Adam Of Angels
The GAS Man
Considering that the things Trench has been saying in this thread are astonishingly misinformed, I highly doubt he has any idea whether you are right or wrong.
Presidential debate 1
- Thread starter bob123
- Start date
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links like Ebay, Amazon, and others.
This site may earn a commission from merchant links like Ebay, Amazon, and others.
tacotiklah
I am Denko (´･ω･`)
It's like dude, if I wanted to listen to what Fox News and Rush Limbaugh think on any given subject, I'd just listen to Fox News and Rush Limbaugh. I don't need Trench to regurgitate it for me.
flint757
Well-Known Member
Ryan-ZenGtr-
Well-Known Member
Interesting last 4 pages... 
Is it safe to discuss the original topic yet?
Interesting about the green technology investments. The story I heard was: Although Solyndra Solar was a more advanced technology, by the time it was ready, conventional solar production was at a peak in cost efficiency.
I have severe doubts regarding officially sanctioned fossil fuel alternatives. After all, it's not in the interests of politicians to solve these problems efficiently, due to the stranglehold "big oil" oligarchs have on the globe.
(Independent suspension FTW)
Predictions of peak oil have been abundant in the past yet the end has never come. By inflating the perception of oil as a rare commodity "big oil" have cemented their position and increased revenue. The distinct possibility remains that there are large deposits of fossil fuels left deliberately untapped and uncharted, artificially manipulating the profits from existing known supplies.
After all, the United States Govt. and the Saudi leadership have had very close ties, especially during the Bush years, as head of the CIA, and are committed to maintaining the petro-dollar of OPEC.
Out of these debates I'm hoping to gain an insight into the candidates promises for dealing with the Federal Reserve, Oil corporations and their continued military expansionism.
It's a shame that they cannot simply agree that feeding the hungry, housing the homeless and extending equality to all are mandatory commitments for a government in this day and age, and move on to discuss actions which have global significance.
I have a sinking feeling this is where Romney wants to create jobs...
Obama's authorisation of drone strikes has been a talking point lately, after some confusion regarding reported numbers: some suggest these have been exaggerated. We live in the age of the electronic, remotely controlled assassin.
Is it safe to discuss the original topic yet?
Interesting about the green technology investments. The story I heard was: Although Solyndra Solar was a more advanced technology, by the time it was ready, conventional solar production was at a peak in cost efficiency.
I have severe doubts regarding officially sanctioned fossil fuel alternatives. After all, it's not in the interests of politicians to solve these problems efficiently, due to the stranglehold "big oil" oligarchs have on the globe.
(Independent suspension FTW)
Predictions of peak oil have been abundant in the past yet the end has never come. By inflating the perception of oil as a rare commodity "big oil" have cemented their position and increased revenue. The distinct possibility remains that there are large deposits of fossil fuels left deliberately untapped and uncharted, artificially manipulating the profits from existing known supplies.
After all, the United States Govt. and the Saudi leadership have had very close ties, especially during the Bush years, as head of the CIA, and are committed to maintaining the petro-dollar of OPEC.
Out of these debates I'm hoping to gain an insight into the candidates promises for dealing with the Federal Reserve, Oil corporations and their continued military expansionism.
It's a shame that they cannot simply agree that feeding the hungry, housing the homeless and extending equality to all are mandatory commitments for a government in this day and age, and move on to discuss actions which have global significance.
I have a sinking feeling this is where Romney wants to create jobs...
Obama's authorisation of drone strikes has been a talking point lately, after some confusion regarding reported numbers: some suggest these have been exaggerated. We live in the age of the electronic, remotely controlled assassin.
flint757
Well-Known Member
The creating jobs to cost of increasing military funding ratio is not going to be good IMO, but that does seem to be a part of his unspoken plan.
Ryan-ZenGtr-
Well-Known Member
I think the unspoken part of his "plan" is dominance over China and Russia, with the aid of European and middle Eastern allies. Ensuring unrivalled economic, natural resources and military deterrent in perpetuity. The same could be said of Obama.
It will be on the domestic issues where the differences become more apparent.
Remember last time the US missile shield was in the news?
(Russia Today exists purely to pour scorn and outrage at the West, rarely discussing Russian internal politics, but raises many issues for further research)
It's funny, if the developed world's civilian population retrofitted electric engines to their existing personal vehicles and kept their savings in silver, the old paradigm would collapse and it would mean free hugs for everyone.
It will be on the domestic issues where the differences become more apparent.
Remember last time the US missile shield was in the news?
(Russia Today exists purely to pour scorn and outrage at the West, rarely discussing Russian internal politics, but raises many issues for further research)
It's funny, if the developed world's civilian population retrofitted electric engines to their existing personal vehicles and kept their savings in silver, the old paradigm would collapse and it would mean free hugs for everyone.
Watty
Naturally Cynical
@ Ryan - Might be more beneficial to post the content of the videos (as well as your take on it) in text...not a huge deal, but with how much spin any given source will have, seems counterproductive to link a bunch of videos.
On a lighter note; I loved the BillO vs. Stewart debate; especially the chair bit at the end. Stewart definitely won that one hands down...Most of what was discussed echoed what was presented at the debate. Obama hailed as the creator of the larger portion of the debt and no mention of how it takes a long ass time to turn the ship that is our nation. "Bush." "Is." "Gone." ....classic massing of the point, Bill. I do wish, however, that Stewart has incorporated some sort of a religious dig in his naming of the mountain on which the Republican's live. (Odd also that he chose a mountain, most old folks live in the desert, right?)
On a lighter note; I loved the BillO vs. Stewart debate; especially the chair bit at the end. Stewart definitely won that one hands down...Most of what was discussed echoed what was presented at the debate. Obama hailed as the creator of the larger portion of the debt and no mention of how it takes a long ass time to turn the ship that is our nation. "Bush." "Is." "Gone." ....classic massing of the point, Bill. I do wish, however, that Stewart has incorporated some sort of a religious dig in his naming of the mountain on which the Republican's live. (Odd also that he chose a mountain, most old folks live in the desert, right?)
flint757
Well-Known Member
Europe and the middle east would be stupid to do so though. If that really is the only thing holding back ultimate dominance then it'd be in their interest to make sure there is more than one world power I'd think. It does seem though that domestic issues are where they differ the most, although one is ever so slightly more diplomatic than the other in foreign affairs (as a side effect better received).
As an aside my only problem with China is that they are run more like a business than a country (sound familiar
) and as a side effect their people are not freer and they are one of the worlds largest polluters. They put financial interest first and are becoming a problem in places like Africa and other developing worlds environmentally.
I find it funny so many citizens don't look at all the outcomes from a policy and are so adamant that "this time it will be different". I mean a lot of countries have more 'socialist policies' and they are the better for it, not worse. Yet so many are certain that it is the end of the US if we were to do the same. They can point to Spain and Greece all they want, but that is a fallacy as more countries are doing well than not. If we grouped all the countries with our current policies I'm certain not all are doing bad and not all are doing good, people have a habit of generalizing and oversimplifying to push their interests and original thesis. In this case it is the selfish behavior of wanting to not pay taxes as far as I can tell.
To put my POV in perspective I think the Revolution that started our nation turned into a good thing, things needed to change and that the people deserve a voice in their government, all of which were motivators for the revolution and overall good, but I think our issue with the taxes of that era was very childish considering it was actually cheaper than the homeland was paying. In any case, the revolution is the example people seem to use most to make taxes out as this evil entity that needs to be eliminated, but they miss the actual point, it was the lack of representation (which we have today) not the taxes themselves.
That is where the line in the sand is being drawn for this election; those who are okay with more taxes and those that aren't. Some things seem to be driven by religion as they have an opinion even when it has no effect on them, like gay rights or even the women's health stuff involving insurance. I mean why do they care if the government makes insurance we pay for cover something, especially if it is not them or their insurance that is involved/affected. If it does affect them or their insurance that is another story I suppose, but a lot of the loud voices I've been hearing are not directly or indirectly affected by such policies.
As an aside my only problem with China is that they are run more like a business than a country (sound familiar
) and as a side effect their people are not freer and they are one of the worlds largest polluters. They put financial interest first and are becoming a problem in places like Africa and other developing worlds environmentally. I find it funny so many citizens don't look at all the outcomes from a policy and are so adamant that "this time it will be different". I mean a lot of countries have more 'socialist policies' and they are the better for it, not worse. Yet so many are certain that it is the end of the US if we were to do the same. They can point to Spain and Greece all they want, but that is a fallacy as more countries are doing well than not. If we grouped all the countries with our current policies I'm certain not all are doing bad and not all are doing good, people have a habit of generalizing and oversimplifying to push their interests and original thesis. In this case it is the selfish behavior of wanting to not pay taxes as far as I can tell.
To put my POV in perspective I think the Revolution that started our nation turned into a good thing, things needed to change and that the people deserve a voice in their government, all of which were motivators for the revolution and overall good, but I think our issue with the taxes of that era was very childish considering it was actually cheaper than the homeland was paying. In any case, the revolution is the example people seem to use most to make taxes out as this evil entity that needs to be eliminated, but they miss the actual point, it was the lack of representation (which we have today) not the taxes themselves.
That is where the line in the sand is being drawn for this election; those who are okay with more taxes and those that aren't. Some things seem to be driven by religion as they have an opinion even when it has no effect on them, like gay rights or even the women's health stuff involving insurance. I mean why do they care if the government makes insurance we pay for cover something, especially if it is not them or their insurance that is involved/affected. If it does affect them or their insurance that is another story I suppose, but a lot of the loud voices I've been hearing are not directly or indirectly affected by such policies.
Ryan-ZenGtr-
Well-Known Member
Putin reacts to Romney:
@Watty, they're all less than 10 minutes, although the "Who killed the electric car" is a full documentary, has been around for a while and has been seen by a lot of people (old news).
Presenting clips which I think are relevant to the omissions of the Presidential candidate's debate in their original format avoids additional layers of personal bias. However the videos are mostly footage of direct sources.
Questions regarding nuclear deterrents, surrounding the planet with missile sites, regulation of the financial markets, Asia and the middle east were all avoided, either through brevity or complete omission during the debates.
I'd want to know the candidates thoughts before I voted...
Is that a new O'Reilly vs Stewart interview? Bill makes me angry on so many levels. Just thinking about him makes me angry. His whole persona and belief in "loudest = rightest"...
Does anyone take him seriously?
It's funny, watching Stewart, how afraid the mainstream are of him. Is the word "satirist" in common use in America?
@Flint757 Obama has been representing US' interests abroad for long enough to have personal experience with the leaders of many nations. Perhaps experience is the key to his "diplomatic skills"?
China was under monarchistic (Imperial Qing Dynasty) rule which was overthrown in the 1911 revolution, which threw the country into civil war until 1949, when "On October 1, 1949, Mao Zedong proclaimed the establishment of the People's Republic of China.... The last fighting between Nationalist and Communist forces ended with the communist capture of Hainan Island in May 1950."
Quoted source; wiki article linked below.
For me to write more than a paragraph of their history would be an insult and disservice to the Chinese people.
As a fellow Republican* whose nation overthrew the yoke of Imperialism, surely you must have some sympathy for other nations that shared the turmoil of revolution?
*not the party
Here's some Chinese history to get you started:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xinhai_Revolution
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Civil_War
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Revolution_(1949)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Republic_of_China
China, like Russia, is attempting to build good will in developing nations with a hope of developing economic diversity and supplies of natural resources, looking to the future.
Though reports differ of the methods, depending on bias, it is undoubtedly a method of securing energy independence and security.
The European Union is the misguided attempt to bring the various sovereign states under control of unelected bureaucrats, furthering the economic agenda of global banking institutions.
Early on, the British government saw it as an opportunity to prevent the growth of German military strength after World War II and the foundations were built on a coal and steel pact between the nations of Europe.
However, French idealism and hope for the inherent decency of human beings began building foundations for a larger scale project, with notable contributions from many Europeans.
(Based on my interpretation of Churchill's diaries and those of his close advisors)
The nations which are fairing poorly under the Union sacrificed control of their currencies to join and have subsequently been manipulated by banking institutions to provide tangible collateral for loans based on the fractional reserve model.
I was recently in Greece, where there are many protests. There is grave dissatisfaction there and a general disdain for the democratic process, as their leaders are in a severely compromised situation and have limited options available to them.
Hardship has once again come to a nation blessed with incredible natural beauty, history and the birthplace of reason.
@Watty, they're all less than 10 minutes, although the "Who killed the electric car" is a full documentary, has been around for a while and has been seen by a lot of people (old news).
Presenting clips which I think are relevant to the omissions of the Presidential candidate's debate in their original format avoids additional layers of personal bias. However the videos are mostly footage of direct sources.
Questions regarding nuclear deterrents, surrounding the planet with missile sites, regulation of the financial markets, Asia and the middle east were all avoided, either through brevity or complete omission during the debates.
I'd want to know the candidates thoughts before I voted...
Is that a new O'Reilly vs Stewart interview? Bill makes me angry on so many levels. Just thinking about him makes me angry. His whole persona and belief in "loudest = rightest"...
Does anyone take him seriously?
It's funny, watching Stewart, how afraid the mainstream are of him. Is the word "satirist" in common use in America?
@Flint757 Obama has been representing US' interests abroad for long enough to have personal experience with the leaders of many nations. Perhaps experience is the key to his "diplomatic skills"?
China was under monarchistic (Imperial Qing Dynasty) rule which was overthrown in the 1911 revolution, which threw the country into civil war until 1949, when "On October 1, 1949, Mao Zedong proclaimed the establishment of the People's Republic of China.... The last fighting between Nationalist and Communist forces ended with the communist capture of Hainan Island in May 1950."
Quoted source; wiki article linked below.
For me to write more than a paragraph of their history would be an insult and disservice to the Chinese people.
As a fellow Republican* whose nation overthrew the yoke of Imperialism, surely you must have some sympathy for other nations that shared the turmoil of revolution?
*not the party
Here's some Chinese history to get you started:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xinhai_Revolution
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Civil_War
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Revolution_(1949)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Republic_of_China
China, like Russia, is attempting to build good will in developing nations with a hope of developing economic diversity and supplies of natural resources, looking to the future.
Though reports differ of the methods, depending on bias, it is undoubtedly a method of securing energy independence and security.
The European Union is the misguided attempt to bring the various sovereign states under control of unelected bureaucrats, furthering the economic agenda of global banking institutions.
Early on, the British government saw it as an opportunity to prevent the growth of German military strength after World War II and the foundations were built on a coal and steel pact between the nations of Europe.
However, French idealism and hope for the inherent decency of human beings began building foundations for a larger scale project, with notable contributions from many Europeans.
(Based on my interpretation of Churchill's diaries and those of his close advisors)
The nations which are fairing poorly under the Union sacrificed control of their currencies to join and have subsequently been manipulated by banking institutions to provide tangible collateral for loans based on the fractional reserve model.
I was recently in Greece, where there are many protests. There is grave dissatisfaction there and a general disdain for the democratic process, as their leaders are in a severely compromised situation and have limited options available to them.
Hardship has once again come to a nation blessed with incredible natural beauty, history and the birthplace of reason.
flint757
Well-Known Member
Yeah this is the first election in awhile where I've been hearing how Russia is a threat all over again. I think he missed the memo that you can believe in Reaganomics without Russia being the #1 enemy, completely independent variables. Republicans, this time around, are doing what they do best, fear mongering.
[EDIT]
I look in to the info you posted.
Interestingly, on the note of China, they made a compelling case for leniency for developing countries. Europe and the US had very poor environmental policies while going through the industrial age. The argument was we should be more lenient to developing nations environmental policies as it isn't feasible to grow otherwise, it requires a far higher initial investment. In other words, the more developed world is handicapping the rest with restrictions only feasible by those imposing them. From a historical and policy standpoint I agree with that assessment, but since we all breathe the same air I can't help feeling like unless everyone holds similar policies it loses its impact.
I know little of European economics, I'd be happy to do some research however. My point of bringing Spain and Greece into it is that because a country like Greece has social programs and went under during the recession some use that as the excuse for why such policies don't work when it does in so many other places.
[EDIT]
I look in to the info you posted.
Interestingly, on the note of China, they made a compelling case for leniency for developing countries. Europe and the US had very poor environmental policies while going through the industrial age. The argument was we should be more lenient to developing nations environmental policies as it isn't feasible to grow otherwise, it requires a far higher initial investment. In other words, the more developed world is handicapping the rest with restrictions only feasible by those imposing them. From a historical and policy standpoint I agree with that assessment, but since we all breathe the same air I can't help feeling like unless everyone holds similar policies it loses its impact.
I know little of European economics, I'd be happy to do some research however. My point of bringing Spain and Greece into it is that because a country like Greece has social programs and went under during the recession some use that as the excuse for why such policies don't work when it does in so many other places.
Ryan-ZenGtr-
Well-Known Member
Here he (Romney) is a year ago...
*Yawn*
*Yawn*
TRENCHLORD
Banned
If you would just read my posts more carefully you would understand that I specified the increased cost of everyone's insurance from bullshit like this.
When the government mandates that private carriers include coverages that makes everyone's insurance rates higher.
My point was clear.
TRENCHLORD
Banned
Indeed. It's alright, it lets me know I'm probably right or at least in the ball park when I get ignored.
Hey, I get on here and type a couple great posts(insert chuckles here) and go on about my night
.Not meaning to ignore anyone, but spending much time truth speaking to people who refuse to listen makes no sense at all.
It's fun for a short while, but I'd rather diversify my time, sorry.
I'll clearly state again that mandating idiot coverages from PRIVATE companies DOES raise the rates for all the other customers.
I'm not paying for dudes to have their penis chopped off just because the government claims it's a necesarry procedure.
That is the epitome of governmental over-regulation to force a PRIVATE company to cover that sort of thing.
flint757
Well-Known Member
It's all in good fun dude...
On some level I agree and only because I'd equate it with a boob job, which isn't covered, and can cause some women back problems. That being said medical procedures shouldn't be so ridiculously expensive, no matter the type, in the first place. I will also agree that the more procedures done obviously the more losses an insurance company will incur.
That being said, things like birth control, even if we ignore the actual medical significance, would save insurance companies money. Having a baby is not cheap; it adds to ones coverage (additional person), and socially, if not in a proper place financially, affects everyone as well because now said person needs food stamps or welfare just to survive as they are now below the poverty line. Like anything preventive care and screening help lower the chances, diseases and babies alike, that we need to use our insurance for things that do cost the insurers a lot of money.
On another note if they can't hack it maybe it is time they stepped out, health should not be a commodity sold to the highest bidder. It is mighty hard to pursue happiness if you're deathly ill from something easily preventable. We fund their administrative cost and profit margin, if it was just our tax dollars it would actually be more efficient as the government does not work for profit and ultimately shouldn't. Most old people will agree that medicare is amazing, especially if you were able to retain part of your insurance from your old job.
Despite what Fox tells people the government does not screw up everything and ironically the group that waste the most resources is the military, which is what Fox and a lot of Repub's want us to funnel more money in too it seems.
On some level I agree and only because I'd equate it with a boob job, which isn't covered, and can cause some women back problems. That being said medical procedures shouldn't be so ridiculously expensive, no matter the type, in the first place. I will also agree that the more procedures done obviously the more losses an insurance company will incur.
That being said, things like birth control, even if we ignore the actual medical significance, would save insurance companies money. Having a baby is not cheap; it adds to ones coverage (additional person), and socially, if not in a proper place financially, affects everyone as well because now said person needs food stamps or welfare just to survive as they are now below the poverty line. Like anything preventive care and screening help lower the chances, diseases and babies alike, that we need to use our insurance for things that do cost the insurers a lot of money.
On another note if they can't hack it maybe it is time they stepped out, health should not be a commodity sold to the highest bidder. It is mighty hard to pursue happiness if you're deathly ill from something easily preventable. We fund their administrative cost and profit margin, if it was just our tax dollars it would actually be more efficient as the government does not work for profit and ultimately shouldn't. Most old people will agree that medicare is amazing, especially if you were able to retain part of your insurance from your old job.
Despite what Fox tells people the government does not screw up everything and ironically the group that waste the most resources is the military, which is what Fox and a lot of Repub's want us to funnel more money in too it seems.
Waelstrum
All Fourths Advocate
^ Back problems don't have a 47% mortality rate.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I believe there are some things that should not be done for profit. I also believe that the three ideals on which your country are founded are best done by the government. (That is: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.) I would define life to mean universal health care, liberty to mean the justice system and defence*, and the pursuit of happiness to mean social mobility. When I look at American politics, it seems like only one of your parties is following the ideals of the founding fathers (who incidentally weren't perfect, what with all the racism).
*Would you look at that, a lefty liberal saying that it is important to have a military (in moderation)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I believe there are some things that should not be done for profit. I also believe that the three ideals on which your country are founded are best done by the government. (That is: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.) I would define life to mean universal health care, liberty to mean the justice system and defence*, and the pursuit of happiness to mean social mobility. When I look at American politics, it seems like only one of your parties is following the ideals of the founding fathers (who incidentally weren't perfect, what with all the racism).
*Would you look at that, a lefty liberal saying that it is important to have a military (in moderation)
flint757
Well-Known Member
Well numbers aside, I'm sure some women and men are depressed by other cosmetic problems. Some women are depressed about their body to an extreme of it affecting their welfare as well. It is a cosmetic surgery, things are getting altered and rearranged, but for the most part your body will function the same. I don't deny it is expensive and I feel like a lot of things should be either covered or just cheaper in general, but if we are forced to pick and choose that wouldn't be on my list (assuming the list had a limit). The issue is the psychological aspect involving it being there in the first place for some people, but the procedure itself is fixing a surface problem. After reassignment are their any stat's that show that suicide is any less likely (implication being that the surgery wouldn't resolve that problem)? In most instances I imagine outsiders are a big part of the problem (bullying, lack of support, etc.) I don't deny that some feel the need for it and that it does have negative affects leading to a high suicide rate, but when other life threatening problems aren't covered (suicide is ultimately a choice even if they don't feel they have one) I can't advocate the coverage of arguably elective surgeries.
I agree entirely with the second part. I'm not being insensitive either,as I do feel bad for those suffering, but when we are having trouble getting the right to accept basic health coverage for citizens and so much else that isn't covered it is not something I can logically call a priority.
celticelk
Well-Known Member
First, what you said was "Shouldn't be her right to make taxpayers pay for her freakon." That certainly implies that your *tax dollars* would be going to pay for Fluke's birth control, which is not the case.
Second, as has already been pointed out to you, you miss the point that funding birth control via insurance substantially reduces the number of payouts for things like prenatal care and birth, miscarriage, etc. That could well *reduce* overall insurance rates, particularly given that those are fairly high-cost items, and birth control is pretty cheap.
CannibalKiller
Banned
Republican logic:
Obama didn't sort out the economy, so we're going to make the country a Mormon theocracy.
Obama didn't sort out the economy, so we're going to make the country a Mormon theocracy.
Treeunit212
Not your bro, bro.
Hey, I get on here and type a couple great posts(insert chuckles here) and go on about my night
Not meaning to ignore anyone, but spending much time truth speaking to people who refuse to listen makes no sense at all.
It's fun for a short while, but I'd rather diversify my time, sorry.
I'll clearly state again that mandating idiot coverages from PRIVATE companies DOES raise the rates for all the other customers.
I'm not paying for dudes to have their penis chopped off just because the government claims it's a necesarry procedure.
That is the epitome of governmental over-regulation to force a PRIVATE company to cover that sort of thing.
How much does a child cost to raise until age 18? Hundreds of thousands of dollars. Did you know that an unwanted child is much more likely to resort to a life of crime? Exactly 18 years after Abortion was legalized, crime rates dropped across the board like clockwork. And we're not even talking about Abortion, we're talking about birth control. This is more than preventing babies, this is a women's health issue. Who the fuck is asking you what a woman needs in order to live a healthy lifestyle?
What is the societal cost of overpopulation? Pollution, consumption, etc? Since Industrialization, the average carbon footprint of a single individual is measured in kilotons. There is a cost to everything, whether or not you choose to acknowledge it.
What is this truth speaking you refer to? It's been pointed out that you ignore more rebukes of your opinions than pretty much anyone else on this forum. You seem to be really fond of expressing your own views, but when it comes to expanding them beyond your bubble of perceived reality, you fail. Hard.
Welcome to Bullshit Mountain. The alternate reality in which Trench, Glenn Beck and Mitt Romney's savings live.
