Romney Supporter: When you're rich, you want a Republican in office

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


Which party just imposed a massive TAX disguised as the Affordable Care Act, which Act has NO provisions for care for at least 3-4 years AFTER it begins collecting the tax?

Which party just imposed a massive TAX that, even before being implemented, has already caused Medicare patients to lose benefits?

Which party, despite *claiming* to want to help people, just caused an estimated shortage of some 91,000 physicians over the next decade?

Which Party passed the 'Great Society' which has resulted in nothing much more than the imprisonment of millions of people in generational welfare and cost the taxpayers trillions of dollars?

Which Democratic President not only signed laws making it easier for banks to profit, but also forcing banks to loan to unqualified consumers which ultimately caused the Crash of '08?

Which Democratic President gave us the Internal Revenue Service to support the Federal Reserve Bank, which he also gave us?

Which Senate Leader is sitting on TWENTY-NINE bipartisan jobs bills refusing to let them come to the floor?

Now, take all of that above and switch out a few phrases and a similar exercise can be done for the Republican Party.

Most importantly, which party just went on a big ol' vacation (again!) while the Country is in crisis and unemployment continues to soar? That's right, BOTH OF THEM.

Outkast, you can go on and on and on and on with your Left/Right-who's-the-worst rants but at some point you're going to have to realize that NEITHER party is doing us any good at all. There are NOT two parties - they are just presented as two parties. One coin - two sides. Every 2 years, right after elections, they go right back to their offices next door to one another, right back to the chairs their behinds have occupied for 20 or more years, right back to the House and Senate floors where they compromise, compromise, compromise in order to fill their pockets and empty ours. If either Party were any more or less guilty or innocent than the other, we would NOT be in the mess we're in.

The Democrats have held Congressional majority TWENTY-TWO times since 1945 compared to Republicans holding majority SIX times and a Split Congress 5 times.

IF the Democrats were so much better than the Republicans, then why didn't they implement more changes during their 22 sessions of total control? If the Republicans were so much better than the Democrats, why didn't they UNdo everything the Democrats had done during the 6 sessions they had control?

This left/right march so many are on because THEY (the politicians) WANT you on it. As long as WE remain divided, THEY do as they please.

And, really? An ex porn star? For all I know, she might be the nicest woman on earth, but is her opinion newsworthy?

Please, please open your eyes and see the truth for what it is. Neither of the "two" parties are doing us a danged bit of good.

reply to post by sheepslayer247


As I stated, there is a large, glaring exception to the rule of thumb that rich people vote republican.

I will sometimes respond to a thread which has been posted by an obvious liberal, or, conversely, an obvious right-winger. Since I'm neither, I'll point out an inconsistency or foible which I think may help the OP in possibly re-evaluating their stance. Nothing more.


(I like the pic in your sig)

Originally posted by desert
Another saying I remember from childhood (my family had both registered Reps and Dems, and cross party or split voting on ballots was common back then) was "With Democrats you get war, with Republicans you get depressions."

Well, things started to change after 1980. Reagan got America involved in small scale wars euphemistically called "low intensity conflicts", along with recessions hitting the nation, and the banks and savings and loans getting looted by rich crooks who knew the fed would bail out the accounts.

By the time Clinton was elected, Dems got smarter about war, reformed welfare, and there was a budget surplus.

Then, and here's where the thread topic comes in, GW Bush became POTUS. If you were into the lifestyle of the rich and famous, you could get a job as, say FEMA director. If you were wealthy and owned big oil support services (like VP Cheney, who also got wealthier from military support businesses in wartime) or defense businesses, then an elective war would be started in Iraq and your coffers would grow with tax dollars, and any extra dollars needed for the war would be put on the charge card to be dealt with later, by someone else, after you left the scene of the crime.

...hmmmm, I'm reminded of how a spouse runs up debt on charge cards and buys with loans with your name, then asks for a divorce, leaving the debt behind for you to pay. ....and it gets worse sometimes, if the spouse gives away your money to her/his friends right before s/he walks away, leaving you without money to pay off the debt s/he incurred. ....and you're stuck with a minimum wage job....gonna be a long, long...long time before your situation turns around. ....

Anyway, if you were into any sort of nation building business back then, even though I remember candidate Bush on TV statiing he would not nation build like his opponent, you got wealthier. ...I also remember Bush stating on tv that the U.S. would remain in Iraq “as long as necessary and not one day more.”...of course, the average citizen took that to mean when the fighting was over, but the "have mores" knew that meant we'ld leave as soon as every penny, every wealth, could be extracted from that country by and for them, no matter how long it took.

No, I just don't care for the Republican version of Santa Claus. I get coal in my stocking.

Yeah, I remember that time that Obama said he was going to bring the troops home, close Gitmo, lower the debt, not let unemployment go above 8%, stop all the lobbying, create transparency and kill the Patriot Act. Whew! Good things candidates don't lie, huh?

Not to put too fine a point on it, but Clinton had a Republican controlled Congress for the last 6 of his 8 years in Office. It was a Republican Congress that passed the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996.

And, though having a budget surplus was better than anything we'd had for a while, it's not necessarily something to write home about. It was nothing any different than you knowing you earn 1,000 per month, but allowing yourself to 'budget' $2500 a month. Just because you only spend $2,000 per month, resulting in a BUDGET surplus, doesn't mean you have a red cent in your pocket. This Country went in the hole under Clinton, too.

Historically, we seem to do better with a balance of power - when the President is of one Party and the Congress is controlled by the other Party. Historically, the Republicans DO spend a little less ... until they had majority while Bush II was President and then they really messed things up.

By the same token, we've just had a few years of seeing what a Democratic President coupled with a Democratically controlled Congress can do - more spending than all past Presidents combined.

Yep. All the same Party.

reply to post by ColeYounger


Fair enough. I tend to lean towards the right on many fiscal issues, but I refuse to be engulfed by the Right-wing propaganda machine.

The entire "hollywood liberal" mantra is one of those propaganda techniques that only serve to separate people into further smaller groups and an attempt to discredit their political opinions.

Actors are individuals. Some of them agree on certain issues but there is not a liberal monopoly in Hollywood. Many of the movie production companies and record companies are owned and ran by Republican-minded people.

So the hollywood liberal statement is a fallacy.

reply to post by SeesFar

Originally posted by SeesFar
...
Yeah, I remember that time that Obama said he was going to bring the troops home, close Gitmo, lower the debt, not let unemployment go above 8%, stop all the lobbying, create transparency and kill the Patriot Act. Whew! Good things candidates don't lie, huh?

Not to put too fine a point on it, but Clinton had a Republican controlled Congress for the last 6 of his 8 years in Office. It was a Republican Congress that passed the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996.
...
Historically, we seem to do better with a balance of power - when the President is of one Party and the Congress is controlled by the other Party.

Candidates do promise a lot, I'll agree. The Pres did bring home the Iraq troops. As far as the rest of his record, and policy, some of the strongest outcry comes not from his opponents but from Progressives. Here there can be agreement.

Re the 106th Congress of Clinton's term. Also passed the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act and the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000. Talk about Republicans wanting to change the rules in favor of the Have Mores!

Being POTUS entails politics, and I believe Obama believed he would get more support from Republicans to fulfill his campaign promises. But instead, he got, as demonstrated by this ATS thread "Damn The Country, Obama Must Fail"

Obama gives the GOP their own conservative Health Care Act and tax cuts to compromise, but, unlike historically when working across the aisle, this time there is no compromise from the other side. In fact, more Congressional members are being elected who will not compromise, and proud of it.

If the following two people can come to agreement over the GOP idiocy, there is still some hope. I used to blame weak kneed Dems for caving in to the GOP, then I realized even good GOP members were unable to stand up to their own party.

if Barack Obama thinks that he's going to get a free pass on this thing because he speaks well, he's got another think coming. I'm telling you, the right wing talk shows today, already, right now, are going to be yelling and screaming it's socialism and they are going to be falling back on the Two Santa Claus Theory without ever telling their poor duped listeners who think of themselves as conservatives who don't realize that they are voting and playing into the hands of the über rich in America, the corporations in America, the people who hate American democracy, small 'd' democracy, and believe in a kleptocracy, an aristocracy, of the very wealthy.

Thom Hartmann

Unfortunately, Mr. Wanniski opened Pandora’s box when he let loose the two-Santa theory. Republicans are now bound to it, whether they know it or not. As Keynes once put it, “Madmen in authority, who hear voices in the air, are distilling their frenzy from some academic scribbler of a few years back.”

Bruce Bartlett

Originally posted by desert
Candidates do promise a lot, I'll agree.

The Pres did bring home the Iraq troops. As far as the rest of his record, and policy, some of the strongest outcry comes not from his opponents but from Progressives. Here there can be agreement.

We still have troops in Iraq. What makes you think we do not? He also sent more to Afghanistan; he sent troops to Uganda, Congo, South Sudan and the Central African Republic. as well as Algerian, Yemen and Zambia. In fact, here's a whole laundry list of things he's done, a great number of which were done without the approval of Congress. Be sure you get a good look at the "Kill List." Disturbing, at best, and it's a NYT article, so it's even presented from the liberal side.

I agree that a lot of the outcry comes from Progressives because they think he hasn't done enough to further THEIR agenda. But, as so many Presidents before him, he does follow agendas rather than the will of The People. I didn't agree with the actions of those Presidents and I do not agree with the actions of this President, either.

Originally posted by desert
Re the 106th Congress of Clinton's term. Also passed the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act and the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000. Talk about Republicans wanting to change the rules in favor of the Have Mores!

And do you truthfully believe there have been no Democrats who've benefited from that? Honestly? You'd better investigate a little more.

Originally posted by desert
Being POTUS entails politics, and I believe Obama believed he would get more support from Republicans to fulfill his campaign promises. But instead, he got, as demonstrated by this ATS thread "Damn The Country, Obama Must Fail"

Being POTUS requires EXPERIENCE and the current one was bereft of any noteworthy experience. Now, why would he believe he would get more support from Republicans to fulfill his campaign promises? HE made the promises - not the Republicans. There are multiple studies out which heavily indicate our President is a full-blown narcissist - if he went in with expectations, it was with the expectation of "I've thought it; therefore, it must happen." He went into Office with a Democratically controlled Congress, so why did he NEED the Republicans? He didn't. Have you already forgotten all the in-fighting of the Democrats and the frothing over the 'Blue Dogs?' The opinions expressed on an ATS thread are nothing but opinions - and, in many cases, especially politics, can be likened unto armchair quarterbacks.

Originally posted by desert
Obama gives the GOP their own conservative Health Care Act and tax cuts to compromise, but, unlike historically when working across the aisle, this time there is no compromise from the other side. In fact, more Congressional members are being elected who will not compromise, and proud of it.

Incorrect; he refused to even consider any Republican offered alternatives, some of which (though I am not a Republican), made much more sense than the Act that got rammed down our throats and which has NOTHING to do with care but everything to do with additional taxes - another thing he promised no more of. Frankly, we need some Reps and Senators who are listening to constituents and are unwilling to compromise on the demands of their constituents - they will find themselves employed longer that way.

Originally posted by desert
If the following two people can come to agreement over the GOP idiocy, there is still some hope. I used to blame weak kneed Dems for caving in to the GOP, then I realized even good GOP members were unable to stand up to their own party.

Sort of like the Blue Dog Dems, perhaps? The few we have in there (on both sides of the aisle) who are upstanding and trying to get something done don't have much hope against the many (on both sides of the aisle) who have only their own interests at heart.

There is an equal amount of "idiocy" in both parties; there is an equal amount of underhandedness, self-interest, self-promotion and a thorough lack of concern for the People they are supposed to represent in both parties.

You may be a staunch Obama supporter, but please don't be willfully blind.

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
Now, who is this mystery Romney supporter....retired porn star Jenna Jameson.

news.yahoo.com...

"I'm very looking forward to a Republican being back in office," Jameson said while sipping champagne in a VIP room at Gold Club in the city's South of Market neighborhood. "When you're rich, you want a Republican in office."

The sad thing is that she is 100% correct...the rich will benefit from Romney being in office...the middle and low class will suffer.

And how would Romney get voted into office...by getting the majority vote from those he is going to screw over....the low and middle class.


It's kind of sad when someone like Jenna Jameson sees what is going on and others don't.

The only sad thing is that people still believes there's a difference.

Click here for more information.

Originally posted by BritofTexas
I wonder if she's seen this?

Mitt Romney Aide Promises Crackdown On Porn

are you really posting campaign promises, like he will remember ANYTHING he says once hes sworn in?

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


How well have the poor fared with Democrats in charge. She is 100% correct, when you are rich you want a Republican. So far, the same can be true of the poor as well, unless you want to live on welfare, then it's great to have Democrats. Only problem is that isn't sustainable.

I was wondering who was going to post this, and I must admit I am not shocked at all by who the OP is.

Now, let me tell you all what our OP has failed to mention..... There is much talk about weather or not she was actually serious because she is very much known to be very much Liberal in her beliefs

Also in 208 she endorsed Hilary Clinton

Got to LOVE the predictable posters of ATS

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


You really think she has a clue? I for one do not.

I for one am NOT rich by anymeans, yet he is the best choice.
My grand kids will be paying off the debt Obama has put us in.
Obama said he would cut the defict in half in his first term.....lol
He has Doubled it. I would rather have a bidniss man in office then a guy who never had a real job ever and lies about everything. Why is Obama's records sealed when all other Presidents are open to public view?
The dude has something to hide................just sayin