Yes, Strom was something else. After he died it came out that he had a child whose mother was not Caucasian. Surprise, Surprise!
I'm not sure anybody has criticised him, on this thread. I think if you look over my posts, you'll see that I haven't. Instead, I've been talking about his tax status, and the impact this is having on him as a potential candidate for president. It's not just about impressions: few people have made as much as he has, but I suspect most of those taxpayers who've held down good jobs have paid a much higher percent of their earnings in combined income taxes, and social security taxes than he admits doing. This candidacy has put the privileges of the few under the spotlight.
That guy from NJ is smarter then many of the others. He does not want too put up with the Media and the mess they would causes for his family. Newt has it right about the media. Too bad that he will probably not get nominated.
rdubnpk Why should someone be criticized for adhering to the tax laws? He is, as he has stated, paying exactly what the tax laws require and not a penny more. The problem is, as you point out, that the average Joe republican who has been told repeatedly that those poor rich folk deserve all those tax breaks are seeing exactly how it works in black and white. Plus, the revelation is not coming from the media but from the other Republican candidates. That is what has me so baffled. Are they not shooting themselves and their entire platform regarding the richest 1% in the foot??
I thought you had it about right. Romney's candidacy is shaking the Republican Party to its roots. Cracks were bound to appear, sooner or later, when you look at who the supporters of the Republican Party have been. The rich and business interests have been the main clients of the Republican Party for my lifetime and, starting in the 60s, they shrewdly cobbled together support from a motley group of immigrant haters, gun lovers, anti-abortionists and christian fundamentalists, persuading these to vote against their self-interest on economic issues. Successfully promoting an anti-government message, they managed to impose policies which have resulted in no increase in real wages for three decades, in addition to creating the greatest income disparity in our country's history. Romney's candidacy is reopening examination of these and other fundamental social issues.
V, I think your characterization of the Republican Party is way off base. If you want to go that route then let's refer to all those in the Democratic Party as lazy, benefit sucking, drug taking, incompetent sleaze bags. If you will look at the historic side of things, the majority of our jobs started leaving the US when Clinton and his Wal Mart cronies were in power. Also our good friend Mr. Obama still is getting a huge amount of money from the same Wall Street people that he loves to bash in public. The point of many of us that are more to the right than the left is that the past policies of government give aways has not worked. It has created an environment that allows politicians to buy votes with government hand outs. Every president that I can remember going back to Johnson has said they were going to end poverty. All they have done is create a generation after generation stream of poverty because of the system of hand outs. In case you never noticed, a very large segment of the US is lazy and won't work when there are government dollars available. Right now you can draw unemployment benefits for almost two years. The result of that hand out is that every single one of my clients who is looking to hire people make the same complaint......they can't find people to work. So do you really think these hand outs are a good thing? The liberal idea of let's give people everything is a lot like feeding the bears in the park. Eventually the bears will not hunt but will depend on human hand outs. When the hand outs stop, the bears turn on the humans. I never really understood how liberals could see the same programs destroy generations of people and then clamor for more of the same.
I'll give you a real life example from here in Denver. Recently a company was looking to expand it's operations. They were offering wire assembly jobs with training for $16 an hour. They got hundreds of applications but only 2 people showed up for interviews. Why? Cause people didn't want to take the pay cut from unemployement. They were getting $17 there. So why send in the application? Because to continue to get unemployement, you have to keep applying for jobs like you are looking for work, but they don't ask if you showed up for an actual interview. Used to be that a job with benefits was more desirable than collecting unemployement. But I guess living off the government tit, sitting at home watching TV is more fun. Now, not everyone on unemployement is sitting home doing nothing but recently I watched a friend who was out of work post daily on FB what he was doing each day. I was jealous that I had to work and he was going from place to place. Granted he was doing a lot of volunteering and helping people out, but he was also describing great resturants and bars he was going to. Yes he is single with no mortgage or major bills to worry about and he was looking for a job, but damn.. I wanted to go hang with him rather than sit at this desk... And Twinimini, I think the reason they keep adding social program after social program (many overlaping existing coverage) is because they are afraid of the Bear coming back to eat them. Jamie
rdubnpk Our national debt is astronomical. Government spending is like a snowball rolling down hill, constantly gaining momentum and size, with no apparent end. Our children's future and the future of generations after are looking so bleak it makes you want to cry. The incumbent is a large reason for this unbrideled growth and the clown before him started us down the hill. Republican-Democrat, what difference does the label make when they all seem intent on destroying the greatness of America? We who are Democrats wish, as I have indicated on another thread, another choice to represent us. The way the political game works, though, it ain't gonna happen. And you give us Newt Gingrich?
