Mitt loses the election with his attitude

[FUCK THE POLICE]

http://crooksandliars.com/karoli/mitt-romney-tells-cnn-hes-not-concerned-abo

Holy shit, Romney is a piece of work, isn't he? Not concerned about the very poor because they have a safety net.

LOL yeah, the working poor self-employed really have a safety net! self employment tax and no unemployment benefit. Yeah, I really have a strong net!

This guy is the first politician that has invoked true hatred in me. Newt is laughable, but Romney is just an evil rich fucker who destroys people and their livelyhoods and then acts like he's on a mission from his wacky god.

Romney lost the election right there IMO.

What do you people think?

Well, most of the "safety net" really consists of aid for the elderly. Almost all of the rest is for people with children, and even that's not that extensive. You have to be verrrrryyyy poor to qualify for most of these programs as an individual.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

obama got away with his comment because that is what most liberals believe.

I disagreed with his comments. The poor who vote Republican deserve to be mocked, not pandered to.

 

[Bonestorm]

Well, most of the "safety net" really consists of aid for the elderly. Almost all of the rest is for people with children, and even that's not that extensive. You have to be verrrrryyyy poor to qualify for most of these programs as an individual.

That's why it's easy to drive a wedge between the moochers and looters and the the working poor. The destitute get government goodies and the working poor get shit. The safety net should be a whole hell of a lot more robust than it is.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

In context or out of context politically speacking, it was a dumb thing to say and it will come back to hurt him.

It's a problem I have with patricians like Romney. He's a bright successful and capable man. Much more so then Bush was. He's also a blue blooded patrician born into privelage. Again, like Bush was. Where he differs dramatially from Bush is that he doesn't have a fraction of Bush's political acumen when it comes to relating to middle and working class voters. Bush was a man they felt comfortable having a beer with. I seriosly doubt Romney has ever drank beer from a can let alone with a working man.

I'm just not sold that Romney really comprehends the struggles of working and middle class people. I also fear that as with many businessmen and patricians who enter politics , as a conservative, that their policies will be based primarily on "What is good for "us" is what is good for you.". I have learned from the school of hard knocks that these politicians do not have my best interest at heart.

This is the composition of congress:

If you may have noticed, this is not very close to the composition of the American working public (workers barely being represented at all), or some representation of particularly meritorious individuals (few scientists/engineers, perhaps businessman are your cup of tea but they're a minority). Nope, lawyers. All most all of them are stinking rich too. With much of their money being made after they get in congress.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

When my customers are able to escape debts owed to me by way of bankruptcy, I'd say it's not my fault. I played by the rules and they didn't, yet I still lost. Fuck you, ignorant dumbass

The rules include bankruptcy. Now you know why everyone in business is a dick to those kinds of people.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Nope, it's the very rich most likely to stiff you and that includes stiffing banks. The wealthy will never give a second thought about walking away from a bad investment, or an investment that has turned bad.

Credit ratings are for proles top. The elite don't worry about credit ratings.

Well, the current system has reasons behind it. Previous civilizations responded to the problem of debts to great to pay with things like debt slavery and debtors prisons. The bankruptcy system simply establishes a two-way responsibility for most debt, forcing the person issuing the debt to be careful that the other person can pay. The only kind of debt this doesn't apply to is debts owned from crimes and, interestingly enough, student debt, which you pay until your dead or there's no more debt. I suppose that most people don't care that much when banks have to adjust their lending practices due to this, but it does hit small time people too. Especially those who trust their intuition, aren't wise to the system, and treat debt like something more certain than it is.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

In my case it is not about extending credit, it is about the final payment. The smallest I have been able to arange a final payment is 20%. So... on a 30k job, the last payment, (not payable until AFTER completion) is 6K. Of course, that is all profit, assuming I priced the job correctly. Getting screwed out of 6K hurts a small business.
If I could get the final payment down to 10%, at least I would make some profit when I get screwed. Doesn't happen often, but it does happen and it is always the wealthy who do it.

The poor will often actually pay debt they don't legally have to pay because their intuition says they're honor bound. The rich don't give a shit. There is actually a huge amount of money made in banking by banks that harass the loved ones of dead debtors over debts. The poor often unquestioningly pay it off, even though there's no legal obligation to pay the debt of dead family members.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

That's why it's easy to drive a wedge between the moochers and looters and the the working poor. The destitute get government goodies and the working poor get shit. The safety net should be a whole hell of a lot more robust than it is.

That's one reason I have a tendency to support universal systems instead of need based ones. A universal system gives an even drop off in benefits, which helps the middle class slightly as well as the poor. A need based system, on the other hand, leads to a big pit where making more money doesn't really do you much good, and the middle class have higher taxes even though they get nothing at all out of the system. I imagine this is why our largely need based safety net arouses such division, while there's little controversy about the safety net in countries that use more universal models.

 

[Bonestorm]

That's one reason I have a tendency to support universal systems instead of need based ones. A universal system gives an even drop off in benefits, which helps the middle class slightly as well as the poor. A need based system, on the other hand, leads to a big pit where making more money doesn't really do you much good, and the middle class have higher taxes even though they get nothing at all out of the system. I imagine this is why our largely need based safety net arouses such division, while there's little controversy about the safety net in countries that use more universal models.

Agreed. And the benefits that accrue to the middle class are often unnoticed or "invisible." Think about the mortgage interest deduction and employee sponsored insurance exclusions alone.

I recall a poll taken some time ago that asked people whether they derived any benefit from a wide variety of government programs and most people that actually received benefits claimed not to. There is a disconnect there that isn't the case with things like Section 8 subsidies, food stamps, Medicare and other direct payments to the poor.

 

[Cancel 2016.11]

The poor will often actually pay debt they don't legally have to pay because their intuition says they're honor bound. The rich don't give a shit. There is actually a huge amount of money made in banking by banks that harass the loved ones of dead debtors over debts. The poor often unquestioningly pay it off, even though there's no legal obligation to pay the debt of dead family members.

That's a really good point.