Monday, September 24, 2012

Ann Coulter: Civil Rights Are Only 'For Blacks' #p2 #tcot

from  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/24/ann-coulter_n_1908958.html?ir=Politics&ncid=edlinkusaolp00000009

ABC "This Week" host George Stephanopoulos asked Ann Coulter to further discuss what he called a controversial comment the conservative pundit made in her new book: that "various groups [including] gay rights groups, those defending immigrants, and feminists have commandeered the black civil rights experience."

Coulter said that she thought that "civil rights are for blacks" because the U.S. has a "legacy of slavery and Jim Crow laws."

She added, "We don't owe the homeless. We don't owe feminists. We don't owe women who are desirous of having abortions, or gays who want to get married to one another." She said that "much of the left...dropped the blacks after five minutes" to argue for "civil rights" for other groups of people.

Stephanopoulos interrupted Coulter asking, "Immigrant rights are not civil rights?" Coulter confirmed that she only thinks "civil rights are for blacks."

She argued, "What have we done to the immigrants? We owe black people something. We have a legacy of slavery. Immigrants haven 't even been in this country."


78% of Democrats say upper-income people pay too little in taxes; 33% of Republicans agree #p2 #tcot

http://pewresearch.org/databank/dailynumber/?NumberID=1589

Partisans have widely different views about whether upper-income Americans pay their fair share of federal taxes.

Among Democrats, a strong majority (78%) say upper-income people pay too little in taxes. Only 33% of Republicans agree. A solid majority of Republicans say upper-income people pay either their fair share (44%) or too much (14%). Some 13% of Democrats say upper-income people pay their fair share in taxes, while 4% say the rich are paying too much.

Looking at the public as a whole, 58% say that upper-income people pay too little in federal taxes. One-in-four (26%) say upper-income people pay their fair share in taxes, and 8% say they pay too much in taxes. Read more

Most Democrats Say Rich Pay Too Little in Taxes

.@mittromney 's trust got rid of shares in a Chinese online video company notorious for offering pirated American content #p2 #tcot

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/09/24/1135761/-Romney-blind-trust-dumps-politically-inconvenient-investment-as-Romney-attacks-Obama-on-China

Demonstrating once again that Mitt Romney's "blind" trust is not so much blind as ostentatiously wearing dark glasses and carrying a cane while being able to see all the while, his tax returns show that on June 15 the trust got rid of shares in a Chinese online video company notorious for offering pirated American content.

That divestment is awfully convenient for Romney, since he's been making Chinese intellectual property theft a theme of his campaign. A Romney ad released Monday attacks President Obama for not "standing up to China" as "China is stealing American ideas and technology." That's the second Romney ad in recent weeks claiming Obama hasn't been tough enough with China, and Romney has also been hitting that theme on the stump, too:

"Did you know they even have an Apple store?" Romney said at a rally in Virginia last week. "It's a fake Apple store; they sell counterfeit Apple products. This is wrong. We're gonna crack down on China when they manipulate their currency, when they steal our goods, when they don't protect our intellectual property. We're gonna make sure that China understands we mean business. Trade is gonna work for us, not just for them."
Romney's efforts to paint the president as weak on China are seriously blunted by two thingsObama pointed out in a recent Ohio campaign appearance: "you can't stand up to China when all you've done is send them our jobs" as Romney has done in his career in private equity, and "We've brought more trade cases against China in one term than the previous administration did in two. And every case we've brought that's been decided, we won."

Obama will be in Ohio on Wednesday as tariffs he imposed on Chinese tire imports expire; it's unlikely he's going to a tire-manufacturing state that day if the tariffs will remain expired. Romney opposed those tariffs, by the way, because let's be real: in 2010 he didn't realize that in 2012 he was going to be running as Mr. Tough on China Even Though He Made His Fortune Sending Jobs There.


.@mittromney This Video MIGHT Stop Romney From Becoming President #p2 #tcot

from  http://front.moveon.org/this-video-might-stop-romney-from-becoming-president/?rc=fb.rp.m9-12

.@mittromney Romney insults teachers' unions, public schools, and the entire educational system while being rude to a teacher #p2 #tcot

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/09/23/romney-disrespects-teacher/

You know, I thought I'd seen the depths of disgusting behavior Romney was capable of — outright dishonesty and lying, accusing people of freeloading when he pays less in taxes than the middle class, insulting wide swaths of the American electorate, attacking Obama for views he's shared in the past (or now, or in the future; he doesn't even know what he thinks) — but this might just take the cake. Mitt Romney, during a round table meeting with a teacher, apparently rudely told her, when she tried to speak, that "I didn't ask you a question."

Here's the video of the teacher, identified as Cheryl from Craig, Colorado, explaining the experience and a partial transcript courtesy of Daily Kos:


http://youtu.be/GKhcrxIOP0g


.@mittromney A 'Welfare Mother' Schools Mitt Romney #p2 #tcot

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/23/opinion/sunday/taking-responsibility-on-welfare.html?_r=2smid=fb-share&pagewanted=all&

Bethel, Conn.

I WAS a welfare mother, "dependent upon government," as Mitt Romney so bluntly put it in a video that has gone viral. "My job is not to worry about those people," he said. "I'll never convince them that they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives." But for me, applying for government benefits was exactly that — a way of taking responsibility for myself and my son during a difficult time in our lives. Those resources kept us going for four years. Anyone waiting for me to apologize shouldn't hold his breath.

Almost 40 years ago, working two jobs, with an ex-husband who was doing little to help, I came home late one night to my parents' house, where I was living at the time. My mother was sitting at the card table, furiously filling out forms. It was my application for readmission to college, and she'd done nearly everything. She said she'd write the essay, too, if I wouldn't. You have to get back on track, she told me. I sat down with her and began writing.

And so, eight years after I'd flunked out, gotten pregnant, eloped, had a child, divorced and then fumbled my first few do-overs of jobs and relationships, I was readmitted to the University of New Hampshire as a full-time undergraduate. I received a Basic Educational Opportunity Grant, a work-study grant and the first in a series of college loans. I found an apartment — subsidized, Section 8 — about two miles from campus. Within days, I met other single-mom students. We'd each arrived there by a different route, some falling out of the middle class, others fighting to get up into it, but we shared the same goal: to make a better future.

By the end of the first semester, I knew that my savings and work-study earnings wouldn't be enough. My parents could help a little, but at that point they had big life problems of their own. If I dropped to a part-time schedule, I'd lose my work-study job and grants; if I dropped out, I'd be back to zero, with student-loan debt. That's when a friend suggested food stamps and A.F.D.C. — Aid to Families With Dependent Children.

Me, a welfare mother? I'd been earning paychecks since the seventh grade. My parents were Great Depression children, both ex-Marines. They'd always taught self-reliance. And I had grown up hearing that anyone "on the dole" was scum. But my friend pointed out I was below the poverty line and sliding. I had a small child. Tuition was due.

So I went to my dad. He listened, did the calculations with me, and finally said: "I never used the G.I. Bill. I wish I had. Go ahead, do this." My mother had already voted. "Do not quit. Do. Not."

My initial allotment (which edged up slightly over the next three years) was a little more than $250 a month. Rent was around $150. We qualified for $75 in food stamps, which couldn't be used for toilet paper, bathroom cleanser, Band-Aids, tampons, soap, shampoo, aspirin, toothpaste or, of course, the phone bill, or gas, insurance or snow tires for the car.

At the end of the day, my son and I came home to my homework, his homework, leftover spaghetti, generic food in dusty white boxes. The mac-and-cheese in particular looked like nuclear waste and tasted like feet. "Let's have scrambled eggs again!" chirped my game kid. We always ran out of food and supplies before we ran out of month. There were nights I was so blind from books and deadlines and worry that I put my head on my desk and wept while my boy slept his boy dreams. I hoped he didn't hear me, but of course he did.

The college-loan folks knew about the work-study grants, the welfare office knew about the college loans, and each application form was a sworn form, my signature attesting to the truth of the numbers. Still, I constantly worried that I'd lose our benefits. More than once, the state sent "inspectors" — a knock at the door, someone insisting he had a right to inspect the premises. One inspector, fixating on my closet, fingered a navy blue Brooks Brothers blazer that I wore to work. "I'd be interested to know how you can afford this," she said.

It was from a yard sale. "Take your hands off my clothing," I said. My benefits were promptly suspended pending status clarification. I had to borrow from friends for food and rent, not to mention toilet paper.

That's not to say we didn't have angels: work-study supervisors, academic advisers and a social worker assigned to "nontraditional" students, which, in addition to women like me, increasingly included military veterans and older people coming in to retrofit their careers. Faculty members were used to panicked students whose kids had the flu during finals. Every semester, I had at least one incomplete course, with petitions for extensions. One literature professor, seeing my desperation, gave me a copy of "The Awakening" by Kate Chopin to read and critique for extra credit. "But it's not a primer," he cautioned. (Spoiler: she walks into the ocean and dies.)

With help, I graduated. That day, over the heads of the crowd, my 11-year-old's voice rang out like an All Clear: "Yay, Mom!" Two weeks later, I was off welfare and in an administrative job in the English department. Part of my work included advising other nontraditional students, guiding them through the same maze I'd just completed, one course, one semester, at a time.

In the years since, the programs that helped me have changed. In the '80s, the Basic Educational Opportunity Grant became the Pell Grant (which Paul D. Ryan's budgetwould cut). In the '90s, A.F.D.C. was replaced by block grants to the states, a program called Temporary Assistance for Needy Families. States can and do divert that money for other programs, and to plug holes in the state budget. And a single mother applying for aid today would face time limits and eligibility requirements that I did not. Thanks to budget cuts, she would also have a smaller base of the invaluable human resources — social workers, faculty members, university facilities — that were so important to me.

Since then, I've remarried, co-written books, worked as a magazine editor and finally paid off my college loans. My husband and I have paid big taxes and raised a hard-working son who pays a chunk of change as well. We pay for sidewalks, streetlights, sanitation trucks, the military (we have three nephews in uniform, two deployed), police and fire departments, open emergency rooms, teachers, bus drivers, museums, libraries and campuses where people's lives are saved, enriched and raised up every day. My country gave me the chance to rebuild my life — paying my tax tab is the only thing it's asked of me in return.

I was not an exception in that little Section 8 neighborhood. Among those welfare moms were future teachers, nurses, scientists, business owners, health and safety advocates. We never believed we were "victims" or felt "entitled"; if anything, we felt determined. Wouldn't any decent person throw a rope to a drowning person? Wouldn't any drowning person take it?

Judge-and-punish-the-poor is not a demonstration of American values. It is, simply, mean. My parents saved me and then — on the dole, in the classroom or crying deep in the night, in love with a little boy who needed everything I could give him — I learned to save myself. I do not apologize. I was not ashamed then; I am not ashamed now. I was, and will always be, profoundly grateful.

A writer who was the co-author of Carissa Phelps's "Runaway Girl: Escaping Life on the Streets, One Helping Hand at a Time," and is at work on her own memoir.

.@mittromney: It’s ‘Fair’ For Me To Pay Lower Taxes Than Middle Class Americans #goaway #p2 #tcot

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2012/09/24/895971/millionaire-romney-its-fair-for-me-to-pay-lower-taxes-than-middle-class-americans/

Mitt Romney told CBS's 60 Minutes that it's "fair" for him to pay a tax rate of just 14.1 percent on his investment income of $20 million, a lower rate than someone earning $50,000 a year in wage income:

SCOTT PELLEY (HOST): Now, you made on your investments, personally, about $20 million last year. And you paid 14 percent in federal taxes. That's the capital gains rate. Is that fair to the guy who makes $50,000 and paid a higher rate than you did?

ROMNEY: It is a low rate. And one of the reasons why the capital gains tax rate is lower is because capital has already been taxed once at the corporate level, as high as 35 percent.

PELLEY: So you think it is fair?

ROMNEY: Yeah, I think it's the right way to encourage economic growth, to get people to invest, to start businesses, to put people to work.

There is little economic evidence to support Romney's argument that higher capital gains and dividend rates will discourage investment. As Paul Krugman has pointed out, the current very low rate of 15 percent, wasn't enacted until 2003. Between 1986 and 1997 "long-term capital gains were taxed at close to 30 percent" and under President Clinton, the rate sat at 20 percent, while dividends were treated as regular income. "I have worked with investors for 60 years and I have yet to see anyone — not even when capital gains rates were 39.9 percent in 1976-77 — shy away from a sensible investment because of the tax rate on the potential gain," Warren Buffet explains.

Indeed, investors continued to invest, despite the higher rates, and throughout the Clinton period, the nation actually saw stronger investment. So it's difficult to take Romney's argument seriously — both because history shows that the wealthy don't need a capital gains rate 20 points below the top marginal income tax rate (currently 35 percent) in order to invest their money and because Romney himself believes he paid too little in investment taxes, choosing to forfeit $1.8 million in charitable deductions.


.@mittromney Mitt Romney, On 60 Minutes, Cites Emergency Room As Health Care Option For Uninsured #p2 #tcot #asshat

from  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/23/mitt-romney-60-minutes-health-care_n_1908129.html

WASHINGTON -- Downplaying the need for the government to ensure that every person has health insurance, Mitt Romney on Sunday suggested that emergency room care suffices as a substitute for the uninsured.

"Well, we do provide care for people who don't have insurance," he said in an interview with Scott Pelley of CBS's "60 Minutes" that aired Sunday night. "If someone has a heart attack, they don't sit in their apartment and die. We pick them up in an ambulance, and take them to the hospital, and give them care. And different states have different ways of providing for that care."

This constitutes a dramatic reversal in position for Romney, who passed a universal health care law in Massachusetts, in part, to eliminate the costs incurred when the uninsured show up in emergency rooms for care. Indeed, in both his book and in high-profile interviews during the campaign, Romney has touted his achievement in stamping out these inefficiencies while arguing that the same thing should be done at the national level.

And while Romney refused to agree on Sunday that the government's role is to ensure that every American has health care, he has endorsed such an idea in the past.

When asked in a March 2010 interview on MSNBC's "Morning Joe" whether he believes in universal coverage, Romney said, "Oh, sure."

"Look, it doesn't make a lot of sense for us to have millions and millions of people who have no health insurance and yet who can go to the emergency room and get entirely free care for which they have no responsibility, particularly if they are people who have sufficient means to pay their own way," he said.


.@RepPaulRyan Paul Ryan talks about the Cayman Islands as a tax shelter in a 2010 speech to US chamber of commerce @uschamber #p2 #tcot

from  http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/09/24/1135802/-Paul-Ryan-called-Cayman-Islands-the-place-where-you-hide-your-money 

Via BuzzFeed's Andrew Kaczynski, Paul Ryan talks about the Cayman Islands as a tax shelter in a 2010 speech to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce:

Let's make sure that when businesses invest and build and grow here in America, that's the smart business thing to do. We don't want to have a situation where we are penalizing businesses for keeping their money and their capital and their headquarters and their manufacturing facilities here in America. So, then, rather than having Ireland and the Cayman Islands be the haven for capital formation—the place you hide your money—why don't we make it America?

Why don't we make it here, in this country, so that we can be the leaders of this? I have no doubt in my mind that if we do this, not only can we raise the revenue we currently raise for the federal government, we can get growth back on.

So according to Paul Ryan:
  1. People like Mitt Romney use the Cayman Islands to hide their money.
  2. The reason they hide their money their is to avoid American tax laws.
  3. The solution is to make American tax laws just like the Cayman Islands so guys like Mitt Romney won't want to bail on America.

Most awesome Republican ticket ever. In a race to the bottom kind of way.

Tuesday, September 18, 2012

What Romney Won’t Tell You About The 47 Percent: They are the elderly, the disabled, the working poor, veterans, students #p2 #tcot

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/09/18/864291/romney-the-47-percent/

The Romney campaign is in damage control mode today, trying to explain Romney telling wealthy donors in a private meeting that "there are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it."

"These are people who pay no income tax," Romney continued, in a video posted by Mother Jones. "My job is is not to worry about those people. I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives." But who are the 47 percent of Americans who currently have no federal income tax liability?

Mostly, they are either too poor to qualify for even the lowest tax bracket (but still pay federal payroll tax, and state or local sales taxes, gas taxes, and excise taxes), or they benefit from tax credits for the working poor, the elderly, or students, as these charts from the Tax Policy Center show. Only 7 percent of the country is non-elderly and has no federal tax liability, and most of them make less than $20,000:

Here are the reasons for those who paid no federal income tax reaching that point:

In 2011, payroll tax receipts totaled $818 billion, only $200 billion less than was brought in by the federal income tax. Those Americans who paid payroll taxes, but had no income tax liability, still pay about 15 percent of their income, higher than the 13 percent Romney pays.

As ThinkProgress has explained, more and more income has become concentrated at the top of the income scale in the last few decades, so the wealthy have paid a larger share of federal taxes, because they have a larger share of the income.

Romney is hardly alone in his contempt for those who don't have any federal income tax liability (even though people who fall into that category disproportionately live in Republican states). Over the last few years, many Republicans have explicitly called for finding a way to make the poor pay more, so that the number of federal income tax payers rises.


Contrary to "Entitlement Society" Rhetoric, Over Nine-Tenths of Entitlement Benefits Go to Elderly, Disabled, or Working Households #p2 #tcot

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3677

Some conservative critics of federal social programs, including leading presidential candidates, are sounding an alarm that the United States is rapidly becoming an "entitlement society" in which social programs are undermining the work ethic and creating a large class of Americans who prefer to depend on government benefits rather than work.  A new CBPP analysis of budget and Census data, however, shows that more than 90 percent of the benefit dollars that entitlement and other mandatory programs[1] spend go to assist people who are elderly, seriously disabled, or members of working households — not to able-bodied, working-age Americans who choose not to work.  (See Figure 1.)  This figure has changed little in the past few years.

In a December 2011 op-ed, former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney warned ominously of the dangers that the nation faces from the encroachment of the "Entitlement Society," predicting that in a few years, "we will have created a society that contains a sizable contingent of long-term jobless, dependent on government benefits for survival."  "Government dependency," he wrote, "can only foster passivity and sloth."[2]  Similarly, former Senator Rick Santorum said that recent expansions in the "reach of government" and the spending behind them are "systematically destroying the work ethic."[3] 

The claim behind these critiques is clear: federal spending on entitlements and other mandatory programs through which individuals receive benefits is promoting laziness, creating a dependent class of Americans who are losing the desire to work and would rather collect government benefits than find a job.  

Such beliefs are starkly at odds with the basic facts regarding social programs, the analysis finds. Federal budget and Census data show that, in 2010, 91 percentof the benefit dollars from entitlement and other mandatory programs went to the elderly (people 65 and over), the seriously disabled, and members of working households.  People who are neither elderly nor disabled — and do not live in a working household — received only 9 percent of the benefits. 

Moreover, the vast bulk of that 9 percent goes for medical care, unemployment insurance benefits (which individuals must have a significant work history to receive), Social Security survivor benefits for the children and spouses of deceased workers, and Social Security benefits for retirees between ages 62 and 64.  Seven out of the 9 percentage points go for one of these four purposes.

Nine-Tenths of Entitlement Benefit Spending Goes to the Elederly, Disabled, or Working HouseholdsA small number of discretionary (i.e., non-entitlement) programs also provide substantial benefits to individuals, but the lack of full funding for some of these programs means they do not reach all eligible recipients.  Indeed, in some cases — such as in low-income rental assistance programs — the vastmajority of people who are eligible receive nobenefits because of program funding limits.[4]  If we broaden the universe of programs examined to include the principal discretionary programs that provide benefits — low-income housing programs, the WIC nutrition program for low-income women and young children, and low-income energy assistance — the result is essentially unchanged.  Some 90 percent of the benefit dollars still go to the elderly, the disabled, and working households. 

This figure also changes little if we tweak the definition of a "working household" or of who is "disabled."  This analysis defines a working household as one in which an individual works at least 1,000 hours in a year; raising the threshold to 1,500 hours makes little difference.  This analysis defines a disabled person as one who receives Social Security disability benefits or the disability component of the Supplemental Security Income program (SSI) or who qualifies for Medicare on the basis of disability; modifying the definition to include disabled people who are not in one of these categories also makes little difference.


.@mittromney > 90 % benefit $$$ spent on entitlements go to elderly, seriously disabled, or members of working households — not to those able-bodied choosing to not work

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3677

Some conservative critics of federal social programs, including leading presidential candidates, are sounding an alarm that the United States is rapidly becoming an "entitlement society" in which social programs are undermining the work ethic and creating a large class of Americans who prefer to depend on government benefits rather than work.  A new CBPP analysis of budget and Census data, however, shows that more than 90 percent of the benefit dollars that entitlement and other mandatory programs[1] spend go to assist people who are elderly, seriously disabled, or members of working households — not to able-bodied, working-age Americans who choose not to work.  (See Figure 1.)  This figure has changed little in the past few years.

In a December 2011 op-ed, former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney warned ominously of the dangers that the nation faces from the encroachment of the "Entitlement Society," predicting that in a few years, "we will have created a society that contains a sizable contingent of long-term jobless, dependent on government benefits for survival."  "Government dependency," he wrote, "can only foster passivity and sloth."[2]  Similarly, former Senator Rick Santorum said that recent expansions in the "reach of government" and the spending behind them are "systematically destroying the work ethic."[3] 

The claim behind these critiques is clear: federal spending on entitlements and other mandatory programs through which individuals receive benefits is promoting laziness, creating a dependent class of Americans who are losing the desire to work and would rather collect government benefits than find a job.  

Such beliefs are starkly at odds with the basic facts regarding social programs, the analysis finds. Federal budget and Census data show that, in 2010, 91 percentof the benefit dollars from entitlement and other mandatory programs went to the elderly (people 65 and over), the seriously disabled, and members of working households.  People who are neither elderly nor disabled — and do not live in a working household — received only 9 percent of the benefits. 

Moreover, the vast bulk of that 9 percent goes for medical care, unemployment insurance benefits (which individuals must have a significant work history to receive), Social Security survivor benefits for the children and spouses of deceased workers, and Social Security benefits for retirees between ages 62 and 64.  Seven out of the 9 percentage points go for one of these four purposes.


Pat Robertson Casually Suggests Beating Your Wife, Remains Classless While Doing So

here  http://www.upworthy.com/pat-robertson-casually-suggests-beating-your-wife-remains-classless-while-doing?c=ufb1

Who, again, is Joe Ricketts? father of chicago Cubs ownership, Ameritrade founder and right wing super PAC funder #p2 #tcot

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2012/09/18/who-again-is-joe-ricketts/?wprss=rss_campaigns

Four months after he first made a splash in the 2012 presidential race, Joe Ricketts is back on the radar.

The wealthy entrepreneur, who funds his own super PAC, is pledging to spend $10 million on helping Mitt Romney win the presidency and $2 million to help GOP House and Senate candidates.

TD Ameritrade Chairman and founder Joe Ricketts talks to shareholders in Omaha, Neb., on Feb. 16, 2005. (Dave Weaver/AP)

But unlike previous wealthy super PAC donors, Ricketts is a decidedly private and unassuming character. That changed a little in May, when a proposal was leaked in which an ad-maker urged Ricketts to fund ads focused on President Obama's ties to his former pastor, Jeremiah Wright, just days after Ricketts played a big role in helping Nebraska state Sen. Deb Fischer pull an upset in her state's Republican Senate primary.

Here's a look back at the profile we did of Ricketts in May (the full post is here):

But just who is (Joe Ricketts)?

Actually, he's a man with some pretty close ties to Obamaworld and the Democratic Party.

Ricketts himself is a former Democrat who became a Republican and later an independent.

His daughter, Laura, is a gay and lesbian activist and big-time Obama bundler, having raised around half a million dollars for the man her father would apparently like to bring down.

The Ricketts family also owns the Chicago Cubs, which is in negotiations with former Obama chief of staff Rahm Emanuel (now the mayor of Chicago) to get city help in renovating the team's 98-year-old stadium, Wrigley Field. One of Joe's sons, Tom, leads those negotiations as the Cubs' chairman.

(We reported Thursday afternoon that Emanuel is "livid," according to an aide, with the Ricketts family and has cut off communications for the time being.)

And another Ricketts son, Pete Ricketts, is a Republican National Committeeman from Nebraska who unsuccessfully self-funded a 2006 Senate campaign against Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.). Pete and Laura also serve on the Cubs board, along with a fourth sibling, Todd.

"We have different political views on how to achieve what is best for the future of America, but we agree that each of us is entitled to our own views and our right to voice those views," Laura Ricketts said in a statement today. "Though we may have diverse political views, above all we love and respect each other."

The seed money for all this activism and entrepreneurship is the elder Ricketts, a self-made man who started TD Ameritrade in the 1970s when it was known by a different name, First Omaha Securities.

The family's net worth has been ranked as high as 93rd on the Forbes 400 list of wealthiest Americans. In 2009, Joe Ricketts himself ranked 371st, with assets estimated at $1 billion.


full video: @mittromney called 47 % of Americans "victims" who are "dependent upon government" and "pay no income tax." #p2 #tcot

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/09/watch-full-secret-video-private-romney-fundraiser

On Monday and Tuesday Mother Jones published exclusive video that captured Mitt Romney speaking to donors at a May 17 fundraiser, which was held at the home of private equity mogul Mark Leder. Responding to a question about the "Palestinian problem," Romney saidpeace in the Middle East is not possible and a Palestinian state is not feasible, telling donors that Palestinians have "no interest whatsoever in establishing peace and that the pathway to peace is almost unthinkable to accomplish." At another point, the GOP presidential nominee told attendees of this $50,000-a-plate dinner that 47 percent of Americans—those who back President Obama—are "victims" who are "dependent upon government" and "pay no income tax." He noted: "My job is not to worry about those people. I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives." These comments set off a media firestorm and generated headlines around the world.

Romney's remarks, denigrating nearly half of the electorate, sent the Romney campaign—already roiled by infighting—into panic mode. The campaign hastily convened a late-night press conference to address his controversial statements, and Romney stood by his "off the cuff" comments, while conceding that they were "not elegantly stated." He claimed his comments where merely a "snippet" and not the "full response." That was not true; his comments were shown in full. He added, "I hope the person who has the video would put out the full material."

Romney is not the only one who has called for the release of the full 49-minute video. And we're more than happy to oblige. The complete video demonstrates that Romney was not snippetized and that he was captured raw and uncut. Here it is, in two parts: