Mitt Romney Blames The ‘Victims’

REMINDER: People on welfare didn’t cost us 15 million jobs and trillions in savings. People on Wall Street did.

Mitt Romney released one doctored tax return this week but he also – accidentally – released something that no one expected: some truth.

Thanks to a waiter with a small camera and gigantic metaphorical testicles, James E. Carter and David Corn at Mother Jones, we finally got a peek at the way Mitt Romney actually regards 47 percent of American voters – the laborers, the janitors the home health care workers — the working poor who in the last two decades have seen their life expectancy shrink by four years.

With a confidence and fluency that eludes him when speaking about most anything, Romney told us that what he’s learned by becoming severely conservative is that these Americas – most of whom work and pay a higher tax rate than him due to payroll taxes – are people who see themselves “victims.” To him they’re dependent moochers who can’t be forced to take responsibly for their lives.

You’d have to work 7 million years at Walmart to earn as much as the Walmart heirs. But if you work there 40 hours a week, Mitt Romney thinks you’re a moocher.

Ezra Klein has pointed out that the working poor in America aren’t avoiding responsibility, they’re drowning in it. And that’s obvious to anyone who has any sense of what’s going on in our economy.

What’s also obvious is that the only thing the GOP has learned from a decade in which giant tax breaks for the rich created nothing but a financial crisis is that the people to blame for this are the disabled, union workers and the elderly.

No one and nothing will ever cost us as many jobs as the big banks can by holding our financial system hostage. And they’re bigger than ever.

Mitt Romney’s solution? He wants to cut a trillion from Medicaid. He wants to eliminate the reforms on Wall Street we’ve put in place. He wants to give millionaires more tax breaks.

Basically: He wants to reward the people who were responsible for the financial crisis and punish those who continue suffer because of it.

Of course, Mitt can’t blame the investor class or the conservative economists who actually created the economic catastrophe that George W. Bush left America drowning in. They’re his constituency, his donors. And, of course, he can’t see America’s actual crisis of responsibility.

It’s a crisis where scientists are blamed for noticing a climate crisis, where workers are blamed when management fails, teachers are blamed when poverty is ignored, where women are blamed when they don’t get the health care or education they need.

The worst possible tendency of those who are in power is the tendency to blame the powerless. And with this video we see that Mitt Romney is a man who does just that.

All we can do is thank fate for this rare opportunity where Mitt Romney shared a little truth.

[Photo by Anne Savage.]

  • WigFow

    SOunds like a crazy plan to me dude. Wow.

    AnonFolks.tk

  • WigFow

    Soetimes man you jsut have to wonder. I mean like totally.
    AnonFolks.tk

  • Matt

    That Is not even close to what Romney said. Biased shit article.. at least do some proofreading before you post your drivel online

    • http://twitter.com/Metatron_Qube nacho borealis

      Please indulgence us with your superior intellect on what he said then. Oh wait facts and reality are something you don’t live with.

      • http://www.facebook.com/maryjanicep Janice Watson Poulnott

        I listened to video. He said exactly what they say he said. Are you delusional? Too much Fax news.

      • SnarkyLibertarian

        “Mitt Romney’s solution? He wants to cut a trillion from Medicaid. He wants to eliminate the reforms on Wall Street we’ve put in place. He wants to give millionaires more tax breaks.”

        Basically says…
        “Mitt Romney wants to increase wages and streamline Wall Street.”

        However, it could also say…
        “Mitt Romney is the devil himself come here to feed on our babies. ”

        It depends on your ‘beliefs’… which is the problem. The article overly selected information, allowing bigots to interpret it as they please.

    • Sammy Castagna

      Sounds pretty close to me.

    • http://eclectablog.com Eclectablog

      Ill give credit for spelling and using “drivel”. But that’s about it. Continue to insult the writers here, however, and I will ban you.

      • Billy

        At least you are out in the open about your moderation policies.

        • Kenneth Adams

          Great to see that liberals only believe in free speech as it is favorable to them. Ban everyone else.

          • Degn

            If you post retarded nonsense on an internet forum, don’t expect it to not get downvoted to hell / removed.

          • http://eclectablog.com Eclectablog

            You have absolutely free speech on the internet. Both Blogger and WordPress let you blog for free. Knock yourself out. Make it happen. That’s how this blog got started.

    • Catch22af

      like John Stewart said, “it’s like Romney jazz, it’s the words you don’t hear that matters”

    • flip dalrymple

      yes, please educate us all on this bias you speak of.

    • Kevin

      You pretty clearly didn’t see the video. He said *exactly* what the article describes.

  • person

    Where do I get to watch that video?

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Alex-Carson/1278406114 Alex Carson

    It’s obvious neither Obama or Romney are the leaders America needs. Please write-in Ron Paul this November. Don’t listen to the liars and shills who claim it’s a “wasted” vote. Vote your conscience. It’s time for the false Democrat/Republican dichotomy to end. Vote for the Constitution, and the true restoration of America. RP isn’t perfect, but he’s miles beyond the jokers who are supposedly the only choice we have.

    • http://profile.yahoo.com/NA2IO2F3HSJDMDS4QASA3ORVSE First L

      No. Most states do not even accept write in votes. Like literally, your vote is wasted. Not figuratively. But literally, it is not accepted.

      Instead look into Gary Johnson, he wants to end the war on drugs, legalize and tax marijuana like alcohol, and retroactively release all nonviolent offenders, end the war in the middle east, cut spending by 47%, and he is pro gay marriage.

      He is more liberal than obama and more conservative than romney.

      He’s libertarian, not liberal, he fights for freedom and liberty.

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Alex-Carson/1278406114 Alex Carson

        Point taken. I have edited my post.

      • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=508004567 Marc Faulkner

        Libertarian is propaganda code for Corpritism. Freedom for them is not life for you. “Freedom for the pike (them) is death for the minnow (us)”
        Hey everybody. We get to smoke pot!!!! Thats awesome now they get to discriminate against us at will, subjugate us with state endorsed religions, poison us with toxic waste, and insult us with less then livable wages. LET FREEDOM RING!!!!

        • Ron Morris

          Thanks for saying what I did above with more emotion and fewer words.

          The important point here is that Libertarians ignore economic factors and appeal only to gut feelings. My gut is rumbling and needs something other than pie-in-the-sky and empty promises.

    • Evan

      Vote Gary Johnson, he is on the ballot (in all but three states) and he has very similar ideas to Ron Paul.

      • http://www.facebook.com/maryjanicep Janice Watson Poulnott

        So throw your vote to the wind? Neither has a prayer.

        • SnarkyLibertarian

          It’s about sending a message to you and the candidates. In their case, letting them know that they may eventually need to compete for our vote. In your case, giving you confidence that we can win.

          It’s sad that this argument must constantly be used. Why even vote if you don’t believe in democracy? Voting for a candidate you don’t agree with or trust is throwing this country to the wind.

      • http://profile.yahoo.com/GQMD7U62CAGRC2L6PLZQXRVXXU kamana

        Ron Paul was a racist who now wants to deny it: “why, one of my best friends was a ——!” “huh? I can’t remember his name right now but I’ll get back to you on that later.”

      • http://www.facebook.com/allyson.harris2 Allyson Harris

        Ron Paul has shown he has ideas that are racist and elitist…if that’s what you want, then vote for this Johnson person. No thanks.

    • Rusty Shackleford

      and vote for a libertarian? no thanks. I would vote for a socialist as they want government programs as well as civil liberties

      • SnarkyLibertarian

        Ignorant bolshevik.

      • Ron Morris

        The libertarians are merely passive-aggressive conservatives, especially with respect to their economic policies. The libertarians hate the poor and blame them for their problems just as other conservatives do. Libertarian “flat taxes” are horrible for the poor, for example. Don’t be fooled by the Ron Paul and Gary Johnson trolls. Their progressive drag should not fool anyone. There is no substitute for the real thing, and that is some form of democratic socialism, no matter what you call it.

        • SnarkyLibertarian

          I wasn’t aware that I hate the poor or my family. It’s also surprising that Clint Eastwood hates my family. Thank you for this amazingly rational revelation. I’ll go worship Obama as his policies are the ‘real thing’ and will pay no attention to the sharply decreasing employment rate. Currently at the lowest point in 31 years, biggest drop since the Great Depression, not that it matters.

          Say, were you aware that the upcoming tax increases combined with wage regulations are going to cause widespread layoffs? Many of which will be collecting unemployment as they’re union and the next job should be coming any day…

          • Ron Morris

            Go ahead and prove my points by spewing Republican talking points, not that you actually are self-aware enough to realize this. Let me try to explain.

            Libertarianism is more about social issues than economic ones. The opposite of libertarian is authoritarian, which is not very nice at all. The traditional liberal/conservative continuum is about the economy, the former supporting more even wealth distribution. The right has always, and will always support the wealthy. This should be obvious to anyone in the current election cycle.

            The typical card-carrying libertarian these days combines hard right economics with resistance to being authoritarian about them. This is better than the overt fascism of, say, the religious right, who are both hard right and authoritarian. But at the end of the day, on the street, this works out to much the same. I really don’t care if cannabis or abortion is legal or not if I cannot afford food and lodging. Ditto for any of the other “wedge” issues used by the right and their libertarian lackeys.
            I prefer the combination of hard LEFT economic policies combined with libertarian social policies. This is why I am a democratic socialist, which is a fancy way of saying the same thing. It is also a label that has found me, because I have stayed in the same place, while the spectrum has shifted toward the right/authoritarian model. In years past, I was merely a garden-variety Democrat.
             

          • SnarkyLibertarian

            Libertarianism disregards social issues for economic reasons. You’ve just contradicted yourself. We primarily “hate the poor” but we’re about social issues?

            The problem is that you have a relatively overdeveloped right brain like most liberals. Disregarding all evidence you have somehow come to the conclusion that the government can provide better for the poor than the poor can provide for themselves in a freely competitive market. Welfare & food stamps are a tiny cost… that issue may be deferred. Libertarian-ism is about utilizing liberty to exploit human potential for the general good.

            What’s happening in our economy currently is a the result of “left” economic policies. These policies are corruptible and lead to monopolies. The market is uncompetitive and prices are dictated by how much you can get away with charging. As a consumer you try to pick the lesser evil but have little choice. New businesses only emerge within luxury or fringe industries. From what I can imagine, it’d be difficult to have competitive luxury oatmeal, so we’re stuck with whatever the current monopoly can get away with.

            In this situation it sort of makes sense to increase regulation but in reality you’re just adding patches upon patches to a growing problem. Humans simply cannot design a utopia. Every additional regulation costs money to everyone and hurts entrepreneurs. Our impending 40% tax rate may seem tolerable but that’s actually over a 100% of our society’s profit margin. Like Europe, we will stagnate if this continues.

            Are you even aware of the thousands of regulations a new business must comply to? How do you expect them to accomplish that? It’s okay because it’s not you, right? Here’s a good starting point; http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title16/16cfrv2_02.tpl

          • J.R. Reynolds

            “What’s happening in our economy currently is a the result of “left” economic policies.” There is no evidence for this. To create a vibrant economy workers needs to share in the rewards of productivity. Our current situation is due to a lack of resources by the middle class to buy stuff, due to a lack of pay raises as well as lowered taxes for the wealthy. Check your facts, for the past 60 years, Democratic Administrations have out performed Republicans in virtually every economic category.

          • http://www.facebook.com/allyson.harris2 Allyson Harris

            What’s happening now is the result of “left” economic policies? Upon which planet do YOU live? The roll-back of regulations by the “right” when it comes to, say, Wall Street, for example, and banks in general, is what caused so much of the problem. Yes people bought more “house” than they could afford, after being bombarded with “deals” and “incentives” that the banks could not actually afford to give. In law enforcement, that is called “entrapment” – when someone makes an offer seem so incredible as to be foolish to pass up, only to then pull the rug out from under the “sucker”, laughing all the way to the bank. That is exactly what happened because of the “deregulation” of the right, NOT the left. Get your fact strait Snarky…..

    • http://www.facebook.com/bryan.savannah Bryan Savannah

      Gary Johnson? Voting Libertarian is a little less stupid than voting Republican. Just read some Ayn Rand fantasy pr0n instead.

      • SnarkyLibertarian

        Ayn Rand wasn’t Libertarian and publicly rejected the party. Jimmy Wales is the same way.

    • http://profile.yahoo.com/GQMD7U62CAGRC2L6PLZQXRVXXU kamana

      What did Gary Johnson ever do? I’m suspicious of people who never served in congress wanting to be president. Far as I’m concerned he needs to develop a reputation, a record that can be examined. As for Ron Paul he was a racist pure and simple.

  • GOPcancer

    Matt. Your mother is a prostitute. Your father is an ass fucking Jersey queen.

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000345896514 You Isee

      Awesome. You can’t win in life so someone else’s mother is a prostitute. Go wait in line for an Iphone 5 or something. Maybe ask BO for a smartphone handout program. Then complain about how you can’t pay bills. Next, why don’t you eat a hamburger everyday, then get medical issues, and demand some free care from taxpayers? To top it off, solely blame Romney or some business owner. It’s never my fault. WTF? Darwin rolls in his grave…

      • Kevin

        Or even better, take government handouts in terms of agriculture subsidies, then market your government-subsidized junk food to kids while their parents work two minimum-wage jobs and can’t be at home to cook for them, and then complain about “gub’mint interference” when you are asked to maybe not market health-destroying garbage to kids. Your subsidies are sacred, of course, and even liberals are terrified to suggest that they might be cut back a little. And then there are the tobacco subsidies… but yeah, you’re right, the real problem is those mininum-wage “moochers” who can’t afford healthcare. Seriously, why should the hired help be able to see a doctor when they’re sick? Don’t they know their place?

    • http://profile.yahoo.com/GQMD7U62CAGRC2L6PLZQXRVXXU kamana

      You must know the moderator of this site to get away with a sexist comment like that. So let me straightened you out about something: We who are the worst of us have no right to treat they who are the best of us as if they were the least of us.

      • http://eclectablog.com Eclectablog

        I apologize. I have banned this user and *thought* that I had deleted the comment but messed it up somehow. I will delete it now.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000345896514 You Isee

    Gary Johnson is the way to go. Obama bailed out UAW thugs and Goldman Sachs. How’s that any different than Mittens? Politicians backing those who support them financially. People voting for Obama, the limousine liberal, or RomRyan are going status quo. And shut it with the we’re victims crap. I see daily people making poor decisions due to their desires even it’s over $25. It’s reflective of your ability to manage your own stuff. This the half-truth that Romney brings up to the forefront that hurts your PATHETIC feelings and self-esteem. It’s never your fault. It’s always someone else’s and let’s sue for everything to get ahead. The value of work and dignity are gone, only to be replaced by fake righteousness.

    • Catch22af

      I’m a moderate. I like some libertarian ideas, particularly ending the war on drugs, legalizing soft drugs, and ending illegal wars. However, I really haven’t heard any detail on how libertarians are going to restructure the government and the economy. For example, you guys claim that if a libertarian was in office in 2008 they wouldn’t have bailed out the banks, but wouldn’t that have hurt the middle class as well who also have their money tied up in banks. My position is, we do need banks and these financial institution, we just don’t need the tremendous volatility they bring when they’re not properly regulated. When properly regulated they provide stable growth and a predictable economy, it’s when these people like Romney who lobbies for deregulation that everything goes to shit. I think the democrats are far from perfect, but their ideas is easier to work with than the crazy right, why start from scratch (which will cause more suffering) when we can just support the party closest to what we want and give them power to change the things we don’t like.

      • FappinCows

        Thank you for responding to this in a very legitimate way. People blame Obama for bailing out the ibanks…if that hadn’t happened we would have sunk into a depression far worse than the recession we’re still struggling to climb out of. Even though it may not be fair, it’s better to let some guilty off free than punish the non guilty (can’t say everyone else was innocent – other parties were involved in the causation of the financial crises). It’s how our justice system operates and it’s how our country should operate.

        • http://www.facebook.com/maryjanicep Janice Watson Poulnott

          Agree except those on Wall st. should not be let off. They should go to jail just like the middleclass and poor when they break the law.

        • diiegooo

          What if we punished the banks? What if we jailed those responsible for gambling with other peoples moneys? We would have entered a depression? Stimulus packages don’t work! They haven’t worked in Europe and haven’t worked in the U.S. they simply keep those sleasy corporate fortunate sons right where they’re at, which is what they want of course. Perhaps we could follow Icelands lead and police those responsible for the near destruction of the economy and complete destruction of where the distribution of wealth should be.

    • http://www.facebook.com/maryjanicep Janice Watson Poulnott

      Go ahead and throw your vote away. I might like Gary also but it is just a fact that he doesn’t have a chance and anyone who would throw their vote away in times like this are totally crazy. Idealism is a good thing but when it causes people to do things that are totallly useless, like voting for Gary. It is very stupid.

      • SnarkyLibertarian

        Libertarians are skeptics. Our views are scientific. Liberals are the idealists — you believe that our society can be effectively regulated and that the government is somehow better than a corporation. You essentially believe in central planning and would likely support it as soon as Obama gives a empowering speech. You believe in evil, and are afraid.

        Capitalism is what prevents scum bags from rising up. Laws will always be abused as much as is possible, and having too many simply allows lawyers to skip over them when they please. Excess laws keep law-abiding citizens down and allow the scum to rise to the top as well as adding overhead. Obviously, some laws are necessary… too many cause more harm than good. How is it “idealism” to get rid of ineffective laws?

        Haven’t you noticed that it’s typically the ignoramus who cuts in line? Better people can compete — scum bags have to cheat. Hence entrepreneurs and geniuses alike tend to be Libertarian. I suggest you do what liberals pretend to appreciate and read…

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austrian_school

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_freedom

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner_dilemma

        http://reason.com/

        It seems the only arguments liberals can come up with are baseless hateful nonsense fed to you by underpaid columnists. “Libertarians are stupid”. You’re like angsty teenagers.

        • Kevin

          I’ve heard this “libertarians are rational” nonsense many times. Not impressed. No society has ever been run on libertarian principles, and no society ever will. To vote for a libertarian candidate thinking they might win, or to imagine a libertarian United States is to live in an alternative reality. Not terribly rational. Libertarianism is just another ideology, and a rather silly one at that. A government as weak as what libertarians seek would never last, anyway. Meanwhile, on Planet Earth, we can observe that the great gains in wealth in this country have all involved public-private cooperation, from railroads to war efforts to the space program to the internet. And so there’s nothing unrealistic about demanding a living wage for workers. We’ve had it in the past, we can have it again if we fight for it. “What is actual is possible” as the philosophers like to say.

          • SnarkyLibertarian

            It’s amazing that you appear to have a functional mind yet you interpret Libertarianism as some unrealistic extreme. A society was run on libertarian principles… it’s called the United States of America. From it’s inception until 1973; it’s politically-active citizens were predominantly Libertarian.

            Simply try and be open to the possibility that you’re wrong about us and whoever you based your assumptions on was wrong as well. We’re not anarchists; we’re americans. Have fun; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism.

          • http://www.facebook.com/allyson.harris2 Allyson Harris

            If it is indeed the case that from 1776 to 1973 our politically active citizens were predominantly Libertarian, then why, oh why, has there been no Libertarian “candidate” fielded that ever won an election, either by popular vote or by electoral college? Just wondering….

          • SnarkyLibertarian

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism

            Libertarianism has been used in modern times as a substitute for the phrase “neo-classical liberalism”, leading to some confusion. The identification of libertarianism with neo-classical liberalism primarily occurs in the United States, where some conservatives and right-libertarians use the term classical liberalism to describe their belief in the primacy of economic freedom and minimal government.

      • Rest_In_Pibbz

        Stupider than voting for Obama or Romney, both of which I would rather not have? A part of the problem in politics is everyone getting so personal and emotional about it. I understand it’s human nature, it happens to me when I don’t try to contain it. However, it destroys cooperation. Perhaps human nature isn’t the best model to follow for something like politics.

      • sdfsdf

        Coward

    • henlesloop

      Exactly which UAW members do you consider thugs? and cite for me any time that Mr. Romney stated he would bail out the auto companies. If you really want to sell your candidate, maybe you should use less insulting language. Calling workers thugs will not endear you to many.

  • Ren

    FUCK THIS GUY

    • http://twitter.com/Emelle M-e-l

      Yup.

  • Penny

    So who is supporting the government? All of us average Joe’s paying 20-25% or Obama at 20% less than $160,000 or the rich paying 14%(Romney) at 1.9 million. The American dream still exists. The ability make more money is there with enough initiative. None of us, especially the young, have to settle for our plight in life. Keep taking more from those making it and soon there will be fewer of them to take from. Thomas Sowell has it right “I’ve never understood why it is ‘GREED’ to want to keep the money you’ve earned, but not greed to want to take someone else’s money”

    • Degn

      It is greed when 10% of the people are sitting on what, 80% of the wealth of the country? Plus, the 0.1% are FAR richer than the 1-10%. This distribution of wealth is grotesque and it should be obvious to anyone that it is not healthy for the economy, nor the people. Romney could pay even lower taxes if he wanted to, and he is only paying 14%, but the difference between him and others is that he is already swimming in money. Every single dollar available to him can be spent on luxuries. Did you know that some people actually need every single dollar they can get, just to get through the day? What about educations for their kids? Open your eyes please. The rich ARE greedy if they think an 8:1 distribution is fair.

    • Marki

      You said “Keep taking from those making it and soon there will be fewer of them to take from.” That’s EXACTLY what is happening, the rich keep taking it from the working class, and now that there are fewer to take it from, they blame them. It’s akin to the clouds refusing to rain and complaining that there is a drought and therefore a lack of evaporation. Holding mass amounts of money and keeping it from cycling in our economy is destroying our country. No money in the hands of millions means no demand, no demand means no jobs, no jobs means more welfare, what’s so hard to understand about that? A man wanting to provide for his family is not greedy. A man holding billions and talking down to half of America IS.

      • http://eclectablog.com Eclectablog

        Top comment in the thread. Thanks for this.

      • Ron Morris

        Hoarding used to be a crime and a pathology. Now it is suddenly a virtue? I think you are on to something!

    • Kevin

      Um, you aren’t going to “make it” when the majority of jobs pay minimum wage and no benefits. Initiative is largely irrelevant. One trip to the hospital and you’re done, financially speaking, for life. And more and more jobs are being pushed down to the minimum-wage-no-benefits level. Social mobility is now greater in “socialist” Europe. The Republicans have been effectively selling the lie of trickle-down economics since Reagan, and we are suffering the consequences of America’s gullibility in terms of increasing poverty. If tricke-down worked, why are the middle and working class so much worse off now?

  • Pingback: Kalex's Tome &raquo REMINDER: People on welfare didn’t cost us 15 million jobs and trillions in savings…. | Kalex's Tome()

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Bernard-Forand/100000738532782 Bernard Forand

    Cronyism economics. Ever hear my story of the truck? Well here it is; 2 Guys buy a truck to serve their business. Each have their own business. {A} uses the truck, with wear / tare and fuel added , 10% of the time. {B} uses it the other 90%. Now time to add up cost and who pays what. {A} says he owes 10% {B} disagrees. He claims that 85% is what {A} owes. For {B} at 15% is paying more in wealth than {A} is paying with his 10%. Now if {A} don’t pay, {B} will SHUTDOWN the truck. The rest I’ll leave for you to figure it out. Now if you decide that {A} should pay the 85% then contact me immediately. Baby do I have a deal for you.

    • http://eclectablog.com Eclectablog

      Not bad if you live in a two-dimensional cartoon world where simple truck analogies can explain a complex society and the economics of a global market.

      • SnarkyLibertarian

        It’s a shame that simple underlying concepts like those in Mathematics do not apply to Econo… wait a minute, you sly dog! You almost got me with that straw man! “Your analogy is simple, and society is complex, therefore your analogy can’t apply to society.”

        It’s not that I agree with Bernard. I just hate people misleading others with their obscene oversimplifications.

      • J.R. Reynolds

        “A two-dimensional cartoon world with a simple analogy to explain complex society and the economis of a global market?”

        OH! OH! I can do that! call on me! Call on me!I

        I love like two dimensional representations of complex systems. I call them ‘comics’, but serious cartoon people cal them ‘Graphic Novels’!

        Ok, here’s the solution. Pay attention class.

        See, there are two parts to the machine that is our economy, called Supply and Demand. Demand wants stuff, and Supply is where Demand buys it. But Demand needs to have the money to buy the stuff it wants, so that Supply can make stuff and become an “Investor” and gets to be called a “Job Creator”.

        This works best when Demand wants a LOT of stuff so it pushes Supply to buy more materials and hire more ‘stuff-makers’. In America, this worked great for quite awhile, after one time everyone got greatly depresed (because the economy got greatly depressed).

        Demand and Supply had a simple deal that was pretty easy to undestand. Demand wants to buy stuff, so Supply hires Demanders and pays them to make it, package it, move it, and a whle bunch of other thigns on edoes to stuff, then at the end sell it to Demanders. It’s a ‘win-win’, as Supplyers like to say.

        The whole things works best when the Market is Free to have a good competition, so that the ones the work hardest and smartest and are more productive get the most reward. This is true for the ‘Owners’ ( a type of Supplyer) and the ‘Workers’ (a type of Demander).

        The Workers can remember that easy because the Owners tell it to them all the time “The Bestest Productivity Brings the Mostest Reward”.

        That just means work hard and you can make money, maybe even become a Supplyer youself!

        This worked great in America after everyone got over being depressed. They did that because everyone realized we needed a few rules to make sure no one cheated, and because almost al of the old people were suffering because they ran out of money when they couldn’t work anymore. WE all knew that wasn’t right, so we had everyone save up money together, that way we could pay them back if they got disabled or old and couldn’t work anymore.

        Unfortunately, about thirty years ago some Supplyers decided they didn’t want to follow the basic American Agreement that the bestest Productivity brings the mostest Reward. These Supplers wanted to make more money faster, so they stopped giving workers pay raises, and they stopped giving them other Benefits to do a good job, and they even made laws that prevented the workers from talking to each other to figure out how to get raises when deserved them but didn’t get them!

        This was a disaster, because when Supplyers take all of the extra money that gets made when Workers are the Bestest, the Demanders don’t have enough money to buy all the Stuff they want! When Demand can’t buy Stuff, Supply can’t hire people to make Stuff, and the whole Complex Marketplace grinds to a Simple Halt.

        Here, we need to explain something else, a little bit different than the main topic (we call tht a ‘digression’). We need to learn a little about Supply-Siders, which is one type of Supplyer.

        Now, Supply-Siders like to pretend that somehow Supply can ‘Fuel the Truck’ that is our economy. If they MADE a lot of Stuff somehow that would make Demanders WANT a lot of Stuff, so our whole system should be aimed at making sure Supplyers got all the tax breaks and didn’t have to follow rules, so that they would be happy and go ahead and make Stuff to keep employing Demanders..But we can see that’s pretty silly, no one buys Stuff just because someone made it. And besides, Supplyers already have money, and if they really thought they could make more money by making Stuff first even if there was no Demand, well they could go ahead and do it. But they don’t because they were only pretending that the Supply-Side could Fuel the Truck, and all you have to do is pour Fuel in the smallest Tank at the very Top, and it would Trickle Down all the way to the biggest tank at the Bottom and everone would have enough Fuel.

        This is what we grownups call an Analogy or a Metaphor. That’s when you use a common everyday example to help explain how a Complez thing works. Real Economists do it all the time. In this case, the Truck is our economy, and the ‘Fuel’ is money.

        The system of Supply and Demand has few requirements, but among them are that Demand is the Fuel. When there is Demand from the top to the bottom and the Truck is up and running, Supply kicks into gear and our Economy Trucks down the open road of the Free Marketplace.

        The point is that Wealthy investors didn’t become that way by producing products or services that people don’t want. That is another way of saying Investors understand completely that they need Demand (which they call a Market) in order to sell Suff (which they call Producs or Services).

        No Market, no Products or Services. No Demand, no Supply

        That is the end of our digression into the one-dimensioanl cartoon view of the Complex world of the Supply-Siders.

        We currently are in a condition of Demand not having the resources to act. That is to say, they don’t have the available cash nor credit to buy Stuff they want. They don’t have enogh money because a few at the top have been taking an unreasonabe percent of the overall total. They were able to do that by not giving pay raises to the Workers for the past thirty years or so.

        Of couse, no one would blame Supplyers if Demander-Workers were lazy and unproductive, or if they were’nt making a profit, but that hasn’t been the case, Profits were up! Productivity was up! Hours per week worked were up! The only things that have been down are Tax Rates and pay raises.The pay for workers hans’t been commensurate with the workers performance. oh, shoot! “commensurate” won’t fit on the two dimensional cartoon page. Let’s change it to ‘equal’, “they didn’t get pay equal to the work they put in”. That sounds better anyway…”they didn’t get pay equal to the work they put in”.

        This should have made Supplyers mad, because they all make a big deal out of ‘if you work hard you can succeed’, in fact, some go even farther and turn it aorund into “if you have money, you must deserve it, becasue you MUST have worked hard if you HAVE money. Yes, that is iIlogcial as well as Untrue, but we can humor them. One guy named Mitt even said that if you don’t have money you must be a lazy welfare moocher. I know, what a jerk. It would be more true to say People with little or no money work a lot harder than people with money, but that isn’t fair to ay either.Some people work hard, some don’t. Sometimes that means the hard worlers get more money, but mostly it doesn’t.

        Our economic Truck is broken, but it’s simple to fix. If the Supplyers at the top with the smallest tank (the 1% or so who have been taking a world record amount of the total wealth of the nation for personal gain) would go ahead and pay the Demand-Workers theri share of the increased profits theri bestest Work brought in, the good ship USA would right herself and we wouldn’t need government to protect us. Oops, I swithced from a truck to a ship! Tht’s called a mixed-metaphor. It still worked though, didn’t it? Y’all knew what I meant, didn’t you? That’s why metaphors and analogies are so goodto help explain things!

        But alas and alak, some of these Supplyers are also Greedyguys, they would rather get every penny they can even if a million Demanders die for lack of resources and the country falls into permanent decline. Maybe if the SupplyerGreedyguys lived to be two thousand years old they might need that extra money, but only in a crazy a one-dimensional greedy world does someone take so much more than they can ever need or use, unless supply is unlimited.

        But since the SupplyerGreedyguys types won”t pay a fair wage and enter into honest relationships, Demanders need help from the group of people they elected to help keep things running smooth and fair. Demanders want to be fair, band they want to receive a fair share of the rewards for the work they do.

        I know, you are thinkig, ‘gosh, why don’t the SupplyerGreedyguys understand this? Henry Ford sure did, so did ‘Old-School’ Reaganites and the more modern ‘Compasionate Conservatives’, (although sightings of those usually turned out to be another species of lyingsackoshits who mimic CCs and sat in good honest folks nests to be nurtured, much like the cukoo tricks little brown mama birds to spend all her energy raising the cukoo for no gain for herself or her genes.

        Back to the story, we are almost ready to color it in. All we need is a way for the people who are sworn to watch out for all of us Americans, (known as our ‘Government)’ to step in and help restore the fair bargain between worker and employer (which in this case are almost the same as Supplyers and Demanders)

        If we could only think of a way? Can any of you think of HOW we might devise a system to correct the bad behavior of SupplyersGreedyguys who won’t pay a fair wage on theri own? Who use Power and Wealth to trod upon other people?

        Anyone? Buehler? Anhone?

        Yes, you there? You got it?

        You are right! We can TAX them at a higher rate on the extra-high money and share of overall wealth they have taken, and we can use that money to deliver benefits to the America workers who have been underpaid.

        That is a great idea! No one with knowledge of the facts could argue with that, at east not without showing themselves to be Greedyguys too and in possession of a low level of the heart and humanity the best of us display.

        No one should support treating our fellow citizens poorly. Demanders need to treat Supplyers well and treat their wishes and desires with respect too. Supplyers want to be able to make a good Profit, so they have a reason to Invest their money. This is both smart and moral.

        Here’s what we can do. This is the good part of the comi- Graphic Novel, as we realize how simple it could be to get our great oountry on her feet again. We can look at the economic history of the country, and see how much of a percentage the 1% Supplyers share of the nations’ combined wealth has been when America has been her strongest. When ‘Job Creators’ were making money, and when Investors were also making money.

        See what I did there? I know people THINK of Investors as ‘Job Creators” but as we have seen, Supply doesn’t fuel our economic engine.

        The real Job Creators are of course people with desires to purchase and the ability to act on those desires, on other words, our good friend Demand!

        So we just need to look honestly at times when Demanders in the middle could buy the Stuff they wanted, and when we didn’t need so much government involvement and the Market could be Free, and America was doing well for everyone. Yes, we can ACTUALLY do that, as difficult or unlikely as it seems. We can do what any smart business person does all the time, see what has worked before, and try to do the same now! Easy!

        So the two dimensional solution for this complex world turns out to be simple, use the tax system as minimimally as possible to restore the balance in our society, eliminate the unfair practices of abusing workers and underpaying for performance and lessen the income inequalty that is at the heart of the problem we face.

        Now class, don’t jump to conclusions! Just because Demanders worked hard and should have been paid more, they can not stop working hard. And don’t think we should take away someone’s wealth out of jealousy or anger, that is unfair too.

        No, we are talking about fairness, and redressing an injustice. We must be careful to do that while keeping our eyes (or my eye, as the case may be) on the goal of keeping the system in balance, so as to make it a True Statement when someone says ‘work hard and you can succeed’.

        We also need to make sure we don’t overshoot and treat the SupplyGreedyguys unfairly, so long as they didn’t commit any crimes.

        Just like any common criminal, those who use power and wealth to steal should face society’s compassionate understanding of our Justice System. They should face a Program, a Penalty, a Punishment or Wrath and Vengefull Justice, in that ascending order commensu- oops, I mean ‘equal to the crime’.

        Right the good ship America, tax the top 1% and incentivise them to return to the more rational, fair and successfu rate of weath acquisition history and morals have proven to be bestest for mostest.

        You might ask “Historically, what percentage of our overall wealth SHOULD the top 1% aspire to that worked bestest for everyone, including the 1%, the 99%, the 47% over to my left there, and the 47% over to my right there.

        You know, what works best for everyone.

        In summation,
        The Problem:
        Demand lacks resources to push Supply to it’s limits, so the sytem is stalled. This is what we need to fix, Demand needs and deserves fair pay

        What caused this:
        “The 1% who has taken too great a share of everone’s wealth. This is essentially the group who, through whatever path, is taking too great a share of the total pie for America do be her bestest.

        Who can Fix it:
        The people we elected to solve such problems. WE call it ‘government’.
        It could be fixed by Owners, Employers, Bosses, etc, but the failure of pay to keep pace with p[roductivity is a result of their behaviour, so we need someone else ato fix it. That is precisely what we have a government for, to govern.

        We are all Amricans together, we should act like it. Or act like adults at least. if that bar is too high, I would settle for someone willing to look at evidence and use rational thinking.and a spirit of cooperation and mutual support and respect to get together and solve our collective problems. We can ill aford any more rulers who fill the world with misinformed hate and a bigoted stupidity that is antithetical to American values.

        Class dismissed

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Bernard-Forand/100000738532782 Bernard Forand

    Not so fast!
    As usual the Republicans are distorting the facts and not doing their homework. As they all say, the devil is in the details. Let’s take a look at the facts.
    Of the nearly $16 trillion debt figure they are so proud to display, $12 trillion was incurred by the Reagan/Bush and the Bush/Cheney terms through September 2010. Add to that the interest on that debt for one year plus the Bush cuts for the time Obama has been in office, and you will come up with about $15 trillion. This is the real number the Republicans have added to the debt over the last 30 years. That leaves Obama with a net add of $1.3 trillion over the past 3½ years. Not bad when one is trying to get us out of the worst recession in 80 years.
    In closing, let us never forget what Vice President Cheney told his then- Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill, “You know Paul, Reagan proved deficits don’t matter.”

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Bernard-Forand/100000738532782 Bernard Forand

    Obama will be reelected due to the inequality that republicans do not address. Last three decades 90% have had our low wages rise at 15% while our counter part of the 1% rose 150% and the 0.1% rose at 300%! Presently 1.2% hoard 40% of nations wealth. 1929 Great Depression occurred when 1% obtained 43%. Unique that Great Recession was stimulated at near to the same ratios of inequality. Republicans proposals would increase the inequalities. Potential to emulate a 1929 episode once again.
    Obama seeks to retreat from the highs of this inequality. Populace may not have their mathematics up to par on this inequality measurement but they do have the ominous perception of it.

    • MR OBVIOUS

      So ur that guy with all the answers and no Finance training whatsoever

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Bernard-Forand/100000738532782 Bernard Forand

    No middle of the road, indecisive , rambling vote will win the day.
    Obama has and is moving us forward at an accelerating rate. Obama has taken a page from 1929’s depression and studied Eccles economics that got them out of the depression.
    Observe the markets of Sept.6 2012.
    Observe who rebuilt the infrastructure to hold Bankers to strict derivatives regulations. Banker’s lobbied with over $200 million! to stop the Obama, Elizabeth Warren and Frank Dodds regulations from being implemented. {Volcker Rule 2010 May} Republicans are still seeking to deregulate them. Expose what their goals are and its NOT for our Main Street USA.
    Elizabeth goes nose to nose right in the face with Wall Streets tycoons. Our lady tiger that has the Tycoons appreciate fear. She is not a BROWN nosing follower of the herded sheep.
    2016 she will be a contender for president my predication. Observe her speech at the convention http://youtu.be/zNcbg1EU_bI U-tube speech. http://youtu.be/zNcbg1EU_bI U-tube speech.

    • MR OBVIOUS

      Only a World War got us out of the great depression not the 2 terms fdr had as president before that nor any of his inefficient policies (actually a few are useful of course)

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Bernard-Forand/100000738532782 Bernard Forand

    This is one small example of how Obama will seek to continue to move us forward, up and out of the chaos of the republicans mandates.
    Stimulus plan to revitalize the middle class produced a beneficial return on investment. We have seen an impressive recovery in the equity markets from Bush’s stock markets lost of 14 years of gains. Markets had retraced the lows back to 1996 in less than 17 months. Greatest lost ,in market value, in our Nations history. Yes! Including any rolling 17 month period during the Great Depression.

    • MR OBVIOUS

      And the Great Depression was cleared up in a two term time frame of a democratic president and didn’t at all actually take closer to 3 full terms and a major World War

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Bernard-Forand/100000738532782 Bernard Forand

    Latest up date to Markets; The Fed pledged Thursday to buy $40 billion in mortgage-backed bonds every month from large banks and other dealers in an effort to help free up capital and spur lending. The move is also expected to help push down mortgage rates, already near record lows, to further stimulate the housing market. The central bank said it would continue buying until the unemployment rate, which stood at 8.1 percent in August, decreases significantly.
    Wall Street continued to cheer the news. The Dow Jones Industrial Average, which surged more than 206 points after the Fed announcement Thursday — climbed another 53 points Friday to 13,593, its highest closing since December 2007. Global markets also reacted positively: the Hang Seng index in Hong Kong surged 2.9 percent, the Japanese Nikkei 225 index shot up 1.8 percent, and the British FTSE 100 rose more than 1.6 percent.Obama has had the slowest growth in spending of any President in the past 60 years: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/may/23/facebook-posts/viral-facebook-post-says-barack-obama-has-lowest-s/Obama has had the slowest growth in spending of any President in the past 60 years: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/may/23/facebook-posts/viral-facebook-post-says-barack-obama-has-lowest-s/

    • MR OBVIOUS

      Because overreactive Fed actions have never led to any sort of bubbles in the past

    • J.R. Reynolds

      what? are you crazy? you are using facts! That is dangerous, don’t you know about the slippery slope? You start small, quoting some statistics, next things you know you are Dealing in Truth! How can you claim that just because the job situation has improved we’re better off? Why, if you add up all the job losses since Obama, from 2005 to 2019,
      (and 1926-27) and jobs we can’t even descibe, he has lost more jobs than all the Socialist Muslim
      Kenyans that fit on a Pinhead without a Birth Certificate put together. You sir, are
      clearly not aware of all the things we are capable of making up about Obama that are all
      very bad. Obama personally gives abortions every night to white women in Chicago, and
      they aren’t even pregnant! Did you know Obama himself isn’t even a white person? Yes,
      and what’s worse is that he’s, he’… oh, I can’t say it. He’s SMART! Yeah, he’s smart AND honest. And he was POOR growing up. Do we really want someone who chose to be a poor child? Imagine that!
      He actually thinks we should work together! How selfish is that? How are people supposed to blame liberals if we start working together? If we worked with Obama, the country might recover from the recession. Think of how George Bush would feel if everything he did as President was gone because Obama fixed the econom and stopped the wars.. Obama already lost all those military jobs by stopping Bush’s wars, if Americans stop dying in war how can we hire more soldiers to replace them? Yes the stock market is up, because the Job Creators have to make money somehow until they can go back to work creating jobs for us. But if we don’t give them the tax cuts for
      incentive, then it’s our fault they can’t create jobs. Obama doen’st undersand how government works. He slowed the growth of spending. If Obama is going to slow growth he shouldn’t be president. and he put in a healthcare plan that will save lives and money, and named it after himslelf. That was Romney’s plan, but did Obama pay himo for it> no, he just chnge dthe name! Now the government is too large, it should go back to just following women to make sure they d’nt have sex so they need health services and watchingeveyon’es hoe to make sure they don’t smoke any weed, and of course we need the government to outlaw gay people, or anyone else who isn’t a republican. But pther than telling everyone how they liove theri privte loives, we don’t need the government to be so big it ha tine to stop the Job Creators from making money any way they can, after they buh a few more politicians they can change all thvoting laws so only white male republicans can vote. just because our GDP is rising, taxes are lower than ever and we aren’t defaulting on our debt, you think Obama is doing a good job? We’re NOT better off, because Obama isn’t a Republican! You are so stupid you don’t even know how to write angry posts. YOU ARE AN IDiOTE! YOU BELIEF IN EVILUTIONISM! YOU ARE SO RETARTED you forgot to mispell with capital letters. We have people eating food the government gives them, And they’re STILL poor! Why can’t they take responsibility for their lives and inherit money from their parents? See, if you get a lot of money you didn’t earn or work for from your relatives, it won’t make you lazy. It’s only when you get a few benefits that you helped pay for by working for minimum wage that makes you a lazy welfare moocher! Obama is lazy too. He only has one job, and it’s a short term contract! And he soclialized medicine by adopting a healthcare plan created by conservatives. People will stop dying when they get sick if we let them get insured! What has this country come to? Obama has tricked you all, his secret plan is to wait until he is an ex-president. He’s smart I told you, he knows if he acted socialist right now he would be exposed. Don’t you think it’s just a little suspicious that Obama hasn’t taken our guns? He already has eighty comminests in congress standing by, plus Holder and Pelosi. Obama wants people to rely on the government and stop working. Can you believe it? First he said he really cared about people’s welfare! Then he said doing nothing about jobs won’t work. See? He said he “won’t work” He “cares about OUR welfare! And he opposes Women Voter’s IUDs. I am outraged! YOU WILL BE SORREY. Can you wait here? I
      have to go home to get my gun so I can come back and shoot you in self defense. Now do you see how bad the Truth can be?

      • Christine D

        I think I love you. Brilliant post

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Bernard-Forand/100000738532782 Bernard Forand

    Obama’s actions helped restore equity markets post a gain of 105% through April of 2011. During Obama’s first 27 months in office.
    Making up most of the losses with gains to the DOW of 17.2%, S&P 500 25.3% and the NASDAQ 31.7%. Compare this to say Reagan first 3.3 years in office Reagan’s gains to ; DOW 6.86%, S&P 500 6.16%, NASDAQ 7.02%. Obama has surpassed most of his predecessors, including Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan!
    Stimulus also stopped the decline in corporate profits that started under George W. Bush. Stimulus helped produce an increase of 22% per year in the first two years.

    • http://www.facebook.com/joseph.kasak.9 Joseph Kasak

      Dude, get your own eclectablog!

    • SnarkyLibertarian

      The Dow Jones Index had greater gains and the unemployment rate dropped under the Bush administration. Bush didn’t have to remove the long-term capital gains tax or double the money supply in order to achieve this. One may argue in response that the effects of an administration’s actions are on a significant delay. Of course, this wouldn’t work in your favor of whatever argument you are attempting to make.

      The truth is that the Economy has shown no signs of recovery and that the stock market’s gains can be attributed to a Bush policy… not just the Obama administration’s reckless ‘stimulation’ of the market. The employment rate is at it’s lowest point in 31 years, after it’s sharpest drop since the Great Depression. The tax rates will be skyrocketing come 2013 — wait until then before you tout Obama.

      • J.R. Reynolds

        “The truth is that the Economy has shown no signs of recovery” That is completely untrue. Check your facts. Jobs, stock market ,GDP, home prices, reduced spending increases all point to recovery. You can’t just make stuff up.

    • J.R. Reynolds

      Mr. Forand, you are clearly too smart for the other people in this blog. The responses to your intelligent arguments have been infantile, idiotic and incorrect. props.

  • Jugnus

    I think the government should buy me a house.

    • MR OBVIOUS

      Register as a democrat that’s basically what most of them want economically (when was the last time u had to pay 14 million a year for basic government services like the wealthy?)

  • Kevin

    Who cares about this election? We’re just sailing this ship into the goddamn ocean. Don’t matter who the captain is. Fuck it. We’ll do it live!

  • me

    people on welfare are fucking this country.

    • Ron Morris

      Hoarders are f**king both the country, and ultimately themselves. Look at the numbers, not at your gut feelings of superiority. You may be on welfare next.

      • SnarkyLibertarian

        Do you realize we want the same thing but disagree on the methodology?

        I’ve only seen you spout [hateful] criticisms. How do you intend to reduce the number of people in need of assistance?

        • http://www.facebook.com/allyson.harris2 Allyson Harris

          Again, back to the Supply and Demand scenario – Why make it more complicated than it is? If I want something, and I have the money to buy it, then I go get it from someone who made it. If I don’t have money, even if I want something, I can do one of two things: I can either go without, or I can play into the hands of the banksters who will dangle a “credit carrot” in front of my face, allow me to get the thing but not really own it until I have paid, at first 0%, then 7% and then 15% interest on the thing. It doesn’t matter if I keep making payments – they will raise the interest rate because they want more profit. Either way, I can get less of the stuff I want. Multiply me by several hundred thousand folks – either way, the supply goes down because not enough people can afford to get the stuff. How difficult is that for people to “get”? It’s not any more complex than that, but oh how the wealthy “makers” want us to see it as anything but the basic common sense it is!

          • SnarkyLibertarian

            Credit is a double-edged sword. It causes crashes and creates growth. I don’t agree with variable interest rates at all… and it’s amazing that anyone has consented to be subject to such a thing. Perhaps it’s because the banks have a oligopoly over the market and consumers were left with little choice.

  • Concerned citizen

    you can’t work more than forty hours per week at Wal-Mart anymore, because they no longer want any more (full time) workers, because they don’t want to pay the health benefits for these workers… and Mitt wonders why people are still on the state for help. Inflation, Mitt…. every thing goes up, but no ones pay does… This guy obviously supports only the rich and has eaten off a golden platter his whole pampered life… We are American, and we are tired of struggling…

  • MR OBVIOUS

    Yup people on wall street bought houses they couldn’t afford and then didn’t pay pack their mortgages.

    • http://www.facebook.com/thewiltingstar Corey Firepony

      Yes, obviously the people on Wall Street bought houses they could afford and paid for them. But wait, how did they pay for them? Oh yeah, by subsidies paid for by the lower classes, so that they (being the rich Wall Street Exec) wouldn’t have to pay taxes. Oh, and that money that they didn’t have to pay in taxes? Where does that come from? Profiting on the hard work of the people beneath them. Banks have some amount of responsibility for the situation they put themselves into.

  • Pingback: REMINDER: People on welfare didn’t cost us 15 million jobs and trillions in savings. People on Wall Street did. | .odd items.()

  • Pingback: REMINDER: People on welfare didn’t cost us 15 million jobs and trillions in savings. People on Wall Street did. « Save America's Soul()

  • tom

    this is incredibly biased. I hate to say it, but he handled this terribly. he should’ve made obama look bad by saying he was then going to try and help that 47% out of the hole they’re in and get them off government dependency. the reason i pay 64 percent tax is because of all the stupid loopholes in the tax code

  • Pingback: Mitt Romney Blames The 'Victims' | Eclectablog | Universal Health Care Advice()

  • http://twitter.com/Emelle M-e-l

    I don’t understand why anyone is considering voting for this person.

  • Markoo

    Do you want Gary Johnson to be your president? http://celebrity-plugs.com/t/

  • http://twitter.com/ideabuddy Mr.D

    You know, there has to be a lot of Republicans in the 47%. I wonder if they are offended at being considered freeloaders by their political patrons

eXTReMe Tracker