Well, noone wants to talk about the sinking Republican ship and would rather attempt to deflect. And they (you) are doing a piss-poor job at it.
So, yes, yes, yes, and thanks.
- Thread starter superpunk
- Start date
Well, noone wants to talk about the sinking Republican ship and would rather attempt to deflect. And they (you) are doing a piss-poor job at it.
So, yes, yes, yes, and thanks.
The problem with what he said is that its completely fucking wrong, one-sided, and shows disdain for a huge percentage of working class individuals, along with our elderly and infirm citizens.
Grandma receives medicaire? She can go fuck herself.
Single mom is working and receiving WICC benefits so she can afford milk? Go fuck yourself.
Single Widower receives assistance so he can continue working and care for his orphaned kids? Go fuck yourself.
Enormous corporation receives huge government subsidies and tax breaks? Awesome, they are job creators, they deserve it.
Investor-class citizens pay taxes at a lower rate than working-class, saving millions in taxes? Good for them, they've earned it.
What kind of fucking shitty person - not even politician - what kind of shitty person, sits there and believes these things and, what's worse, has the audacity to vocalize that feeling?
peplaw06
2
- Messages
- 8,660
- Reaction score
- 0
Democrats say that? No wai!!
You continue to demonstrate the necessity to actually read what's written, then post.
You've got the posting part down. Slow down a little and read first.
peplaw06
2
- Messages
- 8,660
- Reaction score
- 0
Did Sean Penn tell you that's what he said?
- Messages
- 10,636
- Reaction score
- 0
White people are business owners. They deserve their tax breaks. Romney is white
Maury moms seem to be black. Obama is black. Perfect storm of hate
It's all about status quo.
Maury moms seem to be black. Obama is black. Perfect storm of hate
It's all about status quo.
peplaw06
2
- Messages
- 8,660
- Reaction score
- 0
So explain it.
Explain how 47% of our population, a huge portion of that which falls into the groups I described above, are fucking "entitled victims". People who are doing everything they can to get by, and it's still not enough to feed their families or pay their medical bills. Then explain how you feel it's right to vote for someone whose core value seems to be ensuring that these hardworking people have their "entitlements" which keep them at the poverty line are taken away while millionaires pay taxes at a lower rate than I do.
Please, have at it.
I'm all for getting people off the government teat.
I know people who leech the system. And it bums me out when I see 30% of my check gone every two weeks so that the dude who lives down the street from me can sit around and surf everyday. Or so my ex-sister in laws can collect unemployment/welfare/tuition assistance for YEARS and contribute absolutely nothing to society.
But stripping the programs isn't an answer because there are people who legitimately need it. And all that does is take the downtrodden and slam them down further.
I've never needed government assistance ever. But I know my dad did when he got divorced and had to try to take care of two little kids on a pathetic landscaping salary. I know single moms who need it to pay for food and daycare so they can still work and support their kids because their jobs pay shit and they're getting jack in child support.
So I just get fucking disgusted when I hear millionaires, who pay taxes on money they'll NEVER be able to spend at a ridiculously low rate, talk about these people who are barely getting by with government assistance like they are dog shit. Like they are pathetic sops looking for a handout.
There's a way to get them off that assistance, it's not by removing the net. You have to find a way to make sure that they get a bigger piece of the pie. Wealth disparity in this country is outrageous, and upward mobility is nonexistent for most people. That has to change.
I know people who leech the system. And it bums me out when I see 30% of my check gone every two weeks so that the dude who lives down the street from me can sit around and surf everyday. Or so my ex-sister in laws can collect unemployment/welfare/tuition assistance for YEARS and contribute absolutely nothing to society.
But stripping the programs isn't an answer because there are people who legitimately need it. And all that does is take the downtrodden and slam them down further.
I've never needed government assistance ever. But I know my dad did when he got divorced and had to try to take care of two little kids on a pathetic landscaping salary. I know single moms who need it to pay for food and daycare so they can still work and support their kids because their jobs pay shit and they're getting jack in child support.
So I just get fucking disgusted when I hear millionaires, who pay taxes on money they'll NEVER be able to spend at a ridiculously low rate, talk about these people who are barely getting by with government assistance like they are dog shit. Like they are pathetic sops looking for a handout.
There's a way to get them off that assistance, it's not by removing the net. You have to find a way to make sure that they get a bigger piece of the pie. Wealth disparity in this country is outrageous, and upward mobility is nonexistent for most people. That has to change.
The worst of Romney’s now-infamous comments about “the 47 percent” came in this couplet: “My job is not to worry about those people. I’ll never convince them that they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives.”
Put aside the tin-eared term “those people.” When he said this, Romney didn’t just write off half the country behind closed doors. He also confirmed the worst suspicions about who he is: an entitled rich guy with no understanding of how people who aren’t rich actually live.
The thing about not having much money is you have to take much more responsibility for your life. You can’t pay people to watch your kids or clean your house or fix your meals. You can’t necessarily afford a car or a washing machine or a home in a good school district. That’s what money buys you: goods and services that make your life easier, that give you time and space to focus on what you want to focus on.
That’s what money has bought Romney, too. He’s a guy who sold his dad’s stock to pay for college, who built an elevator to ensure easier access to his multiple cars and who was able to support his wife’s decision to be a stay-at-home mom. That’s great! That’s the dream.
The problem is living the dream has blinded him to other people’s reality. His comments evince no understanding of how difficult it is to focus on college when you’re also working full time, how much planning it takes to reliably commute to work without a car, how awful it is to choose between skipping a day on a job you can’t afford to lose and letting your sick child fend for herself. The working poor haven’t abdicated responsibility for their lives. They’re drowning in it.
In their book “Poor Economics,” the poverty researchers Abhijit Banerjee and Esther Duflo try to explain why the poor around the world so often make decisions that befuddle the rich.
Their answer, in part, is this: The poor use up an enormous amount of their mental energy just getting by. They’re not dumber or lazier or more interested in being dependent on the government. They’re just cognitively exhausted:
Our real advantage comes from the many things that we take as given. We live in houses where clean water gets piped in — we do not need to remember to add Chlorine to the water supply every morning. The sewage goes away on its own — we do not actually know how. We can (mostly) trust our doctors to do the best they can and can trust the public health system to figure out what we should and should not do. … And perhaps most important, most of us do not have to worry where our next meal will come from. In other words, we rarely need to draw upon our limited endowment of self-control and decisiveness, while the poor are constantly being required to do so.
Banerjee and Duflo’s argument has been increasingly confirmed by the nascent science of “decision fatigue.” Study after study shows that the more we need to worry about in a day, the harder we have to work to make good decisions.
As economist Jed Friedman wrote in as the World Bank’s development blog:
The repeated trade-offs confronting the poor in daily decision making — i.e. ‘should I purchase a bit more food or a bit more fertilizer?’ — occupy cognitive resources that would instead lay fallow for the wealthy when confronted with the same decision. The rich can afford both a bit more food and a bit more fertilizer, no decision is necessary.
The point here isn’t that Romney is unfamiliar with cutting-edge work in cognitive psychology. It’s that he misses even the intuitive message of this work, the part most of us know without reading any studies: It’s really, really hard to be poor. That’s because the poorer you are, the more personal responsibility you have to take.
Romney, apparently, thinks it’s folks like him who’ve really had it hard. “I have inherited nothing,” the son of a former auto executive and governor told the room of donors. “Everything Ann and I have, we earned the old-fashioned way.” This is a man blind to his own privilege.
Which is his right. But that sentiment informs his policy platform – which calls for sharply cutting social services for the poor to pay for huge tax cuts for the rich — and it suggests he’s trying to make policy with a worldview that’s completely backward.
As president, Romney’s job would be to worry about those people, and to help them. But first he needs to understand what they’re going through.
Put aside the tin-eared term “those people.” When he said this, Romney didn’t just write off half the country behind closed doors. He also confirmed the worst suspicions about who he is: an entitled rich guy with no understanding of how people who aren’t rich actually live.
The thing about not having much money is you have to take much more responsibility for your life. You can’t pay people to watch your kids or clean your house or fix your meals. You can’t necessarily afford a car or a washing machine or a home in a good school district. That’s what money buys you: goods and services that make your life easier, that give you time and space to focus on what you want to focus on.
That’s what money has bought Romney, too. He’s a guy who sold his dad’s stock to pay for college, who built an elevator to ensure easier access to his multiple cars and who was able to support his wife’s decision to be a stay-at-home mom. That’s great! That’s the dream.
The problem is living the dream has blinded him to other people’s reality. His comments evince no understanding of how difficult it is to focus on college when you’re also working full time, how much planning it takes to reliably commute to work without a car, how awful it is to choose between skipping a day on a job you can’t afford to lose and letting your sick child fend for herself. The working poor haven’t abdicated responsibility for their lives. They’re drowning in it.
In their book “Poor Economics,” the poverty researchers Abhijit Banerjee and Esther Duflo try to explain why the poor around the world so often make decisions that befuddle the rich.
Their answer, in part, is this: The poor use up an enormous amount of their mental energy just getting by. They’re not dumber or lazier or more interested in being dependent on the government. They’re just cognitively exhausted:
Our real advantage comes from the many things that we take as given. We live in houses where clean water gets piped in — we do not need to remember to add Chlorine to the water supply every morning. The sewage goes away on its own — we do not actually know how. We can (mostly) trust our doctors to do the best they can and can trust the public health system to figure out what we should and should not do. … And perhaps most important, most of us do not have to worry where our next meal will come from. In other words, we rarely need to draw upon our limited endowment of self-control and decisiveness, while the poor are constantly being required to do so.
Banerjee and Duflo’s argument has been increasingly confirmed by the nascent science of “decision fatigue.” Study after study shows that the more we need to worry about in a day, the harder we have to work to make good decisions.
As economist Jed Friedman wrote in as the World Bank’s development blog:
The repeated trade-offs confronting the poor in daily decision making — i.e. ‘should I purchase a bit more food or a bit more fertilizer?’ — occupy cognitive resources that would instead lay fallow for the wealthy when confronted with the same decision. The rich can afford both a bit more food and a bit more fertilizer, no decision is necessary.
The point here isn’t that Romney is unfamiliar with cutting-edge work in cognitive psychology. It’s that he misses even the intuitive message of this work, the part most of us know without reading any studies: It’s really, really hard to be poor. That’s because the poorer you are, the more personal responsibility you have to take.
Romney, apparently, thinks it’s folks like him who’ve really had it hard. “I have inherited nothing,” the son of a former auto executive and governor told the room of donors. “Everything Ann and I have, we earned the old-fashioned way.” This is a man blind to his own privilege.
Which is his right. But that sentiment informs his policy platform – which calls for sharply cutting social services for the poor to pay for huge tax cuts for the rich — and it suggests he’s trying to make policy with a worldview that’s completely backward.
As president, Romney’s job would be to worry about those people, and to help them. But first he needs to understand what they’re going through.
- Messages
- 2,189
- Reaction score
- 0
You're dad got divorced. Lol
lons
UDFA
- Messages
- 1,630
- Reaction score
- 100
So Romney saying what everyone is thinking is wrong. But Obama out right lying about a satirical video being the cause of the riots and attacks on embassies when his own Intel dept that he is still ignoring is saying, it was a planned attack and that the video had been up since July and the attacks were planned for much much longer than that is awesome?
The Democrats forced Bush to release a fucktard that should have been taken out back and shown a shallow grave to the Libyans and then last year Obama helps the Libyans out by helping the Brotherhood take over only to see the man that Bush had to release do to the Democrats forcing him to released from prison AND LEAD THE FUCKING CHARGE TO KILL OUR AMBASSADOR.
And Romney is in trouble?
Gallop poll came out today... 47 /47 Obama Romney http://www.gallup.com/home.aspx
Go on and cry about it won't ya?
The Democrats forced Bush to release a fucktard that should have been taken out back and shown a shallow grave to the Libyans and then last year Obama helps the Libyans out by helping the Brotherhood take over only to see the man that Bush had to release do to the Democrats forcing him to released from prison AND LEAD THE FUCKING CHARGE TO KILL OUR AMBASSADOR.
And Romney is in trouble?
Gallop poll came out today... 47 /47 Obama Romney http://www.gallup.com/home.aspx
Go on and cry about it won't ya?
Last edited:
peplaw06
2
- Messages
- 8,660
- Reaction score
- 0
I don't think anyone in the GOP has a realistic goal of stripping all the entitlement programs. Everyone knows there are those who legitimately need the assistance. There are definitely some who won't ever be able to get away from government assistance. But there are many who are like you said, "living off the government teat."
It's extremely hard to go backwards with anything government related. Once benefits are being given, people get accustomed to them, and taking them away is damn near impossible. But they can absolutely tighten things up to at least slow it down. And maybe you keep new cases off assistance who never should get on, and in the future the costs will end up going down.
ThoughtExperiment
Quality Starter
- Messages
- 9,906
- Reaction score
- 3
Why are you guys attempting to seriously discuss issues with SP... Seems like he's just trolling you. I think he's too smart to be as extreme as he seems here.