If we did election over today, Romney would trounce Obama: Nationwide Poll

[Karee 4,190]

Just because the dude has an unlimited vocabulary, most of which you don't understand, does not make him a bad person.

Good point. I stand corrected.

[Teddy B 17,252]

Good point. I stand corrected.

I'm here to help bro.

[decocker 7,198]

I believe she was waitressing part time. There was also something about not being able to marry her father's children because then they would count his income or something like that. The whole thing was setup so that she could get the maximum amount of free stuff possible, by doing as little as possible. The govt. was right there to oblige. It was quite an eye-opener for me. The school loan thing for online classes was another great scam, but I wont go into that one here.

i know people who have stayed single so they can keep EIC. however, none of them could ever afford to merely work part time. i also know a couple people who have done the online classes scam, but that can only be a onetime thing and if you don't repay they do come after you for their money (and in the case that it was a spouse attempting the scam - they will come after you iffin your spouse also doesn't work).

the thing is that ultimately, it's not beneficial to limit yourself to a certain income just in order to get a couple thousand bucks at the end of the year. the scams and dependants don't last long. and then you have to provide for youself or concede to a long life of purposefully living in poverty so the government will continue to pay for your existence. obvious stupid life choices.

i'm more concerned about all the tax loopholes for the rich and always getting richer. that's where the real money is, and that's where we're losing the most tax potential.

[unsmiley 111]

How does one win a campaign? They only cater to the people that will vote for them? Obama hit the rich and the poor, guess he can multi-task.

One wins a campaign by preaching to the choir and converting the truly undecided. The rest can be (unfortunately) safely ignored. That is the whole point.

Obama did not campaign to rich, as far as I remember. But they were fawning over him and contributing millions to his campaign. So he did not have to reach out to them.

[JohnR! 5,495]

One wins a campaign by preaching to the choir and converting the truly undecided. The rest can be (unfortunately) safely ignored. That is the whole point.

Obama did not campaign to rich, as far as I remember. But they were fawning over him and contributing millions to his campaign. So he did not have to reach out to them.

Obama campaigned to everyone, as did Romney. The difference is that Romney's comment eliminated any chance he had to get the vote of a large part of the American public.

[We Keep Receipts 9,238]

Again he said in the context that they wouldn't vote for him, not that he didn't care about them. It's pretty clear if you watch the video. As far as going to places he wasn't expected to go, have you seen what happens when a conservative goes to an NAACP convention. I suspect you have. I'm at work right now paying for all these folks to sit on their azz so I don't have time to find the video, but I'm sure it's pretty easy to find.

Yep, and when the first thing that comes out of your mouth is we're getting rid of welfare, when the question isn't even asked is a problem. Why do conservatives treat black folks differently? Because over 30% of white people are on welfare, yet it's not brought up. Why is lazy blacks the line of choice, when white people don't work, we never hear that.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/24/lazy-blacks-daily-show_n_4159210.html

I've said it a million times, you can't call someone ugly and then ask them to the prom. It doesn't work, yet the GOP keeps doing it, expecting a different result.

[unsmiley 111]

Obama campaigned to everyone, as did Romney. The difference is that Romney's comment eliminated any chance he had to get the vote of a large part of the American public.

I agree about the effect of Romney's unfortunate choice of words, but his point was entirely correct. What was not so smart was to verbalize it.

I really think the candidates pay only lip service to the segments that are safely out of their reach.

[We Keep Receipts 9,238]

One wins a campaign by preaching to the choir and converting the truly undecided. The rest can be (unfortunately) safely ignored. That is the whole point.

Obama did not campaign to rich, as far as I remember. But they were fawning over him and contributing millions to his campaign. So he did not have to reach out to them.

When you have a dinner that costs in the five digit range to buy a plate, you're not talking to the poor. I can't afford a 40,000 dollar a plate meal.

http://news.yahoo.com/obama-clooney-romney-corbett-fundraisers-highlight-expensive-meals-174800255.html

He campaigned just like everyone else.

[Karee 4,190]

Yep, and when the first thing that comes out of your mouth is we're getting rid of welfare, when the question isn't even asked is a problem. Why do conservatives treat black folks differently? Because over 30% of white people are on welfare, yet it's not brought up. Why is lazy blacks the line of choice, when white people don't work, we never hear that.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/24/lazy-blacks-daily-show_n_4159210.html

I've said it a million times, you can't call someone ugly and then ask them to the prom. It doesn't work, yet the GOP keeps doing it, expecting a different result.

If Romney went to those places where he wasn't expected to go, folks might have said, he cares about us, the little people. Those voices that are often ignored. And they proved in that last election, they are just as important as anyone else.

Quote above from you.

Seems like you're asking and answering your own questions. No need for any input from me.

[Teddy B 17,252]

i know people who have stayed single so they can keep EIC. however, none of them could ever afford to merely work part time. i also know a couple people who have done the online classes scam, but that can only be a onetime thing and if you don't repay they do come after you for their money (and in the case that it was a spouse attempting the scam - they will come after you iffin your spouse also doesn't work).

the thing is that ultimately, it's not beneficial to limit yourself to a certain income just in order to get a couple thousand bucks at the end of the year. the scams and dependants don't last long. and then you have to provide for youself or concede to a long life of purposefully living in poverty so the government will continue to pay for your existence. obvious stupid life choices.

i'm more concerned about all the tax loopholes for the rich and always getting richer. that's where the real money is, and that's where we're losing the most tax potential.

And that's why you'll never see a flat tax either.

[Karee 4,190]

When you have a dinner that costs in the five digit range to buy a plate, you're not talking to the poor. I can't afford a 40,000 dollar a plate meal.

http://news.yahoo.com/obama-clooney-romney-corbett-fundraisers-highlight-expensive-meals-174800255.html

He campaigned just like everyone else.

President Obama will jump-start what looks to be a major June fundraising push with six money events today in Minneapolis and Chicago – the most fundraisers he’s held in a single day since launching his bid for a second term.

Obama is expected to raise more than $7.2 million total for the Obama Victory Fund (OVF), according to figures provided by the campaign.

Flying to Minnesota under the banner of “official business” – an event at a Honeywell factory in a Minneapolis suburb – Obama will quickly turn to politics, lunching with three separate sets of donors at the downtown Bachelor Farmer restaurant, an eatery owned by Democratic Gov. Mark Dayton’s two sons, Eric and Andrew.

The president will first address a group of 100 guests, each paying $5,000 a plate. He then will meet privately with two small roundtables of deep-pocket supporters – one group paying $40,000 per person; the other $50,000 per person, a campaign official said. (The $50k ticket price is the largest for any Obama fundraiser held since the start of the campaign.)

Source:

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/06/president-obama-hosts-6-fundraisers-friday-on-minneapolis-chicago-visit/

[unsmiley 111]

When you have a dinner that costs in the five digit range to buy a plate, you're not talking to the poor. I can't afford a 40,000 dollar a plate meal.

http://news.yahoo.com/obama-clooney-romney-corbett-fundraisers-highlight-expensive-meals-174800255.html

He campaigned just like everyone else.

Raising money from a group is not necessarily the same thing as appealing to them on the level I think you mean. In other words, for example, appealing to the poor might be to raise their benefits. Appealing to the rich might mean lowering their taxes. I don't think Obama made any such promises to the rich.

[We Keep Receipts 9,238]

Quote above from you.

Seems like you're asking and answering your own questions. No need for any input from me.

Yes, because going somewhere and expecting to be booed is the right attitude to have right? If you're going to lose, why even try?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/she-the-people/post/mitt-romney-vs-the-naacp-he-was-disrespected--and-disrespectful/2012/07/13/gJQAY5IViW_blog.html

Compare Romney’s recent speech before the National Association ofLatino Elected and Appointed Officials in Orlando to see the difference between someone who is working for votes and the same person content to stage a piece of political theater.

Would it have hurt team Romney to do a little research into the 103-year history of the NAACP, formed by whites and blacks to fight lynching and work toward equal rights for Americans of all races and nationalities? In the audience were doctors, lawyers, citizens engaged in the community activism and philanthropy Romney could easily support and encourage. But instead of talking with them, he lectured and prodded — and by the look on his face, had fun doing it.

If Mitt Romney were a more graceful campaigner, he could have reached across any divisions to emphasize things he had in common with members of the NAACP; pre- and post-speech interviews hardly showed individuals in lockstep. He might have noted issues important to the group even when opinions diverged.

[JohnR! 5,495]

I agree about the effect of Romney's unfortunate choice of words, but his point was entirely correct. What was not so smart was to verbalize it.

I really think the candidates pay only lip service to the segments that are safely out of their reach.

IMHO the way he put it made it sound as though he believed that 47% lived off the rest of us. We can dissect the tax implications of living in America ad nauseam, but to the worker who earns a small salary, sales taxes are taxes and he/she pays them.

In addition, it boded terribly well that Romney's tax bracket is lower than many who make far less money than he does, so his comment came through as snobbish to many. In fact, Obama did make a point during his campaign to point out that he himself was at a lower bracket than many others, whose salaries were inferior to his.

In the end, Romney's comment sounded as though the 47% didn't pay taxes because they didn't want to, instead of because of the current tax code.

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

When Gegel is +1ing you, that's a bad sign.

That should be the sign