• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

This Businesswoman Tells Romney Where To Take His ''Personal Responsibility'' Pep Tal

Re: This Businesswoman Tells Romney Where To Take His ''Personal Responsibility'' Pep

A big chunk of the so-called "47%" has been preached to for decades that they are in fact victims. Victims of white racism. Victims of white sexism. Victims of religious bigotry. Victims of unfair tax cuts. Victoms of this and that....you name it. Liberal ideology CANNOT exist without casting victims against someone else in our society. Whether it's blacks against whites. Women against men. Employee against employer. Union against management. Illegal immigrant against citizen. Poor against rich. It's their modus operendi, creating victims to exploit. Without that, liberals have no purpose. Their ideology cannot survive without having a victim to exploit.

Problem is, these people getting exploited for votes don't even realize they are being exploited. Liberals have declared for years that "if you elect us, we'll do something about poverty and wealth inequality". Oh ya? How did it work out? What's that? Oh, well, there's more poverty now than ever. Wait, what's that you say? Oh, well, wealth inequality is higher than it's been in decades. Hmmmmm....lots of promises from liberals, and nothing has changed much, despite all their "good intentions".

Here's reality. Good intentions don't create jobs, and they don't improve people's lives. Good policies do. Take a page from history liberals, your "good intentions" are about as useless as tits on a boar hog.
 
Re: This Businesswoman Tells Romney Where To Take His ''Personal Responsibility'' Pep

BACotner said:
Yes, your parents and my parents did this. The problem is that there is a very large number of people who are the children and grandchildren of lifetime welfare recepiants who know of no other way of life. They have not been schooled in the joy of "work". They have no knowledge of anything except the 1st of the month present from their Uncle Sam. That group of people is growing larger everyday. It is probably no where near 47%, I wouldn't know where to really look to find the exact percentage, but it is there, it is growing and they do vote, especially in the last Presidental Election and probably in this one for sure.
Click to expand...

Yes of course there are.
 
Re: This Businesswoman Tells Romney Where To Take His ''Personal Responsibility'' Pep

Travis007 said:
explain on how what I wrote is ignorant ...
Click to expand...
you do it to yourself, exhibiting that you have no understanding of home equity and appreciation

all you did was show off
Click to expand...
i used a personal, real example to demonstrate how wrong you were
proving your ignorance has nothing to do with showing off

... that 27 years ago you paid off your house or had bought it.. so what?.. in those 27 years I doubt your house is worth 6 times what you paid for it after upgrades and paying off the mortgage..that would break every norm...25 years ago I bought my first house.. id say that house has maybe maybe maybe doubled in value but im sure needs thousands in fixing upgrading etc... so suffice to say you are simply BSing.. so PROVE IT.. prove your house is worth 6 times what you mortgage says it was valued at..
Click to expand...
you again illustrate your personal inability to capitalize on a growing real estate market. that you are without such skills does not mean the rest of us share such ineptitude. now, i do not discount that i was also lucky, being an experienced real property appraiser who was then employed to perform financial analysis, in a city that was poised to boom. but i was savvy enough to know where to buy to benefit from near certain appreciation

again your house has gone down in value period over he last 6 years..
Click to expand...
actually, it has not. my (eight-year) tax revaluation effective 2012 shows my property value to have increased just over 25% in that span. property type and location will define opportunity for appreciation

so if one has a mortgage or living on the equity and paying high prop taxes they are not as sound as they were.. period...
Click to expand...
and you struck out once again; at least you were swinging. living in a home that only requires routine maintenance, paying property taxes, while the home continues to appreciate, albeit at a slower pace than before the meltdown, proves to be an excellent investment; one which appreciates while i sleep in it

Your post as always was total nonsesne..
Click to expand...
you apparently have confused mine for your own

but Im sure you had fun showing off..
Click to expand...
i do admit delight in publicly exhibiting your ignorance about this matter - once again

and trust I lived/live in some very nice areas, some of the nicest in the country..so again I know you are simply BSing....no house has gone up 6 x times its value of 27 years ago..period..unless you boughty land and Harry Reid used my tax dollars to put in the infrastructure..
Click to expand...
yet again you show how ignorant you are about these matters
had you lived in nice areas and bought, you would be financially better off than not doing so. too bad you followed your own advice. especially since you were not wise enough to buy one of the smaller properties amid those in a desirable, fast appreciating community
harry reid had no part in the matter; fortunately, neither did you
 
Re: This Businesswoman Tells Romney Where To Take His ''Personal Responsibility'' Pep

Tigger said:
Excellent. She's NOT the sort of people a Conservative Republican should be trying to get to vote for them.
Click to expand...

As long as they don't want to win, at least. I know you probably care more about ideological purity, but I assure the Republican Party wants to win very badly.
 
Re: This Businesswoman Tells Romney Where To Take His ''Personal Responsibility'' Pep

rocket88 said:
As long as they don't want to win, at least. I know you probably care more about ideological purity, but I assure the Republican Party wants to win very badly.
Click to expand...

Which is why they will LOSE. Their inability to come together and broadcast a single, clear and consise message to the population has been one of their largest reasons for losing votes and voters in droves.
 
Re: This Businesswoman Tells Romney Where To Take His ''Personal Responsibility'' Pep

Masada said:
A big chunk of the so-called "47%" has been preached to for decades that they are in fact victims. Victims of white racism. Victims of white sexism.
Click to expand...

Hate to break it to you, but a pretty good chunk of the 47% are white. Way to play the race card, though. You do it as well as a liberal, just the opposite way.

Victims of religious bigotry.
Click to expand...

Isn't that one of the Conservative victim points? That and "victims of the media."
 
Re: This Businesswoman Tells Romney Where To Take His ''Personal Responsibility'' Pep

OpportunityCost said:
:doh, middle class income and wealth dropped over the last 4 years. Thats not an opinion, thats a fact. The majority of the middle class is worse off than they were 4 years ago. Anecdotal evidence is not proof of hypothesis.
Click to expand...

I think the real question is, who is better off? Look no further than the top 1% earners in this country. The fact that they've done so well while the rest of the country has lost is a direct correlation. Their income increases come from everyone else's income losses. Workers don't get raises but corporate profits are up, that extra income goes to the top. Now lets look at which candidate wants to give more to the top 1%.
 
Re: This Businesswoman Tells Romney Where To Take His ''Personal Responsibility'' Pep

rocket88 said:
Hate to break it to you, but a pretty good chunk of the 47% are white. Way to play the race card, though. You do it as well as a liberal, just the opposite way.
Click to expand...

White AND from southern, conservative states to boot.
 
Re: This Businesswoman Tells Romney Where To Take His ''Personal Responsibility'' Pep

justabubba said:
you do it to yourself, exhibiting that you have no understanding of home equity and appreciation


i used a personal, real example to demonstrate how wrong you were
proving your ignorance has nothing to do with showing off


you again illustrate your personal inability to capitalize on a growing real estate market. that you are without such skills does not mean the rest of us share such ineptitude. now, i do not discount that i was also lucky, being an experienced real property appraiser who was then employed to perform financial analysis, in a city that was poised to boom. but i was savvy enough to know where to buy to benefit from near certain appreciation


actually, it has not. my (eight-year) tax revaluation effective 2012 shows my property value to have increased just over 25% in that span. property type and location will define opportunity for appreciation


and you struck out once again; at least you were swinging. living in a home that only requires routine maintenance, paying property taxes, while the home continues to appreciate, albeit at a slower pace than before the meltdown, proves to be an excellent investment; one which appreciates while i sleep in it


you apparently have confused mine for your own


i do admit delight in publicly exhibiting your ignorance about this matter - once again


yet again you show how ignorant you are about these matters
had you lived in nice areas and bought, you would be financially better off than not doing so. too bad you followed your own advice. especially since you were not wise enough to buy one of the smaller properties amid those in a desirable, fast appreciating community
harry reid had no part in the matter; fortunately, neither did you
Click to expand...

so you lied.. we get it...but nice try to spin it..

your house you got 27 years ago did not up by 6 times in value over the last 27 years as you blustered and BS'd

here is your post again
( Originally Posted by justabubba
it's great actually
home paid in full
now valued over six times what it cost 27 years ago ( a lie )
no monthly rent
the security of knowing that it cannot be taken away
and yes, ad valorem taxes are high, but that is not unexpected when you buy in a desirable locale, with excellent public services

what you have again displayed is an ignorance of basic economics)



wow..

I have made a lot of money in RE... but who cares.. I have a made a lot of money doing many things


You do know you have made NOTHING.. until you sell it... you may want to make a note..your tax evaluation is MEANINGLESS... thats based on what the town appraised it for and effects home owners insurance to replace the house.. and again to get 25% return in 27 years is a whopping return on 1.2% annual... OH MY...

BUT YOU SAID 6 TIMES COST OF 27 YEARS AGO... TOTAL BS...
 
Last edited:
Re: This Businesswoman Tells Romney Where To Take His ''Personal Responsibility'' Pep

JRog said:
I think the real question is, who is better off? Look no further than the top 1% earners in this country. The fact that they've done so well while the rest of the country has lost is a direct correlation. Their income increases come from everyone else's income losses. Workers don't get raises but corporate profits are up, that extra income goes to the top. Now lets look at which candidate wants to give more to the top 1%.
Click to expand...

Of course the 20% who drop out of the top 1% every year might feel differently. The top 1% isn't some static club with no ability to reach that level and no ability to drop out. Also, so you really believe that income is a zero-sum game?
 
Re: This Businesswoman Tells Romney Where To Take His ''Personal Responsibility'' Pep

JRog said:
I think the real question is, who is better off? Look no further than the top 1% earners in this country. The fact that they've done so well while the rest of the country has lost is a direct correlation. Their income increases come from everyone else's income losses. Workers don't get raises but corporate profits are up, that extra income goes to the top. Now lets look at which candidate wants to give more to the top 1%.
Click to expand...

why do you mock Erkle Obama?.... he's in that 1%
 
Re: This Businesswoman Tells Romney Where To Take His ''Personal Responsibility'' Pep

Masada said:
Never said it was a "good paying job". I've asked people like you to read Benjamin Franklin many times now. I bet you haven't bothered to do so.

I don't think it's a "good paying job", I think like Benjamin Franklin, that while welfare isn't "a good paying job", welfare can be made fairly "comfortable". By liberal philosophy, government is to always INCREASE entitlements and welfare, keep increasing, especially when economic times get tough. Benjamin Franklin understood the effect of INCREASING welfare and entitlements. He understood that INCREASING welfare made people MORE COMFORTABLE in their poverty, which in turn led to MORE POVERTY.

Why is this so difficult for liberals to understand? When you make it EASIER not to work for a living, what do you think the effect is going to be? Ben Franklin understood. The effect is going to be MORE people not working! MORE POVERTY!

Welfare subsidizes behavior that is ultimately negative for the individual, whereas not being in poverty is the result of work! Think about it for goodness sake!

No, welfare isn't a "good paying job", but the more government increases welfare, the easier it is for a person to survive on welfare alone! Our goal should be getting people OFF welfare and back working, NOT making it easier to stay on welfare!

Dear Lord, this isn't freaking rocket science! It's common sense! When you subsidize something, you get more of it!!!! Welfare subsidizes people who don't work! Yet liberals are left scratching their heads when they look at statistics. Statistics clearly show that over the past decade, welfare and entitlement spending has been increased dramatically......but guess what? SO HAS PARTICIPATION ON WELFARE!

This sounds really harsh, but the less comfortable the government makes receiving welfare, the less people will turn to it and turn back to working! Working is their best solution, I don't think anyone would disagree with that. So, the government should reform it's programs to encourage people to work, and not be more comfortable in their poverty!

Once again, READ BENJAMIN FRANKLIN on the subject. For once, Dear Lord, educate yourself!
Click to expand...

Why is supplying a safety net to protect people from calamities so abborent to you? Can't you imagine being out of a job? Are you immune to debilitating illness too?
We are not supporting genreations of families on welfare that has not been true since Clinton's reform of welfare. Your premise is wrong and your thoughts are blinded by partisan rhetoric.
Benjamin Franklin was a notorious skinflint, it's not surprising that he would not want to share with anybody no less the poor. He was also fond of French women, do you think we should all start looking for one of those too?
 
Last edited:
Re: This Businesswoman Tells Romney Where To Take His ''Personal Responsibility'' Pep

RDS said:
Comments Pls?

businesswoman500.jpg
Click to expand...

Ouch and it gets worse for Romney. This woman put him in his place. Conservatives still think he going to win? Really? We already know he can't even talk straight but now we want Bush 2.0? oh come on.
 
Re: This Businesswoman Tells Romney Where To Take His ''Personal Responsibility'' Pep

Vallista said:
Ouch and it gets worse for Romney. This woman put him in his place. Conservatives still think he going to win? Really? We already know he can't even talk straight but now we want Bush 2.0? oh come on.
Click to expand...

No. Conservatives don't want him to win any more than we want Obama to win.
 
Re: This Businesswoman Tells Romney Where To Take His ''Personal Responsibility'' Pep

AliHajiSheik said:
Of course the 20% who drop out of the top 1% every year might feel differently. The top 1% isn't some static club with no ability to reach that level and no ability to drop out. Also, so you really believe that income is a zero-sum game?
Click to expand...

The 1% is far more static than the middle class. Also, it is not hard to see the relationship between huge increases in income for the wealthy in an economy with middle class people losing their income share. Do you believe that the wealth of the upper class is not linked to the poverty of the lower class?
 
Re: This Businesswoman Tells Romney Where To Take His ''Personal Responsibility'' Pep

RDS said:
Comments Pls?

businesswoman500.jpg
Click to expand...

I do not support the idea that this woman pays no Federal income tax because she has three children. What kind of sense does that make? Of course, she herself is just taking advantage of one more way the government has chosen to redistribute income; but I wouldn't be particularly proud that I'm not paying my fair share -- and that other taxpayers are paying more than their share because she chose to have three children.
 
Re: This Businesswoman Tells Romney Where To Take His ''Personal Responsibility'' Pep

MaggieD said:
I do not support the idea that this woman pays no Federal income tax because she has three children. What kind of sense does that make? Of course, she herself is just taking advantage of one more way the government has chosen to redistribute income; but I wouldn't be particularly proud that I'm not paying my fair share -- and that other taxpayers are paying more than their share because she chose to have three children.
Click to expand...

True, but I would think that also comes down to her payroll taxes as well right?
 
Re: This Businesswoman Tells Romney Where To Take His ''Personal Responsibility'' Pep

jerry7 said:
How about a link to the site where you found this letter?
Click to expand...

Still no link? I am beginning to think that Roni Sutton is really David Axelrod.
 
Re: This Businesswoman Tells Romney Where To Take His ''Personal Responsibility'' Pep

Vallista said:
Ouch and it gets worse for Romney. This woman put him in his place. Conservatives still think he going to win? Really? We already know he can't even talk straight but now we want Bush 2.0? oh come on.
Click to expand...

Ouch ..internet nonsense is what Obama voters are banking on....

Yea... that spam was a game changer..
 
Re: This Businesswoman Tells Romney Where To Take His ''Personal Responsibility'' Pep

jerry7 said:
How about a link to the site where you found this letter?
Click to expand...

Google Roni Sutton.

She and her husband (whom she doesn't mention here) own a construction rehab business. Here she is, a small business owner whom admittedly pays no income taxes and quite obviously has put nothing away for her children's or her own college educations. Depending instead on the kindness of strangers and the taxes other people pay.

She's damn right when she says she didn't build that - the taxpayers build that for her and continue to pay her and her husband's bills. She's taking none of the risk of owning a business and keeping all of the reward. Of course she's mad at anyone who might suggest she should have to pay for her own life.
 
Re: This Businesswoman Tells Romney Where To Take His ''Personal Responsibility'' Pep

Travis007 said:
Ouch ..internet nonsense is what Obama voters are banking on....

Yea... that spam was a game changer..
Click to expand...

As the Middle East burns the rodeo clowns work hard to divert attenion away from the biggest scandal of BO's presidency. It's been over 3 weeks and we are told that it's still too dangerous for the FBI to go to Benghazi to conduct their investigation. Even though CNN reporters went to the scene days later and discovered the Ambassador's diary in which he related he feared for his life. But don't worry, we'll let you know what happened as soon as things cool down. Maybe after the election.
 
Re: This Businesswoman Tells Romney Where To Take His ''Personal Responsibility'' Pep

KopeAcetic said:
True, but I would think that also comes down to her payroll taxes as well right?
Click to expand...

If she takes a salary, she pays FICA on both sides. Since FICA money is used solely to provide a pension of sorts to people contributing, that money doesn't go into the general fund and does not go toward supporting the myriad of services our government provides. But, yes, you are right, she would definitely pay payroll taxes.

Well...that is...unless she set up her business as a Subchapter S corporation and elected to take her "salary" as dividends -- in which case she wouldn't even pay FICA. And...THAT is...until the IRS came knocking on her door and demanded that she take a reasonable salary on which she would have to pay payroll taxes. :rofl
 
Re: This Businesswoman Tells Romney Where To Take His ''Personal Responsibility'' Pep

jerry7 said:
As the Middle East burns the rodeo clowns work hard to divert attenion away from the biggest scandal of BO's presidency. It's been over 3 weeks and we are told that it's still too dangerous for the FBI to go to Benghazi to conduct their investigation. Even though CNN reporters went to the scene days later and discovered the Ambassador's diary in which he related he feared for his life. But don't worry, we'll let you know what happened as soon as things cool down. Maybe after the election.
Click to expand...

You are correct sir... well said..
 
Re: This Businesswoman Tells Romney Where To Take His ''Personal Responsibility'' Pep

MaggieD said:
I do not support the idea that this woman pays no Federal income tax because she has three children. What kind of sense does that make? Of course, she herself is just taking advantage of one more way the government has chosen to redistribute income; but I wouldn't be particularly proud that I'm not paying my fair share -- and that other taxpayers are paying more than their share because she chose to have three children.
Click to expand...

The Romney's are quite proud of their "Fair" share of taxes...right?.....well I want to only pay 13% too....if he can promise that tax rate to me then he has my vote.
 
Re: This Businesswoman Tells Romney Where To Take His ''Personal Responsibility'' Pep

straykatz said:
The Romney's are quite proud of their "Fair" share of taxes...right?.....well I want to only pay 13% too....if he can promise that tax rate to me then he has my vote.
Click to expand...

Anytime you want to pay $1.X million in taxes, I'm pretty sure you'll be at the 13% rate as well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom