Media Coverage re:Wealth of Candidates or

[Vegas pj]

should I say Romney's wealth. Amazing vetting of his wealth & how he got it.

When JFK ran it wasn't an issue even though everyone knew he dad got the family weaqlth from bootlegging. Apparently, it was for the good of the people.

When Kerry ran, a total of TWO, count 'em 2, tv media outlets mentioned his wealth one time each! He got his the old fashioned way from marrying up to a deceased co-senator's wife. Net worth approx. $250 million.

Romney's net worth approx.$250 million just like Kerry. Only difference was he did it the old fashioned way too - he earned it. Some tv media outlets have taked it up 24 or more times each.

Yes, some distressed companies went underafter Bain took over and jobs were lost. Those jobs were going too be llost even if Bain didn't take them over. Bain also took over some distressed companies that have become remarkably successful. Win win for Bain investors and those companies.

And then there's the 99%ersw presidnet Mr. Obama, who only worth a paltry $8 million. Not bad for a community organizer who faced the most intense vetting process in presidential history. Not! Sara Palin received more vetting in her first week as a veep candidate.

Lest we forget poor Joe Biden. A man of the people who rich people just don't understand. I think they understand he's a millionaire as a result of public service in the senate. What? he's a 1%er who donatesw zilch to charity. say it ain't so Joe?
This post was edited on 5/25 6:21 PM by Vegas pj

 

[SnakeTom]

Re: Media Coverage re:Wwealth of Candidates or

I would venture to say that the two President Bush's were probably wealthier than anyone that you named but I really do not see why the wealth or lack thereof of any of the Prsidential candidates should be a factor in the election.

Tom K

 

[Vegas pj]

Re: Media Coverage re:Wwealth of Candidates or

I agree, but the incumbent's strategy appears to be different - class warfare.

 

[Merge]

Re: Media Coverage re:Wwealth of Candidates or

2012 and 2004 represent entirely different views on wealth.

I do remember significant discussions on Kerry's wealth... but it was boring and faded away.

Fast forward 8 years after a financial crisis where Wall Street greed is blamed and there are ongoing protests against wall street... the GOP nominate the candidate who represents wall street.

Bluntly, if you are a political strategist and are not going after Romney for his wealth and how he made his money... you should be fired. Are you new to politics?

You find an angle and exploit it. If it polls well, you keep going. If it doesn't, you move on.

 

[SPK145]

Re: Media Coverage re:Wwealth of Candidates or

How effective will that strategy be when 1) the incumbent is just as in bed with Wall Street, 2) he pontificates against so-called greed at $40,000 a plate dinners, and 3) the protests against Wall Street are pretty poorly attended and thought of by the majority of the voters?

This is how screwed up the U.S. political/campaigning system really is.

Booker at least had enough guts to call it like it is. Now he's backtracking, can't stray too far off the plantation like that.

 

[SHUBigT]

Re: Media Coverage re:Wwealth of Candidates or

At this point I want a guy who can make and save a lot of money in the White House.

 

[Section112]

Re: Media Coverage re:Wwealth of Candidates or

Here's the deal. The Dem is a liar. The Repub is a liar. Which one will take less money out of your pocket? You choose...

 

[Merge]

Re: Media Coverage re:Wwealth of Candidates or

Originally posted by SPK145:
How effective will that strategy be when 1) the incumbent is just as in bed with Wall Street, 2) he pontificates against so-called greed at $40,000 a plate dinners, and 3) the protests against Wall Street are pretty poorly attended and thought of by the majority of the voters?

This is how screwed up the U.S. political/campaigning system really is.

Booker at least had enough guts to call it like it is. Now he's backtracking, can't stray too far off the plantation like that.

1. Not sure yet. The reality is different than the perception though. This is not about how we view the two and their connection to Wall St. Obama is betting that people will view Romney as the Wall St guy and he is probably right on that.

2. The majority of the people at those $40,000 plate dinners believe that they (along with the rest of the wealthy) should be paying a higher tax rate.

3. The protests themselves are poorly thought of, but I see a growing trend of an anti wall street group of people who are typically younger and not entirely thrilled with Obama.

If Obama can convince them that Wall st gets worse under Romney, he will sway some of them.

 

[SPK145]

Re: Media Coverage re:Wwealth of Candidates or

1) Because the Lamestream Media is in the tank for Obama.

2) Most of those wealthy have so many tax havens now and they would only increase those if tax rates went up. Empty suits.

3) It's a dying, rudderless, misplaced movement.

 

[Merge]

Re: Media Coverage re:Wwealth of Candidates or

1. I don't agree. I think Obama has the "career politician" label. Romney has the "vulture capitalist" label. Again, this is all about perception... and not necessarily reality.

2. If we did something more radical like the Buffett rule, I could see that. If we did something more realistic and let the tax cuts expire for the wealthy... I don't.

3. The movement is dying, and was misplaced... but the anti wall street idea is not, which is the point of this thread. It is a smart political play for Obama to position Romney as the Wall Street guy.

Removing bias - if you were Obama's campaign adviser, wouldn't you do the same thing?

 

[SPK145]

Re: Media Coverage re:Wwealth of Candidates or

Originally posted by Merge:
Removing bias - if you were Obama's campaign adviser, wouldn't you do the same thing?

Absolutely, sure can't run on his record or accomplishments in office.

 

[Merge]

Re: Media Coverage re:Wwealth of Candidates or

Originally posted by SPK145:

Originally posted by Merge:
Removing bias - if you were Obama's campaign adviser, wouldn't you do the same thing?

Absolutely, sure can't run on his record or accomplishments in office.

The sad thing is that Romney actually could run on his accomplishments in office, but can't in fear of alienating conservatives.

 

[HALL85]

Re: Media Coverage re:Wwealth of Candidates or

Will be interesting to see Romney's strategy. I'm no expert, but if I were his advisors, I'd focus on BO's lack of leadership, i.e. inability to lead and align Congress, inability to focus on the right things (healthcare reform instead of jobs), etc.

 

[Section112]

Re: Media Coverage re:Wwealth of Candidates or

An election for an incumbent should always focus on their record in the first term. BO does not have much other than killing Osama and if he wants he can trumpet his HC debacle too. There are other things but those two are top of mind for most. Romney will focus on that stuff and his economic record. IMO he should talk more about his HC law in Mass and simply say he and the current administration made some mistakes and that because of that experience he knows how to fix them.

 

[SPK145]

Re: Media Coverage re:Wwealth of Candidates or

Originally posted by Merge:

Originally posted by SPK145:

Originally posted by Merge:
Removing bias - if you were Obama's campaign adviser, wouldn't you do the same thing?

Absolutely, sure can't run on his record or accomplishments in office.

The sad thing is that Romney actually could run on his accomplishments in office, but can't in fear of alienating conservatives.

Fair point for some issues, politically flip-flopping (or evolving as the Obama apologists put it) on other issues.

 

[Vegas pj]

Re: Media Coverage re:Wwealth of Candidates or

Great political cartoon in paper today.

Picture Romney waering a "Bain" button & Obama wearing a "Bane" button" and with comparisons of each.

Romney;

Turned a $37 million investment into $66 billion in assets;
70% success rate;
created wealth;
created jobs;
AMC Entertainment, Burger King, Brookstone, Staples, Domino's Pizza, Dunkin Donuts, Guitar Center, Burlington Coat Factory, Clear Channel Communications, Warner Music Group, The Weather Channel.

Obama:

Added $5 trillion to our national debt;
1 in 6 Americans in poverty;
redistributes wealth;
job killer;
labor participation rate at a 31 year low;
Solyndra.

 

[Merge]

Re: Media Coverage re:Wwealth of Candidates or

Originally posted by HALL85:
Will be interesting to see Romney's strategy. I'm no expert, but if I were his advisors, I'd focus on BO's lack of leadership, i.e. inability to lead and align Congress, inability to focus on the right things (healthcare reform instead of jobs), etc.

I don't really agree with that. At the end of the day, voters will make up their mind on a few key issues Romney would be giving Obama a chance to defend himself against the "obstructionist party, while at the same time having to convince the general public that he could work with democrats better than Obama can work with republicans. His current platform really doesn't allow that.

What Romney needs to do is run on his record as governor.
He needs to come out in support of healthcare reform. He needs to support the mandate since he implemented one himself. He should be talking about the cost of care and what Obama did not do to address the rising costs. He will attract a lot of independents that way.

There are other issues as well that he should be working his way towards the center right now. Something like gay marriage - he should be saying that he believes it is a state issue and the federal government should stay out of it.

 

[HALL85]

Re: Media Coverage re:Wwealth of Candidates or

Merge, I'm sure Romney is thankful you aren't his advisor. Do you forget that Obama had an entirely Democratic Congress his first two years? Even his own party doesn't tow his line. Romney has the added advantage as having been a Governor and not having been part of the Congressional Gridlock. He's outside the fray of the Obama and Congress' ineptitude. This election is all about leadership and Romney can easily point to Obama's failures.

Support healthcare reform and the individual mandate? Are you serious??? You can't be that dumb. Romney needs to very clear and not get his Massachusetts plan connected with Obamacare....just needs to make the point that healthcare is a state by state decision and get the Federal Government out of a business that they currently suck at (i.e. $60 billion in fraud annually!!!).

 

[Merge]

Re: Media Coverage re:Wwealth of Candidates or

Romney would be lucky to have me. I would win him the election. As much as I enjoy politics, I love political strategy and the chess game behind it.

Again, you are mixing facts with perception. It is only the perceptions that voters have that matters.

Obama has to sell the idea that republicans blocked him from doing anything and make Romney a part of the problem. Make Romney look like someone who is so partisan, he is willing to fight against things that he supported as Governor.

It is almost too easy unless Romney changes paths.

Romney is focusing on how he is different than Obama and that is going to be a huge strategical mistake.

Obama is going to crush Romney on the healthcare debate. Romney basically created the foundation of the plan, Obama will make sure we all know that to force Romney to say why it is a bad idea that his plan is bad for the country.

If Romney says it is a state issue, it gives Obama the opportunity to say that Romney is like every other partisan politician. He knows he developed a good plan and he is unwilling to say what he knows is true.

By supporting national healthcare reform Romney will win over a lot of independent voters. He will show he is not a partisan politician and that he is willing to work with both sides to accomplish what needs to be done.

He needs to show independent voters that he can be what they like about Obama, AND the opposite of what they don't like in Obama. If he only focuses on the latter - he loses.

 

[HALL85]

Re: Media Coverage re:Wwealth of Candidates or

And exactly what do people like about Obama???

 

[Vegas pj]

Re: Media Coverage re:Wwealth of Candidates or

Originally posted by HALL85:
And exactly what do people like about Obama???

Saved union pension funds & jobs w/ autobailout.
Redistribute the wealth if possible.
Everyone entitlements inc. food stamps, unlimited unemployment etc.
makes a great speech when reading from a teleprompter.
Kept his pledge to slash the deficit & spending. What?

 

[shu09]

Re: Media Coverage re:Wwealth of Candidates or

Originally posted by HALL85:
And exactly what do people like about Obama???

I think he's done a very good job given the circumstances he was faced with upon entering office. It took many years to get into this hole and it's going to take many to get out. People need to be patient.

 

[Vegas pj]

Re: Media Coverage re:Wwealth of Candidates or

All he's done is reward his political cronies.

Detroit bailout - union jobs & pension fund. Despite what he says, they still owe the taxpayers about 65% of what they were "loaned". plus the unions got stock and the major creditors bubkis.

Solyndra - cronies. $550 million and then it files for bankruptcy. Brilliant!

Just gave the Culinary Union [here] $58 million to have it's Healthcare arm monitor (?} the formation of new insurance carriers under Ombamacare. Guess whose votes he wants?

Remember the mantra CHANGE. No more lobbyists etc. His Czars are comprised mostly of lobbyists. His treasury secy was a tax cheat! Lead by example? Secy was also a Goldman Sachs grad as are mazny of his appointees. demonizes them out of one side of his mouth and takes their money anyway.

Hypocrisy at it's best.

 

[Merge]

Re: Media Coverage re:Wwealth of Candidates or

Originally posted by shu09:

Originally posted by HALL85:
And exactly what do people like about Obama???

I think he's done a very good job given the circumstances he was faced with upon entering office. It took many years to get into this hole and it's going to take many to get out. People need to be patient.

Agreed. As the year progresses and we see signs of life back in the economy again, it is going to deflate the "anti-Obama" groups.

Romney positioning himself as the opposite of Obama is going to start to appear to be the opposite of progress.

Romney needs to talk about how successful his healthcare plan was and how it will work for the country. Then talk about the mistakes made in the healthcare plan and how it became a bureaucratic mess and how two years later, we still don't know how some of it will be implemented. Talk about the lack of cost controls... but DO NOT position yourself as someone who will kill the plan altogether. There are many good parts of the plan that the public is benefiting from. Threatening to kill the plan basically writs Obama's campaign commercials for him. Show a family that benefited from the pre-existing condition clause and Romney will look horrible.

He needs to stop talking about his career as a businessman. No one will forget that. The problem is that he has been in, or running for office for MANY years. People think of him as a politicians and he is ignoring that side because Obama is the "politician" in the race.

Every decision he makes is incredibly calculated... but they are mistakes.

I said Gore would lose the moment he decided to distance himself from Clinton, I said Kerry would lose the moment he walked in state and said "reporting for duty" (still makes me cringe)... I am not just saying this about Romney because I am a liberal. I am saying it because he has been looking foolish on the campaign trail and as it stands the election will not be close.

He needs to become who he was as Governor and pick a more conservative running mate to keep the base.

 

[HALL85]

Re: Media Coverage re:Wwealth of Candidates or

Comical stuff...a mistake to position himself as the opposite of Obama? Is the last four years what you would define as "progress"??? LMFAO

The healthcare message is that a Federally mandated and administered program is a huge mistake that will only drive up cost (which it has and will), have no impact on quality and increase the already laughable fraud levels is a mistake that America is not in favor. Bold moves at the state level should be the message, like he did in Massachusetts. Explain to me who is benefiting right now other than the 21-26 year olds that are piggy backing on their parents policies???

 

[Merge]

Re: Media Coverage re:Wwealth of Candidates or

The major benefits right now from Obamacare is that we cover preexisting conditions. Good luck to Romney opposing that when Obama makes his commercials about the families who were able to get coverage again. and I wouldn't exactly knock 21-26 year olds being able to afford insurance. That is a very good thing that effects young voters.

You are letting your bias cloud your view of this election.

It doesn't matter what you or I believe. It doesn't even matter what the facts are. What matters is how they are going to sell themselves, and will people buy into it. That is all.

If the economy falters again, Romney can capitalize... but it doesn't appear that is going to happen. In fact it does appear that it will be getting better for the foreseeable future.

Keep in Mind. Bush had the same exact approval rating this time in 2004 that Obama has now. How did the "anti Bush" candidate do? You will see soon enough the mistakes Romney made.

 

[Vegas pj]

Re: Media Coverage re :Wealth of Candidates or

Pre-existing coverage does not make Obamacare a worthy bill. The bill will raise 18 new taxes, something Obama said he would not do to the "middle class". [BTW - the "middle Class" rethoric hasn't been used since world history class in college. Interesting? Devisive?]

Many small employers will choose the pay the penalty rather than provide health care insurance due to the increased costs. I sold a small business right after Obamacare was passed and he started attacking capitalism and preaching spreading the wealth. Thanks to Obamacare that business is no longer around since the new owners realized the train was coming down the tracks without any brakes. Tragedy on so many levels.

A lot of parents drop kiddie coverage at about the time the kids hit college for a couple of reasons. Colleges used to provide inexpensive health care to students [money maker since most kids stay healthy except for the usual hangovers]. Those kids can jack up the premiums significantly for those who can least afford it. Plus, statistically, the up to 26 age group is pretty healthy overall soObamacare provides little or nothing to the consumer. Sounds good to the mindless college kids, Obama's constituency, who only hear "free" insurance to them and believe it is something they are entitled too. Not!

Want to help the consumer? Let the ins. cos compete across state lines and end the "monopolies" that now exist in many states. Competition breeds
lower premiums.
This post was edited on 5/25 6:22 PM by Vegas pj

 

[SPK145]

Re: Media Coverage re :Wealth of Candidates or

Well said, vegas pj.

I was told by our health insurance rep that allowing 23-26 year olds to remain on their parents insurance if they don't have insurance of their own was costly as the types of people who don't have insurance until they get to 26 are normally higher risk than normal. Hence the still significant increases in health insurance premiums for a law that was supposed to cut them.

 

[SPK145]

Re: Media Coverage re:Wwealth of Candidates or

Originally posted by Merge:
The major benefits right now from Obamacare is that we cover preexisting conditions.

Most state laws already require insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions provided you had prior insurance coverage. That is a good thing. Covering all pre-existing conditions will/is really hurting insurance costs as many now won't get insurance until they need it. One of the reasons why when the mandate fails the whole law fails. Dismantle it all.

 

[Merge]

Re: Media Coverage re :Wealth of Candidates or

Originally posted by Vegas pj:
Pre-existing coverage does not make Obamacare a worthy bill.

Disagree. That was a necessity.

Originally posted by Vegas pj:
Many small employers will choose the pay the penalty rather than provide health care insurance due to the increased costs.
This post was edited on 5/25 6:22 PM by Vegas pj

Nonsense. Why wouldn't they drop coverage with zero penalty? They were waiting to pay? Please. It didn't happen when Romney made a penalty in Mass and it will not happen now.

Originally posted by Vegas pj:
A lot of parents drop kiddie coverage at about the time the kids hit college for a couple of reasons. Colleges used to provide inexpensive health care to students [money maker since most kids stay healthy except for the usual hangovers]. Those kids can jack up the premiums significantly for those who can least afford it. Plus, statistically, the up to 26 age group is pretty healthy overall soObamacare provides little or nothing to the consumer.
This post was edited on 5/25 6:22 PM by Vegas pj

More nonsense. Students will still be able to get coverage from their schools, and then what happens after they graduate? This allows them relatively low cost insurance through their parents plan. Having healthy people in the plan lowers the cost for other people in the plan. That is why everyone needs to be covered.

Originally posted by Vegas pj:
Let the ins. cos compete across state lines and end the "monopolies" that now exist in many states. Competition breeds
lower premiums.
This post was edited on 5/25 6:22 PM by Vegas pj

and then they all merge and we end up with 3 gigantic companies with no incentive to compete with costs at all.

 

[Merge]

Re: Media Coverage re :Wealth of Candidates or

Originally posted by SPK145:
Well said, vegas pj.

I was told by our health insurance rep that allowing 23-26 year olds to remain on their parents insurance if they don't have insurance of their own was costly as the types of people who don't have insurance until they get to 26 are normally higher risk than normal. Hence the still significant increases in health insurance premiums for a law that was supposed to cut them.

I will have to look into that. I spoke with an actuary who said the exact opposite and said that allowing that age group on their parents plan will lower the cost overall for most group plans.

 

[Merge]

Re: Media Coverage re:Wwealth of Candidates or

Originally posted by SPK145:

Originally posted by Merge:
The major benefits right now from Obamacare is that we cover preexisting conditions.

Most state laws already require insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions provided you had prior insurance coverage. That is a good thing. Covering all pre-existing conditions will/is really hurting insurance costs as many now won't get insurance until they need it. One of the reasons why when the mandate fails the whole law fails. Dismantle it all.

Yeah... so go back to "personal responsibility" which has completely failed us. Everyone needs health coverage, even the people who are too dumb to realize it.

I guess that is what defines my political philosophy. Sometimes people will make mistakes and it shouldn't ruin their life when they do.

My brother has not had health insurance since he lost his job, wife and house. He is trying to rebuild his life, but F... the system that says insurance should not pay for a medical condition he develops while he is trying to fix his life.

We can do much better than that. Obamacare is not perfect, but parts are a step in the right direction.

 

[Vegas pj]

Re: Media Coverage re:Wwealth of Candidates or

Merge - many small business', when faced with increased premiums due to
mandated coverages, will choose the penalty over proviiding coverage. FACT. Many have said they would already. FACT.

Of course unions and major donors to Obama have been given waivers to the mandates so they won't have increased coverage as mandated or the cost attendant thereto. FACT

 

[Merge]

Re: Media Coverage re:Wwealth of Candidates or

Originally posted by Vegas pj:
Merge - many small business', when faced with increased premiums due to
mandated coverages, will choose the penalty over proviiding coverage. FACT. Many have said they would already. FACT.

Of course unions and major donors to Obama have been given waivers to the mandates so they won't have increased coverage as mandated or the cost attendant thereto. FACT

There are studies that show that will not happen. It doesn't really matter what people with a bias against it say what they will do.

What they actually do will be entirely different.

By getting the healthy "invincible's" into the pool, it will help even out the costs across the board. Premiums should not rise any faster than they already have been.

You should also read a bit more about the waivers to understand what they are. See Link.

Link

 

[Vegas pj]

Re: Media Coverage re:Wwealth of Candidates or

Didn't realize Merge had a direct line to David Axelrod's talking points.

 

[Merge]

Re: Media Coverage re:Wwealth of Candidates or

Originally posted by Vegas pj:
Didn't realize Merge had a direct line to David Axelrod's talking points.

Everything you posted here is a right wing talking point. In fact this entire thread was started by you based on a right wing talking point!

Did you look up how many times Kerry's wealth was talked about vs Romney? Or did you just come here and post what you heard on ... (insert whatever right wing program here)....

 

[Vegas pj]

Re: Media Coverage re:Wwealth of Candidates or

Actually met Kerry when we were in HS [different HS] I happen to be a registered Democrat fwiw. I,m fed up with Obama's saying one thing and meaning another, hypocrisy at it's worst.

 

[SPK145]

Re: Media Coverage re:Wwealth of Candidates or

Merge,

Th really are no non-partisan or unbiased sites or posters here, me and you included.

 

[HALL85]

Re: Media Coverage re:Wwealth of Candidates or

Some facts to consider in terms of the effect of Obamacare:

- % of Insured spending more than 10% on out of pocket - 32%....up from 25%
- % of Insured foregoing a physician follow up visit after surgery - 25% up from 20%

Source: Commonwealth Fund Survey

Employee share of company sponsored plans are rising and will continue to do so.

 

[Merge]

Re: Media Coverage re:Wwealth of Candidates or

Originally posted by SPK145:
Merge,

Th really are no non-partisan or unbiased sites or posters here, me and you included.

I understand that, but that doesn't mean we can't be objective in our disagreements.

We have found areas where we agree with each other, and disagree on how to resolve problems. Preexisting conditions is a good example.

I think it is unacceptable that people would not have preexisting conditions covered. (I think) You agree. I think it is unacceptable that people would only buy coverage when they get sick. You agree.

I think a solution is to mandate that everyone has coverage. You don't agree. You think the solution is personal responsibility. I don't agree.

I think we can have these conversations without falling into the typical political talking points like how the media covered Kerry's wealth vs Romney's.