House Democrat: Unemployed Will Vote For Obama To Keep "Their Benefits"

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 27, 2012 11:05 PM GMT
    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/04/25/house_dem_unemployed_will_vote_for_obama_to_keep_their_benefits.html

    "We're headed in the right direction. Unemployment continues to drop and those people who are unemployed, they're not going to be voting for the party who wants to cut their benefits, cut access to food stamps, cut job training," Rep. Chaka Fattah (D-PA) said on MSNBC's Al Sharpton program.

    "The idea that Republicans are trying to help those who are unemployed is nonsense and I think that on this election day, those who have a job can credit the administration for stabilizing our economy and those who don't know that this administration is trying to put them to work," he said.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 27, 2012 11:11 PM GMT
    In many ways it's no diffrent to why many people in Oz vote in the left, they want hand outs, or to keep then. But then we have to then vote in the conservatives to get the bills paid off again, and tighten the belt to do so.

    When I vote I put country before self!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 27, 2012 11:31 PM GMT
    JPtheBITCH saidO wow, what a scandal, people voting in their own best interest. FIlm at 11!


    Some times that means voting against their own best interest in the long-run, or the country as a whole. But yes,selfishness at work in democracy some times yields Greece.
  • jock_1

    Posts: 1492

    Apr 28, 2012 2:00 PM GMT
    No different than whats happening here in Wisconsin. Gov. union and public union workers are trying to recall our gov. for making tough choices to help the tax payers. The only reson they have done this is money....they dont feel they should have to pay more for their insurance and pay a small amount towards thier pensions, and the nation unions are terrified of the domino effect that will take place across the country.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 28, 2012 2:24 PM GMT
    mocktwinkie said
    JPtheBITCH saidO wow, what a scandal, people voting in their own best interest. FIlm at 11!


    Some times that means voting against their own best interest in the long-run, or the country as a whole. But yes,selfishness at work in democracy some times yields Greece.


    Exactly, if the 1% weren't so selfish, they would pay their fair share in taxes which could then be used to stimulate the economy and get those people back to word and off unemployment.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 28, 2012 2:31 PM GMT

    "We're headed in the right direction. Unemployment continues to drop and those people who are unemployed, they're not going to be voting for the party who wants to cut their benefits, cut access to food stamps, cut job training," -Rep Chatta (D-PA)

    OK, so he said that the unemployed (who will vote for the gov't that will extend their benefits and food stamps and JOB TRAINING) are becoming fewer and fewer - see the bold in the above quote.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 28, 2012 2:33 PM GMT
    mocktwinkie said
    JPtheBITCH saidO wow, what a scandal, people voting in their own best interest. FIlm at 11!


    Some times that means voting against their own best interest in the long-run, or the country as a whole. But yes,selfishness at work in democracy some times yields Greece.


    That's true!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 28, 2012 2:35 PM GMT
    Christian73 said
    mocktwinkie said
    JPtheBITCH saidO wow, what a scandal, people voting in their own best interest. FIlm at 11!


    Some times that means voting against their own best interest in the long-run, or the country as a whole. But yes,selfishness at work in democracy some times yields Greece.


    Exactly, if the 1% weren't so selfish, they would pay their fair share in taxes which could then be used to stimulate the economy and get those people back to word and off unemployment.


    Used by whom to 'stimulate the economy'?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 28, 2012 2:43 PM GMT
    freedomisntfree said
    Christian73 said
    mocktwinkie said
    JPtheBITCH saidO wow, what a scandal, people voting in their own best interest. FIlm at 11!


    Some times that means voting against their own best interest in the long-run, or the country as a whole. But yes,selfishness at work in democracy some times yields Greece.


    Exactly, if the 1% weren't so selfish, they would pay their fair share in taxes which could then be used to stimulate the economy and get those people back to word and off unemployment.


    Used by whom to 'stimulate the economy'?


    The government.

    I'll just say that the whole premise of this thread is just more fake outrage. Are those who are scraping by on unemployment - which I'll remind you everyone who receives it has paid into it - have any more or less right to vote for their interests than the billionaires who are spending billions in this election to serve their own interests?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 28, 2012 2:48 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    Christian73 said

    Exactly, if the 1% weren't so selfish, they would pay their fair share in taxes which could then be used to stimulate the economy and get those people back to word and off unemployment.


    If "the 1%" would "pay their fair share in taxes" that would mean that they would be paying LESS in taxes. How about the "50%" that pay ZERO in Federal income taxes paying their fair share?


    Please take your ridiculous right-wing talking point elsewhere.

    The reason 50% pay no federal income tax is because they don't earn enough money to qualify. You're welcome to work at 7/11 for $7/hour if you want to avoid paying yours. I'll stick with my job and pay my federal income tax happily to the country that provided the opportunity for me to go from growing up on welfare to earning six-figures.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 28, 2012 3:02 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    Christian73 said
    southbeach1500 said
    Christian73 said

    Exactly, if the 1% weren't so selfish, they would pay their fair share in taxes which could then be used to stimulate the economy and get those people back to word and off unemployment.


    If "the 1%" would "pay their fair share in taxes" that would mean that they would be paying LESS in taxes. How about the "50%" that pay ZERO in Federal income taxes paying their fair share?


    Please take your ridiculous right-wing talking point elsewhere.

    The reason 50% pay no federal income tax is because they don't earn enough money to qualify.


    The only reason they don't "qualify" is that the tax code provides them with the ability to pay zero in Federal income taxes. That does not mean that it is fair that "the 50%" should pay ZERO in Federal income taxes.

    So when talking about changes to the tax code so that a certain segment pays "their fair share" we should be looking at the 50% of the population that pays ZERO in Federal income taxes.



    Just repeating your lame talking point doesn't make it any more valid.

    As you've been told ad nauseum, that group is or has paid their fair share because the vast majority are too poor or too elderly to qualify for paying federal income tax. From Forbes:

    Nontaxable-TEs.gif

    The working poor account for nearly 1/3 of those who don't pay. An additional 44% are elderly people receiving Social Security and Medicare. IOW, people who've already paid their share while they were working.

    From the article:

    about half of people who don’t owe income tax are off the rolls not because they take advantage of tax breaks but rather because they have low incomes. For example, a couple with two children earning less than $26,400 will pay no federal income tax this year because their $11,600 standard deduction and four exemptions of $3,700 each reduce their taxable income to zero.

    Could you provide for four people on $26,400 per year? Or more to the point $22,700? icon_rolleyes.gif

  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    Apr 28, 2012 3:03 PM GMT
    Oh how PRICELESS ... a recession that the Republicans CAUSED

    and NOW the republicans are pushing to starve the very same people they put out of work in the First Place

    You ARE a funny crew ... Y'are icon_biggrin.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 28, 2012 3:28 PM GMT
    Christian73 said
    freedomisntfree said
    Christian73 said
    mocktwinkie said
    JPtheBITCH saidO wow, what a scandal, people voting in their own best interest. FIlm at 11!


    Some times that means voting against their own best interest in the long-run, or the country as a whole. But yes,selfishness at work in democracy some times yields Greece.


    Exactly, if the 1% weren't so selfish, they would pay their fair share in taxes which could then be used to stimulate the economy and get those people back to word and off unemployment.


    Used by whom to 'stimulate the economy'?


    The government.

    I'll just say that the whole premise of this thread is just more fake outrage. Are those who are scraping by on unemployment - which I'll remind you everyone who receives it has paid into it - have any more or less right to vote for their interests than the billionaires who are spending billions in this election to serve their own interests?


    That’s where we differ.

    I know it’s an over simplification to say that we want to government to get out of the way and ‘we’ will take care of stimulating the economy.

    And since I’m self employed, I had no unemployment or any other benefits when the economy went south and blew through most of my saving trying to survive. So our natural state of being is to take risks, develop, build, etc., or we truly don’t eat.

    We like stability and predictability given that some of our projects take ten years from start to finish before we see a dime of profit. At a minimum, even with cooperative local and county government and relatively few nimbys, takes two years minimum.

    I have a tier one automotive OEM who wants a green clean build assembly plant in southern Delaware County and I found them a relatively new 200,000 sq ft plant, but now they want to put the entire thing on hold until after the election. So there went what would 400-500 new jobs on hold. This is the real life day in day out reality of excessive government intervention and unpredictability.

    This is an example of where I'm comfortable with Romney. I know he understands this.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 28, 2012 3:32 PM GMT

    Christian73 said to SB, "Could you provide for four people on $26,400 per year? Or more to the point $22,700? "

    That's not his concern, he's got his and that's all that matters, right SB?

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 28, 2012 3:53 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    Christian73 saidCould you provide for four people on $26,400 per year? Or more to the point $22,700? icon_rolleyes.gif



    Yes.




    A break-down of how you would accomplish this should be interesting.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 28, 2012 3:59 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    GQjock saidOh how PRICELESS ... a recession that the Republicans CAUSED


    Seems like the recession kicked in soon after the free-wheeling-big-spending Pelosi and Reid took control of Congress back in January of 2007.

    Hmmmmmm.....


    There were many factors: the late cycle housing boom always leading to a bust, gas prices, etc., but that's certainly one (Pelosi / Reid) that spooked us in this business. We were much more concerned about congress in the hands of those two folks than losing the POTUS. Spook us enough where the perceived risk becomes too great and we sit on our hands.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 28, 2012 4:28 PM GMT
    Well lets put this in perspective.

    1. which direction should the money be funneled that will best benefit the US economy?

    A. to those workers who lost their jobs through no fault of their own ?

    B. or toward the supposed job creators in the form of more tax cuts. ?



    response for A: Money directed toward the unemployed recirculates into the economy and creates orders for goods and services, while keeping those unemployed from falling into utter poverty, losing their homes and etc. that would just exacerbate the downward spiral of out economy


    response for B: Money directed toward the wealthy supposed 'job creators' in the form of tax cuts, goes no where but to add to the wealthy and corps savings /funds set aside, which is reported to be in the trillions of dollars and after ten years of such tax cuts has not created jobs, because there aren't orders for goods and services to warrent expanding business to create jobs.

    Here again we have an example of the Republican downward spiral, cut taxes, which cuts Government revenue which increases debt, cut benefits to those in need which cuts the amount of money in circulation, which cuts orders for goods and services and downward the sinking and ever broadening republican spiral goes. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer, and nobody is better off,


    It seems to me that the smart thing for all of us to do is to vote for those who will push for policies and legislation that benefits the most in our US economy rather than vote for those who only want to benefit the few, which has not and will not solve our economic problems that they started (republicans). The proof against the latter is in what we've experienced over the last 10 years, which includes the last 3 years of the republican party of no and intransigence to bring about "Obama's Waterloo".

    Its quite clear that the revenue side of the economic fix must be included if we are ever to escape this recessionary slump, some of that revenue should got to the unemployed, and a greater share to pay down debt. Tax cuts benefiting the already rich will not do either of the above but will make the problems worse. So the Unemployed had better use their good judgement and for for their interests which is in the interests of all of us including the rich.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 28, 2012 4:49 PM GMT
    meninlove said
    southbeach1500 said
    Christian73 saidCould you provide for four people on $26,400 per year? Or more to the point $22,700? icon_rolleyes.gif



    Yes.




    A break-down of how you would accomplish this should be interesting.


    I'll guess he'd get a loan from his family. icon_cool.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 28, 2012 4:58 PM GMT
    freedomisntfree said
    Christian73 said
    freedomisntfree said
    Christian73 said
    mocktwinkie said
    JPtheBITCH saidO wow, what a scandal, people voting in their own best interest. FIlm at 11!


    Some times that means voting against their own best interest in the long-run, or the country as a whole. But yes,selfishness at work in democracy some times yields Greece.


    Exactly, if the 1% weren't so selfish, they would pay their fair share in taxes which could then be used to stimulate the economy and get those people back to word and off unemployment.


    Used by whom to 'stimulate the economy'?


    The government.

    I'll just say that the whole premise of this thread is just more fake outrage. Are those who are scraping by on unemployment - which I'll remind you everyone who receives it has paid into it - have any more or less right to vote for their interests than the billionaires who are spending billions in this election to serve their own interests?


    That’s where we differ.

    I know it’s an over simplification to say that we want to government to get out of the way and ‘we’ will take care of stimulating the economy.

    And since I’m self employed, I had no unemployment or any other benefits when the economy went south and blew through most of my saving trying to survive. So our natural state of being is to take risks, develop, build, etc., or we truly don’t eat.

    We like stability and predictability given that some of our projects take ten years from start to finish before we see a dime of profit. At a minimum, even with cooperative local and county government and relatively few nimbys, takes two years minimum.

    I have a tier one automotive OEM who wants a green clean build assembly plant in southern Delaware County and I found them a relatively new 200,000 sq ft plant, but now they want to put the entire thing on hold until after the election. So there went what would 400-500 new jobs on hold. This is the real life day in day out reality of excessive government intervention and unpredictability.

    This is an example of where I'm comfortable with Romney. I know he understands this.


    Mitt Romney doesn't understand that at all. He started off with a stock portfolio that he was able to sell from in order to make ends meet when he and Ann first married.

    I assume part of his agenda will be to ensure that all college grads have a stock portfolio to ensure they get off to a good start.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 28, 2012 5:07 PM GMT
    Christian73 said
    freedomisntfree said
    Christian73 said
    freedomisntfree said
    Christian73 said
    mocktwinkie said
    JPtheBITCH saidO wow, what a scandal, people voting in their own best interest. FIlm at 11!


    Some times that means voting against their own best interest in the long-run, or the country as a whole. But yes,selfishness at work in democracy some times yields Greece.


    Exactly, if the 1% weren't so selfish, they would pay their fair share in taxes which could then be used to stimulate the economy and get those people back to word and off unemployment.


    Used by whom to 'stimulate the economy'?


    The government.

    I'll just say that the whole premise of this thread is just more fake outrage. Are those who are scraping by on unemployment - which I'll remind you everyone who receives it has paid into it - have any more or less right to vote for their interests than the billionaires who are spending billions in this election to serve their own interests?


    That’s where we differ.

    I know it’s an over simplification to say that we want to government to get out of the way and ‘we’ will take care of stimulating the economy.

    And since I’m self employed, I had no unemployment or any other benefits when the economy went south and blew through most of my saving trying to survive. So our natural state of being is to take risks, develop, build, etc., or we truly don’t eat.

    We like stability and predictability given that some of our projects take ten years from start to finish before we see a dime of profit. At a minimum, even with cooperative local and county government and relatively few nimbys, takes two years minimum.

    I have a tier one automotive OEM who wants a green clean build assembly plant in southern Delaware County and I found them a relatively new 200,000 sq ft plant, but now they want to put the entire thing on hold until after the election. So there went what would 400-500 new jobs on hold. This is the real life day in day out reality of excessive government intervention and unpredictability.

    This is an example of where I'm comfortable with Romney. I know he understands this.


    Mitt Romney doesn't understand that at all. He started off with a stock portfolio that he was able to sell from in order to make ends meet when he and Ann first married.

    I assume part of his agenda will be to ensure that all college grads have a stock portfolio to ensure they get off to a good start.


    And frankly rolling back to 2008, I don’t think McCain understood this either.

    As much as I didn’t much care for Romeny, mostly due to his tacky ad hominem attacks ads during the primaries, I do think he’s the best equipped POTUS candidate that we had in a long time to bring a common sense business approach to the federal government.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 28, 2012 5:15 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    meninlove said
    southbeach1500 said
    Christian73 saidCould you provide for four people on $26,400 per year? Or more to the point $22,700? icon_rolleyes.gif



    Yes.




    A break-down of how you would accomplish this should be interesting.



    Yes, it would be.



    Well? Let's see it.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 28, 2012 5:19 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    meninlove said
    southbeach1500 said
    Christian73 saidCould you provide for four people on $26,400 per year? Or more to the point $22,700? icon_rolleyes.gif



    Yes.




    A break-down of how you would accomplish this should be interesting.



    Yes, it would be.


    As a very small business owner, I’ll do my part toward recovery come November 7th. If Romney wins, I’ll hire an assistant. I cannot keep going at the pace I have, but I have to feel I have a little predictability regarding the future as this business is hellishly complex to teach to someone. So I want to be sure that I can keep them. Just cap gains rates going to the earned income rate will make many many projects not work so no need to invest the time hiring.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 28, 2012 5:37 PM GMT
    Christian73 said
    mocktwinkie said
    JPtheBITCH saidO wow, what a scandal, people voting in their own best interest. FIlm at 11!


    Some times that means voting against their own best interest in the long-run, or the country as a whole. But yes,selfishness at work in democracy some times yields Greece.


    Exactly, if the 1% weren't so selfish, they would pay their fair share in taxes which could then be used to stimulate the economy and get those people back to word and off unemployment.


    There's all the difference in the world between earning something and then parting with it and not earning anything and wanting to get something for free.
  • jock_1

    Posts: 1492

    Apr 28, 2012 5:41 PM GMT
    yes if the unionistas in my state...the public unions would pay thier fair share towards thier retirement and health care maybe our taxes wouldnt bo so high.

    the average gov employee makes way more than a private sector worker....why cant they pay thier fair share like christian insists the 1% do??
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 28, 2012 5:45 PM GMT
    mocktwinkie said
    Christian73 said
    mocktwinkie said
    JPtheBITCH saidO wow, what a scandal, people voting in their own best interest. FIlm at 11!


    Some times that means voting against their own best interest in the long-run, or the country as a whole. But yes,selfishness at work in democracy some times yields Greece.


    Exactly, if the 1% weren't so selfish, they would pay their fair share in taxes which could then be used to stimulate the economy and get those people back to word and off unemployment.


    There's all the difference in the world between earning something and then parting with it and not earning anything and wanting to get something for free.



    ...and when they go begging to a charity, would you use the same reasoning and turn them away, Mock?


    Why did they not earn anything? Why do they want something for free?