http://www.motherjones.com/
I guess his true colors come out when he's with his fellow 1%ers. Ironically, he sounds a lot much more comfortable, presidential, and intellectual there than when we've seen him with the press or on the campaign trail pandering to the "regular folks" (where he is usually awkward and ludicrous). I guess Romney didn't become CEO without having some verbal skills with the right crowds.
Even for him, it's shocking how explicitly he dismisses the "lower 47%" who are solidly Democrat. As a presidential candidate and a possible president, "it's not his job" to care about them - half of America! Of course his assumptions about those folks are way off, which may make it easier for him and his peers to justify policies that further disadvantage them vs. the upper class.
I did find his comments about independent voters fairly interesting. He answered an audience question that he can't go after Obama personally, because the independents who voted for Obama in 2008 still like the guy (and Mitt's likeability rating is so low). They are disappointed with Obama's performance but won't reject him as a failure, because that would mean admitting to themselves that they voted poorly. They instead blame conditions during his presidency. So all Romney can do is just keep pushing big lies about the economy to those voters, and hope that they are persuaded.
---------
Now Romney follows up with his great grasp of foreign affairs: http://www.motherjones.com/
He's clearly less comfortable with these matters, as he reverted to his usual whiny, rambling, opaque nature. First the Palestinians have an inferior culture, and now none of them are interested in peace. I wonder if he's ever even spoken with a Palestinian.
--------
How much of what he said is actually wrong and how much of it is saying the right (or arguably right) thing the wrong way?
--------
I take issue with the substance of what he said and how he delivered it. It was an attack on nearly half the population. The ironic thing is that many of the 47% that don't pay taxes are actually Republicans (senior citizens, military, veterans, white working class, etc.). I imagine that a fair percentage of the voting class in the "red" America are in that class. But he just groups them together as "victims". It is very degrading.
I don't think most people who don't make enough money to pay federal income tax consider themselves victims or are necessarily content with their situation. I think the majority are working or even have multiple jobs to support themselves or their families and Romney's comments are a spit in the face. I would dare say an insult to their labor.
And, yes, I think the government does have an obligation to provide a minimum level of health insurance to its citizens. I also think the government has a responsibilty to provide for education and providing subsistance and to promote policies that encourage responsible job growth. The whole society benefits not just those who are helped.
In addition, his comments are misleading because practically everyone in this country pays some sort of tax even- even those making the least who can least afford to do so. Payroll taxes, social security, sales tax, state tax, gas tax, propert tax, etc.
What Romney and a segment of the Republican party don't understand is that everyone needs help at one point or anther. At some point everyone needs a break. Even the most successful entrepreneurs (like Romney or Trump for example) couldn't have done it alone. They mistakenly believe that by recognizing this obvious fact they would repudiate the theory that hard work, determination, ingenuity, and risk taking are the keys to success. No one disputes that these are the keys but these traits alone are not always enough.
--------
I agree with your comments and thx for writing.
For Romney, let me put it this way: what does he ever get right about socioeconomics?
Let's face it, we are ALL dependent on government to some extent, from Romney down to the homeless. Profitable companies can't exist without IP protection, transport and communication infrastructure, a central bank, etc. (unless they are criminal entities, which some are). If government somehow disappeared or became totally libertarian, can you imagine an America where everything was privately owned and unregulated? Knowing Americans, it would make Mad Max look like Utopia.
Romney is complaining like it's somehow wrong that those who may consume more gov't services will vote Dem no matter what. Well duh, what are the GOP offering them as a better alternative? They want to cut programs and make their lives harder - why would they support that agenda? And remember Mitt when you were governor, you seemed to endorse the idea that healthcare was a right regardless of ability to pay.
It's not like Obama is complaining that all the super-rich are GOP and won't change no matter what. And Obama has given them plenty of reason to like him: the S&P500 tanked under the last GOP president, and soared under him. He hasn't cleaned up Wall St. much at all, though he probably would want to do more. But what those fools don't understand is a smartly regulated Wall St. is BETTER for business. When there is more trust and transparency, people will invest more and markets will be more efficient without costly scandals and bubbles. But despite their love for the free market, I guess they prefer to make their money through arbitrage, trickery, and other uncompetitive, opaque means.
But as L said, plenty of rich people vote Dem and plenty of poor non-taxpayers vote GOP. I think the average net worth of a GOP voter is slightly higher, but that is likely the ultra rich skewing the measurement. The 2 parties are probably more similar than they care to admit from a wealth standpoint. But who are the "freeloaders" really? Maybe during the RNC, you might have caught the Daily Show clip where they were mocking delegates from the states who had the worst "net contributions" (IRS revenues collected - federal cash inflows per capita), suggesting they should be "fired" from the Union as a private sector CEO might prescribe. Only 5 of the bottom 20 states are solidly blue. And only 3 of the top 15 "most profitable" states are solidly red (TX, AR, and NE - probably due to energy). So that suggest the Republicans are the true deadbeats, yet the GOP has amazingly been able to convince many poor to vote against their economic interests. Or maybe not, as GOP leaders seem to have no problem funneling federal dollars to their states, even through the hated Stimulus.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
How about ducking taxes? It's true that many poor liberals don't pay any income or property taxes, but they do contribute in sales and payroll taxes as L said. Labor and consumption are being taxed at higher rates now (which hurts the lower classes more), yet capital is being taxed much less. And maybe you heard about that big $100M whistle-blower award given to the UBS employee who ratted on Americans trying to evade taxes in SWI. The IRS recovered $5 BILLION from the scheme. I don't think it was liberals on welfare who were implicated.
I find it funny and sad - some rich really seem to HATE the poor, even though the poor have never done anything to hurt them, either directly or indirectly. I don't get it. Is it just a political tactic to get the poor conservatives to blame/hate poor liberals and the Dem Party for their troubles? And these poor-hating GOP 1%ers often wear their Christianity on their sleeves, yet that religion explicitly teaches that the rich are not going to heaven and blessed are the poor. Mitt probably only gives so much because of LDS-imposed tithes, and he gives mostly internally, to church causes. OTOH, the poor have plenty to be upset about the rich, but many of them take a much better attitude: take only what you need, live and let live. We volunteer with a group that gives assistance to needy people (with no eligibility conditions attached, unlike welfare-to-work or whatever compromise programs). After meeting at least 50 Bay Area households over 7 years, I would say that only about 5% of them fit the GOP stereotype of the lazy, entitled, "victim" moocher (and I'm not sure how they vote). Most are tremendously appreciative for the little "handouts" they get, and they are facing hardships that we can't even fathom. I know that is not scientifically valid, but I don't think it would be too tough to find some supportive national data either.
A robust middle class contributed significantly to America's rise as the biggest economy and "greatest" nation. Many other empires have had a super-wealthy upper class supported by peasant masses, but many of those nations crumbled - often due to economic causes. A confident, socially secure, prosperous, and growing middle class is what separates us from the Third World. To be a great nation, we don't need more rich people, we don't need to empower them more, but we do need more poor people able to become middle class. If Romney doesn't get that, then he doesn't deserve to lead anyone.
--------
If i wanted to be kind to Mitt I would say that he is approaching this the only way he knows how, from a business perspective. Those folks reliant on govt programs and that don't pay taxes, regardless of whatever value he places on them as people, what should he be spending on them in election effort? He wants to lower taxes and cut programs, neither one speaks to their interests. Why bother catering to them? No fault in that logic. The problem is when he keeps not caring WHILE president, or devalues them because they are poor/dependent. Things like that.
But I think i understand where he was trying to come from. Product of his upbringing so to speak.
-------
Yes I guess you're right that there's no point in Romney to court poor
liberals, but he doesn't have to denigrate them instead. Like Obama is
clearly not trying to woo voters in TX and UT, but he's not talking crap
about them with ludicrous, inaccurate generalizations either (well not
in public or on hidden cam at least).
The irony is that Romney is in fact indirectly pandering to the poor, but using social issues instead. Like we discussed, red states tend to be more dependent on federal money than blue states per capita. So his agenda of cutting programs should make those people angry. But they don't because I guess they take their federal assistance for granted, and instead care more about abortion, gun rights, illegals, gay marriage, etc. Romney fires up those folks with those issues so they forget that his economic agenda will actually hurt them. It's kind of sick actually, but I guess I can't blame Romney for their lack of awareness.
The irony is that Romney is in fact indirectly pandering to the poor, but using social issues instead. Like we discussed, red states tend to be more dependent on federal money than blue states per capita. So his agenda of cutting programs should make those people angry. But they don't because I guess they take their federal assistance for granted, and instead care more about abortion, gun rights, illegals, gay marriage, etc. Romney fires up those folks with those issues so they forget that his economic agenda will actually hurt them. It's kind of sick actually, but I guess I can't blame Romney for their lack of awareness.
-------
I should add that his nominee for VP (Paul Ryan) routinely criticizes
the stimulus but fails to mention that he voted for it and happily
accepted the federal funds for his state. Spending money to help the
poor, the sick, the disenfranchised, and the discrimanated against is
bad but if it helps those that can raise you money and help you keep
political office that's okay. I'm not saying the Democrats don't do the
same thing but they are not the ones saying we need to balance the
budget on the backs of the poor and middle class.
The income gap in this country is growing higher and higher, especially at the top one percent. If they are reaping the rewards of this new economy, why should the poor and middle class have to make all the sacrifices. In addition, they are the ones who caused the current financial crisis for their failure (to put it kindly) to identify systemic risk in their transactions out short sighted greed. Instead of holding them responsible, we reward them and encourage their behavior in the name of free market capitalism and pursuit of the American dream. Romney can't understand this because he is the poster-boy of this flawed ideology.
The income gap in this country is growing higher and higher, especially at the top one percent. If they are reaping the rewards of this new economy, why should the poor and middle class have to make all the sacrifices. In addition, they are the ones who caused the current financial crisis for their failure (to put it kindly) to identify systemic risk in their transactions out short sighted greed. Instead of holding them responsible, we reward them and encourage their behavior in the name of free market capitalism and pursuit of the American dream. Romney can't understand this because he is the poster-boy of this flawed ideology.
--------
Didn't he also call 'those Iranians' crazy people? boy, he's a funny guy.
--------
Yeah and by his definition, Israel and the US are also "crazy" then:
- Led by a religious political party (more so in Israel)
- Developed a nuclear weapons program covertly
- Engages in espionage/terrorism overseas in violation of international laws
- Launches first strikes on other nations
- Blackmails other nations with force (more so for the US)
- Led by a religious political party (more so in Israel)
- Developed a nuclear weapons program covertly
- Engages in espionage/terrorism overseas in violation of international laws
- Launches first strikes on other nations
- Blackmails other nations with force (more so for the US)
-----------
With this new info, one could argue that Mitt and George Romney's successes are partly due to welfare!
http://www.npr.org/blogs/
Why do the Romneys have the right to utilize government benefits to climb the ladder and make the American Dream a reality, and now that Mitt reached the top, he wants to cut off millions of others just as deserving as his family back then, if not more. Don't the new generations have contributions to make if given a chance? I wonder what George would have told to a politician who was campaigning to cut off his assistance back then.
I know America is different now and we have new fiscal realities. But personally if I knew these were my roots, I couldn't live with myself to adopt such an conflicting platform. Funny that Mitt tries to campaign like he knows how to make something of oneself, and that his family embodies the American Dream of moving up (not to mention all the hating he does on people who have not demonstrated such success). Maybe that is a legit case to make, but then don't leave out the inconvenient details that you were only able to achieve what you did because the US government, the nanny government, the socialist activist government, the source of all our problems, the thing Grover N and the TP want to kill... gave you a handout when you needed it most - and that was the catalyst to your better life.
With this new info, one could argue that Mitt and George Romney's successes are partly due to welfare!
http://www.npr.org/blogs/
Why do the Romneys have the right to utilize government benefits to climb the ladder and make the American Dream a reality, and now that Mitt reached the top, he wants to cut off millions of others just as deserving as his family back then, if not more. Don't the new generations have contributions to make if given a chance? I wonder what George would have told to a politician who was campaigning to cut off his assistance back then.
I know America is different now and we have new fiscal realities. But personally if I knew these were my roots, I couldn't live with myself to adopt such an conflicting platform. Funny that Mitt tries to campaign like he knows how to make something of oneself, and that his family embodies the American Dream of moving up (not to mention all the hating he does on people who have not demonstrated such success). Maybe that is a legit case to make, but then don't leave out the inconvenient details that you were only able to achieve what you did because the US government, the nanny government, the socialist activist government, the source of all our problems, the thing Grover N and the TP want to kill... gave you a handout when you needed it most - and that was the catalyst to your better life.
No comments:
Post a Comment