Quantcast
Feeds: Email, RSS & Twitter

Get Our Videos By Email

 

8,300 Unique Visitors In The Past Day

 

Powered by Squarespace

 

Search The Archive Of 15,000 Videos

SEARCH THE DAILY BAIL

 

 

Hank Paulson Is A Criminal - Pass It On

"The Federal Reserve Is A Ponzi Scheme"


Get Our Videos By Email

THE FED UNDER FIRE: Must See Clip

Bernanke's Replacement: Happy Hour In Santa Cruz

Must See: National Debt Road Trip

"Of Course We're Not Going To  Payback the Chinese."

Dave Chappelle On White Collar Crime

Carlin: Wall Street Owns Washington

SLIDESHOW - Genius Signs From Irish IMF Protest

SLIDESHOW - Airport Security Cartoons - TSA

Most Recent Comments
Cartoons & Photos
SEARCH
« Hey Jamie Dimon, The Protesters Are Outside Your House | Main | New Ron Paul Campaign Video - Peace »
Wednesday
Oct122011

HERE WE GO AGAIN - Romney Flip-Flops On Wall Street Protests: "I Worry About The 99 Percent' (Video)

Source - Raw Story

If you want to gauge how effective a popular movement has become, compare the present statements of leading politicians with their prior positions. In the case of former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney (R), the difference is night and day.

During an appearance in Florida last week, Romney was calling the “Occupy Wall Street” protests “dangerous” and “class warfare.”

Since then, a poll surfaced showing that most Americans who’ve heard of the protests have sympathy for the demonstrators’ motivations, and that “Occupy Wall Street” is much more popular than Congress.

 

  • “I don’t worry about the top one percent,” Romney told the crowd on Monday. “I don’t stay up nights worrying about ‘gee we need to help them.’ I don’t worry about that. They’re doing just fine by themselves. I worry about the 99 percent in America. I want America, once again, to be the best place in the world to be middle-class. I want to have a strong and vibrant and prosperous middle-class. And so I look at what’s happening on Wall Street and my own view is, boy I understand how those people feel… The people in this country are upset.”

 

The position is in stark contrast to his actual policy positions, namely Romney’s refusal to even consider normalizing tax rates between the wealthy and middle classes. Wealthy Americans tend to pay a much smaller percentage of their income in federal taxes than middle class earners, and the vast majority of Americans — including a majority of Republicans — support raising their tax rates to help eliminate the deficit.

Romney, however, has proposed $6.6 trillion in tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, along with a major cut to corporate taxes and the elimination of the estate tax on vast inheritance wealth. He’s also come out in favor of a constitutional amendment to balance the U.S. budget, which would be impossible with such tremendous losses in federal revenue — unless the government were to utterly destroy Social Security and Medicare, a move the huge majority of Americans oppose.

He’s also been criticized for calling corporations “people,” and saying that the protesters on Wall Street are just “trying to find scapegoats to attack.”

 

 

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

EmailEmail Article to Friend

Reader Comments (14)

What Hypocrisy, if you stand for something, stand for it, dont change your mind last minute for your interest, it shows YOU ARE NOT A MAN. truth is WE ARE NOT YOUR INTEREST. plus if this hypocrite knew math he would knew that the top 10 percent plus us 99 percent equals 109, there is no 109 percent of a country, only 100 percent. kind of like when Michelle Bachman said her 5 biological children plus her 22 foster children equals 28 HAHA, it equals 27. These people can't do math, much less run a country.

i will never vote republican, but if ron paul legalizes marijuana im in, obviously Barry "Saddam Hussien" Obama is against MMJ but is cool for his people to be bombarded by chemtrails, chemicals via fast food, fluoride in your drinking and showering water, and pills that will get you hooked then kill you, even if you only have a migraine, but you can not under any circumstances enjoy a joint once in a while which helps ease pain, stress, and is all natural. why does the government have right to tell me what to do again? especially when it does what it wants, without consequences?
Oct 12, 2011 at 5:02 AM | Unregistered CommenterU.S.Govbigterrorists
If Mitt really cared about the 99%, why did he have illegals working at the Governors mansion. Who by definition, should not be here so they are not part of the 99%. However they are very exploited by the 1%...
Oct 12, 2011 at 5:39 AM | Unregistered CommenterS. Gompers
In total agreement with Romney being a flip flopper but I beg to differ with the problem you have with the federal government not being required to balance its budget. Imagine that we don't have a federal reserve and had sound money, that would mean that if tax revenues do not cover government expenses. That would mean either the government would be able to raise taxes more, or borrow money now and raise taxes later in order to be able to pay off the borrowing. Neither which any citizen wants to do unless they are benefiting from a program at the expense of their fellow citizen. That is inherently wrong. I think what would serve us best is transparency in government so that people are made starkly aware of the cost to them for all the government programs.

Finally I would like to say that in relation to social security is inherently a ponzi scheme. Consider you put money into a social security that buys government bonds that the person who put into social security has to pay the interest on!?! The whole point of having your money work for you is that when you invest, that it earns a return for you. So what happens is that the people who come later end up for those who are retired. As for medicare, it's another ponzi scheme. Before medicare, at the end of the 19th century and beginning of the 20th century, many people joined private mutual aid organisations who had in-house doctors providing health care at reduced costs, helped immigrants become oriented in their new environments by helping with housing as well as other services all without any government intervention. Many were so successful that they built their own hospitals around the country. This was destroyed by government and the AMA in the early 20th century. Even despite that before Medicare, most people either paid out of pocket or doctors or hospitals provided for free for basic health care. As for disaster health care for serious diseases, people bought insurance. If you look at the stats, you will see that because of this environment, more people took better care of themselves since they were paying out of their pocket for basic health care and because of that costs for basic health care were alot lower. Finally as for serious disease, if we have a true free market between different types of medicine, prices would drop significantly and quality would rise dramatically. This would allow for a significant drop in insurance rates for individuals.
Oct 12, 2011 at 7:32 AM | Unregistered CommenterJuanito
Here is an open poll for last night's GOP debates in NH. While fox and the rest of MSM seems to leave one participant out of their reports. The result of this poll clearly shows a winner...Guess Who?

http://www.wepolls.com/p/3637328/Who-won-the-October-11th-GOP-New-Hampshire-%28Washington-Post-/-Dartmouth-College-/-Bloomberg-TV-debate
Oct 12, 2011 at 8:02 AM | Unregistered Commenterjohn
Awesome poll, john. Barack Obama got 7 votes, but was beaten out by None of Them Won, who garnered 11 votes.
Oct 12, 2011 at 8:30 AM | Unregistered CommenterCheyenne
@ Cheyenne, that was my favorite part.....
Oct 12, 2011 at 8:56 AM | Unregistered Commenterjohn
Glenn Beck is a major TARP flip-flopper too. He likes to get up on his soapbox now and sound all tough and anti-bailout. But the fact of the matter is that when it mattered the most, BEFORE TARP came to a vote, big Glenn was a complete coward:

"I thought about it an awful lot this weekend, and while it takes everything in me to say this, I think the bailout is the right thing do."
--Glenn Beck, 9/22/08

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0809/22/gb.01.html

Like all cowards, Glenn Beck feigns courage the farther away he gets from danger. Just nauseous. And his fans fall for his phony act hook, line and sinker.
Oct 12, 2011 at 9:07 AM | Unregistered CommenterCheyenne
He 'understands how we feel"? BS!! He doesn't give one rats ass about us and he knows that we know it. Just ask the middle-class folks that worked in the places he's taken over, exploited, and dismantled, see if they think he "understands" them.
Oct 12, 2011 at 9:11 AM | Unregistered Commentersteve in iowa
Another very interesting Fox news poll...It is still open.

http://www.commondreams.org/further/2011/10/12
Oct 12, 2011 at 9:44 AM | Unregistered Commenterjohn
OWS: The Risks Facing America Today

http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=195841
Oct 12, 2011 at 10:30 AM | Unregistered Commenterjohn
Listen to the depth of insincerity in this guys voice.
Oct 12, 2011 at 1:15 PM | Unregistered CommenterStuart
This is getting Creepy'er the farther I read.....................Judge for your self.....


ELECTION 2012
Mormon bishop's daughter spills Romney's 'secrets' ...
'Would you trust the judgment of a man if he truly believes he's gonna be a god?


Read more: Mormon bishop's daughter spills Romney's 'secrets' ... http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=354721#ixzz1ahbAzLCi


To help ensure the general public did not learn details of the rituals, she says believers took a symbolic knife to feign their own murder if members spilled the beans of what really goes on behind closed doors.

"They actually had us slashing our guts open and our guts falling to the ground if we told people of the secret dogma of the ceremonies," Erickson said.

"Mitt is not a casual Mormon," she told online interviewer Thom Hartmann, noting Romney has reached the upper echelons of the faith. "There is no way that he will be able to not listen to the [Mormon] prophet. His eternal salvation depends on it. He has to put the church first over country."



http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=354721
Oct 13, 2011 at 6:10 PM | Unregistered CommenterTexas Dar
The Romney Donkey (political toon)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/eddy/6248250599/
Oct 16, 2011 at 2:08 PM | Unregistered CommenterEddy
I don't support nor do I trust Romney. Saying that, I totally disagree with your assessment that living within our means "having a balanced budget amendment" is a bad idea. It's because we have not lived within our means that is one of the primary reasons we are in this situation presently. In fact, beyond having a balanced budget amendment, we should have an amendment that forbids the federal government to raise taxes or borrow money without a 2/3 majority. That way we would avoid a situation where everyone pet project gets approved when their favoured party is in the majority whether there is funding for it or not as well as ensure that only things that can be agreed upon across the political divide are approved. As for addressing social security and medicare, yes we have to honour the promise to people who have contributed to social security all their lives and are receiving that benefit but for everyone else, they need to be moved to private accounts. It's non sensical that you pay into social security, they invest in government bonds (the payments of which are born by those who receive the benefits as well as those who come after). It's classic ponzi scheme. Medicare needs to end. It's another ponzi scheme. The way to address it is to eliminate the FDA, allow for competition among the various branches of medicine as well as for insurance across state lines, and allow for the recreation of mutual aid organisations, and eliminate the granting of federal control of medical licensing to any organisation like the AMA. It is the combination of these factors that have eliminated competition among the different branches of medicine as well as driven up the cross. Concomitant with that would be the elimination of the USDA (which has been a disaster for agriculture), the elimination of agricultural subsidies and the enforcement of property rights which would make it difficult if not impossible for anyone to develop non healthy ecologically damaging agricultural products (i.e. GMOs). Then people would have an incentive to eat healthy and take care of themselves, and producers would have an incentive to grow healthy sustainable products.
Oct 17, 2011 at 7:46 AM | Unregistered CommenterJuanito

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Post:
 
All HTML will be escaped. Hyperlinks will be created for URLs automatically.