Posted on 09/17/2012 7:09:29 PM PDT by kristinn
We’ll see. They were promised SO MUCH by Barry 4 years ago. Many are fickle and undependable, and cynical as well. Not the base I would like to depend on. Plus, the money has kept rolling in despite who was in the white house, so their motivation is not as great as you might think. IMHO, of course.
The problem is that Mitt cares as little about individual freedom as Obama does. He is just as big a fan of regulation -- though he'd prefer different regulations. In his time in MA I don't recall that he ever objected to any boneheaded regulation passed by the legislature or put in place by some agency or commission. Oh, wait -- when they passed the state-wide ban on smoking in restaurants, he said he'd prefer that local gov'ts rule. No suggestion that maybe the owners should decide!
Mitt said he can't teach those people personal responsibility. He can't "teach" them? That's as arrogant as Obama! I don't see how you can expect personal responsibility from people whose sphere of liberty is rapidly shrinking. On the one side, you have gov't stomping down on things like local hair-braiding "businesses," local jitneys (NY a few years ago), and even kids' lemonade stands and bake sales of any kind. When gov't makes every decision for everyone, you can only expect personal responsibility to fade away! It's no wonder drug dealing is the biggest business in the ghetto -- no licensing required, no gov't regulation, no paper qualifications needed, no OSHA visits, no EPA obstruction, no EEOC filings, etc., etc., etc.
At the other end of the spectrum, you have the likes of Jon Corzine -- an example of taking personal responsibility for the masses? Barak "Bush's Fault" Obama?
Mitt has no "vision" -- those recent comments only solidify his image as a bean counter for whom money is (to coin a phrase) not the most important thing -- it's the only thing!
When Mitt is willing to write off 47% of the country, he's reinforcing Obama's class warfare theme IMO.
The proof will be in the pudding. Watch the polls. I don’t think the mushy-brained “undecided” want to hear the truth as it will be framed by the leftist media. Quotes and positions like this by Romney are right on target, eaten up by Freepers, but too much for a key demographic that needs to be won over. Flame me for being skeptical.
Your disabilities and injuries are very real and I am not lumping you in with the people who do not deserve disability.
I was talking about people with NO physical disabilities at all. This is why we can’t fix this country. If anyone mentions cutting back on any part of the gummint gravy, someone always jumps up and says “But, I REALLLY need it!” and the discussion has to end.
I guess we really don’t need to discuss cuts anymore because the crash of the economy is coming and when that happens, all the checks are going to stop flowing because we were afraid to make hard decisions when we could.
I think it’s good news, Mom...Gretchen was wringing her hands but Laura Ingraham was practically jumping out of her seat this morning with excitement talking to the Friends.
That is great news about Channel 11 News...I never watch, just mute it before Seinfeld. :) The Fox News reporter this morning was live from some burning embassy and if he said “due to the film” once he said it fifty times. I was screaming!
I think you are right on target in all your comments.
Your objections are exactly the ones I had to Romney during the primary, and unfortunately Romney is holding true to course. Granted, the press had to go back to May to find this video. While some people are defending what he “really meant to say,” I think most people will admit that Romney was stupid to put it in those terms and not put in terms of the the whole excess-of-government situation. He made himself look like he was blaming the victim.
I had a little hope for him last week when he criticized Obama’s disastrous foreign policy, but then he backed down and has been mum about it ever since.
I’m voting for Romney only because there is no other realistic way to get Obama and all his evil minions out of our government before they destroy us entirely (which they will do if he gets another term).
This is a winner for Romney if he explains it. He is right. Way too many people want a handout. It is destroying this country. This is a very conservative statement and its comforting that Romney made it. In fact, this is probably the most fundamental conservative statement — that you have to support yourself. You have to make your own way in life. It is the fundamental founding principle of America. Do what you want but don’t expect the government to subsidize you. We have gotten away from that since the 1930s. That is the press conference he should give. That we need to get back to a culture of supporting yourself.
:: Never in my lifetime do I remember the media being THIS invested in a candidate winning ::
Eveer since Woodward and Bernstein showed the media that they could collectively destroy a sitting president, the media has come to view itself as the sole determiner of the Presidency.
The sheeple proved it in 2008.
I’m Tom Hoefling, which is made plain on my home page.
In answer to your questions:
By the time we get done filing everything, it will be possible for the voters representing a large majority of the electors to vote for me. Probably about three quarters of them.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2931555/posts
Two years ago, I was doing exactly what I’m doing now; ie building a principled vehicle for the people to take their own self-governance back into their own hands.
We don’t worry about “split votes.” Our goal is simply to raise up candidates that actually represent America’s founding principles and America’s people, and then to leave the results to God. “If, to please the people, we offer what we ourselves disprove, how can we afterwards defend our work? Let us raise a standard to which the wise and the honest can repair. The event is in the hand of God.” — George Washington
But, now that you mention it, take a close look at the candidate statements at the link I provided. You will see that I am the only conservative on the ballot this year in California. The Left is split five different ways.
Folks aren’t supporting me as a “protest.” They’re voting for me because I represent them, and the other candidates don’t. You do remember that we are supposed to have a system of representative self-government, right?
Are you expecting the UAW, teacher's unions, the state, local, municipal, and federal employees all of whom pay their federal taxes to vote for you???? Which 47% are they part of???
:: Everyone should pay something. ::
Citizens, protected by the US Constitution, should pay NOTHING.
If they so choose to participate in the economy (market) then the revenues generated by that market should pay for the activities and policies of the Government. (A flat tax is likewise immoral. God’s tithe was always intended to be voluntary and not a “tax”.)
Milton Friedman, in a nutshell.
The point is that the 47 % are not paying their “Fair Share” of PERSONAL Federal Income Tax.
The Federal Welfare Entitlement Plantation is now totally dependent on selling America down the river by selling IOU Federal Bonds to China and other bond buyers.
40 cents on every Federal Dollar spent go to pay for Entitlements.
40 cents on every Federal Dollar spent must be borrowed from those who buy Federal Bonds.
The 47 % who pay NO Personal Federal Income Tax will vote their wallets and keep Commie Obama in power.
Now is the time for Romney to double down, NEVER apologize, and attack Commie Obama!
What is wrong with saying 47% pay no income tax? Are they proud of the fact they pay no income tax?
I am finding this country and it’s “news media” tiresome. It’s like the public is incapable of being serious about governing.
Sure he’s getting hit hard, by the Obamabots.
I wouldn’t blame Romney, look at the crap he’s up against.
You have it nailed.
Sounds like a great line, and I know a number of FReepers who have run with it, but it doesn't hold water. A huge chunk of the 47% don't pay personal federal income tax because they have no tax liability -- e.g., they only make $25-$30K a year, and the standard deduction wipes out their liability. (That number actually grew with the Bush tax cuts.) Then of course there are the elderly who get tax credits, etc.
You can't villanize people simply because they don't make enough money to pay taxes. In other words, you can't assume that they are dependent upon government largesse or believe they are entitled to such largesse simply because they have lower paying jobs.
Ask Mitt. I don't know his thoughts. I know mine.
MY THOUGHT: If you get back thousands of dollars more in your income tax 'refund' than what you paid, you are a sponge taking money that isn't yours and using the power of government to do so.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.