, but definitely ahead of the normal church. They are fine people. Their kids are spoiled many times, until they reach their older teens. Then the light comes on for them.

Romney doesn't HIDE his income. Rubbish! If you want to invest in ANYTHING overseas, or many brokerages that are based overseas, then you will want to keep funds available, overseas, AND in the currency that they require.

Nobody but an idiot would repeatedly pay the transfer fee for changing money from say, dollars, to euro's, over and over, for every transaction.

The tax laws also practically require it - and BOTH parties wrote those tax bills, and Romney had nothing to do with any of them.

Romney's finances are cleaner than a baby's bottom after a bath, and everyone knows it - he's released his entire tax returns. In addition, like several of our most honest politicians, he has his funds put into a "blind" trust, and managed independently, by a financial firm.

He can't "lobby" for any law that might help him out, because he doesn't manage his funds, and only finds out what's going on, after the report period has ended.

I want to see you match that level of honesty, in your life - I don't give a damn, WHO you are.

His "records" as governor, are public documents - laws and such. Anything private, is not public, and they are not "records", for public scrutiny.

BTW, Obama has hidden more of his personal life before entering the Senate, than any other president, in history.

We do know that the person who helped Obama buy his Chicago home, and the lot next door to it so it could be "larger", was the same person responsible for killing a few people, as a member of the Weather Underground.

In the Olympics, there was federal money, state and city monies, and international funds, as well. All of it had to be accounted for, of course. This is business, not the military. :D

The Salt Lake City Winter Olympics that Romney rescued, was, and is still, the only Winter Olympics that has showed a profit.

To get a full picture of the books for this Olympics, you'd have to have the books opened from City, State, several National sporting organizations, and of course, the IOCC, itself.

Since a few IOCC directors have been convicted of blackmail, graft, and such, since then, I can assure THAT access, they will not allow.

Has nothing to do with Romney. Romney saved the Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City, when they were already over-budget for their progress so far, and behind on their completion rate.

You ask ANYONE connected in any way with that Olympics, who saved those games? Who made them the most successful Winter Olympic games, ever?

Mitt Romney. Not bragging, just fact.

When Obama called Bush "unpatriotic" for running the national debt up to 9 Trillion Dollars, leaving every person in America with a huge debt (about 32,000 dollars), Obama was quite right.

Now that Obama has run up the national debt to over 16 Trillion dollars, it's supposed to be OK.

Oh Sure! :mad:

That's economic nonsense. The interest rates WILL be rising, and when it does, the amount of debt we will have to pay every year, on our debt, will cost more than the wars in Afghanistan AND Iraq, combined.

The above is not from my analysis, but from a professor of economics at Duquesne University. (also spelled Ducane Uni).

If you'd like to hear his full interview about it, let me know, it's on the internet.

Here

Attachment 40753

His giving out were of an infinite distance from his true-meant design.

The Real Mitt Romney? A conservative's view of Romney's 47% line.

Quote:

By tagging 47 percent of America as irresponsible, Obama-supporting government dependents, Romney showed again that his politics are grounded in false liberal premises.

Romney's statement at a closed-door fundraiser reflected the mistaken liberal view that the growth of government mostly redistributes wealth downward -- it doesn't. He also implicitly bought into the Left's narrow view that both tax cuts and welfare programs mostly benefit the immediate recipients. Finally, Romney conflated tax cuts with government aid, reflecting the perverse mindset that all wealth originally belongs to the state.

Romney was correct that a portion of America backs President Obama because they "are dependent upon government" and "believe that they are entitled." We even know these dependents' names: Duke Energy CEO Jim Rogers, General Electric boss Jeff Immelt, Pfizer lobbying chief Sally Sussman, Solyndra investor George Kaiser and millionaire lobbyist Tony Podesta, to list a few.

In the last few years of bailouts, stimulus, Obamacare and government expansion in general, we have seen median income fall and corporate profits soar. Industries are consolidating as the big get bigger while the little guys shut down.

When government controls more money, those with the best lobbyists pocket most of it. The five largest banks hold a share of U.S. assets 30 percent larger today than in 2006. Also, as Obama has expanded export subsidies, 75 percent of the Export-Import Bank's loan-guarantee dollars in the past three years have subsidized Boeing sales.

Romney, however, wasn't talking about corporate welfare queens. He was talking about the 47 percent of the population that pays no federal income tax.

Think about Romney's perverse logic here: He disparaged people as "dependent" for not owing income taxes. Many of these people are retired and living off the life savings they earned. A family of four earning $40,000 could owe zero federal income tax even without tax credits.

Keeping your own money isn't being "dependent on government." Sure, Obama speaks as if it were, lambasting the GOP for "giving" tax cuts to the wrong people. But Republicans are supposed to distinguish between government giving you something and government leaving you alone.

But even if Romney were talking about recipients of actual government aid, he shouldn't assume, along with the Left, that they are willing wards of the state.

Many recipients of government aid don't like it. Even if they don't turn down free money, they don't like it being offered. The Tea Partier taking federal payments is like Warren Buffett calling for a tax hike -- call them hypocrites if you like, but also consider they that they might just hold a view of what's right that isn't directly tied to their short-term financial interests.

Also, the very government program "helping" Americans is often the one that creates their "need" in the first place. Farm subsidies can drive down crop prices, housing subsidies drive up home prices. Government makes it harder to get by on your own, and then offers to help you out -- and you're supposed to feel grateful?

If we "didn't build that," it might be because government wouldn't let us.

The safety net is supposed keep you from hitting rock bottom. As entitlements and handouts are expanded to the middle class and above, the net becomes more of a web, ensnaring those who would otherwise be self-sufficient.

Many conservatives understand this. As the editorial in Wednesday's Washington Examiner pointed out, vice presidential nominee Paul Ryan gets it. Through the growth of the welfare state, Ryan wrote in his 2010 Roadmap for America's Future, "government increasingly dictates how Americans live their lives; they are not only wards of the state, but also its subjects."

Rick Santorum also gets it. The January night he tied Romney in Iowa, Santorum spoke of the working class, warning that Obama "wants to make them dependent rather than valuing their work."

But Romney has never gotten it. That same night in Iowa, Romney inveighed against the "entitlement society." Just as many liberals think all people receiving government aid need it and can't make it on their own, Romney thinks they all have abdicated responsibility.

Finally, does Romney also believe tax cuts benefit only those whose taxes are being cut? Does he not really think lower tax rates help the whole economy? Does a rising tide no longer lift all boats? Or maybe Romney just thinks he can't convince people that it does.

The cause of economic liberty deserves a better apostle than Mitt Romney -- ideally one who actually believes it.

Both parties have participated in the over-spending by the gov't. No doubt about that. The Republicans have done it usually slower, but Bill Clinton did a fine job on this, when he was in office. Bush II did not limit spending, but he did have the extra problem of the 9/11 attack and the wars, to deal with.

We went to #2 in the world wide survey of "countries with free business practices", during the Clinton years. (Below only Hong Kong). Now we are ranked out of the top 15.

The truth is, socialism only works well, when you have a large source of income to "feed" it. Norway for instance, has a large oil field in the North Sea, that they have been drilling into, for years. Germany has a very smart set of export laws for their businesses, and a gov't that is required by the constitution, to be pro-business (they must provide jobs).

We have a President who refuses most efforts to increase our jobs:

* No keystone pipeline. Obama doesn't want Canadian oil. Let it go to China, instead. :mad: Good, high-paying jobs - who needs them?

* No frakking for oil, on federal lands. Thankfully, Obama can't stop it on private lands, but he's tried.

* Very limited drilling on federal lands, even after permits have been secured, environmental studies done and approved, etc.

* Coal (which we have a huge amount of), burning power plants are being run out of business - just as Obama promised he would before he was elected.

Clean burning coal is of no interest - here is where you run around your neighborhood flapping your arms like a kid - we'll use wind power, instead. Wind power. Solar power - because we know that the wind always blows more than 15 miles per hour, and the sun always shines. Yeah, right. :rolleyes:

If you want to dream, go socialist. It's an unmotivating dream, but it can work, until the money runs out. Even a huge number of religious monasteries have found a way to bring some major aspect of capitalism into their lives: they sell cheeses, wine, fine brandy, even transcribe documents into computer records! Without that injection of capitalism, they would have to close.

When your governments power increases, your freedoms decrease, and your take-home pay, it decreases too. Because government lives off of the money it takes from it's citizens. EVERY penny they spend, comes from the tax payers - absolutely.

I always laugh when I hear people (usually young people), bad-mouthing capitalism.

Just what do they think has kept this country strong for the last 200+ years?

Capitalism == Opportunity == People willing to take risks == more jobs, more products, more inventions,

Who invented the iPhone, the Personal Computer, the Radio, even the car in your driveway, etc.? It was CAPITALISM, (private companies), not the government.

Your statement is not factual. You need to re-read Romney's recorded statement, or listen to it more carefully.

Quote:

Mitt was talking about political estimates of his supporters, and estimates of Obama's supporters, for the upcoming Fall election.

He wasn't discussing economic, welfare, or monetary theories.

You're implying a great deal about his talk at the fundraiser last May, that simply was not included.

Listen to his talk again, keeping in mind the setting - a political fundraiser, and this was back in May. It's not a talk about theories. It's a talk about political realities that he expected to see, in the Fall.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adak (Post 831131)

Germany has a very smart set of export laws for their businesses, and a gov't that is required by the constitution, to be pro-business (they must provide jobs).

Are you touting Germany as socialist, or non-socialist here?

Because they are far more socialist than the US, and are heavily invested in solar and wind power - about 20% of their total generation.

Or are you saying that their capitalistic success lets them tax their "job creators" enough to fund their socialism?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adak (Post 831132)

Mitt was talking about political estimates of his supporters, and estimates of Obama's supporters, for the upcoming Fall election.
...
Listen to his talk again, keeping in mind the setting - a political fundraiser, and this was back in May. It's not a talk about theories. It's a talk about political realities that he expected to see, in the Fall.

Part of it was about political realities:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Romney's political realities

"There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, ...
And they will vote for this president no matter what…
[M]y job is not to worry about those people.

And part is about his political theories on why he can't get them:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Romney's theories

...who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it.
...
These are people who pay no income tax.

Neither the theories nor the "realities" are patricularly laudable, or accurate.

I expect that Romney's right that at least 47% won't vote for him, but it's not particularly correlated with the set of people who don't pay Federal income tax.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adak (Post 831132)

Your statement is not factual. You need to re-read Romney's recorded statement, or listen to it more carefully.

Mitt was talking about political estimates of his supporters, and estimates of Obama's supporters, for the upcoming Fall election.

He wasn't discussing economic, welfare, or monetary theories.

You're implying a great deal about his talk at the fundraiser last May, that simply was not included.

Listen to his talk again, keeping in mind the setting - a political fundraiser, and this was back in May. It's not a talk about theories. It's a talk about political realities that he expected to see, in the Fall.

You didn't mention whom this is directed to, but since you quoted my post, I'll assume it's me.

In case you didn't notice, those were not my statements. I had directly quoted and linked conservative editor Timothy Carney out of the Washington Examiner. Maybe you should talk to him about listening (and reading) more closely.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adak (Post 831063)

Here's an easy to understand idea, for students:

You work very hard, get a 3.8 point grade average. Your next door neighbor (also a student), hardly does much more than party, and gets a 1.8 grade point average.

You both graduate, but you aren't in the honor roll anymore. You wonder why the hell not, and then you see your GPA -- it's been lowered to a 2.8 GPA.

But that was only fair, because we needed to bring up your neighbor by a full 1.0, so he could have a 2.8 GPA, as well.

And that's socialism, in a nutshell. Isn't that fun?

Yes!!!!!!!!!

I love this example! I use it at bars when I'm trolling liberals (I troll to people's faces, not anonymously). Its a perfect example because it is an extremely flawed example, but its flaw isn't completely obvious, so its extremely amusing watching people try to figure it out when you are pressuring them to 'disprove' it.

Can anyone guess the flaw?!?

The very fact that Romney believes that ANY American is NOT entitled to not starve to death - the fact that he DOESN'T believe that we are all entitled to food, in one of the richest countries on the planet - is alone enough to damn him, in my view.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adak (Post 831132)

It's a talk about political realities that he expected to see, in the Fall.

No it isn't. There is so much wrong with what Romney said that it is difficult to even start. I don't have time or motivation to go into detail so here the basic points.

1) The income tax only accounts for 30% (I think...) of all government revenue. In fact, around 67% of this 47% do pay payroll tax. The people who are not are largely made up of the elderly, students, soldiers, and people making under 20 grand a year. While many of these people will vote democrat, the income tax has nothing to do with it.

2) The vast majority of this 47% lives in states that vote conservative. So that means some of these 47%ers are actually voting Republican or their votes don't actually mean much since their state is going Republican anyways.

3) Receiving benefits does not automatically equal dependency.

4) Only someone who makes decisions based on data points would ever believe that 47% of the US population is automatically against him. This was the year that Obama was supposed to lose. If you want a reason why people are supporting Obama, listen to the Republican primary debates. Republicans fell off the deep end a while ago and they are still falling.

Quote:

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45 (Post 831154)

Can anyone guess the flaw?!?

Would it be the curve math being off kilter? Or the concept of a graduating class of two students? Or the idea of a school that determines a student's final GPA by how well other students do?

Or is it something a bit less obvious?

It's that socialism would actually be adjusting the way the class is taught in such a way as to give the failing student a better chance at being able to learn the material and to pass.

President Obama is not a socialist. Never has been, except on Fox.

If you want to talk about the profit the Utah Olympics made, good luck backing it up with proof since Romney had all his records destroyed.

If you want to talk about what a great job he did as Governor, good luck backing that up with proof. He had those records sealed.

If you want to talk about how much he gives to charities, good luck backing that up with proof. He hasn't even released ONE full year of his tax records.

If you want to talk about his support of gay rights, there's plenty of proof on video from when he was Governor.

If you want to talk about his opposition to gay rights, including gay marriage (and yes, it IS a marriage - GOD never created that word. It was invented by humans. Gays are human and can use the word as well. Don't like it, tough shit!) There's plenty of proof on video since he officially started running for President.

If you want to talk about his support for Universal health care, there's plenty of proof on video from when he was governor.

If you want to talk about his opposition to universal health care, there's plenty of proof on video since he started running for President.

If you want to vote for Romney for President, that's your right.
And it is my right to believe, with all my heart, that you are a fucking moron.