Quote :

"It's funny that a huge chunk of that 47% he says are lazy government mooches are poor white people who will vote republican until the day they die."

Git r done!!!

9/17/2012 10:38:40 PM

Seems like Mitt Romney is actively trying his best to lose this election.

9/17/2012 10:46:01 PM

Of that 47% who don't pay federal income tax, 28% still pay payroll tax meaning they have jobs. Another 10% are the elderly who have been paying into the system their whole lives. Not to mention state and local taxes which are largely regressive.

So yes, Romney fucked up.

9/17/2012 11:21:37 PM

Trainwreck.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-pXXMgrK00U

9/17/2012 11:37:10 PM

Romney is the 1%, if you vote for him you are telling the 99% of us Americans that you want to rape and exterminate us. Vote for the 99% or vote for the 1% that want to fuck up the US.

Oh wait... I'm not voting for either of the A and B choices. You guys should all go fuck yourself...oh wait, the economy is already fucking itself over. I hope your children have a great future.

9/17/2012 11:38:26 PM

What's this 47% thing people keep talking about that Romney seems to be trying to back pedal from in that video?

found it:
http://www.boston.com/politicalintelligence/2012/09/17/secretly-filmed-video-mitt-romney-apparently-fundraiser-reveals-unguarded-views/F1tFkynHSafrct2VcdCElL/story.html

lol... wow. Taking this at face value, Romney seems way scummier than I imagined him to be.

O.o

[Edited on September 18, 2012 at 12:34 AM. Reason : ]

9/18/2012 12:20:01 AM

For me, it only confirms my previously regard for his scumminess, for me.

9/18/2012 12:46:56 AM

Quote :

"y0willy0: Why are their so many people on disability? Is it a simple function of larger population? Is the workplace that much more dangerous these days? Is it too easy to get on disability? Does disability simply cover too many things?"

I only know a little bit about the issue, but here goes:

1. When we made regular old welfare more difficult to get, a whole lot of people turned to SSI. Of course, they discovered that, comparatively, disability is the good stuff: you get more money, no work requirements, and social workers leave you alone.
2. People with disabilities did a darn good job of organizing--philosophically, politically, etc... They are very generous/expansive with what qualifies as a disability, and they fight together inclusively. You do not question the extent/severity of another person's disability; if a person has a disability, he or she automatically becomes part of the team as a disenfranchised individual who deserves to be represented.
3. There are some incentives to doctors, pharmaceutical companies, schools, etc...to get people on disability--especially children.
4. There is a state/national government dynamic that encourages SSI. The states benefit when they get people off regular family welfare programs, and SSI covers people more generously with no effect on the state. State governments currently have people employed for the sole purpose of identifying families that can be switched on to disability. Of course, there are very few people tasked with the job of ensuring that folks with disabilities are actually still disabled or getting the help/care that they need.

There are some troubling implications/questions. Are children/adults who actually have serious disabilities getting the help that they need? Will children stay on disability forever, or will they get jobs/go to college when they turn 18? Everybody realizes there is a problem, and people are motivated to fix it, but while they are busy working on that, how many more children will be identified and placed on SSI? That's a crucial question.

A couple links:

http://www.boston.com/news/health/articles/2010/12/13/follow_up_process_lacking_in_ssi_disability_program/

http://www.npr.org/2011/08/18/139722024/benefits-for-severely-disabled-children-scrutinized

Anyway, the obvious "solution" is to expand Medicaid offerings so that children/adults with disabilities would be sure to receive the actual care that they need (instead of just getting a check that doesn't necessarily go to care). Of course, you'd think this solution would be cheaper because it eliminates "fraudish" behavior on the part of the parent (who may collect a check and fail to use it on their child because they need food for the family or because their child doesn't actually require any extra disability services)...but, anyway, it's actually easier/cheaper to give all parents, even the ones who are abusing the system, a check each month and wish them luck. Still, easier/cheaper doesn't mean better.

[Edited on September 18, 2012 at 1:34 AM. Reason : This problem is a monster.]

9/18/2012 1:21:55 AM

Excellent analysis.

9/18/2012 1:30:36 AM

If Romney stating the obvious on camera at a campaign event is some sort of scandal, just wait until he says the same thing in front of a national audience during the debates - the HuffPo and #p2'ers are really going to go nuts then.

9/18/2012 6:20:22 AM

If you see NOTHING wrong with what he said, there is no hope for you.

9/18/2012 7:05:17 AM

Comments on youtube.

Quote :

"47% responds? to Romney: "We don't pay more than are legally due and frankly if we had paid more than are legally due we don't think we'd be qualified to be American citizens. You'd think people would want us to follow the law and pay only what the tax code requires.""

[Edited on September 18, 2012 at 8:15 AM. Reason : .]

9/18/2012 8:10:55 AM

How do you pay payroll tax but not income tax? The standard deduction is $5,000, and almost no one makes less than that.

So yeah, I still don't know what the heck people are talking about.

------- no wait, i see now ------------


http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/09/17/romney-my-job-is-not-to-worry-about-those-people/

Quote :

"— 28.3 percent of households pay no federal income tax, but they do pay the payroll taxes for Social Security and Medicare. That means they don’t need Mitt Romney to convince them to “take personal responsibility and care for their lives.” They already have jobs. Most of the households in this group don’t pay any federal income tax because they qualify for enough deductions that their income tax liability has shrunk to zero. See this Tax Policy Center report for more, which gives an example of “a couple with two children earning less than $26,400. They get an $11,600 standard deduction and four exemptions of $3,700, and that takes their liability to zero.” Indeed, it’s worth noting that many of these deductions and credits were part of the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts, which Romney wants to extend."

So, Mitt Romney should really clarify that he's talking about the 28% and not the 47%. Unless he hopes to get seniors to pay income tax, good luck with that one! And as long as we're talking about this 28%, almost all of them are low-income families with children. I guess they are validly getting off scott-free. We should tax them more and put more of them on food stamps. Reduce government dependency!

[Edited on September 18, 2012 at 8:57 AM. Reason : ]

9/18/2012 8:42:38 AM

Just a couple graphs here:











Mitt Romney's tax rate (of the few returns he's provided): 14%, whereas most Americans are lucky to get theirs under 24%. He's pretty much a perfect example of the trend America fell into over the past 40 years: More and more of our profits go to corporations, who then get taxed less and less, while paying their employees a smaller and smaller proportion of net income, who then pay a greater and greater share of taxes.

That aside, it's worth pointing out that at this point Romney is refusing to extend a benefit of a doubt to, and in fact outwardly dismiss and insult half of the country. He has no apparent grasp on the actual reasoning or goals of the left, and no interest in grasping them. To him, all of his opponents are just low-life mooches, and he has the gall to call Obama arrogant and elitist.

Given than support for Obama is running around 48% now (Gallup), that leaves 1% of the population that both supports Obama and is self-reliant (Hey, I AM the 1% after all). If you don't see how this remark perfectly illustrates what an obtuse fucking idiot Romney is, then you're dumb as a goddamn brick and should be collecting disability for your malfunctioning brain. Disability that I'm glad to pay taxes for because our society would be way better off if all such people had handlers 24/7.


[Edited on September 18, 2012 at 9:04 AM. Reason : .]

9/18/2012 8:57:11 AM

I don't see how Romney's remark perfectly illustrates what an obtuse fucking idiot he is. But I like your Talking Points Memo picture graphs.

9/18/2012 9:03:12 AM

He can't understand why people would support his opponent unless they were getting a handout.

Either he's lying or he's really, really stupid and oblivious.

9/18/2012 9:05:18 AM

Quote :

"Just two graphs here:"

But... ... the graphs alone don't help. We already knew that retired people, for one, existed.

Quote :

"Given than support for Obama is running around 48% now (Gallup), that leaves 1% of the population that both supports Obama and is self-reliant."

Obviously the percentages are completely irrelevant of your math after you narrow it down to the voting population.

Quote :

"If you don't see how this remark perfectly illustrates what an obtuse fucking idiot Romney is, then you're dumb as a goddamn brick and should be collecting disability for your malfunctioning brain"

You see, you're problem, is that you think you know so much, but you don't. I would prefer to think I know less. You haven't even identified the problem with Romney's statement. You think you understand? Really? Really really?

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/09/where-are-the-47-of-americans-who-pay-no-income-taxes/262499/



The Republican vote claims more of the elderly, obviously. Oh, and the people who are 'validly' getting a free ride, they're mostly in the red states, which... are younger demographically.

The 48% rhetoric is incoherent. But you think you fully understand what political means it serves. That's cute.

Quote :

"Either he's lying or he's really, really stupid and oblivious."

I was starting to converge on this as well. Frankly, it's more incredible that the Koch brothers would seriously listen to him in the first place.

[Edited on September 18, 2012 at 9:09 AM. Reason : ]

9/18/2012 9:05:26 AM

Quote :

"You see, you're problem, is that you think you know so much, but you don't. "

Lol

9/18/2012 9:07:17 AM

Actually mrfrog it is you who are problem because all of the right will just blame the red states on that map on the high minority populations (Except Idaho) like they do every time it's brought up.

[Edited on September 18, 2012 at 9:15 AM. Reason : .]

9/18/2012 9:14:30 AM

Quote :

"He can't understand why people would support his opponent unless they were getting a handout."

Is Romney wrong that the 47% of earners paying no federal income tax and those receiving some form of government assistance are more likely to support Obama?

I know that's not the same thing as your quote above is asking. But it seems to me Romney's real "gaffe" was his attempt at being a political pundit and trying to make the point that the 47% paying no federal income tax are the same as the 47% who always vote (D) - and that he therefore needs to attract the few remaining "independent" voters.

[Edited on September 18, 2012 at 10:01 AM. Reason : ....]

9/18/2012 10:01:04 AM

from the link above

Quote :

" In 2008, Obama lost Georgia by 5 percentage points but he won 70% of voters who earned less than $30,000 -- which is precisely the demo most likely to owe no federal income tax. Obama lost Mississippi by 14 percentage points, but picked up 66% of voters who earned less than $30,000. As a general rule, Republicans win among richer voters -- both in the red states and the blue."

So is the implication here that those who vote republican are also those who are actually bearing the greater burden in terms of tax/income ratio? Given the loopholes of which we are all aware and the information on this page, I can't take that at face value.

Quote :

" Actually mrfrog it is you who are problem because all of the right will just blame the red states on that map on the high minority populations (Except Idaho) like they do every time it's brought up."

Not the exact same thing but the article above also mentions....

Quote :

"Update: My colleague Derek Thompson picks up the baton from me and digs deeper into the demographics of the so-called 47 percent. One important note he makes is that it's often the lowest-income people in these red states who are most likely to vote Democratic -- it's just that the rest of the population is conservative enough to carry the states into the Republican column."

[Edited on September 18, 2012 at 10:27 AM. Reason : ]]

9/18/2012 10:19:40 AM

Quote :

"Is Romney wrong that the 47% of earners paying no federal income tax and those receiving some form of government assistance are more likely to support Obama?"

I'm not sure about that, and would be curious to see the numbers. I hate to bring race into it and generalize, but let's face it, race plays a big role. I would imagine that many of the poor white folks that don't pay income tax and receive govt assistance consider themselves "republicans", and dislike obama. There are more white welfare recipients than black (about equal percentages), and I just don't see the majority of them supporting obama. I could be wrong.

[Edited on September 18, 2012 at 10:24 AM. Reason : ]

9/18/2012 10:23:34 AM

All this talk about people living off our government, but nobody talks about how Israel gets US government handouts.

And let's not even try to pretend it's humanitarian aid.

9/18/2012 10:37:15 AM

I agree. That is a leech that should have been removed long ago.

9/18/2012 10:40:58 AM

Quote :

"Is Romney wrong that the 47% of earners paying no federal income tax and those receiving some form of government assistance are more likely to support Obama? "

If we were speaking in terms of "a larger fraction of that 47% support Obama than the general population" then yes, but that's also not what Romney said.

That is why what Romney said doesn't make overt logical sense... I'm not sure if there's any other kind of valid "logical sense", but maybe there's something going on we don't know about.

9/18/2012 10:42:44 AM

I think we have to talk about race. We just have to be objective and fair about it. It's clearly playing some sort of role. Like you said, there are more white people on welfare, but they're equal percentages.

I don't know where to look, but I'd be surprised if a significantly larger percentage of low-income white voters didn't vote for Obama than middle and high-income white voters. If Obama is getting 100% of the black vote then he still needs at least 50% of the low-income white vote in southern states to make it to 70% of all low-income voters.

Although none of this simple analysis will ever be able to pinpoint the exact causes of racial inequality in the country (particularly the South) and the clear disparity in economic health in Southern states compared to the rest of the country. It's incredibly likely that the South is still feeling the toll from having its entire economic system and local wealth uprooted only 150 years ago. Blacks are definitely still feeling the effects of having their entire culture dismantled and economic enslavement for 200 years and another 130 years or so of systematic oppression.

9/18/2012 10:59:11 AM

Quote :

"I think we have to talk about race. We just have to be objective and fair about it."

By only discussing race in terms of blacks and whites and ignoring all other groups classified by race. What a racist.

9/18/2012 11:06:55 AM

Quote :

"If we were speaking in terms of "a larger fraction of that 47% support Obama than the general population" then yes, but that's also not what Romney said. That is why what Romney said doesn't make overt logical sense... I'm not sure if there's any other kind of valid "logical sense", but maybe there's something going on we don't know about."

He did say in his statement that is was taken out of context. I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt on that, because that's exactly how these sorts of things are portrayed... every. single. time. He did the same thing to Obama and he was slimy enough to center his entire campaign around an out of context quote.

But that said, even if this was taken out of context, it is still something I never, ever want to hear a president say. There is no reason at all he should have a thought that comes anywhere close to this, much less say it out loud, in public or private. I do not want someone like that running the country because they clearly do not understand the experience of a majority of the citizens. There is a lot of heated partisan debate going on and a lot of inaccurate facts and figures flying around. But nowhere in the reality that I presently reside is this statement anywhere close to true and knowing that these words came out of Romney's lips makes me just as scared of him becoming President as I would be about Sarah Palin. The Republican Party has completely lost all grip on reality and I don't see them coming back.

Quote :

"All this talk about people living off our government, but nobody talks about how Israel gets US government handouts. And let's not even try to pretend it's humanitarian aid."

It's weapons subsidies to buy American weapons. So it's basically the government giving more money to defense companies through the intermediary of Israel. But that's not what we're talking about in this thread.

Quote :

"By only discussing race in terms of blacks and whites and ignoring all other groups classified by race. What a racist."

You're an idiot.

9/18/2012 11:14:06 AM

If you're living on unemployment or welfare, of course you're going to vote for the politicians that say they'll continue those policies.

The most important thing to consider here is that the majority of people are swayed by rhetoric, not actual policies. Obama talked about ending drug raids and corporate welfare, then he ramped those efforts up. Luckily, he can avoid a lot of the political fallout from that by simply refusing to discuss it.

I mean, to even be discussing shit like unemployment benefits and welfare when the banks are getting free money in greater and greater quantities...it's absurd. The reason that people even need those services is because bankers and politicians fucked up the economy, and, in our system, bankers and politicians are never punished. It's like sentencing the guy who stole a loaf of bread when his family was starving to death with life in prison while the guy who orchestrated a grand heist gets away scott free.

What's even crazier is the idea that either of these mother fuckers running for President will do anything to stop any of this. We're in uncharted territory, guys. What we're seeing now is what is always seen in declining empires. There's no fixing the system now. No amount of tinkering with taxes or tax loopholes can stop what is coming. The ruling class knows that we're on a sinking ship and they're taking whatever they can on the way out; meanwhile, rhetoric places the blame on welfare recipients while the actual parasites are heralded by the media as having "saved the economy".

[Edited on September 18, 2012 at 11:40 AM. Reason : ]

9/18/2012 11:39:00 AM

You know it might just be that maybe, just maybe, Democrats recognize and cater to the problems of people who are less fortunate, while Republicans generally ignore those problems or blame those people solely for their problems.

Whether or not a change in tax burden yields a change in politics (Not evidence of this presented so far), it's pretty basic psychology that you're going to be more likely to support somebody who actually shows empathy to you than the person who thinks you're subhuman.

Race is another great example of this. Some 94% of blacks support Obama, but that's really not that much higher than their typical support for Democrats. Some 89% of blacks feel America is still very much divided by race. 99% of Republicans disagree with them, and dismiss every mention of racism with phrases like "the race card", so what the fuck do you expect? Black people could be getting absolutely nothing from the government, and be paying super high taxes, and I think they'd still support Democrats, because Democrats are the only ones willing to acknowledge the fact that their experience in America is not identical to that of white people.

Quote :

"If you're living on unemployment or welfare, of course you're going to vote for the politicians that say they'll continue those policies."

Just plain false and based on lazy reasoning without consulting facts. The states in which the most net recipients of federal dollars are all red states politically, so right there the real world has shut you down, so please shut up. Every single one of them thinks they're "the legit recipients" who'd never actually lose their entitlement. That goes for every granny in the South who hasn't gotten over Desegregation but still collects Medicaid/Medicare, every Bubba on disability because his chewing tobacco rotted his jaw out, and every Paul Ryan living on his Dad's S.S. money.

Let's take your logic another route, and just add negative signs to it. I'm a net *loser* to the government every year, so shouldn't I vote for politicians who'd *change* those policies? No, I'm not, because just like poor people I'm capable of slightly more advanced reasoning than "Look at the direction of money flowing into my wallet and maximize it towards me in the immediate future."


[Edited on September 18, 2012 at 11:51 AM. Reason : .]

9/18/2012 11:46:01 AM

Quote :

"Just plain false and based on lazy reasoning without consulting facts. The states in which the most net recipients of federal dollars are all red states politically, so right there the real world has shut you down, so please shut up."

This has already been addressed in this thread:

"Update: My colleague Derek Thompson picks up the baton from me and digs deeper into the demographics of the so-called 47 percent. One important note he makes is that it's often the lowest-income people in these red states who are most likely to vote Democratic -- it's just that the rest of the population is conservative enough to carry the states into the Republican column."

Quote :

"Let's take your logic another route, and just add negative signs to it. I'm a net *loser* to the government every year, so shouldn't I vote for politicians who'd *change* those policies? No, I'm not, because just like poor people I'm capable of slightly more advanced reasoning than "Look at the direction of money flowing into my wallet and maximize it towards me in the immediate future." "

I would argue that almost everyone in the world is a net loser when it comes to the activities of the U.S. government.

Things change when your survival depends on government assistance. You no longer have any wiggle room.

[Edited on September 18, 2012 at 11:57 AM. Reason : ]

9/18/2012 11:50:19 AM

Quote :

"I mean, to even be discussing shit like unemployment benefits and welfare when the banks are getting free money in greater and greater quantities...it's absurd."

That's my stance. Welfare is a drop in the bucket compared to all the other shit we piss money away on, e.g. defense.

9/18/2012 11:52:04 AM

Quote :

"US Republican presidential candidate filmed at fundraising dinner saying Palestinians "have no interest whatsoever in establishing peace," adding Iran would use nuclear capability to blackmail US."

Maybe he's just trying to escape some of those "Obama Lite" characterizations?

9/18/2012 11:52:10 AM

I don't think he at all came close to justifying his use of the phrase "the rest" as though there's a firm division. It's a probability distribution, and not entirely clean:

http://www.maxwell.syr.edu/campbell/programs/Merged_Data_Set/



With the exception of public housing and medicaid, Republicans routinely grab 30-40% of federal fund recipient votes. How does that square with your theory that "OF COURSE people receiving so and so would never vote to change it."?

Could it be that only some, and not all of those voters are simply acting on Destroyer's famous one-variable "Fuck you got mine" equation for electoral choice, and that many more are making far more complex decisions?

Quote :

"I would argue that almost everyone in the world is a net loser when it comes to the activities of the U.S. government."

Destroyer, we all know how you feel about so and so, we've witnessed you type this same trite, predictable shit 15,000 times already. If you're going to respond to something I type, then respond to it instead of throwing this canned shit out that you think is cute but is just an eyeroll for the rest of us trying to have an adult discussion.


[Edited on September 18, 2012 at 12:04 PM. Reason : .]

9/18/2012 12:00:21 PM

The details are important. It's not just that you're receiving assistance, it's that you are living on it, i.e., you need that assistance to continue living. If your understanding is that one politician will allow you to continue surviving, while another politician will result in your death or a severe drop in quality of life, you'd have to be irrational to vote for the latter.

In the case of Medicare/Medicaid, the rhetoric from both sides says that those will stay, so it's kind of a toss up there.

[Edited on September 18, 2012 at 12:05 PM. Reason : lol you're mad]

9/18/2012 12:03:16 PM

Quote :

"The details are important. It's not just that you're receiving assistance, it's that you are living on it, i.e., you need that assistance to continue living."

Would you say that's about 47% of the population?

9/18/2012 12:05:31 PM

No, it's probably significantly less.

9/18/2012 12:09:22 PM

Quote :

"That's my stance. Welfare is a drop in the bucket compared to all the other shit we piss money away on, e.g. defense. "

I am not saying that you don't have a point, but people-care is by far the largest part of the government spending (as it should be).

9/18/2012 12:14:03 PM

^no shit. Entitlements are by far the biggest expense to govt and growing rapidly. We currently dont collect enough to pay for mandatory spending. (entitlements and int on debt) What do you think the trend of those look like in the future? We are fucked.

Romney was clearly talking about campaigning, not governing. Got to love the lib circle jerk over this. Hell he even mentions there isnt anything he can do about that 47% he has to concentrate on the 10% of indys. As long as he doesnt back down from his statement he has a real opportunity to gain support.

9/18/2012 12:21:03 PM

Entitlements (30% of that graph -- SS and Medicare) are funded by payroll taxes, which most of that 47% pays. So it's disingenuous to say that 47% are freeloaders when they aren't.

Also, an important distinction -- welfare and entitlements are different things. Welfare is one small form of entitlement.

[Edited on September 18, 2012 at 12:30 PM. Reason : .]

9/18/2012 12:23:44 PM

Im not calling them freeloaders, Im just saying the problem NOW and in the future is entitlement funding. BTW, both SS and Medicare are underfunded.

57% of govt revenue is from the income tax. 34% is from payroll taxes. (which are about 50% of spending, and growing)

http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/fed_revenue_2012USrn

Where did freeloaders come from?

[Edited on September 18, 2012 at 12:32 PM. Reason : .]

9/18/2012 12:30:27 PM

Igor:

For one, the safety net spending ballooned because of the recession. This makes 2011 very different from other years.

Quote :

" Entitlements are by far the biggest expense to govt and growing rapidly"

Entitlements that they already paid for through payroll taxes! Everyone is supposed to receive social security and that's the largest slice. How is this outrage worthy? OMG, old people living on the system... that they paid for. They paid even more than what they get. The effective ROI for social security is like 1%, or less than a fucking money market account would get. This is for the last generation. We can expect a ROI closer to -10%.

This "entitlement" is government robbery. They took money out of your paycheck to pay for wars and you're not getting it back.

Fuck the government, d357r0y3r is right. The federal government hurts the people it "helps" far more than anyone else.

9/18/2012 12:34:31 PM

Freeloaders are what Romney implied when he said at his millionaire's dinner that 47% of the country votes for Obama because they depend on government assistance.

Also, of the people who make 15-30K (which fall into Romney's 47%), they only went 60-40 for Obama in 2008. Less than 15 went 75-25 for Obama. So even then it's not like one big voting block.

[Edited on September 18, 2012 at 12:38 PM. Reason : .]

9/18/2012 12:34:43 PM

Man, Ross Perot would be proud of this page.

9/18/2012 12:34:52 PM

Social Security isn't an investment, it's insurance, learn the difference please. There are a lot of people who lost their retirement savings in 2008 who are pretty damn glad to be getting a "1% ROI" on that money they paid in their entire lives.

[Edited on September 18, 2012 at 12:42 PM. Reason : .]

9/18/2012 12:36:31 PM

Quote :

"Freeloaders are what Romney implied when he said at his millionaire's dinner that 47% of the country votes for Obama because they depend on government assistance."

That makes no fucking sense!

9/18/2012 12:38:03 PM

^ it was in response to this

Quote :

"Where did freeloaders come from?"

9/18/2012 12:42:15 PM

maybe the freeloaders are the 28% who don't pay income taxes because of the child tax credit...

9/18/2012 12:44:20 PM

^

Quote :

"Of that 47% who don't pay federal income tax, 28% still pay payroll tax meaning they have jobs. Another 10% are the elderly who have been paying into the system their whole lives. Not to mention state and local taxes which are largely regressive."

9/18/2012 12:54:31 PM

Quote :

"Social Security isn't an investment, it's insurance, learn the difference please. There are a lot of people who lost their retirement savings in 2008 who are pretty damn glad to be getting a "1% ROI" on that money they paid in their entire lives."

Considering that the banks and the government caused the crash to happen, this isn't much consolation. It's like if the mafia required 30% of your income as protection money, then one day they show up and haul off your house and everything you own, leaving you with a tent and enough food to survive. You'd be the guy saying, "Well, thank god for the mafia! Without them, you'd be dead!"

Sure, it's technically true that the mafia is keeping you alive in that example, but you'd much rather have not forked over a bunch of money in exchange for a government that either was unable to protect you, or more likely, was directly responsible for the pilfering of your life savings.

[Edited on September 18, 2012 at 12:58 PM. Reason : ]

9/18/2012 12:57:45 PM