Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Why is Romney still running?

page: 3
6
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 18 2012 @ 11:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Frankenchrist
He himself said 47% will vote for Obama no matter what.


The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

Source?

[ETA to clarify]

I've seen the quote. What's unclear to me is whether he meant 47% of voters, or 47% of those who have no tax liability. Sorry.




As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.
edit on 9/18/2012 by yeahright because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 18 2012 @ 11:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by whyamIhere
Have you ever been hired by a poor person?


Have you been laid off and outsourced by a poor person?



posted on Sep, 18 2012 @ 11:52 AM
link   
That's a double false negative.
Welfare recipients have no incentive to start their own business.
Since they don't have a business, there is no outsourcing.
(BTW, they outsource jobs by purchasing Chinese made vs. American made)


Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by whyamIhere
Have you ever been hired by a poor person?


Have you been laid off and outsourced by a poor person?



posted on Sep, 18 2012 @ 11:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nite_wing
Because we need him.
Simple enough?


Ah you must be one of the 5-10% he spoke of cause 47% of the rest of us are Victims...

We (the 99% ) need Willard "The Arrogant Rat" Romney how? Only the super Rich need him...the Republicans chose wrong!
edit on 18-9-2012 by abeverage because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 18 2012 @ 11:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by whyamIhere
Have you ever been hired by a poor person?


Have you been laid off and outsourced by a poor person?


Since I have always owned my own company's...

Your answer is No



posted on Sep, 18 2012 @ 11:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by dakota1s2
reply to post by Chrisfishenstein
 


Romney took none of his father's estate. He started on his own. Education not with standing, his built his fortune by himself.


Well you kind of missing out on that little pesky education thing. He did well in school, I'm sure, but having access to financial backing was surely a big plus. Just remember what his wife said about how they got by. While my friends in school would deliver pizzas at night to make ends meet, and I was working as a tutor and an assistant till I was ready to drop dead, Romney would "sell a little stock". Huh? I mean, huh?

Having access to education is not a small thing. I was lucky to graduate from a top school on a fellowship (while working my way through it). My wife's loan was moderate (again, scholarship) and we managed to pay it off relatively quickly. In the end, we are blessed to have the education we have. Romney had a much easier time with that than 99% people.

And look, in his little speech he complained that 47% believe that they are entitled to healthcare. It follows without much debate that he's equally resentful to people who want access to education.

So you can't convince me, because I look at the facts -- and Romney is all about perpetuating privilege.



posted on Sep, 18 2012 @ 12:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by RELDDIR
That's a double false negative.
Welfare recipients have no incentive to start their own business.


I personally don't have friends who are currently on welfare. However, I've known a few who had
received some kind of assistance in the past. Some of them ended up starting businesses
(eventually) while others advanced by getting better education and better jobs.



posted on Sep, 18 2012 @ 12:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by dakota1s2
reply to post by Chrisfishenstein
 


Romney took none of his father's estate. He started on his own. Education not with standing, his built his fortune by himself.


Well you kind of missing out on that little pesky education thing. He did well in school, I'm sure, but having access to financial backing was surely a big plus. Just remember what his wife said about how they got by. While my friends in school would deliver pizzas at night to make ends meet, and I was working as a tutor and an assistant till I was ready to drop dead, Romney would "sell a little stock". Huh? I mean, huh?

And you couldn't(buy and sell stocks) because?




Having access to education is not a small thing. I was lucky to graduate from a top school on a fellowship (while working my way through it). My wife's loan was moderate (again, scholarship) and we managed to pay it off relatively quickly. In the end, we are blessed to have the education we have. Romney had a much easier time with that than 99% people.

And look, in his little speech he complained that 47% believe that they are entitled to healthcare. It follows
"it follows" a.k.a pure speculation: not a "Fact"

without much debate that he's equally resentful to people who want access to education.

So you can't convince me, because I look at the facts -- and Romney is all about perpetuating privilege.
edit on 18-9-2012 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)
edit on 18-9-2012 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 18 2012 @ 12:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by 46ACE

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by dakota1s2
reply to post by Chrisfishenstein
 


Romney took none of his father's estate. He started on his own. Education not with standing, his built his fortune by himself.


Well you kind of missing out on that little pesky education thing. He did well in school, I'm sure, but having access to financial backing was surely a big plus. Just remember what his wife said about how they got by. While my friends in school would deliver pizzas at night to make ends meet, and I was working as a tutor and an assistant till I was ready to drop dead, Romney would "sell a little stock". Huh? I mean, huh?

And you couldn't(buy and sell stocks) because?



Because I'm not so lucky to have a rich dad, duh.


“'We were happy, studying hard. Neither one of us had a job, because Mitt had enough of an investment from stock that we could sell off a little at a time. The stock came from Mitt’s father."



posted on Sep, 18 2012 @ 01:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by RELDDIR
(BTW, they outsource jobs by purchasing Chinese made vs. American made)


No...basic outsourcing is when a company contracts another (individual or company) to perform a job for them that is necessary to their business but which they either don't know how to do, or don't do well, or can't do as cost-efficiently as someone specializing in that job.

IT departments are often outsourced.
Even something like the housekeeping/cleaning of an office suite or building...accounting.

Or maybe someone who sells electric motors has them wound by another company and packaged for shipping by still another...

What Romney is accused of would be more accurately called 'production offshore outsourcing.'
That's when you close up a factory here in the US and move the whole operation to another country because operational costs are much less and workers' wages are not as high even as minimum wage here in the US.

Production off-shoring is the reason China has made 'special economic zones' which are also 'free trade zones' such as Shenzhen, China.


Shenzhen was singled out to be the first of the five Special Economic Zones (SEZ). It was formally established in 1979 due to its proximity to Hong Kong. The SEZ was created to be an experimental ground for the practice of market capitalism within a community guided by the ideals of "socialism with Chinese characteristics".


Market capitalism powered by citizens of a communist state in a socialist setting (i.e. 'worker state')

The undeniable cost savings for any manufacturing enterprise in that setting, where workers start out at something like US$126 a month wages...currency converted to Yuan for no charge...etc., coupled with all the offshore tax benefits...without having to pay any taxes to China, either...has been one of the biggest contributors to the unemployed population formerly hired in the manufacturing sector of the US economy...that, and automation...but I bet machines cost more to operate and maintain than $126 a month.


Buying import is neither one of those things...buying import means you bought something that said MADE IN CHINA rather than MADE IN THE USA.
Now...if you bought it at Wal-Mart, there is a more than probable chance that it was manufactured in Shenzhen by Chinese workers.

Shenzhen Government Online

There is nothing wrong with buying imports from a country if they are a better source economically for a given product than the US can feasibly offer, and the people who make the product are treated humanely and paid fairly. Especially if other countries like some stuff we can make at a better price and better quality than they can...that's called TRADE.

But it is not helping our economy to move jobs out of the country because the corporation can profit more and pay less taxes, etc. than they would if they continued to manufacture in the US...something like plastic swimming pools, for example...there is no reason to not make stuff like that here in the US so we can buy it...I would probably rather buy imported chocolate than imported PVC, if you dig.

The Chinese, like all humans, are opportunists, and took advantage of American corporate greed and generous trade agreements to put their population to work and profit from the investments of America and other countries, too...while Americans are unemployed for months or years on end.

It is hard to buy stuff you need when you don't have a job...so good thing for Wal-Mart where stuff is cheap...except that the more Wal-Mart sells, the more manufacturing we lose at home, because it isn't necessarily cheaper to buy stuff other countries make but cheaper to make our stuff in other countries using the labor those populations rather than putting our own population back to work in factories.

Especially when 1 Yuan = 0.1583 US dollars.
It is a vicious cycle.

And I'm not saying 'don't buy Wal-Mart'...do what you gotta do to get by...just don't think that Romney is going to help the situation any at all and don't be into thinking Obama is to blame...this stuff started long before Obama was elected and it is not a simple problem that Congress can magically fix...especially if they refuse to make it less profitable for companies to take jobs out of the country by passing laws that make it so...refusing to even vote on any proposal aimed at reforming the tax system for big corporations with nonsense like filibustering and such.

Decreasing corporate tax from 35% to 25% isn't going to help...many companies pay less than 0% tax even at the supposed 35% rate. Here are the facts.



posted on Sep, 18 2012 @ 01:52 PM
link   
reply to post by queenannie38
 





But it is not helping our economy to move jobs out of the country because the corporation can profit more and pay less taxes, etc. than they would if they continued to manufacture in the US...something like plastic swimming pools, for example...there is no reason to not make stuff like that here in the US so we can buy it...I would probably rather buy imported chocolate than imported PVC, if you dig. The Chinese, like all humans, are opportunists, and took advantage of American corporate greed and generous trade agreements to put their population to work and profit from the investments of America and other countries, too...while Americans are unemployed for months or years on end.



Sorry for pulling one paragraph...I think you have identified a huge problem.

Long ago communities decided manufacturing was the cause of pollution.

Americans not wanting dirty air or dirty water passed laws making it impossible to stay open.

These Corporations are under no obligation to the Government. They want to make money.

They just moved their mess overseas where they pollute with impunity.

With their mess went all the manufacturing jobs. With all the regulations here.

Don't look for these company's returning. The real problem is...

The USA doesn't make anything any more. Not even the I-Phone.



posted on Sep, 18 2012 @ 02:02 PM
link   
reply to post by whyamIhere
 


Ah! Good point!
Totally relevant...

I do think, though, that much of the pollution was caused not by it being so hard to be kinder to the environment but because it cost more to do it right...that still goes on. And like it or not...we do need a healthy environment just as much as we need jobs or even more so.

And it seems like there is even more damage being done in Shenzhen, for example, due to it being a lot of industry in a concentrated localized area.

Moving the toxic effects of industry to another country isn't any more responsible than allowing it to go on, unchecked here...the world is just one planet and eventually even one area will poison it all. We should put more into R&D better ways to make goods without sullying the surrounding area, air, and water supply. Some of the the companies which remain in the US employ ingenuous innovations to get rid of waste wisely and even produce electricity and other things in the process.

The Fastest Growing Green Companies
10 Green Giants

I think, ultimately...it still boils down to greed, plain and simple.

The US does make a few things, though...the plastic kiddie pool I bought for my dog...at Wal-Mart, even...is made in the USA.

LOL



posted on Sep, 18 2012 @ 03:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Frankenchrist
 


The Romney Unit will continue to run because his software is telling him to do so. Besides he paid good money to be the Republican nominee!



posted on Sep, 18 2012 @ 04:00 PM
link   
Obomney is the annointed one and will serve another four years of service to his corporate masters. Mittens on the other hand does what he is told just like any other politco. I swear that they sell their soul to the devil and can't quit working until they die. Honestly if you had as much money as he does, wouldn't you be on a permanent vacation?



posted on Sep, 18 2012 @ 04:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by whyamIhere
Sorry for pulling one paragraph...I think you have identified a huge problem.
Long ago communities decided manufacturing was the cause of pollution.
Americans not wanting dirty air or dirty water passed laws making it impossible to stay open.


Shall we take a look at Germany?


Germany exports were worth 92.90 Billion EUR in July of 2012. Historically, from 1991 until 2012, Germany Exports averaged 53.96 Billion EUR reaching an all time high of 98.80 Billion EUR in March of 2012 and a record low of 23.40 Billion EUR in January of 1993. German economy is heavily export-oriented (the world's biggest exporter), with exports accounting for more than one-third of national output. Its principal exports are: motor vehicles, machinery, chemical products, electrical devices and telecommunications technology.


So let's see, they make all the stuff that people want, do they pollute more? (Hint: only a moron would speculate that regulations in "socialist" Europe are more lax than in the US, but I digress) OK, let's take a look


It's a telling story. Between 1990 and 2005, Germany's total greenhouse-gas emissions declined 18%; in the same period, those of the U.S. went up 16%. But Germany's impressive performance has been less about innovation than about implementation. The government has left little to chance. An eco-tax on fuel discourages petroleum use. Laws push waste reduction and recycling; producers must pay to deal with packaging they create. Subsidies encourage people to retrofit their homes with solar panels.


Horror! Shudder! Oh this evil government that subsidizes solar energy and reduces pollution, while ensuring the nation's prosperity! Someone call the ambulance, because Glenn Beck and a few members of ATS are gonna have a heart attack!

So this "environment", "overregulated" and "overtaxed" -- it's just a red herring designed to deflect the real issues. On some people, it apparently works.



posted on Sep, 18 2012 @ 04:19 PM
link   
IMHO if the first thing you say in defense of the candidate you support is "Well at least he" then he probably isn't all that great. I think if you have a solid candidate, you should be able to defend their stance on at least 75% without bringing up their opponent.



posted on Sep, 18 2012 @ 06:11 PM
link   
these dudes are only concerned about how much they can charge in the lecture circuit, i imagine at this point romney himself is aware he doesn't have a chance in h*ll of winning but i'm guessing the longer he makes him self seem like a legitimate opponent he can rack up a few extra bucks to charge for every tour he does.



posted on Sep, 18 2012 @ 06:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheOneElectric
THIS IS NOT MY ATS

"Because we need him"

I never...EVER..thought I'd see something so {Again, Tuesday's are not the best} inane posted on this site. I've seen some pretty bad stuff, but this one takes the {I should really learn to deal with this whole Tuesday thing} cake.


If you thought that was bad, try this quote. Nothing intelligent to discern here.
Inane post



posted on Sep, 18 2012 @ 08:23 PM
link   
Looking from the other side of the pond and watching the news, if any politician over here had said what Mr Romney had said in the last couple of days they wouldn't give him the time of day. How can you accept somebody saying those things now before they even get into office? Gonna wait and see what happens now............unbelievable...



posted on Sep, 18 2012 @ 08:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Frankenchrist
 


I believe he meant 47% of the population not 47% of the voters. They are not the same thing.





new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join