PDA

View Full Version : Elections Romney BOMBS at Iowa County Fair


banyon
08-11-2011, 07:07 PM
:facepalm:

tough to watch:

<iframe width="425" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/Ebz8_he7GB4" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
<iframe width="425" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/pYE9J-TiRUc" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Romney encounters support, heckling at Iowa State Fair
By Meghan Malloy | 08.11.11 | 2:33 pm | More from The Iowa Independent

0 Comments
Share
Print page

DES MOINES — Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney received a rather aggressive Iowa welcome Thursday during his Des Moines Register soapbox appearance at the Iowa State Fair. Hecklers shouted at Romney about “cut, cap and balance,” Social Security and Medicare, and tax rates to wealthy individuals and corporations.


Mitt Romney faced a rather aggressive welcome at the Iowa State Fair. (Photo: Meghan Malloy/The Iowa Independent)

Chants of “scrap the cap” and “raise taxes on corporations, not people,” filled the air, countered by the former Governor’s supporters, who chanted “Romney! Romney!”

The appearance started off peacefully enough, with Romney standing by well-used quotes heard in Iowa and elsewhere, specifically “if you want to create jobs, it helps to have had a job,” a reference to President Barack Obama’s career as a politician.

“Let’s send some citizens to Washington in addition to some politicians to Washington,” Romney said. “I didn’t inhale politics. I’m still a business guy. I’m still a private citizen.”

Romney has amassed great personal wealth into the millions during his time in the private sector, which includes leading Bain & Company and Bain Capital, and serving as chief executive of the organizing committee for the 2002 Olympics in Salt Lake City. The son of a self-made former Michigan governor, Romney holds law and masters of business degrees from Harvard.

Though Obama is “a fine fella,” Romney said, his policies on job creation and economic development failed, “and as a result, the American people are still suffering; and that’s why I’m predicting in this place, on this day, that in November 2012, Obama will not carry the state of Iowa.”

Things went south when it came to the question and answer portion.

Two men — Joe pillowbiteran, 71, of Des Moines and Daniel Simmons, 23, also of Des Moines — questioned Romney aggressively, demanding he answer their questions about Medicare and Social Security funding. Romney and many attendees spoke over each other repeatedly.

“You came here to listen to the people,” pillowbiteran, a registered Democrat and former Catholic priest, yelled at Romney, pointing his finger. “What are you going to do to strengthen social security, Medicare and Medicaid without hurting benefits?”

Romney pointed right and asked the man if he was done speaking. pillowbiteran replied, “Well, I’m waiting to see what you’re gonna say.”

Answered Romney, “If you don’t like my answers, you can vote for someone else.”

As well, Romney said he absolutely would not raise taxes on corporations following a question about tax rates and cuts for the wealthy, a statement which found great unfavor with several attendees.

Romney defended himself: “There was a time in this country when we didn’t celebrate rich people by attacking their success. Corporations are people, too, my friends.”

http://washingtonindependent.com/114798/romney-encounters-support-heckling-at-iowa-state-fair

BucEyedPea
08-11-2011, 07:12 PM
Saw it on Human Events. So he encountered a bunch of socialist leaning or leftist progressives and means he's bombed? * yawn*

Chiefspants
08-11-2011, 07:13 PM
Two men — Joe pillowbiteran, 71, of Des Moines and Daniel Simmons, 23



ROFL

evenfall
08-11-2011, 07:15 PM
Since when does some hecklers showing up equate to bombing?

banyon
08-11-2011, 07:15 PM
Saw it on Human Events. So he encountered a bunch of socialist leaning or leftist progressives and means he's bombed? * yawn*

I thought I was on fake ignore, what are you doing posting in my thread?

banyon
08-11-2011, 07:16 PM
Since when does some hecklers showing up equate to bombing?

Hecklers showing up does not equal bombing.

Handling hecklers like a stooge equals bombing.

Brock
08-11-2011, 07:17 PM
The pillowbiter filter is fucking dumb.

RINGLEADER
08-11-2011, 07:27 PM
It's a Kobayashi Maru: you can't give the benefits the left wants and remain fiscally solvent. You can't even tax your way out of it. You either change how the entitlements work or you reduce their value -- either thru cuts or the continued devaluation of the dollar.

If someone can show me another way I'd love to hear it.

banyon
08-11-2011, 07:29 PM
It's a Kobayashi Maru: you can't give the benefits the left wants and remain fiscally solvent. You can't even tax your way out of it. You either change how the entitlements work or you reduce their value -- either thru cuts or the continued devaluation of the dollar.

If someone can show me another way I'd love to hear it.

I disagree with your statement, but I like the Star Trek reference.

Certainly, there's no reason it can't be a combination of restructuring benefits and more revenue.

ChiefaRoo
08-11-2011, 08:24 PM
Banyon, Romney didn't bomb. He told them what he was going to do and if they disagree vote for Obama.

In addition the media is now reporting they were plants which equals FAIL.

banyon
08-11-2011, 08:31 PM
Banyon, Romney didn't bomb. He told them what he was going to do and if they disagree vote for Obama.

In addition the media is now reporting they were plants which equals FAIL.

"Corporations are people too"?

For a guy trying to shed an image as a plutocrat in cahoots with business?

Which media?

Chocolate Hog
08-11-2011, 08:33 PM
The pillowbiter filter is ****ing dumb.

This.

ChiefaRoo
08-11-2011, 08:44 PM
"Corporations are people too"?

For a guy trying to shed an image as a plutocrat in cahoots with business?

Which media?

Well they are. Are you so rigid in your ideology you can't see that?

Media? It's on Fox's website

banyon
08-11-2011, 08:52 PM
Well they are. Are you so rigid in your ideology you can't see that?

Media? It's on Fox's website

They're legal fictions created for taxation and court purposes. People are people.

If you think that's a great line, I sure hope he keeps using it, because I don't think most people will see it your way.

Where is the media report? I looked on Fox's site and didn't see it.

I found this story on the front page, but they don't mention your claim:

http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/2011/08/11/romney-confronts-hecklers-hard-iowa

ChiefaRoo
08-11-2011, 09:01 PM
They're legal fictions created for taxation and court purposes. People are people.

If you think that's a great line, I sure hope he keeps using it, because I don't think most people will see it your way.

Where is the media report? I looked on Fox's site and didn't see it.

I found this story on the front page, but they don't mention your claim:

http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/2011/08/11/romney-confronts-hecklers-hard-iowa

First of all that's a distorted and somewhat odd definition of corporations. But whatever floats your boat.

They're are about 14 million people out of work that wish they could get hired by a corporation. Not all corporations are huge multiple-national entities. In fact, most people who own and work for the majority of corporations are our neighbors and friends.

go bowe
08-11-2011, 09:03 PM
i don't know if he bombed, considering that we only saw a few minutes of it...

but he sure handled those hecklers poorly...

no sharp wit, no self-deprecating humor, i mean jeebus, the guy is definitely no john kennedy...

banyon
08-11-2011, 09:06 PM
First of all that's a distorted and somewhat odd definition of corporations. But whatever floats your boat.

They're are about 14 million people out of work that wish they could get hired by a corporation. Not all corporations are huge multiple-national entities. In fact, most people who own and work for the majority of corporations are our neighbors and friends.

Most of those 14 million had their jobs already outsourced by corporations who are sitting on huge cash balance sheets and have no plans of doing them any favors to bring those jobs back.

And no, I wasn't referring to "S" Corps or LLC's, so they aren't the main driver.

What happened to your Fox news article claim?

HonestChieffan
08-11-2011, 09:18 PM
14 million jobs have been outsourced? Zounds, we had like 95% employment just a few years ago. Lots of contractor/carpenter types around here are out of work cause building is in the shitter. Did they get outsourced?

ChiefaRoo
08-11-2011, 09:32 PM
Most of those 14 million had their jobs already outsourced by corporations who are sitting on huge cash balance sheets and have no plans of doing them any favors to bring those jobs back.

And no, I wasn't referring to "S" Corps or LLC's, so they aren't the main driver.

What happened to your Fox news article claim?

Dude call them plants, lefties azzholes or Whatever you want but don't pretend they just happened to show up and decided to make a scene. Either way it's irrelevant.

Private sector corporations will hire when a number of unknowns and obstacles are removed so that they can then form a plan to expand their business by putting their capital at risk, which will then require more employees to be hired. Dont get it twisted corporations are in business to make money and that requires good people to be hired. You seem to think every company of size that builds or produces a product or service outsorces their work, they don't. What needs to be changed is the marriage of crony regulations and government. You see GE is paid to redesign their products (in some cases producing lesser quality goods) because the Govt wants to save electricity in the name of environmentalism. Then they put out a crappier washing machine or microwave or lightbulb while creating a marketplace that limits choice to the consumer. Then at the same time the Govt gives GE a Big giant Tax credit and what do you know, presto they don't pay taxes and we have to buy a lesser quality washing machine built by a Mexican or Chinese guy who can't read the blueprint right but who works for $10 a day. That's what you should be pissed about not the manufacturer who has laid off 1/4 of his workforce and is marshalling capital to weather an uncertain economy.

ROYC75
08-11-2011, 10:19 PM
Bombed?

Hardly, the planted firecrackers by the left was nothing but show. Obama camp already said they had to kill Romney, the assault has started by the Obama camp.

go bowe
08-11-2011, 10:33 PM
Bombed?

Hardly, the planted firecrackers by the left was nothing but show. Obama camp already said they had to kill Romney, the assault has started by the Obama camp.

leftist plants in the crowd?

do you have a link for that?

ChiTown
08-11-2011, 10:37 PM
leftist plants in the crowd?

do you have a link for that?

Do you really need a link? I mean, do you need a link to confirm the Sun will rise in the East and set in the West?

ROYC75
08-11-2011, 10:50 PM
leftist plants in the crowd?

do you have a link for that?

DES MOINES, IA - Hours before the first Iowa presidential debate of the 2012 cycle, a handful of Social Security activists heckled GOP presidential front-runner Mitt Romney during a Des Moines Register-sponsored event at the state fair.

About 10 people from the liberal grass-roots organization Iowa Citizens for Community Improvement bombarded the presidential candidate with accusations that he supported "scrapping Social Security."

"Wall Street greed," one woman shouted while another protester from New Jersey continued to interrupt Romney's answers on whether he planned to tax corporations to strengthen Social Security.

"If you want to speak you can speak, but right now it is my turn," Romney said forcefully to one of the hecklers who was red in the face with anger.

"I will give you my answer. If you don't like my answer you can vote for someone else. And here is my answer: I'm not going to raise taxes, that's my answer! If you want someone to raise taxes vote for Barack Obama," Romney chided.

The former Massachusetts governor and 2008 contender fielded about four questions from the protesters, and kept reiterating that he would "not raise the American people's taxes."

One of the activists then yelled: "Tax corporations!"

"Corporations are people, my friend," Romney replied.

He then presented the question to the crowd of a couple hundred who had gathered to hear him speak.

"This group wants to raise taxes. How do you feel?"

Many in the audience replied, in unison, by booing.

http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/

Taco John
08-11-2011, 11:11 PM
Ron Paul would have knocked that question out of the park.

Taco John
08-11-2011, 11:13 PM
By the way, you'd have to be a fool to believe that Mitt Romney wouldn't raise taxes. Hear me now and believe me later: a vote for Mitt is a vote for a compromise deal that raises taxes.

Taco John
08-11-2011, 11:16 PM
One thing is for sure - it's going to be quite spirited out there. Between the Tea Partiers, and the Red Dog Republicans looking to protect their handouts, it's going to be a tough run for guys without any answers.

KILLER_CLOWN
08-11-2011, 11:28 PM
Romney defended himself: “There was a time in this country when we didn’t celebrate rich people by attacking their success. Corporations are people, too, my friends.”

No they are not, mittsy.

ROYC75
08-11-2011, 11:28 PM
Ron Paul would have knocked that question out of the park.

He might have, but IMHO, he was horrible tonight in the debate. Paul's libertarian ways are not going to win him the nomination. I like his views on the Fed's but I really fear his FP.

Taco John
08-11-2011, 11:48 PM
He might have, but IMHO, he was horrible tonight in the debate. Paul's libertarian ways are not going to win him the nomination. I like his views on the Fed's but I really fear his FP.


I thought he was awesome, especially on Iran.

go bowe
08-12-2011, 12:07 AM
DES MOINES, IA - Hours before the first Iowa presidential debate of the 2012 cycle, a handful of Social Security activists heckled GOP presidential front-runner Mitt Romney during a Des Moines Register-sponsored event at the state fair.

About 10 people from the liberal grass-roots organization Iowa Citizens for Community Improvement bombarded the presidential candidate with accusations that he supported "scrapping Social Security."

"Wall Street greed," one woman shouted while another protester from New Jersey continued to interrupt Romney's answers on whether he planned to tax corporations to strengthen Social Security.

"If you want to speak you can speak, but right now it is my turn," Romney said forcefully to one of the hecklers who was red in the face with anger.

"I will give you my answer. If you don't like my answer you can vote for someone else. And here is my answer: I'm not going to raise taxes, that's my answer! If you want someone to raise taxes vote for Barack Obama," Romney chided.

The former Massachusetts governor and 2008 contender fielded about four questions from the protesters, and kept reiterating that he would "not raise the American people's taxes."

One of the activists then yelled: "Tax corporations!"

"Corporations are people, my friend," Romney replied.

He then presented the question to the crowd of a couple hundred who had gathered to hear him speak.

"This group wants to raise taxes. How do you feel?"

Many in the audience replied, in unison, by booing.

http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/

thanks for the link, that's interesting...

seems like it would backfire, but nobody's accused the dems of being politically astute lately...

Chocolate Hog
08-12-2011, 12:12 AM
I thought Ron's answer on Iran was pretty bad he left alot on the table. He could have mentioned how Israel would take them out before we get a chance or something.

go bowe
08-12-2011, 12:18 AM
I thought he was awesome, especially on Iran.

so what did he say about iran?

alpha_omega
08-12-2011, 09:29 AM
Expect more heckling as the campaign progresses.

ROYC75
08-12-2011, 09:49 AM
so what did he say about iran?

Basically, leave them alone, don't worry about them, it's not our problem. Other countries around them have nuclear missiles. Blah blah blah......

ROYC75
08-12-2011, 09:51 AM
Expect more heckling as the campaign progresses.

Obama camp has already said they will kill Romney ( politically speaking ) . The attacks have already started and as you say, will continue. It's fair game, the R's are attacking Obama ........

alpha_omega
08-12-2011, 09:55 AM
...The attacks have already started and as you say, will continue. It's fair game, the R's are attacking Obama ........

Attacking and heckling are two totally different things.

MOhillbilly
08-12-2011, 10:09 AM
i for one am ready for some old time skull splittin politics in this country.

Brock
08-12-2011, 10:13 AM
Bombed?

Hardly, the planted firecrackers by the left was nothing but show. Obama camp already said they had to kill Romney, the assault has started by the Obama camp.

This guy looks like a boob.

BucEyedPea
08-12-2011, 10:35 AM
By the way, you'd have to be a fool to believe that Mitt Romney wouldn't raise taxes. Hear me now and believe me later: a vote for Mitt is a vote for a compromise deal that raises taxes.

What he did in Massachusettes was call them "user fees". Kinda like Bill Clinton calling taxes "contributions."

BucEyedPea
08-12-2011, 10:37 AM
He might have, but IMHO, he was horrible tonight in the debate. Paul's libertarian ways are not going to win him the nomination. I like his views on the Fed's but I really fear his FP.

I love his FP. It's anti-imperialist and America First.

BucEyedPea
08-12-2011, 10:38 AM
I thought he was awesome, especially on Iran.

I wish I hadn't fallen asleep during it. I had to watch the repeat version later in the evening. I missed him.

LOCOChief
08-12-2011, 11:20 AM
Most of those 14 million had their jobs already outsourced by corporations who are sitting on huge cash balance sheets and have no plans of doing them any favors to bring those jobs back.

And no, I wasn't referring to "S" Corps or LLC's, so they aren't the main driver.

What happened to your Fox news article claim?

Your guy going around on a bus tour asking unemployed Americans how to create jobs.

What he should be doing is directing the question to CEO's so they can tell him how his ideology and overreaching regulation / intrusion has hand strapped companies trying to do business in the US.

Do you know why he doesn't do this?

vailpass
08-12-2011, 11:23 AM
i for one am ready for some old time skull splittin politics in this country.

Fuckin' A.

Brock
08-12-2011, 11:27 AM
Your guy going around on a bus tour asking unemployed Americans how to create jobs.

What he should be doing is directing the question to CEO's so they can tell him how his ideology and overreaching regulation / intrusion has hand strapped companies trying to do business in the US.

Do you know why he doesn't do this?

"Mr. CEO - Please tell me what I can do to help you to pay Americans third world wages so you don't ship those jobs to the third world. Thanks."

Dicky McElephant
08-12-2011, 11:30 AM
Fuck....I hate people.

MOhillbilly
08-12-2011, 11:35 AM
****....I hate people..

<iframe width="425" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/RLgI-qbrWVo" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

LOCOChief
08-12-2011, 11:37 AM
"Mr. CEO - Please tell me what I can do to help you to pay Americans third world wages so you don't ship those jobs to the third world. Thanks."


Call your thugs with the epa off. Take Dodd- Frank and stick it up your ass.

Reform the tax code. There's no doubt that accountablity measures could be taken with respect to American corporations to make them more US friendly, but just blanket hatred for corporations is retarded.

MOhillbilly
08-12-2011, 11:42 AM
HOW BOUT GIVIN THE WORKIN MAN SOME COMMON GROUND?

BucEyedPea
08-12-2011, 12:00 PM
Call your thugs with the epa off. Take Dodd- Frank and stick it up your ass.

Reform the tax code. There's no doubt that accountablity measures could be taken with respect to American corporations to make them more US friendly, but just blanket hatred for corporations is retarded.

I bolded that part because that's the problem with the hate-fest on corporations. The word is used as a generality for all of them. They are not intrinsically bad by virtue of being a corporation, but there are certain ones, the ones connected to govt power such as GE and the banking cartel, that are getting privileges that do not stem from the market or entirely from the market but from govt connections. This includes special deals inside other countries, loans to some countries who they know can't pay it back and then having us grant them debt forgiveness ( Where's our debt forgiveness?) They also love to regulate their competition out-of-business and progressives fall for such regulations as serving the public good. Of course, I am not talking about a modicum of rational and straightforward regs that can serve the public good. I might add that many anti-trust cases are brought by their competition from other corps. These are the types of corporate activities that need to stop but not all corporations are connected to powerful enough positions to play these games. This is what I mean when I refer to the "mercantilists."

LOCOChief
08-12-2011, 12:03 PM
HOW BOUT GIVIN THE WORKIN MAN SOME COMMON GROUND?


Yeah, that has to happen. I'm not defending any corporation and I do think comp at the top is exorbitant with too many of them.

I deal with regulation in business everyday and very little of it makes any sense or accomplish's anything productive, it just creates jobs for paper pushers. That regulation is becoming more cumbersome and rigid all the time and this needs to change.

Brock
08-12-2011, 12:07 PM
Call your thugs with the epa off. Take Dodd- Frank and stick it up your ass.

Reform the tax code. There's no doubt that accountablity measures could be taken with respect to American corporations to make them more US friendly, but just blanket hatred for corporations is retarded.

I get it. You think corporations don't have enough sway in Washington. LMAO

LOCOChief
08-12-2011, 12:10 PM
I bolded that part because that's the problem with the hate-fest on corporations. The word is used as a generality for all of them. They are not intrinsically bad by virtue of being a corporation, but there are certain ones, the ones connected to govt power such as GE and the banking cartel, that are getting privileges that do not stem from the market or entirely from the market but from govt connections. This includes special deals inside other countries, loans to some countries who they know can't pay it back and then having us grant them debt forgiveness ( Where's our debt forgiveness?) They also love to regulate their competition out-of-business and progressives fall for such regulations as serving the public good. Of course, I am not talking about a modicum of rational and straightforward regs that can serve the public good. I might add that many anti-trust cases are brought by their competition from other corps. These are the types of corporate activities that need to stop but not all corporations are connected to powerful enough positions to play these games. This is what I mean when I refer to the "mercantilists."

Yep and the part I bolded is exactly what I fear the most, these are their dogs in the hunt.

What's really crazy is when this tactic is used against those that didn't take TARP.

LOCOChief
08-12-2011, 12:12 PM
I get it. You think corporations don't have enough sway in Washington. LMAO

You get nothing.
Lobbyists should be outlawed.

Just how the hell did you get that out of what I sazid anyway?

patteeu
08-12-2011, 03:50 PM
"Corporations are people too"?

They're legal fictions created for taxation and court purposes.

That's basically what Romney was saying. Corporations are legal fictions and when you tax them, you're really taxing the people who invest in them, work for them, and purchase their products. He probably should have said "Corporations are made up of people" rather than "Corporations are people" to be more clear.

KCTitus
08-12-2011, 09:32 PM
Im no Romney fan...heck, he signed govt healthcare before Obama did...not exactly something I agree with.

So, Im glad those lefties rattled him a little bit. He was rattled by the questions and didnt answer them and the 'corporations are people' line was misstated because of that.

Taxing corporations does nothing but increase prices on the consumer of those corporations because those taxes are passed along like every other expense and when it gets too high, they move offshore.

Want more revenue, lower rates and encourage business investment and reward risk...I dont understand why this simple concept seems to elude the left.

ROYC75
08-12-2011, 10:28 PM
Im no Romney fan...heck, he signed govt healthcare before Obama did...not exactly something I agree with.

So, Im glad those lefties rattled him a little bit. He was rattled by the questions and didnt answer them and the 'corporations are people' line was misstated because of that.

Taxing corporations does nothing but increase prices on the consumer of those corporations because those taxes are passed along like every other expense and when it gets too high, they move offshore.

Want more revenue, lower rates and encourage business investment and reward risk...I dont understand why this simple concept seems to elude the left.

Greg, It's the same old thing,the left has always been a tax and spend party. They have always been big on entitlements. As long as they continue to provide for the poor (which is OK to a degree) and the lazy ( of which is not), they will always have the people eating out of their hands.

Dropping corporate taxes dramatically will bring the jobs back, reduce the cost of products and increase revenue to the government.

You are correct, they just don't get it.

|Zach|
08-12-2011, 10:30 PM
He didn't really misstate...

He is doubling down on this corps are people thing.

Guru
08-12-2011, 10:38 PM
I don't see anything wrong with how Romney handled that at all. He answered their questions. They don't have to like the answer.

KCTitus
08-12-2011, 10:48 PM
He didn't really misstate...

He is doubling down on this corps are people thing.

Ok...sack skin, I dont give...

Jaric
08-12-2011, 10:50 PM
This country is doomed.

KCTitus
08-12-2011, 11:06 PM
This country is doomed.

Well...in fairness, we have one more shot in 2012.

Jaric
08-12-2011, 11:12 PM
Well...in fairness, we have one more shot in 2012.
http://beargoggleson.com/files/2011/07/EndIsNear1.jpg

KCTitus
08-12-2011, 11:13 PM
http://beargoggleson.com/files/2011/07/EndIsNear1.jpg

Awww...Im no end of the worlder, but that doesnt mean Im not preparing. I dont see anything about the existing federal government that is serious about actually cutting spending and balancing the budget. Do you?

patteeu
08-13-2011, 06:50 AM
He didn't really misstate...

He is doubling down on this corps are people thing.

No, he didn't really misstate anything. What he said was true. IMO, he could have said it in a way that was less prone to being misconstrued though.

BigChiefFan
08-13-2011, 02:21 PM
Greg, It's the same old thing,the left has always been a tax and spend party. They have always been big on entitlements. As long as they continue to provide for the poor (which is OK to a degree) and the lazy ( of which is not), they will always have the people eating out of their hands.

Dropping corporate taxes dramatically will bring the jobs back, reduce the cost of products and increase revenue to the government.

You are correct, they just don't get it.

Sounds good on paper, but it's inaccurate. In the past 30 years, Government spending increased more under Reagan and the Bush's than anytime in history, prior to the current incompetent boob running us into the ground.

The Rs that have been in the office of POTUS have been NEO-CONs and those wars aren't cheap.
Reagan increased the debt ceiling SEVENTEEN TIMES under his command. THEY ALL sweep the problem under the rug. The quicker you party worshippers realize that, the sooner we can get back to basics. As it stands now, it's just a big con game, milking people out of their hard-earned money and the Republicans are just a big of a mistake as the Democrats. It's Barnum(R's) and Bailey(D's) and you all are the suckers in which Barnum speaks of, in his famous quote.

banyon
08-14-2011, 10:23 AM
No, he didn't really misstate anything. What he said was true. IMO, he could have said it in a way that was less prone to being misconstrued though.

It seemed to play really well with the Iowa voters too.

You guys were right, Romney rocked Iowa! What was I thinking? LMAO

patteeu
08-14-2011, 12:42 PM
It seemed to play really well with the Iowa voters too.

You guys were right, Romney rocked Iowa! What was I thinking? LMAO

I understand why you and the Iowa Fairgoers misunderstood it, but it's still the truth.

banyon
08-14-2011, 12:43 PM
I understand why you and the Iowa Fairgoers misunderstood it, but it's still the truth.

I hope he makes it his campaign slogan and puts it on posters and bumper stickers.

BWillie
08-14-2011, 09:11 PM
Ha. I just listened to the top clip but Christ....I have a new found respect for Mitt Romney. That dude is awesome. How anybody thinks he bombed that discussion is beyond me. I like the part where he points out that alot of our population don't even pay any income tax. And he's right. One of my GF's relatives has 6 kids, she's 24, married an illegal immigrant who is always in jail and doesn't work. She makes like 13K a year and leeches off of her parents to no end. She got like 8K back last year. 8 grand. For what? Having more kids she can't take care of.

banyon
08-14-2011, 09:14 PM
Your guy going around on a bus tour asking unemployed Americans how to create jobs.

What he should be doing is directing the question to CEO's so they can tell him how his ideology and overreaching regulation / intrusion has hand strapped companies trying to do business in the US.

Do you know why he doesn't do this?

He's not my guy. I've already stated if the election were held today, he would not have my vote.

I would guess he isn't doing what you suggested because there's no evidence to support it.

Jaric
08-15-2011, 09:29 AM
Awww...Im no end of the worlder, but that doesnt mean Im not preparing. I dont see anything about the existing federal government that is serious about actually cutting spending and balancing the budget. Do you?

Negative Ghostrider.

Fish
08-15-2011, 12:58 PM
No, he didn't really misstate anything. What he said was true. IMO, he could have said it in a way that was less prone to being misconstrued though.

Have you ever watched The Corporation?

I'd be interested in your thoughts.

http://www.thecorporation.com/index.cfm?page_id=312

LOCOChief
08-15-2011, 02:41 PM
He's not my guy. I've already stated if the election were held today, he would not have my vote.

I would guess he isn't doing what you suggested because there's no evidence to support it.

No evidence to support that CEO's hire people or have people working for them?

patteeu
08-15-2011, 03:40 PM
Have you ever watched The Corporation?

I'd be interested in your thoughts.

http://www.thecorporation.com/index.cfm?page_id=312

I haven't. I just added it to my Netflix queue though so I'll check it out at some point.

Romney wasn't talking about the corporation as a person though. He was talking about the fact that real people make up a corporation and a tax hike on a corporation is ultimately a tax hike on shareholders (which includes pensioners and middle class 401k-holders as well as fat cats), employees, and/or customers, not a tax hike exclusively on a faceless, non-human entity or a greedy CEO.

orange
08-15-2011, 05:17 PM
... speaking his mind again.

<iframe width="640" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/Ds7-1Nemrng" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>


KEYES: What did you make of Mitt Romney’s statement that “corporations are people” yesterday?

PAUL: Obviously they’re not. People are individuals, they’re not groups and they’re not companies. Individuals have rights, they’re not collective. You can’t duck that. So individuals should be responsible for corporations, but they shouldn’t be a new creature, so to speak. Rights and obligations should be always back to the individual.

patteeu
08-15-2011, 05:48 PM
... speaking his mind again.

KEYES: What did you make of Mitt Romney’s statement that “corporations are people” yesterday?

PAUL: Obviously they’re not. People are individuals, they’re not groups and they’re not companies. Individuals have rights, they’re not collective. You can’t duck that. So individuals should be responsible for corporations, but they shouldn’t be a new creature, so to speak. Rights and obligations should be always back to the individual.

Obviously he either doesn't know what Romney was talking about or he's trying to mislead people like he did with that fabricated Ronald Reagan quote.

banyon
08-15-2011, 08:48 PM
No evidence to support that CEO's hire people or have people working for them?

Er no. No evidence to support that "how his ideology and overreaching regulation / intrusion has hand strapped companies trying to do business in the US."

banyon
08-15-2011, 08:49 PM
Have you ever watched The Corporation?

I'd be interested in your thoughts.

http://www.thecorporation.com/index.cfm?page_id=312

That's an excellent introduction to the topic. Second the recommendation.

Fish
08-16-2011, 01:44 PM
I haven't. I just added it to my Netflix queue though so I'll check it out at some point.

Romney wasn't talking about the corporation as a person though. He was talking about the fact that real people make up a corporation and a tax hike on a corporation is ultimately a tax hike on shareholders (which includes pensioners and middle class 401k-holders as well as fat cats), employees, and/or customers, not a tax hike exclusively on a faceless, non-human entity or a greedy CEO.

I guess I don't understand. Yes people make up a corp. But those corps are created solely because they provide all sorts of ways for those people in a corp to shield themselves from the actions of the larger corp entity, which is treated like an individual instead of a group of it's members. The corp exists to eliminate individual accountability for it's members. That's the big problem. And history has shown time and time again that if a corp gets in trouble in some way, such as failure or illegal activity, the members walk away with little ill effect and the faceless corp itself takes the brunt. It gives individual corp members defense from the actions of the corp itself. And I don't think that's right. Some of the ways corps get around taxes and regulations are pretty shocking.

The documentary above shows exactly how Romney is wrong in what he said, and how corps are indeed treated as an individual instead of it's members. And it shows how things that effect the corp entity rarely ever effect its members to anywhere near the same degree of accountability.

patteeu
08-16-2011, 02:24 PM
I guess I don't understand. Yes people make up a corp. But those corps are created solely because they provide all sorts of ways for those people in a corp to shield themselves from the actions of the larger corp entity, which is treated like an individual instead of a group of it's members. The corp exists to eliminate individual accountability for it's members. That's the big problem. And history has shown time and time again that if a corp gets in trouble in some way, such as failure or illegal activity, the members walk away with little ill effect and the faceless corp itself takes the brunt. It gives individual corp members defense from the actions of the corp itself. And I don't think that's right. Some of the ways corps get around taxes and regulations are pretty shocking.

The documentary above shows exactly how Romney is wrong in what he said, and how corps are indeed treated as an individual instead of it's members. And it shows how things that effect the corp entity rarely ever effect its members to anywhere near the same degree of accountability.

You've convinced me on one point. I agree with your first sentence. :p

None of that really has much to do with Romney's point. His point was that people pay every cent of corporate taxes because the corporation passes them on to shareholders (in the form of lower dividends and lower cap gains), to customers (in the form of higher prices), and to employees (in the form of smaller paychecks). Not to be confused with pass-through taxation, this tax cost is just passed on as any other cost would be passed on.

He didn't say about whether or not corporations are treated as legal persons. Of course they are, but he wasn't talking about that at all.

Fish
08-16-2011, 03:29 PM
You've convinced me on one point. I agree with your first sentence. :p

None of that really has much to do with Romney's point. His point was that people pay every cent of corporate taxes because the corporation passes them on to shareholders (in the form of lower dividends and lower cap gains), to customers (in the form of higher prices), and to employees (in the form of smaller paychecks). Not to be confused with pass-through taxation, this tax cost is just passed on as any other cost would be passed on.

He didn't say about whether or not corporations are treated as legal persons. Of course they are, but he wasn't talking about that at all.

OK. So you're saying that Romney is saying anything we do to corps will just be internally offset by said corps in the form of lower dividends/higher prices/smaller paychecks, so it wouldn't make any net difference...?

That thought just makes me dislike corporations even more....

patteeu
08-16-2011, 03:44 PM
OK. So you're saying that Romney is saying anything we do to corps will just be internally offset by said corps in the form of lower dividends/higher prices/smaller paychecks, so it wouldn't make any net difference...?

That thought just makes me dislike corporations even more....

What I think he's saying is that if you want to raise taxes on corporations in order to avoid taxing individuals (or in order to stick it to fat cat CEOs), you're fooling yourself because corporate taxes ultimately fall on individuals too and most of those individuals are regular middle class folks.

Why does that make you dislike corporations?

Fish
08-16-2011, 04:04 PM
What I think he's saying is that if you want to raise taxes on corporations in order to avoid taxing individuals (or in order to stick it to fat cat CEOs), you're fooling yourself because corporate taxes ultimately fall on individuals too and most of those individuals are regular middle class folks.

Why does that make you dislike corporations?

Because the root purpose for their existence is greed.

NaptownChief
08-16-2011, 04:11 PM
That thought just makes me dislike corporations even more....


Don't let the Democrats nonsense fool you. Corporations aren't this big mean evil being they want you to believe. Corporations are nothing more than the collection of a bunch of little individuals working together. Liberals hate the fact that there is usually 5 to 10 executives at the top making seven figure annual paychecks but regardless when you stick it to these "big evil corporations" 99% of the blow is being served to a bunch of little people who's employment happens to be with that company and a bunch of little people who buy their goods and services.

Liberals despise those few highly paid executives so bad that they wouldn't hesitate in crushing 10,000 common folks out of their job if it allowed them to take down the handful at the top. That is just how they roll despite claiming they are for the "little guy".

ChiTown
08-16-2011, 04:14 PM
Because the root purpose for their existence is greed.

:deevee:

Dear God, what have we come to in this World? People actually want to make money and be successful when they start corporations...........

banyon
08-16-2011, 04:18 PM
Liberals despise those few highly paid executives so bad that they wouldn't hesitate in crushing 10,000 common folks out of their job if it allowed them to take down the handful at the top. That is just how they roll despite claiming they are for the "little guy".

I think what people despise most is that there seem to be two sets of rules, one for multinational corporations and one for the average citizen. Don't do your job well and you're john q. public? You're fired. Maybe you even do your job well, take a pay cut or we'll outsource your job. Don't do your job well and you're an executive of a Fortune 500 company? Lose half of your shareholder's value? Get the same giant bonus. Throw some lavish parties for yourself. Buy another jet. Pay some more lobbyists to get your taxes below the already historically low rate.

Fish
08-16-2011, 04:23 PM
Don't let the Democrats nonsense fool you. Corporations aren't this big mean evil being they want you to believe. Corporations are nothing more than the collection of a bunch of little individuals working together. Liberals hate the fact that there is usually 5 to 10 executives at the top making seven figure annual paychecks but regardless when you stick it to these "big evil corporations" 99% of the blow is being served to a bunch of little people who's employment happens to be with that company and a bunch of little people who buy their goods and services.

Liberals despise those few highly paid executives so bad that they wouldn't hesitate in crushing 10,000 common folks out of their job if it allowed them to take down the handful at the top. That is just how they roll despite claiming they are for the "little guy".

Yeah... these corporations aren't evil at all... but if we tax them, they'll just fire all the lower class folks who work for them, raise product prices, and keep the profits.

Cause they're just a collection of a bunch of little individuals working together...

That makes perfect sense.

NaptownChief
08-16-2011, 04:24 PM
Because the root purpose for their existence is greed.


Fish we need to get you away from those pot smokers wearing birkenstocks.

The root purpose for their existence is "success". Being successful keeps everyone employed...being successful means they can grow and hire more people. Being successful allows them to provide better benefits. Being successful means grandma and grandpa gets their $400 quarterly dividend check.

It is this mentality of success must equal "greed" is why Democrats can't create jobs. They hate success unless they are the only one having it. When you can't stand seeing businesses do well then you create policies that try and prevent them from doing well. And when you do that everyone suffers. Helping businesses succeed helps poor people get jobs and keeps people with jobs from becoming poor people.

Giving away government $'s to poor people just pushes the problem to next month when they stand around with their hand out needing it all over again. Giving help to businesses to be successful allows those poor people to get jobs and solves their problems long term.

NaptownChief
08-16-2011, 04:32 PM
Yeah... these corporations aren't evil at all... but if we tax them, they'll just fire all the lower class folks who work for them, raise product prices, and keep the profits.




The executive has a job...They are hired by the shareholders. The share holder gives them the job of making a profit. If they don't then they get fired for not doing their job just like the janitor does if the bathrooms aren't clean.

I suppose if you can find people willing to invest in the company and not ever expect a profit then these big meanies wouldn't have to have it in their job description "lead company to profitability".

I'm not wealthy by any stretch but of the companies that I am invested in, if the executives aren't making profitability a high priority then I wouldn't invest in that company to begin with nor would anyone else. This is just the most basic principle of business and life. Democrats just try and twist it into something to scare those with little investment and business knowledge for their own political manipulation.

Fish
08-16-2011, 04:42 PM
Fish we need to get you away from those pot smokers wearing birkenstocks.

The root purpose for their existence is "success". Being successful keeps everyone employed...being successful means they can grow and hire more people. Being successful allows them to provide better benefits. Being successful means grandma and grandpa gets their $400 quarterly dividend check.

It is this mentality of success must equal "greed" is why Democrats can't create jobs. They hate success unless they are the only one having it. When you can't stand seeing businesses do well then you create policies that try and prevent them from doing well. And when you do that everyone suffers. Helping businesses succeed helps poor people get jobs and keeps people with jobs from becoming poor people.

Giving away government $'s to poor people just pushes the problem to next month when they stand around with their hand out needing it all over again. Giving help to businesses to be successful allows those poor people to get jobs and solves their problems long term.

LOL... I'm no hippie. But I do tend to be compassionate enough to care for others in situations like this.

I have no problem with people being successful. I don't actually hate rich folks. Success doesn't have to equal greed. But in corps it almost always does. Corporations don't care about taking care of all of their individual components. They're ruthless and emotionless for the sake of an extra few percentages at the top, even if it means lopping of a bit at the bottom.

And countless giant corporations have reported record profits over the last few years. But I haven't seen any of these jobs generated that you speak of, despite those record profits. Unemployment has risen quite a bit despite record profits from most supercorps. How do you explain something like that?

And I don't want to take the money and give it to poor people, I want to take it and pay off the government's debt and get this country back to a sustainable level. Welfare abusers need reeled in at the same time. I despise welfare junkies just as much as corporations.

Cave Johnson
08-16-2011, 04:42 PM
The executive has a job...They are hired by the shareholders. The share holder gives them the job of making a profit. If they don't then they get fired for not doing their job just like the janitor does if the bathrooms aren't clean.

Other than the fact the janitor doesn't have the ability to negotiate (from a handpicked board) a lucrative severance package, totally the same situation.

patteeu
08-16-2011, 04:55 PM
Because the root purpose for their existence is greed.

That's the root purpose of getting a job too. I don't see anything wrong with it.

patteeu
08-16-2011, 05:00 PM
LOL... I'm no hippie. But I do tend to be compassionate enough to care for others in situations like this.

I have no problem with people being successful. I don't actually hate rich folks. Success doesn't have to equal greed. But in corps it almost always does. Corporations don't care about taking care of all of their individual components. They're ruthless and emotionless for the sake of an extra few percentages at the top, even if it means lopping of a bit at the bottom.

And countless giant corporations have reported record profits over the last few years. But I haven't seen any of these jobs generated that you speak of, despite those record profits. Unemployment has risen quite a bit despite record profits from most supercorps. How do you explain something like that?

And I don't want to take the money and give it to poor people, I want to take it and pay off the government's debt and get this country back to a sustainable level. Welfare abusers need reeled in at the same time. I despise welfare junkies just as much as corporations.

You're just talking about the impersonal nature of bureaucracy, which is just human nature and a fact of life for any large organization. That's true of corporations, but it is also true of government and it would be true of large partnerships or sole proprietorships too.

banyon
08-16-2011, 05:00 PM
That's the root purpose of getting a job too. I don't see anything wrong with it.

Greed is excess. It is a vice. Beyond moderate desire to provide for yourself.

You think getting a job is excess?

patteeu
08-16-2011, 05:02 PM
Greed is excess. It is a vice. Beyond moderate desire to provide for yourself.

You think getting a job is excess?

It's all relative. If picking lettuce in the fields like a migrant worker is enough to provide for yourself, getting a cushy job as a starbucks barrista is greedy.

banyon
08-16-2011, 05:06 PM
It's all relative. If picking lettuce in the fields like a migrant worker is enough to provide for yourself, getting a cushy job as a starbucks barrista is greedy.

I'm not much on moral relativism. I think the lines can be drawn a little more distinctly than that.

I don't mean to pull a BEP on you, but maybe you could do with a refresher on your Aristotle in the Nicomachean Ethics.

Fish
08-16-2011, 05:27 PM
That's the root purpose of getting a job too. I don't see anything wrong with it.

Me getting a job doesn't cost 100 other people to lose theirs, as can often be the case with corporate greed.

Again, if these giant corporations are the American way and good for everybody involved, why are we seeing unemployment continue to rise in the face of record profits from large corps? Why has the small business model all but disappeared as corporations continue to expand?

The documentary above has some great examples of the harsh negative consequences of the rise of corporations.

patteeu
08-16-2011, 08:56 PM
I'm not much on moral relativism. I think the lines can be drawn a little more distinctly than that.

I don't mean to pull a BEP on you, but maybe you could do with a refresher on your Aristotle in the Nicomachean Ethics.

I'm not much on moral relativism either and I don't think that has much to do with this.

I'm trying to make sense of Fish's comment about greed being the root purpose of corporations. As much as it would be nice to have one, I don't think there's a handy bright line rule about when wanting to improve your wealth situation crosses over from acceptable to excessive greed. And if there is anything close to such a line, it certainly isn't the decision to incorporate. It's a preposterous concept just like the idea that the root purpose of seeking a job is greed.

patteeu
08-16-2011, 09:00 PM
Me getting a job doesn't cost 100 other people to lose theirs, as can often be the case with corporate greed.

Again, if these giant corporations are the American way and good for everybody involved, why are we seeing unemployment continue to rise in the face of record profits from large corps? Why has the small business model all but disappeared as corporations continue to expand?

The documentary above has some great examples of the harsh negative consequences of the rise of corporations.

If you and others like you didn't maintain computer systems, just think of how many more people we'd need to employ to manage all the paperwork and the manual filing systems. Somewhere along the line, the job you do did cost some number of other people to lose theirs. Boo hoo.

The small business model hasn't all but disappeared, There are dozens of small businesses in my community and I'm sure there are lots in your area too.

wazu
08-16-2011, 10:36 PM
Gotta say, just now seeing this video and I think Romney killed it. Didn't back down, let them go ahead with their ambush and then fired back with firm answers.

For all of the crap Romney takes, he's one of the few guys who can articulate fiscal conservatism without apologizing for it.