Michele Bachmann: Obama's Wealth 'Really The Issue' In 2012 Election

Originally posted by Annee


"That which is not earned has no value"

Right and you tried to argue that you do not necessarily remember your poor roots as someone who becomes rich. But you did not become rich so you cannot base it on that and pretend you proved something about those that did.

Maybe you originally meant something else??

Originally posted by desert

Wow, that ear problem sounded horrible. Did you ever get relief from it or just a diagnosis of its cause?

The body not releasing fluid was actually related to Thyroid. My body was strangling itself because of physical imbalance thing. Its kind of hard to explain.

Originally posted by Endorra

Originally posted by Annee


"That which is not earned has no value"

Right and you tried to argue that you do not necessarily remember your poor roots as someone who becomes rich.

That is not what I said.

As someone's life becomes better and better - - they become accustomed to it. It becomes their normal.

The past hardships are there, but they tend to dissipate into the background. They become past memories as you make new ones. (of course this doesn't apply to everyone).

Losing it all and going back to where you started - - - is the big wake up call.

Originally posted by desert
reply to post by OccamsRazor04

 

Occam, you must be a very nice person.

That same thought crossed my mind, too.

I will say this much. When one is born into wealth, it is much harder to understand what it means to not be in that socio-economic group. If one is born into wealth, then temporarily serving tuna on an ironing board is a quaint playfullness, rather than comprehending the reality of those that will always serve a meal thusly.

If one is born into a lower socio-economic level, then obtains great wealth, there will always be the reality of those memories of your former socio-economic status.

I would say the reality of those memories can drive you further from that socio-economic status. One reason is to "fit in" with your new peers. One is to use those of your former "class" to ensure your continued economic status and ensure you never fall back. Being born poor and becoming rich does not necessarily mean you relate to and work to help other poor people. Being born wealthy does not necessarily mean you can not relate to and can not help poor people. In the end, wealth has no bearing really.

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04
Being born wealthy does not necessarily mean you can not relate to and can not help poor people. In the end, wealth has no bearing really.

You're right. People are People. They're gonna be who they are - - money or no money.

The one thing I discovered about money is - - - it gives you more and better choices. You still have to do something with those choices.

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by Endorra

Originally posted by Annee


"That which is not earned has no value"

Right and you tried to argue that you do not necessarily remember your poor roots as someone who becomes rich.

That is not what I said.

As someone's life becomes better and better - - they become accustomed to it. It becomes their normal.

The past hardships are there, but they tend to dissipate into the background. They become past memories as you make new ones. (of course this doesn't apply to everyone).

Losing it all and going back to where you started - - - is the big wake up call.

It would really help if you would pay attention to what you are writing. I do not disagree with the above. That is not what was said though. Another poster said that when you go from poverty to prosperity you usually remember something from your time in poverty.

TO WHICH YOU REPLIED...."not necessarily" and you went on to explain that it did not hold true with you. But you did not go from poverty to prosperity. Your mom married a rich man while you were a kid. Big difference. That is why it did not work with you. It is a completely different thing than what you replied to.

Get it yet?

Originally posted by Endorra

It would really help if you would pay attention to what you are writing.

It would really help if you don't interpret posts.

Originally posted by Endorra

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by Endorra

Originally posted by Annee


"That which is not earned has no value"

Right and you tried to argue that you do not necessarily remember your poor roots as someone who becomes rich.

That is not what I said.

As someone's life becomes better and better - - they become accustomed to it. It becomes their normal.

The past hardships are there, but they tend to dissipate into the background. They become past memories as you make new ones. (of course this doesn't apply to everyone).

Losing it all and going back to where you started - - - is the big wake up call.

It would really help if you would pay attention to what you are writing. I do not disagree with the above. That is not what was said though. Another poster said that when you go from poverty to prosperity you usually remember something from your time in poverty.

TO WHICH YOU REPLIED...."not necessarily" and you went on to explain that it did not hold true with you. But you did not go from poverty to prosperity. Your mom married a rich man while you were a kid. Big difference. That is why it did not work with you. It is a completely different thing than what you replied to.

Get it yet?

I think the one who doesn't get it is you. I will be nice and say nothing else about your post.

Originally posted by Blackmarketeer
Obama wasn't born wealthy. He got through school on student loans and scholarships. He only paid off his student loans 4 years before being elected to the WH. That said, the focus isn't about "who has the most money", it's about who has the policies that help out the middle class and working poor, versus rewarding the wealthiest elites.

Obama has done rather well supporting the wealthiest elites.... I don't think the middle class has done so good under him this last four years do you?

While he was a senator his wife had a 300k per year job that she never went to, and the position disappeared after he was elected president....so the wealthiest elites have taken well care of him too...

It would be nice though if he would actually tell us what he plans on doing the next four years that will be different than these last four that is hard for anyone to suggest anything other than failure.

reply to post by Xtrozero


Also, under which President did it become legal to indefinitely detain US citizens on US soil? Who do you think is an easier target, the wealthy elite or the middle class? Interesting how so many people buy into the Democrats for the little guys rhetoric. Democrats are for those who want to suck off the system in an attempt to pander for votes, they don't actually care. Who do you think is paying for illegals to go to school in Cali paying the in state tuition rate? A rate that I as a US citizen could not get. How many votes do you think that won?

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by Endorra

It would really help if you would pay attention to what you are writing.

It would really help if you don't interpret posts.

It was your own words, sweety.

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by desert

If one is born into a lower socio-economic level, then obtains great wealth, there will always be the reality of those memories of your former socio-economic status.

Not necessarily. I was born into lower socio-economic level (trailer park in Compton). When I was a teen my mother married a millionaire. Having money to spend was like self-entitlement.

It is just one page back. This is really a stupid argument. You said what you said. It is still here for me to quote.

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04
I think the one who doesn't get it is you. I will be nice and say nothing else about your post.

Then why say this?
So you do not believe there is a difference between working your way from poverty to wealth
and having a rich stepdaddy for a little while?

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04

Originally posted by desert
reply to post by OccamsRazor04

 

Occam, you must be a very nice person.

That same thought crossed my mind, too.

I will say this much. When one is born into wealth, it is much harder to understand what it means to not be in that socio-economic group. If one is born into wealth, then temporarily serving tuna on an ironing board is a quaint playfullness, rather than comprehending the reality of those that will always serve a meal thusly.

If one is born into a lower socio-economic level, then obtains great wealth, there will always be the reality of those memories of your former socio-economic status.

I would say the reality of those memories can drive you further from that socio-economic status. One reason is to "fit in" with your new peers. One is to use those of your former "class" to ensure your continued economic status and ensure you never fall back. Being born poor and becoming rich does not necessarily mean you relate to and work to help other poor people. Being born wealthy does not necessarily mean you can not relate to and can not help poor people. In the end, wealth has no bearing really.

Don't you think there is a difference between someone who remembers what it is like to go to bed hungry or just mundane things like pump their own gas and people who have never sat down to a table without at least 5 forks?

reply to post by Endorra


Of course there is a difference. The difference can not tell you who will treat the poor better. There are those who despise those belonging to their former class. There are those who have empathy for those struggling with things they never struggled with. The fact there is a difference does not tell you who will treat those in need better. That comes down to the kind of person they are, not their background.

I do not consider myself a R or a D. Personally, if I needed help and there were no cameras watching and no one would ever find out, I'd rather run into Romney than Obama. All in all there are very few politicians I would want to run into, Romney would be way up on my list of all politicians, Obama not so much.

One thing that always struck me in the nuts about the obamas was how they have lived like a king and queen, rubbing elbows with hollywood elites and other elites, plenty of vacations with multi million dollar price tags, 8 course meals 4 times a day with "5 forks" (as a previous poster mentioned) nestled in 2 seperate silk napkins at the dinner table while their voting base counts their food stamps..

This speaks books about the total lack of character these people really have.. Also, zero class as far as human beings are concerned..

Originally posted by alienrealitywhile their voting base counts their food stamps..

Yes, because their voting base equals black people. And as every red-blooded white American knows, all blacks are on food stamps.

reply to post by Monger


The only one I see talking about race is you. Funny how that always plays out.

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04
I would say the reality of those memories can drive you further from that socio-economic status. One reason is to "fit in" with your new peers. One is to use those of your former "class" to ensure your continued economic status and ensure you never fall back. Being born poor and becoming rich does not necessarily mean you relate to and work to help other poor people. Being born wealthy does not necessarily mean you can not relate to and can not help poor people. In the end, wealth has no bearing really.

True, for the reasons you gave, that moving upward into a different socio-economic class does not necessarily mean you will act on behalf of the lower level. (And this, to use a culturally common theme, is one reason why it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of the needle , than for a person of wealth to gain Heaven.)

Being born with wealth in America, however, does mean that your daily life can be eased through monetary means, and, thus, make it harder to understand/relate to what others must do on a daily basis to live/survive. Both the problems each class encounters are different and the means to solve similar problems are different.

My parents, of Brokaw's Greatest Generation, grew up at a time when the wealthy of this country still maintained a sense of noblesse oblige (think FDR). Mitt Romney's father, George Romney, held to this spirit of noblesse oblige, in both his entrepreneurship and governing (public service).

Nowadays, there is no longer a sense of noblesse oblige. Rather, we have had decades to nurture the opposite. "I have mine. Too bad for you. You obviously do not possess the attributes I have to gain wealth."

America has always been a place, with its resources and freedoms, where wealth can be obtained. However, because there is no longer a sense of noblesse oblige, those who are wealthy (especially the uber wealthy as Mitt Romney) fall under suspicion of no longer caring about those less fortunate/giving back to the nation that allowed them to create wealth. Let alone pretending to be a common man.

I don't understand what Bachmann is getting at.

Is she implying that Romney can relate to middle class Americans better than Obama because Obama is currently wealthy?

Seriously, why bother? I don't think I have yet to hear or read 1 single comment by Bachmann that made sense. She may in fact be the simplest minded, ignorant person to ever hold a political office.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

reply to post by spinalremain


I tend to agree.

I think that she's got a futile job...like an apologetic, in a way. I think her comment was an effort to somehow excuse or justify the huge gap between Romney's socioeconomic class and that of the average voter...and there really isn't any valid way to make him seem as if he is in the trenches with the commoners, rubbing shoulders and shooting at the same targets. I think a lot of people suspect that it is the people he wants to vote for him instead of Obama which will later be his targets.

Even just looking at Romney's wealth vs Obama's wealth speaks volumes to me.

Romney's investments are secretive and primarily off-shore, in accounts too numerous to list under various umbrellas.
Obama's investments are US Treasury bonds.

Romney's got 6 houses...none of them seem to have mortgages...they are either paid off or were paid for without mortgage loans...he put the Utah 'cabin' up for sale in 2009 for a little over $5 million.
Obama's got one house which he is still paying for...purchase price a little over $1 million.

Romney's got a $100 million trust fund set aside for his sons.
Obama has a college savings account for each of his two girls, valued at around $200k each.

Romney's tax rate as revealed on his one public tax return is around 13%.
The Obama's tax rate is around 26%.


Romney doesn't seem to like comments or questions about his wealth and seems to feel it is better to keep his personal finances veiled and private...which IS his right.
Obama's more transparent and doesn't seem to feel he has anything to hide.


When I was looking into Presidential finances, past and present, I was somewhat surprised to learn how transparent the Clinton's had been and also that they are considerably more wealthy after his presidency due to book sales and speaking engagements, etc. Considering the questions raised about the Clinton's investments in the past, it makes me wonder why Romney isn't forthcoming with his information. His father set an example he is unwilling to follow.


Obama has some insight on the crippling consequences of going to school on student loans and has some ideas to make it better for everyone...when Romney was asked about college funding, he is quoted as saying something to the effect of 'Shop around. Find the best price.' Easy to say if you can foot the bill without a loan.

And now that Romney's visited the areas damaged by Hurricane Isaac, we have this report from Huffington Post

Romney and Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal (R) spent close to an hour meeting with first responders and local officials. Romney shook hands with National Guardsmen outside the U.S. Post Office and talked with a local resident, Jodie Chiarello, 42, who lost her home in Isaac's flooding.

Chiarello said she told Romney, "I lost everything" and that the presidential contender advised her on how to get assistance. "He said that he was going to do the best that he could for us," she said.

"He just told me to, um, there's assistance out there," Chiarello said of her conversation with Romney. "He said, go home and call 211." That's a public service number offered in many states.

Chiarello said she will likely seek some other shelter because her home was submerged in the flooding. She expressed frustration about the town's lack of flood protection.

I could dig up more similar type situation/comments that say, at least to me, that Romney is not within the reaches of personal empathy when it comes to what the average US citizen deals with or might have to deal with unexpectedly.

The simple fact of the matter is that he and his family don't have to worry about the same things most of the rest of us do...I'm not saying he doesn't have worries...I know no one has a perfect life of ease, no matter how rich or poor they are...it is part of the human condition. But his concerns are probably things none of us could ever relate to and by the same token, I don't think he could ever relate to a lot of the things we all deal with on a daily basis.