Mitt sez…
…that a lot of people want to be on the dole, and they won’t vote for him anyway.
Mitt sez the Palestinians don’t want peace.
This is scandalous? This is news?
Ah, but the media can make a statement that the sky is blue into a gaffe, if Mitt sez it.
Meanwhile, Obama’s Mideast policy is in flames, his State Department failed to offer the Benghazi consulate the basic protection that it obviously needed, and from the MSM we hear the sound of crickets chirping.
The Fourth Estate and the end of the republic.
One possibility, though (and it’s only a possibility): do the majority of voters secretly think what Mitt said on those secret tapes was correct?
I think they do; they just won’t admit it in public. If the delightful media tries to crucify Mitt on those statements, it will backfire. Many if not most people are waking up to the dishonesty of the media imo.
LOL. That’s not a bug, it’s a feature.
The Fourth Estate has become the Fifth Column.
My hatred for those pukes is approaching Muslim Street levels.
I’m SERIOUSLY hoping the majority of the voters do agree with Mitt, and I think they do. One thing is certain, we’re gonna find out. I still think Obama’s clinging to God and guns comment was worse than this.
47% on the dole? Half of those people pay payroll tax, meaning they pay a higher tax rate than Mitt himself. The rest are either elderly, or are extremely poor, or both. (Plus there’s a few hedge fund managers who avoid income tax using the old carried interest tax dodge.) Mitt’s notion of half of America lazily getting handouts is just self-congratulatory millionaire hogwash. Ironically, the working poor and lower-middle class folks not paying income tax are largely red-staters.
As for the Middle East, his comment that “we kick the ball down the field and hope that ultimately, somehow, something will happen and resolve it” is not exactly bold leadership. It’s conceding defeat without even trying. Weak!
I really can’t say this is Mitt showing his true colors because I don’t think Mitt has any true colors. He’ll say anything to be president. But I do think it’s plausible that he truly does regard people in the lower half of the U.S. income distribution with sneering contempt.
These statements by Romney are kinda’ analogous to Obama’s statement about people clinging to their guns and Bibles. I happen to think Obama’s statements were NOT true while Romney’s statements ARE true.
But the two statements by Obama and Romney were both made to audiences that were considered safely on their sides and both probably upset people with opposing views considerably.
Obama’s statements didn’t hurt him politically and I doubt Romney’s will hurt him either. Since Romney’s are true while Obama’s weren’t, Romney’s may actually do some good for him.
Is it Novmber 6th yet?
What kind of president skips his security briefings and hits the road to Vegas after an ambassador is murdered and the Middle East is melting down?
Someone who knows he won’t be called to account by the so-called “watchdogs,” that’s who.
Yes, the suggestion that everyone who votes Democrat just wants government handouts was bad! Every bit as bad as Obama’s “You didn’t build that” remarks.
For one thing it makes Mitt a hypocrite. Plenty of Republicans are on the dole too. And if anyone disagrees, explain why they don’t want to change medicare for anyone over 55.
On the other hand, there are plenty of hard working people out there who vote Democrat, or lean that way. And plenty of independent voters (and plenty of Republicans) are friends with those Democrats. Mitt calling Democratic voters welfare queens will not win them over.
Finally, and most importantly, the comment shows that he just doesn’t understand why a huge segment of the country votes the way they do. That isn’t a quality we want in a president.
Meanwhile, the brilliant Obama find Susan Rice is ignored.
BTW, you don’t have to be a 47%er to be firmly in the Obama camp and not worth Romney’s campaign efforts. I spent some time this weekend with a woman who is basically voting for Obama because she thinks Obama and Michelle set a good example for poor blacks. She is well educated and has a good job, but she doesn’t read the papers or follow the news. It’s all about feelings. You will never get people like her out of her beltway bubble do-gooderism.
Expat, your comment reminds me of another comment by Bernard Goldberg, if memory serves “being a liberal is about feeling good about oneself”. In other words, reality doesn’t count.
But I suspect you be wrong that people like her will never leave their feel-good cocoon. If a general economic collapse comes (can it be avoided) the feel gooders may have to adjust their attitudes to fit their new waistlines.
Mitt’s statement was true as far as about 47% of the voters are not going to vote for him no matter what. Where he erred a bit was in saying they are all dependent on the government. People like Caroline Kennedy, Eva Longoria, Bill Maher, Steven Colbert, Brian Williams, Ted Turner etc. are the types of Obama supporters who don’t fit that category. There are plenty of them. The meme that 47% of all citizens are dependent on the government because they don’t pay personal income taxes is hyperbole and Mitt shouldn’t have intimated that. What he should have said was that those 47% who support Obama believe the government is the best source of charity (Welfare and other assistance programs.) and jobs along with no concept of how dire our fiscal situation is. That is much closer to the truth.
What he was trying to convey was that the election rides pretty much on those 6% of voters who are “independents.” That is where he is concentrating his efforts.
I believe he was answering a question about why his campaign hasn’t been tougher on Obama. He was trying to explain that no matter how tough he might be on Obama those 47% are probably going to vote for Obama no matter what. He’s right, of course. If it wasn’t true, the numbers would be much more in Romney’s favor. This is, once more, a media created furor. One of many so far.
If i clued you in on a bunch of other things, it will take too much time, and space.
Trivial Causes
http://www.financialsense.com/contributors/j-r-nyquist/trivial-causes
you can go back just after the election 4 years and see i said THAT is what will ultimately happen… why? because Obama is an open book and they know that he wont respond. he didn’t respond to the land seizures when he came into office… china Russia and others realize that if they all grab neighbors lands at the same time… THEN WHAT?
lets just say that over the next month, before the elections.
North Korea runs into South Korea
Japan and China go into conflict making the china sea less able to transport material
Israel shells Iran, Iran attacks American bases, for which this 20 country Islamic game is a test case.
russia protests, but grabs the rest of the countries needed to preserve the land bridge between russia and the middle east states.
that puts Georgia, Azerbaijan, Serbia, etc all in the sites to be seized. (and what will we do about it? we have not the money to respond, do we?)
add in games in south America… from Chavez, to grabbing the Falklands again by Argentina.
now… i can add a lot more to it. including Russia flying over the Baltic daring them to shoot them down. nuclear bear bombers running at western states air space. spies caught and traded. heck.. anyone watching Portugal? how about the 1.5 million marching in Spain? (communist mayor loots businesses!) 2000 troops from Russia are in Armenia already.
and you don’t want to know who is lined up on which borders with material.
20 countries bs is a great distraction, no?
what people in the west dont get about a totalitarian state is that whatever changes it makes, are not real. the leader can wake up tomorrow, and change it back with a single directive.
another thing is that what would limit you, does not limit sociopaths. ergo these modern wars are so much more horrid… (not to disparage the horrid wars of farther past with more brutal hand to hand weapons. but if you think that that died, then study the battle of Stalingrad)
now… lets see how well people remember and kept i mind what i said..
heck… i interpreted their action back in 2008 and where it would lead given the map, the actions, the laws, the rules, the changes, and who is where in office and what playbooks they are following.
now you guys may be right… Obama may lose, and Romney wins.
but may i ask what does that have to do with whats happening? will it change that? will it stop it? will it give us the cash so we can act? or will everyone be abandoned?
check out the mutual defense pacts that are being made between Syria and others. remember WWII?
anyone hear of the thousands of Chinese that marched in Houston (Tx)?
your all focusing on a distraction..
a smoke screen
and it works, as the experienced know not to
SHOA II – On schedule..
the big question i have is…
is it Shoah Shtey or Shoah Shney
I have to laugh at Alex’s comment that “‘we kick the ball down the field and hope that ultimately, somehow, something will happen and resolve it” is not exactly bold leadership. It’s conceding defeat without even trying. Weak!”
If you read the REST of Romney’s statement, immediately after this analogy is “We don’t start a war.” So he didn’t say anything “weak;” he said exactly what Americans have been saying for some time: Don’t drag us into wars! Especially don’t drag us into conflicts that won’t end!
The 47% comment is a similar processed-by-media outrage. That 47% are people who vote for Obama and yes, they want more government involvement. It doesn’t mean they’re on the dole. Look at the actual quote – our hostess linked it, for goodness sake! There’s an ellipsis between the section with “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” and the part where he’s talking about people who pay no taxes. That ellipsis means there’s a section missing!
Reminds me of a young idiot in my college days who based a whole paper on a quote in which he’d somehow overlooked the word “not.” When someone a little more knowledgeable pointed out the problem, he decided to submit the paper anyway – and the professor (or his TA) gave the idiot an A.
For many decades the world has avoided a catastrophic war. Today, however, it may not be possible to avoid it much longer. The global economy is fragile at the moment, and a large conflict would only make things worse. And there is something else about conflict that everyone should consider; namely, once it begins, there is no telling how destructive it will be, or how far it will spread. One might say, under the circumstances, that we are living in a glass house. Once the stone-throwing begins, the whole structure is imperiled. But why would supposedly rational people throw stones? Combine the logic of military mobilization with fear of inaction and nations can be propelled into senseless slaughter as happened in 1914. Disputes over relatively small bits of territory can escalate into a world-wide conflagration, as happened in 1939. Julius Caesar once said, “In war trivial causes produce momentous events.” Today it seems we have many trivial causes. Nyquist…
J.J. — I know that it would be nice to reduce Mitt’s statement to something bland and undeniably true like “the election will depend on swing voters.” However, he said much, much more than that. He insulted one half of America—specifically the poorer half—in a truly vile way in front of a bunch of millionaires at a $50,000/plate dinner.
So … 23.5% of the population is either elderly, extremely poor, or both?
Where to start on this one? First, being elderly does not equate to being poor.
I’m sure. Go get those Obama donors. Please.
Don’t think hedge fund managers lean lefty? Check OpenSecrets.org. Wall Street generally and hedge fund managers are totally in the tank for Obama. Check Goldman Sachs, for example — they went hugely for Obama. Check it if you don’t believe this.
Peggy Joseph would beg to differ. What was her reaction, other than ecstasy that Obama would pay her bills? And that’s different from lazily getting handouts … how?
Interesting but irrelevant and mendacious, comrade. Which state someone lives in doesn’t matter. Romney’s point was those on the dole — wherever they may be – are unlikely to vote for a Republican and end their gravy train. Further, note that the red states cited are heavily black and/or Hispanic, and therefore again unlikely to vote for a Republican.
Last, note that the map cites proportions of non-payers, not numbers of non-payers. So CA, with 37% non-payers, and a population of 37.6 million, has 13.9 million non-payers, while AL has 40% non-payers, but a population of 4.8 million, or 1.9 million non-payers, or one-sixth as many. Further note that some of the most populous states (CA, NY, IL) have hefty proportions of non-payers (ca. 35% each), and God knows that they’re all blue states, so that’s where a lot (number, not percentage) of the free-riders reside.
Yes, we need more of that “robust” Obama leadership in the Middle East. After all, there’s lots more ambassadors where the last one came from.
This from an Obama supporter? Seriously?
Did he refer to them as “bitter clingers,” perhaps?
I’d rather have someone regarding people in the lower half of the U.S. income distribution with sneering contempt than someone who regards all people in the U.S. with same.
But we’ve got it in one now anyway.
Alex: to the best of my knowledge, payroll taxes go to fund entitlements: Social Security and Medicare. They are not taxes in the usual sense of supporting other government functions, and they are not income taxes.
Here is what Romney actually said:
He never said they pay no taxes.
It is correct. however, that of course not all such people will be voting for Obama. That is definitely an error of Romney’s.
But there is no question that Romney is describing a certain segment of Obama voters, and a growing segment of Americans compared to just a few decades ago, who will do what human beings tend to do. I don’t hear contempt; I hear a description of people who are voting in what they see as their own interests. There’s a famous saying expressing that, although it’s disputed who might have said it originally. Here’s how Reagan stated it:
As for Romney’s statements on the Middle East, they are correct. It is leadership to tell the truth, even harsh truths. Obama’s “leadership” on this issue is wishful thinking or worse, and it has borne rotten fruit already, and there is almost certainly more to come.
Here is a fuller (although not full) version of what Romney said on the Middle East:
How this can be controversial, or a failure of leadership, I really don’t see, to anyone who has looked at the situation for many a long decade, through both Republican and Democratic administrations. It is a statement of fact, and his suggesting that you don’t do much at the moment about it is supposed to be heard (in context) as a contrast to going to war over it. These are problems—“very hard to solve, right?”—that have not even come close to a solution in over sixty years. Romney is correct, and at least he is aware enough to not consider himself a miracle worker who, by sheer dint of his own fabulous nature, will transform the Arab world.
And yes, Mitt Romney is a politician, but this business of him being more likely to say “anything to be president” is just a talking point. He is no more likely than any other candidate to do that. There is nothing especially inconsistent about his public and private views, and despite the “flip-flop” label, in the (truly exhaustive) amount of reading I’ve done about him, I’ve seen little or no evidence that the label fits him more than most. He has actually been fundamentally consistent on almost all issues. Read this book, written by two (not on the right) Boston Globe journalists, if you want to know more about him, and not just Democratic talking points.
By the way, here’s a video of a press conference Romney just gave to answer questions about his remarks, in which he explains the context of those remarks. It will be interesting to see—if they are indeed released, as Romney has requested—the full remarks. (I can’t seem to find a way to embed the video, or I would do so.)
He insulted one half of America–specifically the poorer half–in a truly vile way in front of a bunch of millionaires at a $50,000/plate dinner.
While Obama would never have a tony dinner for millionaires. Billionaires, maybe, but not millionaires. And at one such gathering, he insulted most of the people in America (the “bitter clingers”).
And let’s face it, a lot of people in the poorer half of America deserve to be insulted. They’re not pulling their weight, and parasitically want things given to them that they haven’t earned for themselves. They vote to distribute funds to themselves, when they themselves did not contribute to those funds. That’s truly vile. And Peggy Joseph, who wanted her bills paid, is the matron saint.
Baltimoron,
Finally, and most importantly, please tell us “why a huge segment of the country votes the way they do”.
“if anyone disagrees, explain why they don’t want to change medicare for anyone over 55.”
Sure; people 55 and over don’t have the time left before retirement that is needed to adjust to a new form of S.S. and Medicare.
Proof positive of Romney’s point: that people — any people – who get handouts will vote to keep them.
Game. Set. Match.
Baltimoron @ 1:29
“For one thing it makes Mitt a hypocrite. Plenty of Republicans are on the dole too. And if anyone disagrees, explain why they don’t want to change medicare for anyone over 55.”
No it does not. People in that age group have planned for retirement over their entire working life making certain assumptions about what kind of income they’re going to need. One assumption is that the money they paid into Medicare will be available for their use after retirement. If it’s not there or reduced, where is the needed money going to come from? It takes a long time to build the required nest egg for ordinary people and starting at 55 would make it impossible.
Occam’s Beard: why do you say “in a truly vile way”? I don’t see the vileness. I see a description that yes, would probably upset a lot of people. But vile?
MissJean:
(Note that this ellipsis here indicates his voice trailing off, not the elision of content.)
This quote strongly suggests that the group Mitt has been lambasting as government sponges in Obama’s pocket is exactly the 47% that pays no income tax. Don’t blame it on the ellipses.
Alex,
“As for the Middle East, his comment that “we kick the ball down the field and hope that ultimately, somehow, something will happen and resolve it” is not exactly bold leadership. It’s conceding defeat without even trying. Weak!”
So, acknowledging the reality that the Palestinians don’t want peace under any conditions short of the destruction of Israel, making peace virtually impossible…is for you, ‘weak’ leadership? How do you deal with reality without first acknowledging it?
“I really can’t say this is Mitt showing his true colors because I don’t think Mitt has any true colors.”
His faith based life, marriage and family life alone, prove that to be a mistaken assumption.
“He’ll say anything to be president.”
Perhaps. But he hasn’t had a chance to prove that assumption, while Obama has repeatedly proven it. Yet you accept from Obama what you criticize Romney for, so, whose guilty of hypocrisy?
“But I do think it’s plausible that he truly does regard people in the lower half of the U.S. income distribution with sneering contempt.”
Public acknowledgement that 47% of the electorate is going to vote for Obama out of gullible naivete, ideology or self-interest is “sneering contempt”?
Ah, I see, I’m stubborn and bull headed, while you take principled stands…
My mother is the epitomy of the uninformed voter. She listens to CNN and believes every word. She votes Democrat because my father was in a union. When she hears the statements that Romney made, she’ll agree with them 100%. Yes, she’s on SS and Medicare, but she knows who he was talking about. And there are a lot more people out there just like her.
artfldgr,
“If i clued you in on a bunch of other things, it will take too much time, and space. “
Perhaps you should write a book…
Romney forgot that even in a private, closed meeting, there’s too good a chance that some leftie got in to record his remarks, just a-wishin’ and a-hopin’ for something to use against him. Or someone there can get disaffected down the road, and leak the remarks to the mainstreamers.
Given that, Romney needs to realize that anything and everything he says or does can and will be held against him. He has to get his intent and wording right the first time, and he should assume that even when he does, the mainstreamers will find a way to cover it unfavorably. That is what they -do-.
He needs to be paranoid, because, yes, they are out to get him. He needs to forget about good will, because they irrevocably hate him and what he stands for. He needs to never forget the double standard, and that he’s at the lousy end of that deal.
I’d hate to live my life that way, but I’m not gonna run for high office, either.
Alex:
The Daily Beast fact-checks Romney’s “47%” remarks and finds them correct. From the author of the article’s resume and other hints in the article, I think we can conclude that he’s not a Romney supporter, either.
Neo:
I think it’s pretty vile to suggest that the poorest 47% of Americans refuse to take responsibility for their lives and expect the government to do everything for them. It’s a hell of a way to insult tens of millions of hard-working people.
Do you actually believe that rich=industrious and poor=lazy? Have you really drunk the Kool-Aid? Many, I daresay most, poor people work extremely hard. Night shifts, second jobs, taking the bus, lack of sleep. It’s not easy. Doubtless there are some freeloaders, but don’t paint half the country with that brush!
And the rich? Many are hard-working but many others are simply fortunate that accidents of birth landed them in comfortable positions. (One’s dad being governor of Michigan helps a lot more than growing up Latino.) And the rich spend money on lobbyists who extract various forms of corporate welfare and government concessions, and this helps them stay rich and grow richer without working harder.
So neither the rich nor the poor are all saints or all angels. But a obscenely wealthy man insulting everyone in the poorer half of America like that… it’s vile. And self-congratulatory in a stomach-turning way.
Neo, you wrote:
So if payroll taxes are not “normal” taxes then are entitlement programs not “normal” spending? How can you lambaste someone for receiving government assistance but not credit them for paying the taxes that fund that assistance?
When 3 or 4 generations of the same family are on public assistance, does not work, and a majority of the children in this group are born out of wedlock to teenage mothers; our society does have an entrenched class which has become parasitic. Anyone who denies ‘progressives’ have encouraged, aided, and abetted this destruction of human potential is out of touch with reality.
Romney is correct that a select percentage of the population (probably nearer to 40% than 47%) will always vote for the democrat candidate. His mistake was in not guarding his words and addressing this issue in a more complete manner. In his defense these were off the cuff remarks. However, there is little or no privacy for public figures and every word is likely to end up on youtube.
Okay, I’ve read that thing three times now. And several reviews & critiquest & etc.
I don’t see it the same way, at all.
And I don’t get the all-inclusive part of the “thing” that both the shocked Left and the non-shocked Right seem to be discussing as the “what” of what he said.
What I understood from reading what he was saying, is that the 47% includes people that believe in at least some of the attributes he described.
Yeah, yeah: I know he didn’t use formal grammar, and didn’t use the work “include”. It wasn’t scripted for goodness sake; it wasn’t a “formal” speech.
But it seems so obvious, that the missing word should have been includes and would have been there in a more formal speech …which would obviously make this speech more about sub-groups composing the Democrat party, if you will.
…which btw, is totally different substantively than the off-the-cuff Obama made about the bitter clingers.
Obama was – and obviously so, from within his remarks, and the context of his remarks – talking about ALL the Republican base and their fundamental beliefs AND their attributes as a group.
The president really believes that half the nation are cretins and Luddites (or, to cut him some slack) thinks that Democrat activists really think that.
I don’t get that from Romney (i.e., that he was making a blanket description of all the Democrat base) at all.
And I don’t think it should be read that way.
And given so: what’s the point of any outrage?
The various Democrat groups include sub-groups of people who are justly described by one or several of Romney’s descriptors (as Jeff Goldstein might say, LOL).
…I don’t even think its a “fine” distinction btw.
Romney’s a good guy (can’t believe I find myself saying that), and he doesn’t categorize like Obama does. I don’t think he “sees the world” through that kind of prism.
Neo:
My beef was never with the facts of Romney’s statement. My beef is with everything else the man said, and what it tells us about his mindset.
In your original post, you mentioned PAYROLL taxes, and he mentioned INCOME TAX. That’s my point. I used to pay no income tax because I made $7K a year, but I still had FICA etc. cutting into my paycheck. My madre pays no income tax on her pension payments (although if interest rates were higher she might have to pay), but she pays property tax on her houses in two different states, an inheritance tax on one of them, utility taxes, and sales tax when she bought her new car. So she pays taxes – just not INCOME taxes. She’d be the first to tell you that there’s a lot of poor-on-tax-form elderly who aren’t disabled or indigent.
As an aside, a REAL lefty friend of mine (delightfully, unabashedly left) suggested that every few years the government should tax the principal of bank accounts, etc. He had figured out that some of our acquaintances had property, stocks, trusts, etc. (much of it inherited) that made them wealthy although they were “middle-class” because their taxable income was $80-100K a year. I disagreed on the principle, but it was eye-opening to hear the discussion and objections.
“How can you lambaste someone for receiving government assistance but not credit them for paying the taxes that fund that assistance.”
The problem is that these programs are now a Ponzi scheme. Over the years every penny of SS payroll receipts that did not go to fund current recipients was squandered on other government boondoggles. SS and Medicare can not stand the test of time.
Boomers are daily signing onto the entitlement programs and the system can not be sustained unless payroll taxes rise dramatically. Those under 40 today will not be willing to pay significantly higher payroll taxes to fund programs they will never enjoy. When they become fully awake we will see a major shift in public sentiment.
Here: this might help illustrate what I was trying to say ….
…and obviously, with editorial emendations as indicated, which would probably have been included in a more formal speech.
That is what I understood him to be saying.
I’m not outraged. Hardly, lol.
“One’s dad being governor of Michigan helps a lot more than growing up Latino.”
Let me enlighten you: If you grow up Latino in the right time/place, it helps you TREMENDOUSLY. All my life I have been around people who would vote based on a last name. Sadly I admit that, too, have voted for a Garcéa rather than a Smith or a Walinski because I guessed (one time horribly incorrectly) that Garcéa shared my values.
Also, I live in Michigan. Here we know that Gov. Romney welcomed MLK at a time when the Kennedys and other politicians were leery of him. In other ways, too, he was ahead of his time. But outside Michigan, he was that guy with the weird-ass religion who admitted to being brainwashed. You can see a time gap between the governor and his son as a politician that doesn’t exist in say, a Kennedy or a Kilpatrick or a Daley family that always seemed to have a family member in office.
Neo, first, I was echoing the language of our interlocutor, and in so doing pointing out that one disparagement was as vile as the other.
But beyond that, I’d assert that voting to forcibly take funds from others to give to yourself is in fact vile, in the literal sense of being despicable. So while I wouldn’t have chosen that particular wording but for our sinister friend, the characterization nevertheless is accurate.
Alex: yes, and I responded to those beefs in my previous longer comment. I was just adding the other link in my shorter comment because I thought you might find the article to be of interest, not because I thought you had been challenging Romney’s facts on the 47%.
But you know, in the law, truth is a defense to libel :-). Again, though, I see nothing especially “lambasting” or “contemptuous” in Romney’s remarks. He is describing a phenomenon, and talking about these voters in the context of whether he should make a lot of effort to win their votes, since they probably are lost to him as supporters.
As far as payroll taxes and entitlements go, I was pointing that out because of your remark “Half of those people pay payroll tax, meaning they pay a higher tax rate than Mitt himself.” Again, his point was not to “labaste” them (nor was mine), but to say that it would not automatically be in their self-interest (or gain him votes) to support him when he’s lowering regular income tax rates. They would not be affected.
I was merely pointing out a difference between income tax revenues and what they are used for, and payroll tax revenues. One can argue that all tax revenues ultimately benefit us by paying for things the government is doing for us (although a lot of people would disagree on that point), but what I was getting at was that payroll taxes, even more than other taxes such as income taxes, are more directly and clearly in a person’s self-interest, because (at least theoretically, if they live long enough) the moneys come back to them in the form of direct payments such as Social Security and entitlements like Medicare. It’s just a distinction I’ve noticed that a lot of people don’t understand when they make their arguments (I’m not implying that you are one of those people, by the way).
OK, not sponges. Parasites then.
Bullseye, no?
But a damned good way to lambaste those who expect — no, demand – something for nothing.
MissJean:
I completely agree that being born Latino in the right time and place could be a boon to a candidate. No doubt. It’s just that most Latinos are not born in that time nor that place. If you’re going to be born the son of a governor, however, it’s tough to go wrong.
Romney implied that if only he had what those lucky other people had (Latino heritage!) this election would be his for the taking. But that’s bull. It’s him who’s the fortunate son.
It sounds like we are in agreement about the differences between income and payroll taxes. Therefore according to Mitt, you a few years ago, and your mother today, are welfare queens who refuse to take any personal responsibility. Does that sound like a fair characterization? I would guess no. Not of you, and not of half the country.
Occam’s Beard, why do you insist on insulting MissJean’s mother like that?
MissJean, are you going to take it??
Let us take a walk down memory lane, shall we? You disputed his assertion that 47% of the electorate was on the dole. Put those goalposts on a flatbed truck; they’re easier to move that way.
He expects people to pull their own weight? Bastard.
You know, in another context, those on the left used to criticize (or worse, much worse) those who lived off of others.
And as for mindset, I find Obama’s (“redistribute the wealth;” “bitter clingers”) to be disturbingly un-American, as is the man himself.
alex: I hadn’t seen the “refuse to take responsibility” quote in the original summaries of the remarks.
I agree (as I think I said earlier) that characterizing the entire 47% that way is an error. I’m not at all sure Romney meant to do that (these are unscripted remarks, and people’s exact meaning is often messed up in such remarks, when they are speaking extemporaneously). But if he indeed meant to characterize the entire 47% that way, of course that’s both incorrect and stupid. I still don’t think it’s vile, nor do I think how much money he makes matters. I don’t demonize the rich any more than I demonize the poor, and the rich are free to consider the fact that some (not all!) of the poor are exactly and precisely as Romney describes.
What percentage of the poor is like that? I don’t know, and I don’t think anyone does. It could be less than half, or possibly about half; I personally wouldn’t guess it to be more than half, but I could be wrong there and be underestimating (a remnant of my liberal ways). At any rate, it’s a very real phenomenon, a growing one IMHO, and a very disturbing trend.
Here’s a video from “My Fair Lady,” that pretty much takes a speech from “Pygmalion,” the play by Shaw (who was a Fabian socialist, by the way), on the subject. The clip is funny, but it touches on something real (there used to be a longer clip of the entire speech on YouTube but I can’t find it at the moment):
MissJean:
Neo:
What? Nothing contemptuous? Mitt was not just reading statistics off a chart. He was saying some ridiculously inflammatory things.
Mitt designates a group—the 47% (actually 46.4% but I’ll allow him the rounding error) who do not pay income taxes—and proceeds to make a lot of claims about that group. They “are dependent upon government,” they “believe they are victims,” etc. He then says that he gives up on them because “I’ll never convince them they should take personal responsibility for their lives.”
Now lots of people are in that group. You probably know some of them—we probably have a bunch of them here on this message board. Are they hopeless parasites who lack the capacity for personal responsibility? Is half the country? Tell me that’s not inflammatory.
The distinction between “payroll” taxes and “income” taxes is one without a difference. They both come from our income, go to the government and are pissed away willy-nilly. There is no social security trust fund. All of it, and more, gets spent. FICA, in particular, is egregious in that it is regressive, with someone making 216K paying the same amount, and half the percentage, of tax as someone making 108K. And FICA and medicare are even more evil because half the tax is hidden from employees with the “employer” share ruse, an accounting trick that keeps people from realizing just how big a tax it is.
We, meaning conservatives, make a political mistake when we say half the country doesn’t pay “income” taxes. Technically true, but politically hurtful as it isolates half the country and shames them. As far as they are concerned, that 15% that they lose from their meager paychecks is, indeed, a tax, and a harsh one at that. Rather than write these folks off as Obama voters, wouldn’t it be better to find a way to reach out to them and bring them into the fold?
Occam:
47% is the number of people who don’t pay INCOME taxes. That is what Mitt is talking about, and that is what we are talking about. Please see the following quote from Mitt Romney for guidance.
Neo:
I didn’t see your last post until after I left mine. I appreciate the thought that his remarks were “incorrect and stupid,” and I’ll allow that it’s possible that that’s not exactly what he meant. But it’s what he said.
“There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what.
Included in that 47 percent who are with him, are some who are totally dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, and 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.
And believe all that as an entitlement [that] the government should give to them.
And they will vote for this president no matter what.” davisbr
I agree with davisbr, that’s what Romney almost certainly meant. If so, that’s not contemptuous, that’s the truth.
The only way that someone can say that Romney was being contemptuous is to reject the possibility that Romney meant what davisbr and many of us have surmised. To reject a plausible possibility without supporting evidence is to reveal close minded opposition regardless of the truth of the matter.
Within that 47% who will vote for Obama come hell or high water are many who are none of those things but are gullibly naive and completely within the thrall of the MSM’s mis-reportage.
Admit you could be wrong Alex or reveal yourself to be part of that 47% who will vote for Obama come what may.
alex: yes. As happens with all politicians who are followed around and taped without their knowledge (although they should expect that to happen), he will misspeak, and it will be used by his enemies.
As has sometimes happened with Obama, by the way, and I have defended him at certain times when it has. For example, with Obama’s “you didn’t built that” remarks, on reflection I decided that it was certainly possible that Obama was referring to building infrastructure (such as roads) in that sentence. So I said so, and concentrated instead on other things that I thought were wrong in his remarks; there were plenty of them.
I have been incredibly disturbed lately by Obama’s handling of the embassy/consulate attacks, and his foreign policy in general. I’ve written reams about it. I am sick and tired of the focus on “gaffes”—be they by Romney or Obama. It’s mostly an absurd sideshow that the media promotes.
Geoffrey Britain: that was already done, here.
I don’t get the outrage if you are a conservative, in fact, the statement proves conservative thinking is at work. It’s the general thrust here, Romney wasn’t speaking to anyone who might be offended and therefore didn’t need to qualify his remarks to parse out those that did not belong.
Romney was thinking rationally and like a businessman. He identified those with an interest in Obama’s election as those who receive government support and, to quantify that amount, used 47%.
Of course this remark is going to be misinterpreted and easily can be. But that might cut both ways as the people against relying on government, and burning from the insult of having to provide for them, think Romney’s statement grand.
Lost in the traffic, and should not be:
fmt, 4:06 pm
“Rather than write these folks off as Obama voters, wouldn’t it be better to find a way to reach out to them and bring them into the fold?”
Hear, hear! — not with a huge expenditure of precious resources, but with a little empathy and even a little camaraderie, because, no, they’re not all moochers. Many are indeed reaching for that American dream Romney talks about so appreciatively.
Occam’s Beard is one of the joys of my Internet experience, partially because Obie never insult me even when we disagree. 🙂 On the other hand, that Alex tried to insert my mother into his argument with Obie is just plain jerkish.
It’s a funny coincidence that the number of people not paying income tax is 47%, and the number of dole-loving mooches blindly in thrall to Obama is 47%. To take Romney’s words at face value, he strongly implies they are one and the same.
But suppose he misspoke, and the 47% that are sponges are not coincident with the 47% who pay no income tax, but are merely overlapping. What then should we make of that?
I say it is still really damn offensive. How can we elect a man who thinks one half of Americans are mindless parasites? If you’re Occam it’s an easy question, because you think so too. But I don’t think so, and I should hope my president doesn’t think so. Talk about un-American!
And this is the real problem with these quotes. They reveal in Mitt a deep contempt for Americans that is difficult to wave away under any interpretation. Maybe you all agree. But I don’t.
Obama In 1998: “I Actually Believe In Redistribution”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ge3aGJfDSg4
MissJean: you brought her up, then Occam implicitly called her a parasite for not paying income tax. I was just trying to defend her. 😉
The parasites are the multi-generational families who have never worked and thus pay no taxes beyond sales taxes, they receive various welfare payments, and they see no reason to change because they do believe they are victims of ‘the man’ and ‘the man’ owes them. And before this is viewed as racist, this parasitic class is not limited to any one race.
‘Progressives’ have created this shameful waste of human potential and they want to perpetuate this terrible waste because they know these people are a reliable voting block. They are the real exploiters of the poor.
It isn’t so much the intended benefiaries of government programs that undermine democracy; they tend not to vote so much. It’s also the people who work in the programs and people who work in “industries” that depend on public support. Taking them together, Obamacrats think America has hit a tipping point — there are enough people who are directly interested in an expanded state that they cannot now (and will never again) lose.
That’s what it means to ‘not let a crisis go to waste’ and that’s why stimulus funds were used to increase public employment.
We have a winner.
alev: “And this is the real problem with these quotes. They reveal in Mitt a deep contempt for Americans that is difficult to wave away under any interpretation. “
Nah. I consider throwing the right of self-expression under the bus in order to appease Muslims a deep contempt for Americans. All Romney had done was explain why someone as contemptuous of America and its values could still have the poll numbers he has.
Alex wrote, “He insulted one half of America–specifically the poorer half–in a truly vile way”
what was the insult?
Alex ineptly wrote, “They reveal in Mitt a deep contempt for Americans”
When did Mitt say he had contempt?
Alex wrote, “He was saying some ridiculously inflammatory things. ”
What was inflammatory?
Seems there is quite a bit of transference here going on by you. Everything stated had an element of truth laced with the fairly spot on analysis that it would be hard to convince people who don’t pay income taxes that lowering their taxes won’t have an impact on them.
However – lowering tax rates DOES help people who pay no income taxes because the economy would be lifted and more jobs would be created by the private sector.
1) Every able-bodied poor person should be voting for Mitt because the private sector would be more prone to thriving
2) Every non able-bodied person and elderly person should vote for Mitt because the Government wouldn’t have the safety net diluted with money going to able bodied people.
3) Every woman, hispanic, african american, male, caucasian, etc should vote for Mitt because the fiscal cliff is near and everyone should be interested in preserving this greatest nation.
Do you think this case is overstated? Alex, do you believe the fiscal path we are on is sustainable? That is a direct question….. Let us know.
You’ll get over it.
Easy. Just mark the box.
Just the way you marked the box for a man who thinks all of Americans are mindless fools, in which supposition he was half-right.
Does his contempt run to thinking Americans are “just plain mean?” Or that we need to elect him so he can be proud of this country for the first time?
And in the continuing series of leftists’ habits that annoy me (right behind always naming some commie gal “Mother” something or other) is the faux sensitive outrage they evince about some aspect of some pro-American figure, and acting as though for that reason alone, they now oppose him, as if they might have supported him otherwise. He is “divisive,” “racist,” “out of the mainstream,” “warmonger,” “chickenhawk,” “out of touch,” “elitist,” something, and they just can’t have that. (A closely related habit is claiming that the writer is a lifelong conservative who just cannot countenance some (usually trifling) thing that has just happened, and thus must, for the first time, reluctantly support the Red candidate.)
We’re seeing a classic example of the former here.
It used to be that people confused the Fourth Estate with the the Fifth Column and be corrected by Karl Kolchak (skip to about 8:15).
These days, it’s hard to tell the difference between the two.
Why don’t you apply to be ambassador to Libya? I understand that there’s an opening.
Alex, while you are at it. Can you answer these multiple choice questions:
1) In world history has raising tax rates:
a) usually brought in the desired revenue increase that the government was seeking
b) rarely brought in the desired revenue increase that the government was seeking
c) sometimes reduced the amount of revenue to the government
d) answer b and c
2) When governments dramatically reduce capitol gains tax rates:
a) what proceeds is the private sector flourishing with new jobs and more revenue into the government
b) what proceeds is less revenue into the government
c) there is no clear cut answer
3) When taxes are levied on the few (not a broad base) government revenue
a) is more volatile (meaning subjected to radical changes in revenue depending on recession or boom economy
b) is less volatile
4) If somebody is interested in an economy with more jobs should they
a) lower tax rates
b) raise tax rates
c) put more regulation such as a 2700 page aca bill
d) reduce and simplify regulations so that regulations are simple to understand and easy to obey
e) a and d
f) b and c
If you get all of the answers above right and you have no “transference” issues – you’ll understand where conservatives come down on the issues. On a factual basis with no transference.
If you have these transference issues – there is not much we can do for you. You’ll just be a negative nay bob. Sorry you have to go through life that way!!!
b)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/post/obama-loses-key-dems-on-tax-hike-threat/2012/09/18/a7fb1234-01bd-11e2-b257-e1c2b3548a4a_blog.html
I don’t think this is going to have much of an affect. People who support Romney will not be that bothered by statement since they will not associate with themselves. People who do not support Romney will be offended by the statements whether or not the statement represents them. A lot of people will not pay attention since it is too complicated to makes sense of. Wow, there is a lot of debate about what was really said.
I think the artful dodger is right that this is just a distraction. The real question is who will do a better job as president over the next four years.
BTW, I am SOOOO glad that Mother Jones did what they did.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/post/voters-like-romney-want-smaller-government/2012/09/18/09959b6e-01a9-11e2-b257-e1c2b3548a4a_blog.html
the reason why the Alex’s of the world who have no basic understanding of economics and exercises transference regularly are coming out of the woodwork is because they know the damage the Obama redistribution quote and the Romney 47% quotes will do to the Democrat party.
Democrats have showed a deep economic illiteracy at a time when this country needs adults who understand economics running things.
And don’t get me wrong. There are plenty of Republicans who don’t understand economics either.
We all need a helping hand,
he said. There’s no reason to stand
on outdated modes of self respect,
when your good life you can just elect.
And in other news today. the middle east is in flames.
Now back to our top story:
Somebody said something a few months ago that someone else thought would look bad if they flogged it.
Alex is not a typical liberal. He is rather an Alinskyite. What has he been doing on this post is typical Alinsky. He’s mostly trying to create division and a sense of doubt. He believes he is clever enough to make the commenters here look like no-nothings. Notice the way he assumes his points are superior. He KNOWS without doubt what Romney said. He KNOWS Romney is a a rich snob who has contempt for anyone who isn’t rich. He KNOWS Romney is a flip flopper who will say anything to get elected. Ignore him. His KNOWLEDGE of what is in Romney’s brain is typical leftist mumbo jumbo.
What people like Alex would like to get folks to forget about is Obama’s “bitter clingers,” “you didn’t build that,” and “as soon as I am inaugarated tension with the Muslim world will end.” There are many other Obama gaffes, but those are just a few.
Best to let him prattle on about obscenely rich people who have no compassion. If that’s what he KNOWS, well isn’t that special.
Maybe I missed something, as there are a lot of comments here and I had to skim to some degree, but I’m afraid I’m more or less in agreement with alex. I wouldn’t put it quite so strongly as “deep contempt” etc., but I think Romney’s statement was horrendous. The horrendousness is in the fact that he does not distinguish, in marking out his 47%, people who see themselves as victims, think the government owes them a living, and refuse to take responsibility for their lives, and people who are working very hard and barely surviving. As Alex said, that may not be exactly what he meant, but that is what he said. I’m sorry, really sorry, because I am an anybody-but-Obama guy, but that is what he said–as quoted here. If there is additional context that changes the clear sense of this excerpt, I would be glad to hear of it. Of course his point about dependence and entitlement is valid, but it’s buried in the other things he said. I’m in a bit of a rush at the moment and can’t find the text, but while what he meant to say may have been fine, or mostly fine, what he actually said was terrible. I can only hope that this will fade away and that those ever-popular swing voters who aren’t really paying attention will miss or forget this.
I agree, btw, that Obama’s bitter clingers stuff was worse as far as totally not getting the USA is concerned. But that wasn’t pounded into people’s consciousness by the media the way this will be. It’s grossly unfair, but the MSM do make a difference.
Mac,
What MR said was an off the cuff comment to a friendly group that months later has conveniently surfaced to create a talking point for MSM running dog lackeys. Is there any denying that some % are willingly dependent upon others to pay for government funded programs and that many of them never lifted a hand to help themselves?
I’m so tired of the whiners. I have little patience for those who want something for nothing. I’m willing to assist those who are willing to help themselves. I’m not willing to help those who want others to provide for them in perpetuity. Those people should crawl off into a sewer and die.
Alex is not a typical liberal. He is rather an Alinskyite. What has he been doing on this post is typical Alinsky.
Yep.
MJR,
If only compromise, reason and logic were sufficient for deeper communication with liberals. Unfortunately, the benefits of that approach are, at best fleeting. That is because “the narrative” from the MSM, the left’s propaganda organ, never ceases.
That narrative consists of half-truths, distortions and outright lies. It appeals to the emotions and characterizes the motivations of conservatives as moronic at the common man level, selfish at management level and evil at the ownership level.
It’s common for the liberal/left to end discussion by simply attaching the label of racist to anyone who disagrees with them. Already liberal pundits are characterizing an Obama loss as motivated by racism.
So tell me, what ‘caring liberal’ is going to listen to a racist? What argument can the ‘racist’ offer? How do you prove you’re not a racist when your position is simplistically labeled as racist and the ‘fourth estate’ almost universally supports that characterization?
I didn’t think that
A
L
E
X
would answer the multiple choice questions above.
Hit and run non-thinking liberal.
Parker– But that’s not the point. If Romney had limited himself to your “Is there any denying..” point, it would have been ok. But he said a whole lot more. He wrote off 47% of the country’s population as layabouts who think the world owes them a living. If that’s not a catastrophic blunder, it will only be because people aren’t paying attention. And I have to say I think less of him now. Sure, he may not have meant exactly what he said, but it came pretty easily to him.
He made, basically, three separate statements about the 47%: (1) they will vote for the president no matter what (2) they believe they are victims and that the government should take care of them (3) they pay no income tax. He didn’t distinguish these three groups, but lumped them all into the 47%. I.e., all the people whose incomes are low enough or for some other reason don’t pay income tax are shiftless moochers. Alex is not far off in calling this contemptuous.
I hope I’m being pessimistic, but I’m afraid Romney just gave us four more years of Obama, and that may be just enough to push the republic over the edge it’s been tottering on for a long time now and turn it into something else.
Hit and run non-thinking liberal.
C’mon, he’s clocked out. Soros doesn’t pay overtime.
M J R, 4:38 pm:
“[N]o, they’re not all moochers. Many are indeed reaching for that American dream Romney talks about so appreciatively.”
Geoffrey Britain, 9:03 pm:
“So tell me, what ‘caring liberal’ is going to listen to a racist? What argument can the ‘racist’ offer? How do you prove you’re not a racist when your position is simplistically labeled as racist and the ‘fourth estate’ almost universally supports that characterization?”
M J R, now:
Your points are well-taken, but hear me out . . .
No “caring liberal” is going to listen to a racist, or even to Mitt Romney. He’s not aiming for those, nor am I.
My point is trying to be, there are a few out there who are not even necessarily liberal, and who are not moochers, and who are trying to climb aboard the productivity train.
(Aside — It’s tough landing a job out there, even when one is essentially conservative [^not^ a “caring liberal”] but is nevertheless un- or under-employed.)
Sez M J R, we don’t need to paint with such a broad brush. My description above (the “few out there”) may apply to only (say) 4 percent of Romney’s 47 percent, but I think he has something important to say to them that they just may consider.
And those 4 or whatever percent, to whom Romney could be reaching out, can make the difference between The One’s irreversible leftie utopia and, with Romney, a nonzero-probability shot at righting this ailing ship. Admittedly, that nonzero probability is not large, but it’s all we can hang on to for now.
President Reagan’s final warning to America.
http://preview.tinyurl.com/94mjtrn
His farewell speech from the Oval Office ended with a warning to us, his fellow Americans. The whole speech is wonderful, but if you scroll to 15:07, you will hear his warning.
It gave me chills. He was right.
“C’mon, he’s clocked out. Soros doesn’t pay overtime”
Beat me to it, OB, except I was going to say “Axelrod”.
Alex: That’s not what he said. Listen to the tape. Oh, forget it — everyone ELSE should watch the video: CSPAN has the whole 50 minutes (actually, there’s a break in the middle somewhere. Who knows what the journos censored.)
Mitt comes across as very smart, really on top of all the issues, and VERY serious about pulling America out of the ditch the Left has driven her into. And his remark about the 47% was that 47 percent of Americans are getting some kind of government assistance, NOT that “they’re all on welfare.” And he said, I think with some cause, that those people will vote for the democrat every time.
He also pointed out that our Navy is now smaller than it’s been since WORLD WAR I. “And Obama wants to reduce it!”
“. . . the faux sensitive outrage they evince about some aspect of some pro-American figure, and acting as though for that reason alone, they now oppose him, as if they might have supported him otherwise.”
Occam’s Beard, I wish we could replicate you and send you forth into the land. You have nailed it — again.
@alex: September 18th, 2012 at 4:47 pm
Alex, Alex, Alex.
You seriously think it’s a good idea to ask “How can we elect a man who thinks half of Americans are mindless …“? What? – Cretins? Clingers? Gun-toting racists? Bible thumping redneck hoosiers with dirt under their hard-scrabble broken blood-soaked fingernails?
Umm: been there, done that?
Have you really not paid any attention at all to what the guy sitting in the Oval Office regularly says? And has been saying the past four years? And has continued to say? IN FRICKIN’ PUBLIC???!
Dude!
How can we elect a guy who thinks half of Americans …yada-yada?
Heh.
No. Not “heh”. More like LOL.
Maybe …just maybe …we can elect “a man like that” because we** did elect that person you’re describing. In 2008.
**we=you presumably, lol. (I don’t want to take any credit from your past political “victory” whatsoever for that frickin’ historical disaster.)
For jeezus sake.
The quid pro quo of your quod erat demonstrandum is completely asinine.
(And that’s using your own argument.)
Which is NOT to even suggest that I would agree with your assertion that Romney’s “implication” IS actually “one and the same” (which argument I made earlier in the discussion).
The best you could have hoped for with this line of argumentum is “Well, Romney might be as bad as Obama. Maybe.”
LOL.
Really? That’s all you got?
I don’t think so. At all.
The parasites are the multi-generational families who have never worked and thus pay no taxes beyond sales taxes, they receive various welfare payments, and they see no reason to change because they do believe they are victims of ‘the man’ and ‘the man’ owes them. And before this is viewed as racist, this parasitic class is not limited to any one race.
For those in Massachusetts who’ve listened to the Howie Carr show over the years, I need only mention the name “Claribel Ventura.” Everyone else google the name for a perfect example of the above dead-on comment.