Mittens takes a lot of crap for his many houses, but he doesn’t quite own the 15 that Newt Gingrich thinks he does.
Politifact reports that Romney currently owns three houses.
ABC reported that he owned five houses in 2008.
Know who’s well on his way to owning 15 houses though? Our very own average Joe junior Senator, Scott Brown. His 2010 Senate Personal Financial Disclosure, the most recent available, lists three condos owned for investment purposes, plus his law office building.
His 2008 Massachusetts Statement of Financial Interests, the last one for which the data isn’t blacked out, also lists his residence in Wrentham, his Aruba timeshare, and his NH vacation house. Since once’s a timeshare, we’ll call that 2 houses.
The DC Recorder of Deeds reveals that he has another house there (signup required).
That’s at least 6 houses Scott Brown owns, 8 properties in total. So next time you’re making fun of Romney for being an out of touch elitist, don’t leave out his homeboy Scott Brown.
E. Warren’s multimillion domicile in Cambridge, which probably is worth as much as Brown’s properties in toto, :):)
She has two multi million dollar places (Charlestown & Cape), but supposedly lives in a 1bdrm/bath in Lowell.
Six is also more than 2.
Warren and Tsongas can own all the houses they want as long as they vote the right way. It’s when those who own multiple homes act as though they can’t empathize with those less fortunate that it becomes a problem.
Do you admit the possibility that there are, other than democrat dogma, different ways to to help those less fortunate? One way being to get them off the dependency plantation.
First, the word you were looking for in your first sentence is “Democratic dogma”. The word “Democrat” is noun. With a lower-case “d”, “democrat dogma” doesn’t make any sense, and “democratic dogma” would be, well, dogma that is popularly elected or something.
I just want to be sure that you don’t actually intend your comment to be as racist as it is on its face.
Let me just review my thinking, so that you can help me understand what I’m misinterpreting:
1. You do understand that when you choose a phrase like “dependency plantation”, you imply an association of some sort between aid programs and a “plantation”. Presumably, you imply that the recipients of aid are somehow analogous to slaves on a plantation (I can’t make any sense out of an analogy between recipients and plantation owners, for example).
2. You do recall that a “plantation” was a place that relied on slave labor to function. You do recall that the civil war was fought, by the South, because (under the guise of “states rights) they fought to preserve an economic order that could only be sustained with slave labor.
3. You do understand that slaves were overwhelmingly African-American.
4. You do understand that the overwhelming majority of the “less fortunate” are white, not African American.
5. You do understand that throughout the south, African Americans were actively, explicitly, and brutally discriminated against for nearly a century.
6. You do understand that similarly racist terms like “welfare queens” were used to disparage welfare recipients in the past, generally by segments of the population who continued to steadfastly reject for one reason or another every attempt to end racial discrimination. You do understand that welfare and child support recipients were (and are) overwhelmingly white, so these racial stereotypes were as incorrect as the false stereotype you imply with “dependency plantation”.
So surely you don’t mean to imply that most recipients of aid are African Americans, even though the phrase you chose clearly conveys that implication.
So since you must not intend your phrase to be racist, what were you attempting to express?
Difference is Democrats want things to work out for everybody such that nobody in the end has to be dependent and Republicans want to just cut off the dependency without actually making it easier for people not to be dependent. The right way is to vote for policies that increase opportunity for everyone and not just the 1%, based on what has been shown to work and not just theory.
The adjective usage is quite common, particularly among conservatives. (cf. wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democrat_Party_(phrase). Let me try to be as clear as possible to you: I believe that the dependency programs created by liberals for minority populations have simply caused a plantation mentality to exist among many of those receiving what they think is something for nothing from the government. That plantation mentality assumes that massa boss has the money and goodies, so I’ll do what he says–in this case vote for him. I would also say that the large banks, along with most of the so-called “green” business, are also becoming members of the plantation by seeking and accepting government handouts. Now, you are one joker, Tom, if you think that this line of thought makes me a racist. And I proudly say that at least I am not complicit in the deaths and suffering of thousands of innocents in the Soviet gulags–those who received absolutely no support from the American left from the 20’s right up through the 80’s. Thank God for Ronald Reagan! And you should be ashamed of this history of your leftist dogma.
The phrase “Massa Boss” is most emphatically NOT about “money and goodies”. He is the owner. You do what he says because he will kill you if you don’t. And virtually ALL slaves were African American. You don’t become a “member” of a plantation, you are either taken prisoner or purchased. Plantations don’t have “members”, they are not clubs and they are not political parties.
Sorry Edgar, but you’re just not making any sense here.
I didn’t say you were racist, I said your comment is racist. You apparently really don’t appreciate just how offensive it is. It doesn’t sound like you’ve spent very much time in the South — I grew up there.
Ronald Reagan, for better or worse, left office almost 25 years ago. The racism you stoke (apparently inadvertently) is happening all around us right now, and comments like yours make it worse.
Please stop.
First, I don’t know anyone who LIKES the idea of being on food stamps or other forms of welfare. Plus there are plenty of people on food stamps who also work. They work the equivalent of fulltime between multiple jobs and STILL can’t make ends meet. That is the true outrage in all this. For the record, true liberals would never defend the Soviet Union, quite the illiberal regime if ever there were one. As for the correct terminology, I don’t get as worked up as some, but the name of the party according to the party itself is DemocratIC Party, so the courteous thing is to call by its proper name.
For anyone who plays the race card to me because I disagree philosophically re the welfare state, it will be the democrat party.