Middle East Turmoil Closely Followed; Romney's Comments Viewed Negatively

Pew Research Center September 17, 2012

About four-in-ten Americans (43%) have followed news about the attacks on U.S. embassies in the Middle East and the killing of an American ambassador very closely, making it by far the most closely followed foreign news story of the year.

Those who have followed this story have much more positive opinions about Barack Obama’s handling of the situation than Mitt Romney’s comments on the crisis. Nearly half (45%) approve of Obama’s handling of the recent attacks on U.S. embassies and the killing of the U.S. ambassador in Libya; 36% disapprove of Obama’s handling of this situation.

In contrast, only about a quarter (26%) of those who have tracked news on turmoil in the Middle East approve of Romney’s comments on the situation; nearly half (48%) disapprove.
http://www.people-press.org/2012/09...-followed-romneys-comments-viewed-negatively/


The wingnuts keep hoping that this will be a rerun of the Iranian hostage crisis. So far this does not seem to be happening.

 

But the thing is as that hate and fear eases out of you you're comforting yourself with a lie. The statement that 47% of people don't pay federal taxes is a lie. The only way you can tell it is to pretend that people who actually do work for a living don't pay withholding taxes, FICA and Social Security.

And the idea that 47% of people depend on the government is even a bigger lie.

So you can be as bitter and hateful as you want to but it does not change the fact you're not based in reality.

PS Deep down I bet what really has you so frightened and hateful is deep down you both know Mitt Romney threw away the election; again, today.

 

That 47% includes senior citizens who worked for decades and paid into the system, disabled people who can't work, college students, and some of the 13 million who are out of work. Actually you do have to pay income tax on unemployment benefits, so it's not all of the 13 million currently on unemployment. Of course some of the disabled were able bodied at one time and have put tax dollars into the system as well. There are the 3 million people whose good jobs were sent overseas in the last 10 years who have had to settle for lower paying work. Then there's the working poor. With the standard deductions and exemptions, a married couple with 2 children can make $29K and not pay a penny of federal income tax.

Only a quarter of families who would qualify for some kind of housing assistance actually get any, because it's underfunded. It used to be that 2/3 of poor families got some kind of cash assistance. Now only 27% of families living in poverty receive cash assistance (TANF) and it pays less than 50% of the poverty level. In some states it pays as little as 30% of the poverty level. TANF funds are given to states in the form of block grants, but the funds can be used for things other than cash assistance for the poor. Since 1996, a poor family can get Earned Income Credit but that's for EARNED INCOME. You have to have a job. That's what's available now instead of the old fashioned welfare. It's not as much money and it's not given to nearly as many families.

You'd be surprised who doesn't qualify for food stamps. I have a friend that had to fight to get disability for 18 months (and yes, she definitely can't work). She had worked and put into the system for over 20 years. She went through all her savings and her family helped her out as much as they could. She was getting $200 a month in food stamps during that time. FINALLY she got approved for disability payments, a whopping $811 a month. They promptly cut her food stamps to $16 a month. If you're poor and single, or even a poor married couple with no kids at home, there isn't a lot of help available. Those folks are SOL, and they're part of Romney's dreaded 47%.

 

romney failed to state that he also included those living in the districts of columbias to his 47%
as well as he forgot to state that the 47% also included people that are incarcerated
and the few that are actualy dead but have no death certificates

 

I do not get how anybody could be surprised by Mitt Romney being what he is.

It's obvious by the places he purposely chooses to speak at instead of others alone, let alone the things he says or the way he talks and acts and the douchey expressions he always makes.

 

look at the interview where paul ryan openly states that the real reason the they refuse to give details obout their budget plan is so that it will pass the congress

lets see what could that mean
poor and middle class get fucked
all government funds get redirected to the offshore accounts
and mitt and butt boy ryan live happily everafter in pago pago

 

People who Romney says "depend on the government" are largely people receiving Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid or food stamp benefits. These are programs the public has agreed to be taxed for, so that they have some minimal protection against sickness, poverty and starvation. Will we now demonize people who find themselves in circumstances where they have to avail themselves of these same programs, which they have paid for during their entire working lives?

What he said was insulting, disgusting, and reflected a total lack of compassion. If you're not wealthy like him, he's got no use for you.

 

Oh its way worse than that this morning Kimiko and even better than Mitt Romney trowing the election away; again, for us liberal/progressive/Democrats. Because the one thing Romney's statement is doing is forcing the mainstream media to finally address the false charge that 47% of Americans don't pay any federal income taxes.

But that's a lie because the vast majority of people who work do pay federal withholding taxes, social security, and FICA. And when we count those federal taxes the number of people paying no federal income taxes falls from 47% to 18%.

This is a great day to be a Democrat.

Here's a pretty good break down of the lie the conservative/Republican/Tea Party is trying to tell.

http://www.alan.com/2012/09/18/who-exactly-doesnt-pay-income-tax-and-why/

 

I will say this about people who stay on welfare (TANF) for years and years. As long as families can get more money and benefits by having more children, there will be some who will keep having children they can't afford to care for. If you're getting food stamps, you get more money with each child. If you get Earned Income Credit, you only get more up to the third child. That makes more sense to me. It's one thing to become poor when you have children, through job loss or disability. To me, having children when you're already struggling is another thing entirely. It may sound draconian, but I don't think the government should be in the business of promoting large families for anyone. We have too many people to live sustainably as it is.

 

But I think you're missing the point that all states require welfare to work programs and a time limit.

Secondly, however, this is another aspect of the great lie of conservatism. Right now they oppose all forms of abortion and even paying for birth control forcing people to have children. But then once those children are actually born they claim they are nothing but useless moochers sucking up our tax dollars.

And there is also part of the lie of conservatism where welfare to people with dependent children is a terrible thing but corporate welfare is just fine.

By the way if I'm not mistaken the birth rate in the US has fallen quite a bit during the recession which shows a lot of people are choosing not to have children.

 

Oh believe me, I think Planned Parenthood should be funded with taxpayer dollars so that they can provided birth control and health care to anyone that needs it on a sliding scale, free if they qualify. Only 3% of their budget goes to providing abortion services, and that includes abortions for rape, incest, to save the mother's life and cases of severe fetal deformities. There are a few women that use abortion AS birth control (my ex-sister-in-law was one), rather than using it because birth control failed but those women are few and far between.

Yes, the birth rate has fallen over all. It's now below replacement rate. I agree with you about corporate welfare, in fact I'm reading a book about it right now called "Free Lunch: How the Wealthiest Americans Enrich Themselves (And Stick You With the Bill)". Read it and prepare for your blood to boil. It's Written by David Cay Johnston. He wrote another book called "Perfectly Legal" about how the tax code is rigged for the wealthy.

I'm also aware of the work requirements for welfare. There are even work requirements for food stamps if you're able bodied. Trust me, I support Obama.

 

Wrong.

He overstated his point in just one respect: by lumping into the mix the senior citizens who have earned retirement. But even as far as they go, he is essentially conceding that he doesn't have a prayer of winning them over, due to the pressure from special interest lobbies that appeal to seniors' self-interest by spreading misinformation about the effect that entitlement reforms would have on them.

Romney is rightfully targeting the people who are content to sit on their asses and leech from the Treasury for as long as the bread-and-circus lasts.

Republicans have compassion. Even cold-hearted W. Bush sent more AIDS intervention money to Africa than Bill Clinton, a fact that he gets zero credit for. Any reasonable person would be justifiably sympathetic and compassionate toward people who have a bonafide disability or experience transient misfortune.

But this is about the fact that a third of Americans are on some sort of entitlement, and that Welfare roles have risen 70% in Obama's first four years. Not because the more people are poor, or because "Bush did it," but because the Obama administration systematically lowered the bar that defines poverty, to swell his ranks.

Romney's message is nothing new to anyone who has ever studied de Tocqueville in a history elective at some point in his/her life. His message, quite simply, is that democracy fails when a majority realize that they can vote themselves largesse from the Treasury. They cease to make rational decisions, and simply vote for the candidate that gives them the most treats. Fiscal rectitude crumbles and leads to policies that accelerate collapse. (Can anyone say QE3 Stimulus?) A. de Tocqueville advises that the world's great civilizations have seldom lasted more than 200 years, for precisely this reason.

The United States is on borrowed time.

Romney did not gaffe. He has to grow a backbone, and preach this message at the top of his lungs.

He might not be elected, but he will at least have given it the college try, and having given it 100%, he might be able to sleep at night, over the next four years, as it all falls apart.

___________


Speaking of Men of Mystery....

Here's a mystery for you: how many more non-issues will David Axelrod be able to trot out, between now and November, to distract the Ameican people from the facts that the QE3 Stimulus has sparked another credit downgrade, and that the State Department had at least three days of advance notice of the al Qaeda attack on Libya, while Obama skipped intelligence briefings and attended fundraisers in Las Vegas?

Here's another mystery for you: what guarantees have the mainstream press been given, in return for throwing journalistic integrity out the window and boldly parroting State propaganda, given that most of them are on the verge of bankruptcy?

Here's another mystery for you: what sort of retribution is in store for Google, in return for its refusal to genuflect to the Messiah by taking down the Youtube video? Given that Apple has an impending intellectual property/antitrust suit pending against Android? And given that Apple is a darling of the Obama Administration, despite the fact that most of their manufacturing takes place in China?

 

You were probably right about the rest of your post, but the crux of the matter is that he said those people weren't going to vote for him anyway, so it is not like he has lost any votes, Therefore the comment isn't really going to have any bearing on his campaign. Not sure why this day would be so great, well at least relative to the norm anyway.

 

Just goes to show how little you really know about American Politics.

First and foremost because all Mitt Romney did was repeat a right wing false propaganda lie. It all depends on your definition of "federal income taxes." That's just a bald faced lie. To reach that 47% you have to ignore that people who work for a living still pay federal withholding taxes. SS taxes, and FICA. Those are all federal taxes working people pay and when you count them the figure drops from 47% to 18%. The rest are either elderly, on active duty in the military, or too poor to pay taxes.

But secondly and more importantly the reason its a good day for Democrats is because Mitt Romney also just insulted a big part of his base who include elderly on Social Security and self identified Tea Party members who earn less than $50,000 per year.

Lastly and most importantly, however, Mitt Romney also said he intends to represent only 53% of the richest Americans if he gets elected president. That is a cliff he ran off of and can't reclimb.

 

Oh, I take it that you're referring to the fact that the Romney/Ryan plan would leave Medicare in place for existing seniors. But haven't you asked yourself, if what Romney and Ryan are proposing is truly a "reform" of Medicare that will "strengthen" it, why NOT apply it to existing seniors? The reason is obvious. Seniors would oppose such a change with every fiber of their being, for the very simple reason that their promised benefits would be dramatically reduced. Romney and Ryan are simply trying to divide and conquer, by promising not to screw existing seniors, hoping thereby that they can talk seniors into screwing everyone else.

 

I just wanted to point out once more that the only way they can claim that 47% is to ignore that anyone working for a living pays federal withholding taxes, SS, and FICA.

When we add those "federal" income taxes in the number of people not paying ANY federal taxes drops from 47% to 18%.

But unlike Romney and the rest of the 1% my taxes were paid up front and I never got all of those taxes back because I didn't have the chance to put my money in tax shelters and off shore accounts.

I just quoted this one because I thought it was an excellent response.

And that is exactly why a majority of this nation (not just the elderly) trust President Obama more with SS and Medicare than Romney and the GOP.

Also notice that just like everything else Romney/Ryan are not even willing to discuss these issues and want to keep their plans secret.

 

The bread-and-circus can't go on forever.

Obama defunded Medicare by more than $700 billion.

As I said above, Romney and Ryan can't win with the truth. They are going to lose. And when they lose, they will have to be able to face themselves in the mirror.

de Tocqueville was right. When a majority realizes it can pillage the Treasury with its vote, democracy fails. That is where we are.

I said it eight or nine months ago. I said I would not vote for Romney, because I despised his policies as governor of Massachusetts. I also said that I hope Obama wins, so that a Republican administration does not preside over the collapse. You guys didn't believe me.

Vote for Obama. Go ahead. Feed off that teat for as long as you can.

 

No I don't believe you because all you do is lie with tired old worn out cliches you academic and intellectual fraud. That's why it does not matter what you say there plastic bubble reactionary.

Case in point where did President Obama cut $700 billion from Medicare?

If you know what you're talking about instead of just running your phony reactionary mouth you can answer that question easily can't you Clarise?

Because if you can't you just proved yourself to be everything I just called you.

 

Where'd you go Clarise?? Surely it didn't take that long to google the $700 billion did it? Now I'm going to call you a coward as well as a plastic bubble reactionary and intellectual and academic fraud.

 

obama did cut $700billion from the medicare program that is true
the cuts did not come the services availible to those on medicare it came from the theiving doctors that have been overcharging since day one

and in fact romney cites the exact same cuts in his own budget plan

romney cannot keep his mouth shut and is killing his own capaign
but at least we know he would have been a good gymnast