Skip to main content

FM
Former Member

Black voters boo Mitt Romney’s pledge to kill Obamacare during NAACP speech

 

  Jul 11, 2012 – 12:38 PM ET | Last Updated: Jul 11, 2012 4:04 PM ET -- Source


REUTERS/Richard Carson

REUTERS/Richard Carson

Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney speaks at the NAACP convention in Houston July 11, 2012.


HOUSTON — Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney made a major pitch to black voters Wednesday with a heavy emphasis on the economy, but he was booed when he promised to get rid of the Obama administration’s health care overhaul.

 

“I will kill every expensive and unnecessary program I can find, and that includes Obamacare,” Romney said, then waited and smiled through the crowd’s disapproval.

 

He faced another round of boos when he criticized President Barack Obama, who won 95% of the black vote in 2008 on the way to becoming the first African-American U.S. president and expects high support again in the November election.

 

Republicans and Democrats said Romney was making a statement just by speaking to the oldest U.S. civil rights group. His speech tried to show independent and swing voters that his campaign is inclusive.

 

“If equal opportunity in America were an accomplished fact, then a chronically bad economy would be equally bad for everyone,” Romney told the annual meeting of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. “Instead, it’s worse for African Americans in almost every way.”

 

The economy is the main issue in this year’s tight presidential race. And with the U.S. unemployment rate stuck at 8.2%, it is an area where Obama is especially vulnerable.

 

The unemployment rate among blacks is even higher at 14.4%. Romney argued he’s best suited to create more jobs. He also mentioned his plan to increase school choice — he’s called education the “civil rights issue of our era.”

 

“I want you to know that if I did not believe that my policies and my leadership would help families of colour — and families of any colour — more than the policies and leadership of President Obama, I would not be running for president,” Romney’s speech said.

 

“The first thing you need to do is show up, so I ultimately think he’s doing the right thing,” said Rep. Tim Scott of South Carolina, one of two black Republicans in Congress. “What he’s saying to everyone is that he’s [running to become] America’s president and not just those folks he thinks he can get votes from right now. I think that’s a very important statement.”

 

“You’ve got to get credit for showing up — for being willing to go — no question,” said Karen Finney, a Democratic consultant who worked in the Clinton White House. “It’s more about your actions than it is about what you say.”

 

Nicholas Kamm/AFP/Getty Images

 

People listen to US Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney address the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) annual convention in Houston on July 11, 2012. Romney brought his pro-jobs pitch to black voters Wednesday, aiming to poach defectors by arguing US President Barack Obama has left the economy "worse for African-Americans in almost every way."

 

Obama spoke to the NAACP convention during his 2008 campaign but doesn’t plan to speak this year. Instead, Vice-President Joe Biden will address the convention on Thursday.

 

In framing education as a civil rights issue, Romney was following in George W. Bush’s footsteps. At a sweeping address to the NAACP in 2000, Bush, then the Republican presidential nominee, said the education system should “leave no child behind” — and he labeled the “soft bigotry of low expectations” as part of the problem facing black students.

 

The likely 2012 Republican nominee has a personal history with civil rights issues. Romney’s father, George Romney, spoke out against segregation in the 1960s and as governor of Michigan toured his state’s inner cities as race riots wracked Detroit and other urban areas across the country. He went on to lead the Housing and Urban Development Department, where he pushed for housing reforms to help blacks.

 

Mitt Romney invoked that legacy Wednesday.

 

In recent months, Obama has approached race from an intensely personal perspective. After the shooting of unarmed black teenager Trayvon Martin by a neighbourhood watch volunteer in Florida — an act many blacks saw as racially motivated — Obama spoke directly to Martin’s parents from the Rose Garden. “If I had a son, he’d look like Trayvon,” Obama said.

 

But diminished enthusiasm for the president in the wake of the economic downturn could dampen black turnout. That could make the difference in Southern states Obama won in 2008, particularly North Carolina and Virginia.

 

Other factors could keep blacks away from voting booths. Romney’s address to the group came as Democrats and minority communities expressed concern over a series of tough voter identification laws in a handful of states. Critics say the laws could make it harder for blacks and Hispanics to vote.

 

“He’ll be standing in that room asking people for their votes at the same time that Republican legislators are trying to disenfranchise minority communities,” said Finney, the Democratic consultant.

 

Romney expressed support for such laws during a late April visit to Pennsylvania, which now has one of the toughest voter identification statutes in the nation. “We ought to have voter identification so we know who’s voting and we have a record of that,” Romney said then.

 

AP Photo/Evan Vucci

 

N. Scott Phillips of Baltimore, centre, and others, listen as Republican presidential candidate, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney speaks at the NAACP annual convention, Wednesday, July 11, 2012, in Houston, Texas.

———
Associated Press writer Kasie Hunt contributed to this report.

Replies sorted oldest to newest

Originally Posted by Demerara_Guy:

Black voters boo Mitt Romney’s pledge to kill Obamacare during NAACP speech

AP Photo/Evan Vucci

 

N. Scott Phillips of Baltimore, centre, and others, listen as Republican presidential candidate, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney speaks at the NAACP annual convention, Wednesday, July 11, 2012, in Houston, Texas.

———
Associated Press writer Kasie Hunt contributed to this report.

Romney's problem is in messaging.  He is a straight-shooter but sometimes it's also smart to manage the message.  He as speaking to the NAACP, reference to "Obamacare" is foolish, especially that it was modeled after "Romneycare".

 

Obama's is a failed presidency, rivaling that of Jimmy Carter, but he at least delivered Camp David.  The entire nation is in the doldrums, unemployment high, black unemployment even higher, personal and corporate bankruptcy abound, cities going broke, but this constituency will still vote for him.

 

Doesn't this remind us of our own dear homeland?

FM
Originally Posted by baseman:
Originally Posted by Demerara_Guy:

Black voters boo Mitt Romney’s pledge to kill Obamacare during NAACP speech

AP Photo/Evan Vucci

 

N. Scott Phillips of Baltimore, centre, and others, listen as Republican presidential candidate, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney speaks at the NAACP annual convention, Wednesday, July 11, 2012, in Houston, Texas.

———
Associated Press writer Kasie Hunt contributed to this report.

Romney's problem is in messaging.  He is a straight-shooter but sometimes it's also smart to manage the message.  He as speaking to the NAACP, reference to "Obamacare" is foolish, especially that it was modeled after "Romneycare".

 

Obama's is a failed presidency, rivaling that of Jimmy Carter, but he at least delivered Camp David.  The entire nation is in the doldrums, unemployment high, black unemployment even higher, personal and corporate bankruptcy abound, cities going broke, but this constituency will still vote for him.

 

Doesn't this remind us of our own dear homeland?

Nah ONLY Caribj.

Nehru
Originally Posted by baseman:

 . . . but this constituency will still vote for him.

ahmmm . . . so what about the Hispanics and the Jews? [90% of Jews who do not regularly attend shul voted for Obama]

 

Black man deh pun yuh brain 24/7, eh?

 

Stop polluting America with your [transplanted] battam house racism . . . we have enough problems already! 

FM
Originally Posted by baseman:
 

Obama's is a failed presidency, rivaling that of Jimmy Carter, but he at least delivered Camp David.  The entire nation is in the doldrums, unemployment high, black unemployment even higher, personal and corporate bankruptcy abound, cities going broke, but this constituency will still vote for him.

 

Doesn't this remind us of our own dear homeland?


BaseBoard there is help on the way. Phizer has research for medication that can cure this obsessive hatred nurtured from treatment at the hands of another race in your youth. I'm glad for you, and I will conjtinue to tolerate your vile diatribe against Obama, as I understand your clinical condition.

Kari
Originally Posted by Demerara_Guy:


AP Photo/Evan Vucci

 

N. Scott Phillips of Baltimore, centre, and others, listen as Republican presidential candidate, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney speaks at the NAACP annual convention, Wednesday, July 11, 2012, in Houston, Texas.

———
Associated Press writer Kasie Hunt contributed to this report.

Somebody pon the right not listenin' it looks as though he ketchin a lil snooze deh.

cain
Originally Posted by Demerara_Guy:

 

REUTERS/Richard Carson

REUTERS/Richard Carson

Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney speaks at the NAACP convention in Houston July 11, 2012.


Nicholas Kamm/AFP/Getty Images

 

 

———
 


The pictures speaketh a thousand words. The look on these two sistas faces is precious....or as the MasterCard commercial say...priceless.......

 

 

And Romney looks so uncomfortable

Kari
Originally Posted by Kari:
Originally Posted by baseman:
 

Obama's is a failed presidency, rivaling that of Jimmy Carter, but he at least delivered Camp David.  The entire nation is in the doldrums, unemployment high, black unemployment even higher, personal and corporate bankruptcy abound, cities going broke, but this constituency will still vote for him.

 

Doesn't this remind us of our own dear homeland?


BaseBoard there is help on the way. Phizer has research for medication that can cure this obsessive hatred nurtured from treatment at the hands of another race in your youth. I'm glad for you, and I will conjtinue to tolerate your vile diatribe against Obama, as I understand your clinical condition.

Looks like you drink Obama pee...or more.  Have fun.

 

I don't ask you "tolerate", nor do you need to respond.  I post not with you in mind.  Obama is a failure, even with a "not so appealing" adversary, the polls are 46/45 in favour of your boy.  But I think he will win.

FM
Originally Posted by Kari:
Originally Posted by Demerara_Guy:

 

REUTERS/Richard Carson

REUTERS/Richard Carson

Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney speaks at the NAACP convention in Houston July 11, 2012.


Nicholas Kamm/AFP/Getty Images

 

 

———
 


The pictures speaketh a thousand words. The look on these two sistas faces is precious....or as the MasterCard commercial say...priceless.......

 

 

And Romney looks so uncomfortable

They will vote Obama even if he have them in the bread line.  Soo, what's new?

FM
Originally Posted by Kari:
Originally Posted by Demerara_Guy:
REUTERS/Richard Carson

REUTERS/Richard Carson

Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney speaks at the NAACP convention in Houston July 11, 2012.


Nicholas Kamm/AFP/Getty Images

The pictures speaketh a thousand words. The look on these two sistas faces is precious....or as the MasterCard commercial say...priceless.......

 

And Romney looks so uncomfortable

"What I got into," is probably the view of Romney.

FM
 
 

Hea

 

 

Five House Democrats Wednesday bucked their party and voted with Republicans to repeal Obamacare.

The vote, 244 to 185 with no Republicans voting against a repeal, was mostly symbolic, given that House Republicans have orchestrated at least 30 prior votes to fully or partially kill or defund the president's health care law. All passing efforts have died in the Democratic-controlled Senate and Wednesday's legislation will befall the same fate. But the vote did offer politically-vulnerable members a new opportunity to take sides on the president's health care law.

Larry Kissell and Mike McIntyre, both of North Carolina, were the only two Democrats to publicly announce prior to Wednesday's vote their plans to side with the Republicans and back a repeal. Both congressmen face difficult re-election bids in districts that have become markedly more Republican following the latest round of redistricting.

Additionally, Oklahoma Rep. Dan Boren and Arkansas Rep. Mike Ross, both of whom voted to fully repeal the law in 2011, voted the same way Wednesday. Both Democrats are retiring, which frees them from worrying about the electoral ramifications of their decisions.

FM

Romney's NAACP's appearance is pro-forma. What he should get out of this is empathy from the white working class base who don't see him as true-cred evangelical conservative. He should say to them ...see they boo me.....these free-loaders who want to take from you whites and give to Blacks.

Kari

Each political party has its support regardless of the Presidential candidate but, as events are onfolding, Mitt Romney continues to make added blunders which would definitely hurt him in the November elections.

FM
Originally Posted by Ramakant-P:

Romney is nuts.  He wants to increase his numbers among black voters and this is what he came up with?. 

You really think so?  Romney knows he cannot move that needle after all, Hillary also failed.  Those boos have likely shifted some on-the-fence independents to Romney's camp.  It was a calculated move and the NAACP fell for it.

FM
Originally Posted by Kari:

Romney's NAACP's appearance is pro-forma. What he should get out of this is empathy from the white working class base who don't see him as true-cred evangelical conservative. He should say to them ...see they boo me.....these free-loaders who want to take from you whites and give to Blacks.

Red herring, most people, both black and whites know that non-blacks are a larger share of welfare/assistance recipients.

 

If Obamacare also addresses structural costs drivers, then it will be worth it, otherwise, it's just a Liberal ploy as someone has to pay.  What subsequent administration will do is cut back on things like EIC and other lower-income tax benefits as an offset.

FM
Originally Posted by baseman:
Originally Posted by Kari:

Romney's NAACP's appearance is pro-forma. What he should get out of this is empathy from the white working class base who don't see him as true-cred evangelical conservative. He should say to them ...see they boo me.....these free-loaders who want to take from you whites and give to Blacks.

Red herring, most people, both black and whites know that non-blacks are a larger share of welfare/assistance recipients.

 

If Obamacare also addresses structural costs drivers, then it will be worth it, otherwise, it's just a Liberal ploy as someone has to pay.  What subsequent administration will do is cut back on things like EIC and other lower-income tax benefits as an offset.

 You are just speaking through your racist lens. Whites consume the lions share of welfare.The larger percentage per their numbers doe not mean the consume the larger share. Maybe the Rev is your statistician.

 

But what of the exclusive lawyer of welfare in form of farm subsidies, tax benefits etc that only the rich whites access? The amounts here that are given away makes social welfare benefits look like  peanuts.

 

The water rights piped off to rich folks for their private orchards and exclusive golf courses are enough to make you wince  yet the poor and the disadvantaged alone gets tagged as leaches

FM
Last edited by Former Member
Originally Posted by Stormborn:
Originally Posted by baseman:
Originally Posted by Kari:

Romney's NAACP's appearance is pro-forma. What he should get out of this is empathy from the white working class base who don't see him as true-cred evangelical conservative. He should say to them ...see they boo me.....these free-loaders who want to take from you whites and give to Blacks.

Red herring, most people, both black and whites know that non-blacks are a larger share of welfare/assistance recipients.

 

If Obamacare also addresses structural costs drivers, then it will be worth it, otherwise, it's just a Liberal ploy as someone has to pay.  What subsequent administration will do is cut back on things like EIC and other lower-income tax benefits as an offset.

 You are just speaking through your racist lens. Whites consume the lions share of welfare.The larger percentage per their numbers doe not mean the consume the larger share. Maybe the Rev is your statistician.

 

But what of the exclusive lawyer of welfare in form of farm subsidies, tax benefits etc that only the rich whites access? The amounts here that are given away makes social welfare benefits look like  peanuts.

 

The water rights piped off to rich folks for their private orchards and exclusive golf courses are enough to make you wince  yet the poor and the disadvantaged alone gets tagged as leaches

That's what I said, larger share non-blacks [I was referring to dollars].

 

With regard to farm subsidies, etc, you have no idea of what you speak, so shut up and stick to welfare.  What are these "benefits" that [white] rich folk access?  What the hell are you talking about, you are throwing a three-million word tax code in a one-liner.

FM
Originally Posted by baseman:
Originally Posted by Stormborn:
Originally Posted by baseman:
Originally Posted by Kari:

Romney's NAACP's appearance is pro-forma. What he should get out of this is empathy from the white working class base who don't see him as true-cred evangelical conservative. He should say to them ...see they boo me.....these free-loaders who want to take from you whites and give to Blacks.

Red herring, most people, both black and whites know that non-blacks are a larger share of welfare/assistance recipients.

 

If Obamacare also addresses structural costs drivers, then it will be worth it, otherwise, it's just a Liberal ploy as someone has to pay.  What subsequent administration will do is cut back on things like EIC and other lower-income tax benefits as an offset.

 You are just speaking through your racist lens. Whites consume the lions share of welfare.The larger percentage per their numbers doe not mean the consume the larger share. Maybe the Rev is your statistician.

 

But what of the exclusive lawyer of welfare in form of farm subsidies, tax benefits etc that only the rich whites access? The amounts here that are given away makes social welfare benefits look like  peanuts.

 

The water rights piped off to rich folks for their private orchards and exclusive golf courses are enough to make you wince  yet the poor and the disadvantaged alone gets tagged as leaches

That's what I said, larger share non-blacks [I was referring to dollars].

 

With regard to farm subsidies, etc, you have no idea of what you speak, so shut up and stick to welfare.  What are these "benefits" that [white] rich folk access?  What the hell are you talking about, you are throwing a three-million word tax code in a one-liner.

 Why would I not know and  you do? And why are farm subsidies and tax breaks to the wealthy not a form of welfare?   The present much debated bush tax break is not a one liner. It is a reality,  a peek into the mouth of a gift horse.

 

The larger share of welfare does not go to minorities ( not black alone receive welfare). White poor get the lion's share. Don't let the larger number  of black recipients as a percent of  their population group gull you to believing a falsehood.

FM
Originally Posted by Stormborn:
Originally Posted by baseman:
Originally Posted by Stormborn:

 You are just speaking through your racist lens. Whites consume the lions share of welfare.The larger percentage per their numbers doe not mean the consume the larger share. Maybe the Rev is your statistician.

 

But what of the exclusive lawyer of welfare in form of farm subsidies, tax benefits etc that only the rich whites access? The amounts here that are given away makes social welfare benefits look like  peanuts.

 

The water rights piped off to rich folks for their private orchards and exclusive golf courses are enough to make you wince  yet the poor and the disadvantaged alone gets tagged as leaches

That's what I said, larger share non-blacks [I was referring to dollars].

 

With regard to farm subsidies, etc, you have no idea of what you speak, so shut up and stick to welfare.  What are these "benefits" that [white] rich folk access?  What the hell are you talking about, you are throwing a three-million word tax code in a one-liner.

 Why would I not know and  you do? And why are farm subsidies and tax breaks to the wealthy not a form of welfare?   The present much debated bush tax break is not a one liner. It is a reality,  a peek into the mouth of a gift horse.

 

The larger share of welfare does not go to minorities ( not black alone receive welfare). White poor get the lion's share. Don't let the larger number  of black recipients as a percent of  their population group gull you to believing a falsehood.

OK, let's make it easy, tell me the purpose and function of "farm subsidy"!!

FM

 

OK, let's make it easy, tell me the purpose and function of "farm subsidy"!!

Why should I go into the convoluted reasons that is lost in history? The fact remains that large farmers get a large cash infusion for doing nothing sometimes. Agricultural subsidies are a federal rip off. American farmers of sugar for example simply get paid to sell cheap. Soya, corn, cotton, rice needs no subsidies. These are essentially giveaways for nothing  the reasons are given for their existence  relics of a long dead era. Even in congress many are trying to get rid of them.

FM
Originally Posted by Stormborn:

 

OK, let's make it easy, tell me the purpose and function of "farm subsidy"!!

Why should I go into the convoluted reasons that is lost in history? The fact remains that large farmers get a large cash infusion for doing nothing sometimes. Agricultural subsidies are a federal rip off. American farmers of sugar for example simply get paid to sell cheap. Soya, corn, cotton, rice needs no subsidies. These are essentially giveaways for nothing  the reasons are given for their existence  relics of a long dead era. Even in congress many are trying to get rid of them.

Then I can conclude, you don't know what the hell you are talking about, don't understand economics 101 and bring no value to the subject matter. You spend 5%-10% of your income on food, the lowest in the world and don't get it.  Watch the light, it's the train, not a star.

FM
Originally Posted by baseman:
Originally Posted by Stormborn:

 

OK, let's make it easy, tell me the purpose and function of "farm subsidy"!!

Why should I go into the convoluted reasons that is lost in history? The fact remains that large farmers get a large cash infusion for doing nothing sometimes. Agricultural subsidies are a federal rip off. American farmers of sugar for example simply get paid to sell cheap. Soya, corn, cotton, rice needs no subsidies. These are essentially giveaways for nothing  the reasons are given for their existence  relics of a long dead era. Even in congress many are trying to get rid of them.

Then I can conclude, you don't know what the hell you are talking about, don't understand economics 101 and bring no value to the subject matter. You spend 5%-10% of your income on food, the lowest in the world and don't get it.  Watch the light, it's the train, not a star.

Dont tell me what  you think I do not know. Illustrate it with some sensible points of fact otherwise you are simply another loudmouthed buffoon.  I do not know what the hell does me spending whatever percentage of my income on food ( and you are quite wrong if you are speaking to me here) on average has to do with the fact farm subsidy is a welfare to the rich large farmers who get the lions share of the allocation and for reasons no longer relevant.

 

Further, nothing we said to date tests economic aptitude. It is facts about the world of payoff to rich people not being an odium while poor get the blame for the pittance the receive when they are  truly disadvantaged, dispossessed and oppressed.

FM
Originally Posted by Stormborn:
Originally Posted by baseman:

Then I can conclude, you don't know what the hell you are talking about, don't understand economics 101 and bring no value to the subject matter. You spend 5%-10% of your income on food, the lowest in the world and don't get it.  Watch the light, it's the train, not a star.

Dont tell me what  you think I do not know. Illustrate it with some sensible points of fact otherwise you are simply another loudmouthed buffoon.  I do not know what the hell does me spending whatever percentage of my income on food ( and you are quite wrong if you are speaking to me here) on average has to do with the fact farm subsidy is a welfare to the rich large farmers who get the lions share of the allocation and for reasons no longer relevant.

 

Further, nothing we said to date tests economic aptitude. It is facts about the world of payoff to rich people not being an odium while poor get the blame for the pittance the receive when they are  truly disadvantaged, dispossessed and oppressed.

You seem to know and write a lot of everything so you surly cannot connect the dots.  You don't know of what you speak to shut up and move on.  You talk out of turn and out of context.

FM

SBorn, I gotta agree with BaseBoard Chip here. He did say that non-whites are the larger welfare-recipient group.

 

His discussion of farm subsidies must be taken seriously. National interests at some time after WWII dictated that no country will depend on others for its food. That's just a strategic decision. That's why the Europeans devastated by Germany starving them into submission by cutting off import shipping lanes with U-boats went the farm subsidy route. The US had to do likewise to level the playing field. Farm subsidies are also used as a policy tool - to incubate certain technologies for instance. So let's stop the noise and look at the substance of each other's posting. Raise the level of our discourse fellahs.

Kari
Originally Posted by Kari:

SBorn, I gotta agree with BaseBoard Chip here. He did say that non-whites are the larger welfare-recipient group.

He actually said the opposite [at least initially]

FM
Originally Posted by TI:
I pay a higher tax rate than Rommey. Even the rich bastards collect welfare

Romney pays lower taxes due to "capital at risk".  Why don't you talk of how many lose their fortunes risking it on investments/commercial ventures which did not pan out.

 

If the man pays low taxes, it's a tax-code issue as long as he complied.

FM
Originally Posted by redux:
Originally Posted by baseman:

If the man [Romney] pays low taxes, it's a tax-code issue as long as he complied.

and this statement rebuts WHAT exactly ?

Connect the dots you clown.

FM
Originally Posted by baseman:
Originally Posted by TI:
I pay a higher tax rate than Rommey. Even the rich bastards collect welfare

Romney pays lower taxes due to "capital at risk".  Why don't you talk of how many lose their fortunes risking it on investments/commercial ventures which did not pan out.

 

If the man pays low taxes, it's a tax-code issue as long as he complied.


Tax codes created for rich bastards by rich politicians. Rich people make their money by moving money around not by risking it on shaky investments and commercial ventures. When investments fail, corporations file bankruptcy, the bank pays, and the rich bastards sail away smiling on their yachts.
FM
Originally Posted by baseman:
Originally Posted by redux:
Originally Posted by baseman:

If the man [Romney] pays low taxes, it's a tax-code issue as long as he complied.

and this statement rebuts WHAT exactly ?

Connect the dots you clown.

There are no dots to connect.

 

It's an empty statement designed to make you sound 'worldly' and 'knowing' . . . but it REBUTS Nothing!

FM
Originally Posted by Kari:

SBorn, I gotta agree with BaseBoard Chip here. He did say that non-whites are the larger welfare-recipient group.

 

His discussion of farm subsidies must be taken seriously. National interests at some time after WWII dictated that no country will depend on others for its food. That's just a strategic decision. That's why the Europeans devastated by Germany starving them into submission by cutting off import shipping lanes with U-boats went the farm subsidy route. The US had to do likewise to level the playing field. Farm subsidies are also used as a policy tool - to incubate certain technologies for instance. So let's stop the noise and look at the substance of each other's posting. Raise the level of our discourse fellahs.

 I happen be insufferably inundated by political and polity wonks. One of the specialist in this area was arguing extensively about this very issue after a bike ride and the distinct conclusion of this expert in the field was whites out number all minorities on the welfare line. A simply on line search will confirm that.

 

As for the farm subsidy;l agree with the group that the incentive angle to produce is long dead. This falls under the rubric of Corporate welfare or trickle down economics and is an unwarranted give away in my opinion. Note as a supporter of Obama you should should know he is against this kind of give away inclusive of the kind in the bush tax cuts that has provided no significant benefits to the economy. Trickle down economics. The rich always lament benefits to the poor and conveniently forgets the hand outs they receive,

FM
Originally Posted by baseman:
Originally Posted by TI:
I pay a higher tax rate than Rommey. Even the rich bastards collect welfare

Romney pays lower taxes due to "capital at risk".  Why don't you talk of how many lose their fortunes risking it on investments/commercial ventures which did not pan out.

 

If the man pays low taxes, it's a tax-code issue as long as he complied.

Black people and minorities collectively lost a their of their equity due to the greed of the corporate sector in their selling of air resulting in the housing collapse. The brokers walked away with 3 trillion in this shift of capital. Romney won even in bankrupting company. Capital risk for the rich is unfairly heaped on the backs of the poor.

 

Poor people pay more in taxes because rich politicians sell the lie that  tax break to the rich is an incentive to  growth. Look to the 25 million jobs lost in the Bush era for the lie to that.

FM
Originally Posted by Stormborn:
Originally Posted by baseman:
Originally Posted by TI:
I pay a higher tax rate than Rommey. Even the rich bastards collect welfare

Romney pays lower taxes due to "capital at risk".  Why don't you talk of how many lose their fortunes risking it on investments/commercial ventures which did not pan out.

 

If the man pays low taxes, it's a tax-code issue as long as he complied.

Black people and minorities collectively lost a their of their equity due to the greed of the corporate sector in their selling of air resulting in the housing collapse. The brokers walked away with 3 trillion in this shift of capital. Romney won even in bankrupting company. Capital risk for the rich is unfairly heaped on the backs of the poor.

 

Poor people pay more in taxes because rich politicians sell the lie that  tax break to the rich is an incentive to  growth. Look to the 25 million jobs lost in the Bush era for the lie to that.

Useless demagoguery and bullshit.  If you don't like the system, then go to Cuba or Zimbabwe as you hate (Indian) Guyana.

FM
Originally Posted by Stormborn:
Originally Posted by Kari:

SBorn, I gotta agree with BaseBoard Chip here. He did say that non-whites are the larger welfare-recipient group.

 

His discussion of farm subsidies must be taken seriously. National interests at some time after WWII dictated that no country will depend on others for its food. That's just a strategic decision. That's why the Europeans devastated by Germany starving them into submission by cutting off import shipping lanes with U-boats went the farm subsidy route. The US had to do likewise to level the playing field. Farm subsidies are also used as a policy tool - to incubate certain technologies for instance. So let's stop the noise and look at the substance of each other's posting. Raise the level of our discourse fellahs.

 I happen be insufferably inundated by political and polity wonks. One of the specialist in this area was arguing extensively about this very issue after a bike ride and the distinct conclusion of this expert in the field was whites out number all minorities on the welfare line. A simply on line search will confirm that.

 

As for the farm subsidy;l agree with the group that the incentive angle to produce is long dead. This falls under the rubric of Corporate welfare or trickle down economics and is an unwarranted give away in my opinion. Note as a supporter of Obama you should should know he is against this kind of give away inclusive of the kind in the bush tax cuts that has provided no significant benefits to the economy. Trickle down economics. The rich always lament benefits to the poor and conveniently forgets the hand outs they receive,

Useless garbage.

FM

Add Reply

×
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×
×