FU - FairAndUNbalanced.com - Latest comments on Popeye and the Curious Mr. Romney

In response to: Popeye and the Curious Mr. Romney

F&B [Visitor] — Thu, 04 Oct 2012 01:51:06 +0000

The U.S. already has a progressive income tax, i.e. people who earn more already pay a higher percentage on earned income. On un-earned income, e.g. capital gains, everyone pays a flat 15%.

The wealthiest people (as defined by the democrats, by Occupy This and That, by any measure you would like to use) pay more than their "fair share" already, in fact they pay the lion's share of taxes that are collected by the federal government.

The last point is: Who decides how much is a fair share? Or, who decides who should "pitch in" more than they already do?

BTW, the debate is on right now... Romney's proposal is actually quite interesting - lower the tax rate but limit deductions to $17,000. This places the biggest benefit of the tax cut squarely in the pockets of the middle class.

In response to: Popeye and the Curious Mr. Romney

Trey [Visitor] — Wed, 03 Oct 2012 15:26:58 +0000

Insert Two Cents:

I dislike the term 'Demonize'. That's a word thrown around to garner sympathy towards a group that wants to look the part of the victim. The left is attacked for 'demonizing' Romney and the 1%, however at the same time Romney is shown on camera 'demonizing' those who he believes would vote for Obama (His coined '47%'). People are allowed to criticize... it doesn't need to be called 'demonize'. That word should be used when it's appropriate to be used.

To expect more taxes out of people who have more to be taxed isn't to 'demonize'. If an individual is a member of a society, than it's not unreasonable to assume that individual should contribute to the society.

What's wrong with pitching in more for the society you are a member of if you have more to pitch?

In response to: Popeye and the Curious Mr. Romney

F&B [Visitor] — Wed, 03 Oct 2012 02:49:22 +0000

Burr Deming: "As soon as you discover anyone doing that, be sure and let us know." --- Without resorting to posting specific citations, it has been made quite clear by the administration, news media, etc. that those earning more than $250,000 per year are not paying their "fair" share. That is just one of many examples of the demonization of success being perpetrated by the left.

The more successful (in terms of income and wealth) an individual is, the more intensely he is demonized. Even your example, Mr. Deming, is intended to ridicule, i.e. demonize, the owner of the yacht, as well as Mitt Romney.

Even the creation of the term "1%" was done for the purpose of demonizing the wealthy/successful people and segregating and identifying them as a minority to be despised. Of course the liberals then try to establish themselves as the champions of the 99%. What better way to win an election than to get 99% of the population to see you as their champion and savior.

Other than that, your story would have been quite humorous . . . If there weren't so much at stake.

In response to: Popeye and the Curious Mr. Romney

Burr Deming [Member] — Tue, 02 Oct 2012 12:33:11 +0000

Thank you, F&B.

I would agree that demonizing success makes no sense. As soon as you discover anyone doing that, be sure and let us know.

Barack Obama seems to be a prime example of overcoming obstacles and becoming just the sort of success we agree on.

I attempted in this piece to show a contrast in how Mitt Romney regards his fellow Americans. However, I do have to admit that, in certain respects he is quite egalitarian.

Regardless of your economic circumstance, he is quite willing to jump to your assistance when you are having trouble parking your yacht.

In response to: Popeye and the Curious Mr. Romney

F&B [Visitor] — Tue, 02 Oct 2012 03:43:19 +0000

After nearly four years it has become painfully obvious that the "common man" Obama has Failed miserably in economic and foreign policy matters. It is logical to believe that someone who has experience creating and managing wealth and jobs will do a better job with our economy than Obama has done.

Why the democrats insist on demonizing success and successful people, as if Americans should be ashamed of being successful and gaining wealth, makes no sense at all. According to your story, Mitt Romney helped a fellow man who was in distress. That he only did it because of the apparent social status or wealth of the individual he was helping is purely your fictionalization of the account. It is interesting, however, that you are able to discern Mitt Romney's intentions and feelings as well as interpret his actions.

It is also interesting to note that in the same situation, Obama would be more likely to punch a hole in the hull and push the boat away from the dock. The man appears wealthy so he should be punished. But somehow, democrats seem to believe that Obama's actions deserve merit and approval while Mitt's actions should result in condemnation. And not just condemnation of the actions, but of the man as well.