• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Should Wealth be a Disqualifier?

SCDeac

SCDeac

Well-known member
Joined
May 10, 2011
Messages
1,233
Reaction score
176
It's a good thing that the current jihad against wealth by the Left wasn't a factor in some past elections or we'd have missed out on some great presidents...in the top 10 based on total wealth are Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Jackson, both Roosevelts, and JFK.

Romney is a flip flopping pure politician in my book, but I'm not getting why his wealth is a bad thing.

FWIW...the Obamas have in the past invested heavily in tax free muni bond funds that are only open to the uber rich.
 
The others you mentioned understood and helped the poor.

there's never been a candidate during my lifetime who was more out of touch with the plight of the Americna public than Mitt Romney.
 
Thanks for the article Bob. It's pretty much spot on. Basically Romney has none of that charisma that draws anyone to really want to support them.

RJ -- Not sure that Washington, Jefferson, Madison, or Jackson did much to help the poor since the modern welfare state and far reaching federal government didn't really come about until the early 1900's.

Romney's problem is that he comes off like a smug douche. Much in the same way that Kerry did.
 
I have no problem with Romney being wealthy. I also realize I am not representative of the average voter.

I do have a problem with Romney having tons of money and trying to refer to himself as part of the middle class. He hasn't done this outright but he has tried to allude to it by talking about the middle class then throwing some "we" statements in there.
 
You cant' compare any pre-Civil War or even pre--20th century POTUS to today in relations with the poor. It's not relevant.

Kerry at least tried to help the poor. Romney never has. Romney is a classist thinking that the rich should have all the power and that they know what is best for the poor.
 
romney wants to kill poor people!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!111111111111111111111111111111111111
 
11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
 
RJKarl said:
You cant' compare any pre-Civil War or even pre--20th century POTUS to today in relations with the poor. It's not relevant.

Kerry at least tried to help the poor. Romney never has. Romney is a classist thinking that the rich should have all the power and that they know what is best for the poor.
Click to expand...

You were the one making that comparison...i pointed out that it was a flawd comparison.

Throwing other people's money at largely unsuccessful programs is hardly helping the poor if that what you're alluding to with Kerry.

Take a look at Romney's charitable giving compared to many of the big talkers on the Left. I'm sure that $350 that Plugs Biden had in charitable giving really went a long way. Maybe that used underwear that Clinton listed on his tax return in the 90's qualifies him as the nex Mother Teresa.

Being charitable is when you personally sacrifice something....it's not sticking your hand in someone else's pocket and then proclaiming yourself to be a champion of the poor.
 
bobknightfan said:
It's eerie how much Romney & Kerry have in common....and how much this election has in common with the 2004 election.
Click to expand...

It does seem a lot like '04. Vunerable president but the other party puts forth a weak slate of options.
 
RJKarl said:
You cant' compare any pre-Civil War or even pre--20th century POTUS to today in relations with the poor. It's not relevant.

Kerry at least tried to help the poor. Romney never has. Romney is a classist thinking that the rich should have all the power and that they know what is best for the poor.
Click to expand...

Romney donated $7M to charity over the last 2 years.
 
bobknightfan said:
For a long time I have thought that a Romney candidacy was inevitable...and said as much, more than once, on these boards. After reading that article which I posted, though, I'm not so sure anymore.

This is really a quandry for the Republican Party, though, because there is no way in hell that Newt Gingrich can win a national election against Barack Obama. And now I am more & more confident that neither can Mitt Romney. So what are the Republicans to do? They have really made a mess of things, as far as their electoral chances go for this election. And they were in a very good position to win everything. Their margins in the House should be safe, and with so many more vulnerable Democrats up for election in the Senate...as well as key retirements in the red states of Nebraska & North Dakota...the Republicans couldn't have asked for a better chance to regain the Senate as well. They might still do this....but they have most certainly made a mess of things for themselves.
Click to expand...

I'm not so sure that maybe a GOP House and Senate with Obama in the WH is not something that could work. Clinton's biggest successes came after the GOP takeover.

Control by one party of Capitol Hill and the WH hasn't been to great lately. i.e. GOP with W. Bush and Obama's first two years. Having Pelosi as the face of the House didn't hep him either.
 
SCDeac said:
Take a look at Romney's charitable giving compared to many of the big talkers on the Left.
Click to expand...

Yes, the right wing is well known for its charity to the poor and disenfranchised. They're all about helping the homeless and indigent. In fact, many in the "Occupy" movement are actually suburban conservatives who just don't like doing laundry.
 
SCDeac said:
You were the one making that comparison...i pointed out that it was a flawd comparison.

Throwing other people's money at largely unsuccessful programs is hardly helping the poor if that what you're alluding to with Kerry.

Take a look at Romney's charitable giving compared to many of the big talkers on the Left. I'm sure that $350 that Plugs Biden had in charitable giving really went a long way. Maybe that used underwear that Clinton listed on his tax return in the 90's qualifies him as the nex Mother Teresa.

Being charitable is when you personally sacrifice something....it's not sticking your hand in someone else's pocket and then proclaiming yourself to be a champion of the poor.
Click to expand...

This is all I said:

"The others you mentioned understood and helped the poor.

there's never been a candidate during my lifetime who was more out of touch with the plight of the Americna public than Mitt Romney. "

I was talling about your last paragrah- roosevelts, Kennedys, etc.

I may be old but wasbn't alive Pre-Civil War.
 
bobknightfan said:
Well, it's not going to work unless you get an attitude adjustment from the Republicans in Congress. The GOP Congress when Clinton was president didn't universally oppose everything single thing he brought before them, like this Congress has done with Obama. Maybe, though, after Obama wins another term by another landslide margin....and takes down some of the GOP margin in the House....the grownups in the Republican Party will reassert themselves and send this crazy crew of freshman congressmen who were elected in 2010 back to the back bench. After all, it is this bunch of ideological fanatics who will have been the main reason for the Republicans' blowing this golden opportunity to regain the White House.
Click to expand...

There are a lot more fanatics on both sides of the aisle as compared to the 90's. I think if legislation clears both houses and the GOP would like to see Obama not veto all of it they're going to have to compromise and give him some of what he's asked for too.
 
Yep. Love him or hate him, Newt's Republicans won the House because of a promise to do stuff, and they did stuff. The 112th Congress has just been a pile of fail.
 
ImTheCaptain said:
meh, giving to church as charity
Click to expand...

Depends on what said church does with those donations. There are plenty of charities out there that has incredibly shitty records also...less than 10% actually going to the cause that they claim to support.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top