or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › ūüöď Conservative Elite Mitt Romney: 47% of Americans Are Hopeless Losers Who Never Wash.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

ūüöď Conservative Elite Mitt Romney: 47% of Americans Are Hopeless Losers Who Never Wash. - Page 4

post #121 of 197
Social Security will not exist (at least not in the form it does today) by the time I retire. I fully acknowledge the reality that I am being forced under threat of violence to pay into a system from which I will receive little or no benefit and have tried to make my own preparations for retirement income.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #122 of 197
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

I agree that a generalization will never, by definition, be exact, but my argument, as has been noted by many others, is that they are not even nearly aligned, and that there are many of his supporters in that 47%. I realize that you believe that not to be the case, which baffles me, because it is easy to verify, but I accept that we disagree on that.

 

They are not aligned using what criteria, party? We discussed that in depth already. We also discussed in depth the fact that if you cite a source that declares say 30% of Republicans in this group that winning a demographic, say low income Republicans often means winning it 55-45 or perhaps 60-40. Could it be that when Romney, as most Republicans have done losses 10% of Republicans to Obama, winning the remaining 90%, that 10% disproportionately comes from this low income, dependent or government seeking group? I'd suggest yes and I'd suggest that has been true for a while.

 

I think the reason we keep talking past each other on this is you see a number like 30% and assign it as a gigantic block aka it is significant. I know that even in blocks where a candidate cleans up, it often means a 10 point advantage at best aka 55-45.

 

Quote:

Here I agree with you entirely that they accept the risk of alienating small fractions. This was not a small fraction though. I realize that you disagree.

 

I do disagree. No group is monolithic and even when there are huge gaps, you don't get anywhere near 100. Obama has the support of 60% of single women. That is considered a massive advantage. You take the percentage who are voting for Romney, then see how many are poor, dependent, etc. It becomes a small faction, a micro-slice of the electorate.

 

Quote:
Actually it doesn't mean that - it appears to be a completely made up compound word. But I understand what you mean by it, and that is not what I am doing because I regard his generalization as deeply flawed, rather than just not 100% accurate.

 

I've seen it use often in philosophical discussions. I know I'm not the only one who uses it. We disagree here because as I mentioned as examples, what you weigh and your body temp can been seen as deeply flawed if considered as specific points rather than a sort of rolling average.

 

Quote:

Are you actually arguing that no generalization can ever be wrong? If so then it rather ends the discussion. If not, then even if you disagree with me, I'm arguing that this one is wrong. It's more analogous to someone claiming that body temperature is, say, 130 F, and me arguing that is wrong.

 

So it's clear where we disagree; not on what constitutes a generalization, but that you think his generalization was accurate enough to be a reasonable generalization, whereas I think it was so inaccurate as to be a very poor generalization, and an unwise one because it amounts to belittling a different group of his own supporters than the one he was addressing. Not an issue, of course, unless the word gets out, which it did.

 

Actually I'm arguing almost every generalization can be wrong when not used as a generalization. I'd agree with what you are saying about body temp and see it applied to this example except for one thing, we are discussing accurate numbers but what and if sub-groups of those numbers will be insulted or alienated with their inclusion into those numbers. The numbers 47% not paying taxes and receiving services are accurate. Whether the members of both groups are 100% in each group or if they are Republicans, and will they vote for Romney and to what percentage, those are are all much smaller numbers.

 

Let's say you are right and Romney completely alienated a certain subgroup. Let's say he alienated Republicans who are both poor and receiving benefits. Republicans are 35% of the voting population, not even of the entire population, just the voting population. Most poor are children and they are part of that 47% group of Americans. So knock it down to just adults. Then knock it down to whatever percentage of that 47% is both Republican, receiving benefits, are poor and now will no longer vote for Romney. What percentage do you think that might be? Give me a number and show the number in prior percentages of Republican voting patterns and now the new outcome.

 

Quote:
I do not understand your argument here. Are you saying that I cannot validly criticize Romney because I do not equally criticize Obama? What does that imply for all the stuff that you post about Obama? I haven't seen a single post of yours criticizing Romney. Do you believe somehow that events cannot be discussed on their own merits? What does Obama's comment on Egypt have to do with Romney's comment on US welfare?

 

Clearly you weren't here during the Republican primary. That's really all I can say about that. Hahahahahaha.lol.gif

 

Quote:
If you are asking what I think of Obama's comment on Egypt (although I doubt you care at all what I think), then I think that he was sending a message to pressure the new Egyptian Government into thinking carefully about where their best interests may lie. I would suspect the message was received. His statement was factually incorrect, as confirmed by the State Department, because Congress had designated Egypt as an ally in 1989. Was it a wise comment - I think it was too strong, and devalued by the fact that it was incorrect. Will it lose him votes? Probably not - I doubt many Americans care enough about Egypt to let it influence their vote, and I would expect that more are likely to resonate with a blunt message to Egypt at this time than care about whether it was accurate.

 

We would be in complete agreement on your assessment there. The point though is that these gaffes happen pretty much all the time. The partisan press highlights and blows them into huge matters with Romney trying to whip up a unthinking mob of opposition. For Obama they don't do that but that doesn't mean Obama doesn't make the same or even larger mistakes. Most voters, no matter their criteria do not vote on gaffes or mis-statements or any other such nonsense. They vote their party, their issue and if they are low information, then in my view they vote their pocketbook. We have lots of fun discussing these matters because we enjoy politics and here we can drive each other crazy instead of our neighbors. The majority of the world will not determine their vote based on Obama and Egypt nor Romney and his fundraising shorthand about the 47%.

 

Quote:
So why have fun with "hyper-rationalizing" if you don't approve of it. Is that just an easy way to avoid addressing my points? Never mind - let's address your questions anyway, even though no doubt you already know the answers. As I'm sure you have already researched, estimates of the fraction vary. None that I have seen are less than 30% of the 47%, which I would regard as significant, but you may not. Some are over 50%, which is significant by definition. I started with Wikipedia and then checked a number of national news sources that had researched the same question. I'll leave it to you to find a data source that you trust. How often they have voted Republican was not included in the data that I saw. Asking how many will change their vote is not useful, since that is not yet knowable.

 

I hit on those numbers a bit above. Remember it didn't say 47% of voters. It said 47% of Americans as a starting point. I doubt we can find a source that shows the gap of this group from prior elections and the new gap for Romney after this statement. If we can and if it is significant say 10 points more than the prior breakdown, I'll gladly concede the point.

 

Quote:

To go back to your original point on the welfare issue - that Romney does not support the idea of permanent welfare for able workers - do you believe that the Democrats or Obama do support that?

 

I do believe Democrats and Obama support that though they would never label it as permanent welfare for able workers. They will call it income assistance for working poor or Social Security Disability even though it covers traits like being "disabled" for ADD/ADHD. They support it but of course try to provide cover for themselves because the position is untenable for the general voting population.

 

Quote:
We may have exhausted this discussion, since not only do we obviously disagree on the subject of the discussion, but apparently we don't even agree on how to have a discussion. It doesn't seem to me that you are really even here for a discussion so much as to find a soapbox. I'll respond again if you have anything more substantive to add than yammering on at me about generalizations and "hyper-rationalization".

 

Have fun.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Harald II View Post


Yeah. Very difficult to discuss something with someone who can't engage in the normal logic of debate.

 

Enjoy the mob and the "truth" they bring you.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Stop it.  Just stop.  You aren't real.  Stop it.

 

Prove you are real.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Social Security will not exist (at least not in the form it does today) by the time I retire. I fully acknowledge the reality that I am being forced under threat of violence to pay into a system from which I will receive little or no benefit and have tried to make my own preparations for retirement income.

 

You're being so undiplomatic there JG. Be careful, a nice mob of old people benefitting from the greatest transfer of wealth from one generation to another in history will take offense at your truth and will look badly upon you. This will be proof you got what you deserved since you made them feel bad. /s

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #123 of 197
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post


Enjoy the mob and the "truth" they bring you.

I actually think you're mischaracterising my argument not because you are trolling but because you don't understand it. That's actually worse.
post #124 of 197
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

If you look at the voting demographics from any number of different sources, it is apparent that a significant fraction of that 47% vote Republican. I'm sure Romney did not intend to include them in that group, but he invoked the 47% and they are there nonetheless. That is the mistake that I believe he made. 

 

I think that's entirely reasonable.  Well put.  

 

 

 

Quote:
As for those who live permanently on benefits without really trying to escape that plight - I've no quarrel with Romney on his views there. However, on that issue, neither has Obama. I'm not aware that anyone supports permanent welfare for such people as opposed to trying to get them back to work, and the current system to deal with them is no different to that under previous Republican administrations.

 

I disagree with that.  Obama has done nothing but massively expand the entitlement state.  He has taken no action whatsoever in terms of welfare reform, and in fact has gone backwards.  He created a new healthcare entitlement.  Social welfare programs have exploded in terms of enrollment.  He is clearly moving in pro-welfare direction, which he views as an effective way to redistribute wealth---something he wholeheartedly believes in.  

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post

I think it is clear by the efforts the GOP is going to to twist and spin Mittens' comments that they are more than aware that he misspoke and might have blown the election.  They really seem to be i panic mode at the moment and if they're not careful, they will do it again.

 

Ann said, "Stop it.  This is hard."  To her own party.  

 

Mittens manipulates his tax return, and by his own statement about if he pays more than legally required he is unfit, declares himself unfit for the WH.

 

And the Right continues to twist and spin.

 

There is nothing to twist.  They were comments not designed for public consumption.  Naturally, the media and the Obama campaign have used those comments to continue to spin the narrative that Romney hates half the country.   That's all it is.  

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Stop it.  Just stop.  You aren't real.  Stop it.

 

^Like.  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #125 of 197

 

 

Quote:
Quote:Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

I agree that a generalization will never, by definition, be exact, but my argument, as has been noted by many others, is that they are not even nearly aligned, and that there are many of his supporters in that 47%. I realize that you believe that not to be the case, which baffles me, because it is easy to verify, but I accept that we disagree on that.

 

They are not aligned using what criteria, party? We discussed that in depth already. We also discussed in depth the fact that if you cite a source that declares say 30% of Republicans in this group that winning a demographic, say low income Republicans often means winning it 55-45 or perhaps 60-40. Could it be that when Romney, as most Republicans have done losses 10% of Republicans to Obama, winning the remaining 90%, that 10% disproportionately comes from this low income, dependent or government seeking group? I'd suggest yes and I'd suggest that has been true for a while.

 

I think the reason we keep talking past each other on this is you see a number like 30% and assign it as a gigantic block aka it is significant. I know that even in blocks where a candidate cleans up, it often means a 10 point advantage at best aka 55-45.

 

What's going on? Stop being reasonable - you are confusing me. OK - seriously though - that's a slightly different of looking at it. I meant by party, or more specifically voting pattern. I think I understand what you are saying to be that due to the demographics of this (non-tax paying) group, they might anyway be disproportionately represented in those right-leaning voters that Romney might expect to lose to Obama, presumably even without the statement that he made. You could also have added that his statement could potentially attract the votes of tax-paying Democrats who resent their taxes being used for such extensive welfare.

 

If so, that immediately suggests another interesting question; is that purely fortuitous, or did Romney factor that in before saying it? Given that he never used it in a public forum, I would tend to conclude that he did not regard that as an overall strategy and that if there is a potential benefit it is just fortuitous. What do you think?

 

 

Quote:
Quote:

Here I agree with you entirely that they accept the risk of alienating small fractions. This was not a small fraction though. I realize that you disagree.

 

I do disagree. No group is monolithic and even when there are huge gaps, you don't get anywhere near 100. Obama has the support of 60% of single women. That is considered a massive advantage. You take the percentage who are voting for Romney, then see how many are poor, dependent, etc. It becomes a small faction, a micro-slice of the electorate.

 

I agree with the first statement, but I'm not sure that I see how the second (bolded) can be true. Again - if you look at demographic data, we have 47% the population as non-taxpayers, and roughly the same percentage (although not entirely the same group of people) on benefits of some kind. Even if only 30% of some combination of those groups would be likely to vote for Romney, that would still be 15% of the population. That doesn't seem like a small fraction to me, given the small percentages that tend to win elections. Are you seeing another factor that reduces it further?

 

 

Quote:
Quote:

Are you actually arguing that no generalization can ever be wrong? If so then it rather ends the discussion. If not, then even if you disagree with me, I'm arguing that this one is wrong. It's more analogous to someone claiming that body temperature is, say, 130 F, and me arguing that is wrong.

 

So it's clear where we disagree; not on what constitutes a generalization, but that you think his generalization was accurate enough to be a reasonable generalization, whereas I think it was so inaccurate as to be a very poor generalization, and an unwise one because it amounts to belittling a different group of his own supporters than the one he was addressing. Not an issue, of course, unless the word gets out, which it did.

 

Actually I'm arguing almost every generalization can be wrong when not used as a generalization. I'd agree with what you are saying about body temp and see it applied to this example except for one thing, we are discussing accurate numbers but what and if sub-groups of those numbers will be insulted or alienated with their inclusion into those numbers. The numbers 47% not paying taxes and receiving services are accurate. Whether the members of both groups are 100% in each group or if they are Republicans, and will they vote for Romney and to what percentage, those are are all much smaller numbers.

 

Let's say you are right and Romney completely alienated a certain subgroup. Let's say he alienated Republicans who are both poor and receiving benefits. Republicans are 35% of the voting population, not even of the entire population, just the voting population. Most poor are children and they are part of that 47% group of Americans. So knock it down to just adults. Then knock it down to whatever percentage of that 47% is both Republican, receiving benefits, are poor and now will no longer vote for Romney. What percentage do you think that might be? Give me a number and show the number in prior percentages of Republican voting patterns and now the new outcome.

 

Well posed. A couple of observations though: while Republicans may only be 35% of the population, Presidential elections seem to be won with approximately 50% of the vote (sometimes a bit less). Voter turnout varies somewhat, but is it reasonable to assume that the to an adequate approximation, the subset of the population that votes in an election is demographically similar to the complete population, excluding the non-voting children and other ineligibles, who appear to comprise around 15%? I would have expected that it would be close, and I've seen no data to indicate otherwise. If that is the case, then the 47% of the population who pay no tax etc. becomes 40% of the actual eligible voting population, and, as a result, close to 40% of the actual votes cast. Going back to the earlier numbers (30% - 50% of the 47% would normally be expected to vote Republican), that would imply that 12% - 20% of the votes cast would be from people in that category who would normally vote Republican.

 

That's as far as I can calculate because I cannot estimate how many of those 12% - 20% of votes cast would have voted for Romney had he not said what he did about them. Obviously if they all changed allegiance that would be bad for him; if it were just a tenth of them then it would represent a swing of 2.4% - 4%, but even that is not insignificant. Of course I have not factored in the possibility that I mentioned earlier that his comment might actually win him some voters who would otherwise have voted for Obama.

 

 

Quote:
Quote:
I do not understand your argument here. Are you saying that I cannot validly criticize Romney because I do not equally criticize Obama? What does that imply for all the stuff that you post about Obama? I haven't seen a single post of yours criticizing Romney. Do you believe somehow that events cannot be discussed on their own merits? What does Obama's comment on Egypt have to do with Romney's comment on US welfare?

 

Clearly you weren't here during the Republican primary. That's really all I can say about that. Hahahahahaha.lol.gif

 

Fair enough - I was not paying attention back then. I guess that he was not your preferred choice. Who was?

 

 

Quote:

 

Quote:

If you are asking what I think of Obama's comment on Egypt (although I doubt you care at all what I think), then I think that he was sending a message to pressure the new Egyptian Government into thinking carefully about where their best interests may lie. I would suspect the message was received. His statement was factually incorrect, as confirmed by the State Department, because Congress had designated Egypt as an ally in 1989. Was it a wise comment - I think it was too strong, and devalued by the fact that it was incorrect. Will it lose him votes? Probably not - I doubt many Americans care enough about Egypt to let it influence their vote, and I would expect that more are likely to resonate with a blunt message to Egypt at this time than care about whether it was accurate.

 

We would be in complete agreement on your assessment there. The point though is that these gaffes happen pretty much all the time. The partisan press highlights and blows them into huge matters with Romney trying to whip up a unthinking mob of opposition. For Obama they don't do that but that doesn't mean Obama doesn't make the same or even larger mistakes. Most voters, no matter their criteria do not vote on gaffes or mis-statements or any other such nonsense. They vote their party, their issue and if they are low information, then in my view they vote their pocketbook. We have lots of fun discussing these matters because we enjoy politics and here we can drive each other crazy instead of our neighbors. The majority of the world will not determine their vote based on Obama and Egypt nor Romney and his fundraising shorthand about the 47%.

 

The only difference between those cases is that one could argue that offending some of his own supporters might have worse consequences than making an inaccurate statement about an ally that hardly anyone cares about.

 

 

Quote:
Quote:
So why have fun with "hyper-rationalizing" if you don't approve of it. Is that just an easy way to avoid addressing my points? Never mind - let's address your questions anyway, even though no doubt you already know the answers. As I'm sure you have already researched, estimates of the fraction vary. None that I have seen are less than 30% of the 47%, which I would regard as significant, but you may not. Some are over 50%, which is significant by definition. I started with Wikipedia and then checked a number of national news sources that had researched the same question. I'll leave it to you to find a data source that you trust. How often they have voted Republican was not included in the data that I saw. Asking how many will change their vote is not useful, since that is not yet knowable.

 

I hit on those numbers a bit above. Remember it didn't say 47% of voters. It said 47% of Americans as a starting point. I doubt we can find a source that shows the gap of this group from prior elections and the new gap for Romney after this statement. If we can and if it is significant say 10 points more than the prior breakdown, I'll gladly concede the point.

 

It would be very interesting if those data could be de-convolved from other effects, but I agree that it is unlikely we will ever know for sure.

 

 

Quote:
Quote:

To go back to your original point on the welfare issue - that Romney does not support the idea of permanent welfare for able workers - do you believe that the Democrats or Obama do support that?

 

I do believe Democrats and Obama support that though they would never label it as permanent welfare for able workers. They will call it income assistance for working poor or Social Security Disability even though it covers traits like being "disabled" for ADD/ADHD. They support it but of course try to provide cover for themselves because the position is untenable for the general voting population.

 

So just out of curiosity - given that it is clearly unpopular as a concept, why do you think they would support it? To what end? If it is unpopular to the general voting population, which I would expect to be true, then it would be expected to be a net vote loser. Why would they do that?

 

 

Quote:
Quote:
We may have exhausted this discussion, since not only do we obviously disagree on the subject of the discussion, but apparently we don't even agree on how to have a discussion. It doesn't seem to me that you are really even here for a discussion so much as to find a soapbox. I'll respond again if you have anything more substantive to add than yammering on at me about generalizations and "hyper-rationalization".

 

Have fun.

 

Very funny - so in your determination to prove me wrong, you did apparently prove me wrong in my assertion that we can't have a discussion. I'm happy to concede that one.

 

post #126 of 197
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

If you look at the voting demographics from any number of different sources, it is apparent that a significant fraction of that 47% vote Republican. I'm sure Romney did not intend to include them in that group, but he invoked the 47% and they are there nonetheless. That is the mistake that I believe he made. 

 

I think that's entirely reasonable.  Well put.  

 

Quote:
As for those who live permanently on benefits without really trying to escape that plight - I've no quarrel with Romney on his views there. However, on that issue, neither has Obama. I'm not aware that anyone supports permanent welfare for such people as opposed to trying to get them back to work, and the current system to deal with them is no different to that under previous Republican administrations.

 

I disagree with that.  Obama has done nothing but massively expand the entitlement state.  He has taken no action whatsoever in terms of welfare reform, and in fact has gone backwards.  He created a new healthcare entitlement.  Social welfare programs have exploded in terms of enrollment.  He is clearly moving in pro-welfare direction, which he views as an effective way to redistribute wealth---something he wholeheartedly believes in.  

 

I agree that he has not tried much in the way of welfare reform in the direction that you might like, but neither did President Bush, or anyone else recently. On the other hand, I don't see the healthcare reforms as representing a new form of entitlement. In fact, by comparison to real welfare-funded healthcare such as you find in many other countries, he has shied away from that solution in favor of driving measures to ensure that everyone gets health insurance within the existing healthcare system. It's a very unsocialist solution.

 

I disagree on the wealth redistribution - having listened to those in full, I think that his comments on that were removed from context and substantially distorted. And wealth distribution is a very misused term, since any form of taxation is, by definition, wealth redistribution, and is the primary method of funding all governments. When it specifically refers to transfer of tax revenue to certain demographic groups via benefits then there are certainly philosophical differences between the parties, but not, in my opinion, as much as the Republicans like to imply.

post #127 of 197
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

I agree that he has not tried much in the way of welfare reform in the direction that you might like, but neither did President Bush, or anyone else recently. 

 

President Bush also didn't massively expand programs and remove work requirements.  Obama's expanded these programs beyond belief.  He's advocated for that his entire career.  

 

 

 

 

 

Quote:
On the other hand, I don't see the healthcare reforms as representing a new form of entitlement. In fact, by comparison to real welfare-funded healthcare such as you find in many other countries, he has shied away from that solution in favor of driving measures to ensure that everyone gets health insurance within the existing healthcare system. It's a very unsocialist solution.

 

It doesn't have to be socialist to be an entitlement.  It is most definitely an entitlement, however.  It's a massive expansion to the tune of 2.7 Trillion dollars.  It's not discretionary, so what is it?  It is most definitely an entitlement.  

 

 

Quote:
I disagree on the wealth redistribution - having listened to those in full, I think that his comments on that were removed from context and substantially distorted.

 

You have to be kidding.  I think you might be listening only for what you want to hear.  Obama has talked about redistribution on many occasions.  He believes in what he terms "redistributive change" (through the courts, nonetheless).  He's made these comments both formally and informally multiple times.  This isn't even a question.  

 

 

 

Quote:
And wealth distribution is a very misused term, since any form of taxation is, by definition, wealth redistribution, and is the primary method of funding all governments. When it specifically refers to transfer of tax revenue to certain demographic groups via benefits then there are certainly philosophical differences between the parties, but not, in my opinion, as much as the Republicans like to imply.

 

Taxes do not necessarily equate with "redistribution."  It's the specific uses of the funds that can and are redistributive.  As for the philosophical differences between the parties, they are significant in that regard.  Democrats want to expand the entitlement state as it benefits them in terms of their political base.  And those are just the mainstream Democrats.  The Obama/Reid/Pelosi Dems actually believe that expanding the welfare state is a good thing.  These are the people that claim unemployment checks are job creators.  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #128 of 197
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

 

Well that truly surprises me. I've misread you.

 

 

 

I look forward to some more accurate estimates rather than just hand waves. Currently you're on record for at least $200B based on you your claim (twice now) of "hundreds of billions.) But I'll wait for you to provide some real numbers and links to back them up.

 

 

 

 

Yes, I think you have many times.

 

I've been too busy to research this, but it's something that would be interesting to have a designated thread on to help get to the heart of the matter. I'm too exhausted now (time to put my feet up and forget for a wee bit) but it deserves much more understanding. Start a new thread on it or I will.

"I have been made victorious by terror" ~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
"I have been made victorious by terror" ~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
post #129 of 197
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

I agree that he has not tried much in the way of welfare reform in the direction that you might like, but neither did President Bush, or anyone else recently. 

 

President Bush also didn't massively expand programs and remove work requirements.  Obama's expanded these programs beyond belief.  He's advocated for that his entire career.  

 

I'm not sure which massively expanded programs you are referring to (examples?), and the removal of work requirements accusation has been debunked repeatedly - that is not what those changes enabled.

 

Quote:
Quote:
On the other hand, I don't see the healthcare reforms as representing a new form of entitlement. In fact, by comparison to real welfare-funded healthcare such as you find in many other countries, he has shied away from that solution in favor of driving measures to ensure that everyone gets health insurance within the existing healthcare system. It's a very unsocialist solution.

 

It doesn't have to be socialist to be an entitlement.  It is most definitely an entitlement, however.  It's a massive expansion to the tune of 2.7 Trillion dollars.  It's not discretionary, so what is it?  It is most definitely an entitlement.  

 

Depending on who does the calculation, it either costs more, or it costs less. Most of the complaining seems to have been along the lines that it is illegal for the government to force people to purchase insurance. So who, exactly, do you think is benefitting from this entitlement?

 

Quote:
Quote:
I disagree on the wealth redistribution - having listened to those in full, I think that his comments on that were removed from context and substantially distorted.

 

You have to be kidding.  I think you might be listening only for what you want to hear.  Obama has talked about redistribution on many occasions.  He believes in what he terms "redistributive change" (through the courts, nonetheless).  He's made these comments both formally and informally multiple times.  This isn't even a question.  

 

No, it's absolutely a question. You are arguing that he has used that expression many times - I am arguing that you have misunderstood what he means by it.

 

Quote:
Quote:
And wealth distribution is a very misused term, since any form of taxation is, by definition, wealth redistribution, and is the primary method of funding all governments. When it specifically refers to transfer of tax revenue to certain demographic groups via benefits then there are certainly philosophical differences between the parties, but not, in my opinion, as much as the Republicans like to imply.

 

Taxes do not necessarily equate with "redistribution."  It's the specific uses of the funds that can and are redistributive.  As for the philosophical differences between the parties, they are significant in that regard.  Democrats want to expand the entitlement state as it benefits them in terms of their political base.  And those are just the mainstream Democrats.  The Obama/Reid/Pelosi Dems actually believe that expanding the welfare state is a good thing.  These are the people that claim unemployment checks are job creators.  

 

 

You see I think that you are just making assertions again about the desire to expand the "entitlement state". That's just a slogan without any detail as to what, exactly, this expansion is supposed to comprise. Your earlier example of the work requirements issue is not real - it was just a campaign angle manufactured by Romney's people that doesn't even pass the most cursory examination. A real difference between the parties might be their target tax strategies, but even that is more of a difference on tax structure than on total tax revenue.

post #130 of 197
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

I'm not sure which massively expanded programs you are referring to (examples?), and the removal of work requirements accusation has been debunked repeatedly - that is not what those changes enabled.

 

 

 

Food stamps.  Disability.  And yes, the work requirements have been changed (or allowed to be changed).  What Obama has done with the latter is waive another federal law.  Surprise.  

 

 

Depending on who does the calculation, it either costs more, or it costs less. Most of the complaining seems to have been along the lines that it is illegal for the government to force people to purchase insurance. So who, exactly, do you think is benefitting from this entitlement?

 

 

 

Complaining?  Yep, that's about how our representatives view legitimate debate.   As for the program, there is absolutely no legitimate analysis that says it costs less.   

 

 

 

 

Quote:

No, it's absolutely a question. You are arguing that he has used that expression many times - I am arguing that you have misunderstood what he means by it.

 

 

You're entitled (see what I did there?) to make an unsupported, ridiculous argument.  Perhaps you could explain to me what he meant by: 

  • Redistributive change
  • "When you spread the wealth around, I think everyone does better."¬†
  • "...I actually believe in redistribution...at least to a point...to make sure everybody's gotta fair shot." ¬†

 

 

 

 

 

Quote:
You see I think that you are just making assertions again about the desire to expand the "entitlement state". That's just a slogan without any detail as to what, exactly, this expansion is supposed to comprise. Your earlier example of the work requirements issue is not real - it was just a campaign angle manufactured by Romney's people that doesn't even pass the most cursory examination. A real difference between the parties might be their target tax strategies, but even that is more of a difference on tax structure than on total tax revenue.

 

The data shows clearly the expansion of the entitlement state.  Government benefits have exploded under Obama.  

 

As for welfare, no.  Again, what Obama did was free states to change their requirements, which violates the 1996 Welfare Reform Act.  Yet again he has simply decided ignore a law (see:  Immigration).  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #131 of 197
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

I'm not sure which massively expanded programs you are referring to (examples?), and the removal of work requirements accusation has been debunked repeatedly - that is not what those changes enabled.

Food stamps.  Disability.  And yes, the work requirements have been changed (or allowed to be changed).  What Obama has done with the latter is waive another federal law.  Surprise.  

Depending on who does the calculation, it either costs more, or it costs less. Most of the complaining seems to have been along the lines that it is illegal for the government to force people to purchase insurance. So who, exactly, do you think is benefitting from this entitlement?

Complaining?  Yep, that's about how our representatives view legitimate debate.   As for the program, there is absolutely no legitimate analysis that says it costs less.   

Quote:

No, it's absolutely a question. You are arguing that he has used that expression many times - I am arguing that you have misunderstood what he means by it.

You're entitled (see what I did there?) to make an unsupported, ridiculous argument.  Perhaps you could explain to me what he meant by: 

  • Redistributive change
  • "When you spread the wealth around, I think everyone does better."¬†
  • "...I actually believe in redistribution...at least to a point...to make sure everybody's gotta fair shot." ¬†
Quote:
You see I think that you are just making assertions again about the desire to expand the "entitlement state". That's just a slogan without any detail as to what, exactly, this expansion is supposed to comprise. Your earlier example of the work requirements issue is not real - it was just a campaign angle manufactured by Romney's people that doesn't even pass the most cursory examination. A real difference between the parties might be their target tax strategies, but even that is more of a difference on tax structure than on total tax revenue.

The data shows clearly the expansion of the entitlement state.  Government benefits have exploded under Obama.  

 

As for welfare, no.  Again, what Obama did was free states to change their requirements, which violates the 1996 Welfare Reform Act.  Yet again he has simply decided ignore a law (see:  Immigration).  

 

I've no idea even where to start here, since your position is clearly unshakeable and that makes for rather uninteresting debating. A couple of points, then I'm done:

 

The work requirement issue: have you read anything about this other than the right-wing allegations? For most states, the waivers were already in place when Obama took office, put there for perfectly good reasons under President Bush. Participation has increased without question, but most independent analyses seem to agree that is likely due to the economic situation rather than the minor eligibility changes implemented by Obama. It would be far more interesting to discuss what Obama could have done to slow the rise than to waste time arguing over misinformation. There are some interesting issues here, but they get totally lost when you drown them in partisan nonsense.

 

Redistribution: I assume that you have listened to or read some of those speeches / statements, rather than just reading phrases extracted by his opponents. He clarifies, repeatedly, what he is talking about - ensuring infrastructure, education and opportunity is available independent of means. If you choose instead to use those extracted phrases from which you believe you can infer that he is advocating simply taking money from the rich and giving it to the poor or some such, and further extrapolate that anyone who disagrees is making an "unsupported, ridiculous argument", then fine, but don't expect me to be interested in a discussion.

 

The data: I guess I could have assembled a more partisan set of links to make your argument, but it would have taken some work. Your idea of independent data is allegations by Jeff Sessions and articles on CNSNews.com? Have you considered checking some independent sources?

post #132 of 197
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

I've no idea even where to start here, since your position is clearly unshakeable and that makes for rather uninteresting debating. A couple of points, then I'm done:

 

The work requirement issue: have you read anything about this other than the right-wing allegations? For most states, the waivers were already in place when Obama took office, put there for perfectly good reasons under President Bush. Participation has increased without question, but most independent analyses seem to agree that is likely due to the economic situation rather than the minor eligibility changes implemented by Obama. It would be far more interesting to discuss what Obama could have done to slow the rise than to waste time arguing over misinformation. There are some interesting issues here, but they get totally lost when you drown them in partisan nonsense.

 

Redistribution: I assume that you have listened to or read some of those speeches / statements, rather than just reading phrases extracted by his opponents. He clarifies, repeatedly, what he is talking about - ensuring infrastructure, education and opportunity is available independent of means. If you choose instead to use those extracted phrases from which you believe you can infer that he is advocating simply taking money from the rich and giving it to the poor or some such, and further extrapolate that anyone who disagrees is making an "unsupported, ridiculous argument", then fine, but don't expect me to be interested in a discussion.

 

The data: I guess I could have assembled a more partisan set of links to make your argument, but it would have taken some work. Your idea of independent data is allegations by Jeff Sessions and articles on CNSNews.com? Have you considered checking some independent sources?

 

1.  I never claimed that welfare participation was up as a result of Obama offering waivers in work requirements.   I simply oppose the action and feel it violates the spirit of the 1996 welfare reform bill.  

 

2.  I have read and listened to numerous speeches, statements, etc.  Obama does mean access to education, infrastructure, etc.  But he doesn't stop there...not in any sense.  When he addresses redistributive change through the courts, for example, he goes on to label the Bill of Rights a "charter negative liberties" in that it only lists that which the government cannot do to someone (it does not detail what it must do on one's behalf).   This is part of what he means by redistributive change...a move away from the the basic fabric of our nation...from individualism towards collectivism.  The redistribution comes not just through taxation, but towards a government that acts on our behalf (beyond those areas where it already does that, such as defense, for example).   

 

3.  Fair enough...those weren't exactly unbiased sources.  I was more just looking at the data contained therein, not the commentary.   I agree that some of the increase in the participation in programs is due to the economy.  The issue, though, is that the Obama administration believes that more people using these programs is a good thing (in many ways).  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #133 of 197
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

I've no idea even where to start here, since your position is clearly unshakeable and that makes for rather uninteresting debating. A couple of points, then I'm done:

 

The work requirement issue: have you read anything about this other than the right-wing allegations? For most states, the waivers were already in place when Obama took office, put there for perfectly good reasons under President Bush. Participation has increased without question, but most independent analyses seem to agree that is likely due to the economic situation rather than the minor eligibility changes implemented by Obama. It would be far more interesting to discuss what Obama could have done to slow the rise than to waste time arguing over misinformation. There are some interesting issues here, but they get totally lost when you drown them in partisan nonsense.

 

Redistribution: I assume that you have listened to or read some of those speeches / statements, rather than just reading phrases extracted by his opponents. He clarifies, repeatedly, what he is talking about - ensuring infrastructure, education and opportunity is available independent of means. If you choose instead to use those extracted phrases from which you believe you can infer that he is advocating simply taking money from the rich and giving it to the poor or some such, and further extrapolate that anyone who disagrees is making an "unsupported, ridiculous argument", then fine, but don't expect me to be interested in a discussion.

 

The data: I guess I could have assembled a more partisan set of links to make your argument, but it would have taken some work. Your idea of independent data is allegations by Jeff Sessions and articles on CNSNews.com? Have you considered checking some independent sources?

 

1.  I never claimed that welfare participation was up as a result of Obama offering waivers in work requirements.   I simply oppose the action and feel it violates the spirit of the 1996 welfare reform bill.  

 

2.  I have read and listened to numerous speeches, statements, etc.  Obama does mean access to education, infrastructure, etc.  But he doesn't stop there...not in any sense.  When he addresses redistributive change through the courts, for example, he goes on to label the Bill of Rights a "charter negative liberties" in that it only lists that which the government cannot do to someone (it does not detail what it must do on one's behalf).   This is part of what he means by redistributive change...a move away from the the basic fabric of our nation...from individualism towards collectivism.  The redistribution comes not just through taxation, but towards a government that acts on our behalf (beyond those areas where it already does that, such as defense, for example).   

 

3.  Fair enough...those weren't exactly unbiased sources.  I was more just looking at the data contained therein, not the commentary.   I agree that some of the increase in the participation in programs is due to the economy.  The issue, though, is that the Obama administration believes that more people using these programs is a good thing (in many ways).  

 

Reasonable comments. I'm not sure about the implication of your last sentence though. Do you mean that Obama wants as many people as possible to be eligible, or wants to maximize the percentage of eligible people who actually participate?

 

The former can be achieved by increasing eligibility, which he hasn't really done, or by the economy leaving more people in the existing eligible categories, which has happened, but obviously hasn't been his goal even if many think that he is partly responsible for it. The latter (maximizing participation) is generally the goal of any such program, and is not a bad thing per se.

post #134 of 197
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

Reasonable comments. I'm not sure about the implication of your last sentence though. Do you mean that Obama wants as many people as possible to be eligible, or wants to maximize the percentage of eligible people who actually participate?

 

The former can be achieved by increasing eligibility, which he hasn't really done, or by the economy leaving more people in the existing eligible categories, which has happened, but obviously hasn't been his goal even if many think that he is partly responsible for it. The latter (maximizing participation) is generally the goal of any such program, and is not a bad thing per se.

 

In my opinion, he and others Democrats (not all, of course) want both increased eligibility and participation.  This is part of redistributing wealth and obviously reinforces their political base.  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #135 of 197
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

Reasonable comments. I'm not sure about the implication of your last sentence though. Do you mean that Obama wants as many people as possible to be eligible, or wants to maximize the percentage of eligible people who actually participate?

 

The former can be achieved by increasing eligibility, which he hasn't really done, or by the economy leaving more people in the existing eligible categories, which has happened, but obviously hasn't been his goal even if many think that he is partly responsible for it. The latter (maximizing participation) is generally the goal of any such program, and is not a bad thing per se.

 

In my opinion, he and others Democrats (not all, of course) want both increased eligibility and participation.  This is part of redistributing wealth and obviously reinforces their political base.  

 

I guess that would be one way to try to increase a support base. Not a long-term winner though since it would always place downward pressure on the economy. I don't really see the evidence for that being the case though.

post #136 of 197

Find out which Americans believe they are a part of Mitt’s 47%.

http://www.printcountry.com/content/who-considers-themselves-part-of-romneys-infamous-47.html

post #137 of 197

I complete agree, and I've been working in public policy and on campaigns for several decades. 

 

I'm going to vote against Obama, and I'm in Virginia so my vote apparently matters, unlike most everyone else's vote.  Strange system to have, where we are so partisan that we even live apart from each other, or else the needy ones all live near each other, like in cities.  Given the fact that most cities are populated with Dem voters, I'd say that cannot be disputed.  Or should we begin calling them what they are?  The Drainos?  As in all our tax dollars go down their drains?  The 47% who really do not pay income tax?  (They pay gas tax, sales tax, Social Security tax, Medicare insurance tax, but it's the income tax that gets the most attention during campaigns!)  What country can survive when so many nonpayers exist?  Welfare reform was working so well -- every study showed that!  So why did Obama screw that up?  I mean, heaven forbid that you should have policies that encourage people to work/get training so they can stay on the public dole no more than 5 years?  

 

Seems like the only thing we can agree on is that Apple makes some darn great products...

post #138 of 197

Ah, the welfare reform lie again.  

 

‚ÄúThe nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.‚Ä̬†
-Sagan
Reply

 

‚ÄúThe nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.‚Ä̬†
-Sagan
Reply
post #139 of 197

In a fun bit of irony that of course the media are ignoring like a plague, Obama commenting on the 47% literally said that they lack the sort of life skills that the strawman thread title attempts to first caricature and then pin on Romney.

 

Obama literally said these folks cannot answer an alarm clock and get to work on time, dress themselves appropriate, etc.

 

What is that I hear? Outrage, media fixation and attention? Oh....silence................

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #140 of 197
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

In a fun bit of irony that of course the media are ignoring like a plague, Obama commenting on the 47% literally said that they lack the sort of life skills that the strawman thread title attempts to first caricature and then pin on Romney.

 

Obama literally said these folks cannot answer an alarm clock and get to work on time, dress themselves appropriate, etc.

 

What is that I hear? Outrage, media fixation and attention? Oh....silence................

 

You have a link for that? I have not seen it.

post #141 of 197
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

In a fun bit of irony that of course the media are ignoring like a plague, Obama commenting on the 47% literally said that they lack the sort of life skills that the strawman thread title attempts to first caricature and then pin on Romney.

 

Obama literally said these folks cannot answer an alarm clock and get to work on time, dress themselves appropriate, etc.

 

What is that I hear? Outrage, media fixation and attention? Oh....silence................

Which people in the 47 % are you referring to? The elderly? How about those in the military? How about some college students who are our future? Nice trumpy real nice and I'd like to see a link as well.

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #142 of 197
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

How about some college students who are our future?

 

Huh?

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #143 of 197
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

How about some college students who are our future?

 

Huh?

They get government help also so they are part of that 47%. You went to school once right? You're part of our present. The idea that those 47 % are just made up of people who don't want to work is laughable at best.

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #144 of 197
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

In a fun bit of irony that of course the media are ignoring like a plague, Obama commenting on the 47% literally said that they lack the sort of life skills that the strawman thread title attempts to first caricature and then pin on Romney.

 

Obama literally said these folks cannot answer an alarm clock and get to work on time, dress themselves appropriate, etc.

 

What is that I hear? Outrage, media fixation and attention? Oh....silence................

 

You have a link for that? I have not seen it.

 

 

‚ÄúWe can‚Äôt expect them to have all the skills they need to work. They may need help with basic skills, how to shop, how to show up for work on time, how to wear the right clothes, how to act appropriately in an office. We have to help them get there.‚ÄĚ

 


Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/10/02/obama-speech-jeremiah-wright-new-orleans/#ixzz28HybzKlB

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #145 of 197
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

In a fun bit of irony that of course the media are ignoring like a plague, Obama commenting on the 47% literally said that they lack the sort of life skills that the strawman thread title attempts to first caricature and then pin on Romney.

 

Obama literally said these folks cannot answer an alarm clock and get to work on time, dress themselves appropriate, etc.

 

What is that I hear? Outrage, media fixation and attention? Oh....silence................

 

You have a link for that? I have not seen it.

 

 

‚ÄúWe can‚Äôt expect them to have all the skills they need to work. They may need help with basic skills, how to shop, how to show up for work on time, how to wear the right clothes, how to act appropriately in an office. We have to help them get there.‚ÄĚ

 


Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/10/02/obama-speech-jeremiah-wright-new-orleans/#ixzz28HybzKlB

 

Thanks. I don't see irony here though. The subjects of their comments may have some commonality, but Romney was talking about a group that he characterized as feeling that they are victims and entitled to support, while Obama is talking about helping people get out of an uneducated and poor existence.

 

The accent was interesting though. Haven't heard that before.

post #146 of 197
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

They get government help also so they are part of that 47%.

 

Some, yes. Not all though I'm sure.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

You went to school once right?

 

Yes.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

You're part of our present.

 

Yes. Thanks for stating the obvious.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

The idea that those 47 % are just made up of people who don't want to work is laughable at best.

 

I was curious about your statement "college students who are our future". What do you mean by that statement?

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #147 of 197
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

I guess that would be one way to try to increase a support base. Not a long-term winner though since it would always place downward pressure on the economy. I don't really see the evidence for that being the case though.

 

But you see, they don't care about downward pressure on the economy.  It's about creating a permanent dependency class, one that votes for them in perpetuity.  No evidence?  It's been going for 50 years.   

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

They get government help also so they are part of that 47%. You went to school once right? You're part of our present. The idea that those 47 % are just made up of people who don't want to work is laughable at best.

 

Yes, it is.  And that idea is not Mitt Romney's.  That is the the narrative of Romney's idea as presented by the Obama Campaign and its media allies.  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #148 of 197
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

I guess that would be one way to try to increase a support base. Not a long-term winner though since it would always place downward pressure on the economy. I don't really see the evidence for that being the case though.

 

But you see, they don't care about downward pressure on the economy.  It's about creating a permanent dependency class, one that votes for them in perpetuity.  No evidence?  It's been going for 50 years.   

 

I'd argue that they must care about downward pressure. A permanent dependency class, even if that were what the Democrats wanted, would not keep them in power when the economy tanks. I think you may be conflating a goal with a consequence. Democrats have appeared to be more concerned than Republicans with maintaining a more generous welfare state (a goal), which I would argue comes primarily from an ideological standpoint. That will certainly have the side effect of generating more support amongst that part of the electorate who benefit from it (a consequence), but that does not mean that the goal is perpetual enlargement of the dependent class, which is not sustainable.

post #149 of 197
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

Thanks. I don't see irony here though. The subjects of their comments may have some commonality, but Romney was talking about a group that he characterized as feeling that they are victims and entitled to support, while Obama is talking about helping people get out of an uneducated and poor existence.

 

The accent was interesting though. Haven't heard that before.

 

Perhaps you should examine the speech a bit more. The reason the folks are there and incapable is due to racism. The reason they are there is because wealth is a zero sum game and per Obama, the White American has exploited Black American and until they put it right they will remain unempowered and thus entitled to assistance.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

I'd argue that they must care about downward pressure. A permanent dependency class, even if that were what the Democrats wanted, would not keep them in power when the economy tanks. I think you may be conflating a goal with a consequence. Democrats have appeared to be more concerned than Republicans with maintaining a more generous welfare state (a goal), which I would argue comes primarily from an ideological standpoint. That will certainly have the side effect of generating more support amongst that part of the electorate who benefit from it (a consequence), but that does not mean that the goal is perpetual enlargement of the dependent class, which is not sustainable.

 

I understand your well intentioned thoughts here but the reality is that they don't ever see the economy as tanking because of economic factors. They see it as tanking because the rich haven't given up enough of their wealth and spread it around. With that reasoning, the worse the economy does, the more entitled they are to pursue their policies. France for example just passed a 75% tax rate on the wealthy. The reasoning, we need money and they have it. If we spread it around then everything will get better. If it doesn't get better than rinse and repeat again but with broader strokes.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #150 of 197

Mittens now says his 47% comment were completely wrong.

 

180 degree turn... again.

 

I guess he retroactively didn't say that.

 

If the comment was completely wrong, why didn't he know that then? 

 

Which is it?  What does this guy really think?  

 

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57526535/romney-47-percent-remarks-completely-wrong/

 

And the Right was just enjoying his debate performance (yeah, performance as opposed to substance; sadly, too many Americans fall for one over the other).  Oh, and didn't a lot of these people also defend his comments?  So, they were completely wrong, too.  I'm sure they will be offended by his suggesting that...


Edited by Bergermeister - 10/4/12 at 9:30pm

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #151 of 197
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post

Mittens now says his 47% comment were completely wrong.

 

180 degree turn... again.

 

I guess he retroactively didn't say that.

 

If the comment was completely wrong, why didn't he know that then? 

 

Which is it?  What does this guy really think?  

 

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57526535/romney-47-percent-remarks-completely-wrong/

 

And the Right was just enjoying his debate performance (yeah, performance as opposed to substance; sadly, too many Americans fall for one over the other).  Oh, and didn't a lot of these people also defend his comments?  So, they were completely wrong, too.  I'm sure they will be offended by his suggesting that...

Can you say " Flip Flop?

 

Quote:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/49297082  Romney on '47 percent': I was 'completely wrong'

Candidate initially said the comment was 'not elegantly stated'

What a bunch of hokum! This guy is so transparent.

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #152 of 197
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

Thanks. I don't see irony here though. The subjects of their comments may have some commonality, but Romney was talking about a group that he characterized as feeling that they are victims and entitled to support, while Obama is talking about helping people get out of an uneducated and poor existence.

 

The accent was interesting though. Haven't heard that before.

 

Perhaps you should examine the speech a bit more. The reason the folks are there and incapable is due to racism. The reason they are there is because wealth is a zero sum game and per Obama, the White American has exploited Black American and until they put it right they will remain unempowered and thus entitled to assistance.

 

 

I think he was alluding more to the possibility of a racist explanation for lack of resources in that particular situation, rather than a general condition of racism existing throughout the country. Racism is a tough issue - it does still exist in the US; it is hard to fix via legislation, and slow to fix via cultural change.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

I'd argue that they must care about downward pressure. A permanent dependency class, even if that were what the Democrats wanted, would not keep them in power when the economy tanks. I think you may be conflating a goal with a consequence. Democrats have appeared to be more concerned than Republicans with maintaining a more generous welfare state (a goal), which I would argue comes primarily from an ideological standpoint. That will certainly have the side effect of generating more support amongst that part of the electorate who benefit from it (a consequence), but that does not mean that the goal is perpetual enlargement of the dependent class, which is not sustainable.

 

I understand your well intentioned thoughts here but the reality is that they don't ever see the economy as tanking because of economic factors. They see it as tanking because the rich haven't given up enough of their wealth and spread it around. With that reasoning, the worse the economy does, the more entitled they are to pursue their policies. France for example just passed a 75% tax rate on the wealthy. The reasoning, we need money and they have it. If we spread it around then everything will get better. If it doesn't get better than rinse and repeat again but with broader strokes.

 

So I think that you are caricaturing the Democrats. No government, however left leaning, believes that economies survive by just taxing the rich.

post #153 of 197
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Can you say " Flip Flop?

 

What a bunch of hokum! This guy is so transparent.

 

Some criticized Obama for not raising the 47% issue; he didn't need to!

 

I haven't had the joy of watching all of the debate yesterday. But, now I can't help wondering when Mittens takes new positions yet again, disavows any knowledge of his previous statements, claims to retroactively have not said them when videos come out and or just say he was wrong, he has a new opinion and ....

 

Anything to get to the WH.  Anything.

 

Which is outright scary.  I mean, can you imagine this guy jumping the gun on something (like the Libya comments) after insulting someone (like his European disaster), starting a war, having a video come out, reaffirming it all, continuing to wage war, and then saying he was wrong about it all?   Sadly, it is becoming increasingly possible to imagine this scenario.  You can't retroactively not start a war.

 

This guy wants an office that contains the keys to nuclear weapons.


Edited by Bergermeister - 10/5/12 at 3:03am

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #154 of 197
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

I think he was alluding more to the possibility of a racist explanation for lack of resources in that particular situation, rather than a general condition of racism existing throughout the country. Racism is a tough issue - it does still exist in the US; it is hard to fix via legislation, and slow to fix via cultural change.

 

So I think that you are caricaturing the Democrats. No government, however left leaning, believes that economies survive by just taxing the rich.

 

He wasn't alluding. He expressly called for transitional jobs that would put up with black folks learning to dress right, show up on time and other skills they lacked. He called for them directly. It wasn't a suggestion.

 

Well if they are more left leaning they do more than tax the rich. They just confiscate all private property and declare it centrally controlled for the public interest. It's a continuum. When their ideals fail at 75% taxation it will be because those rich assholes still own too much, refuse to work harder and properly care and toil for their brother. The solution becomes central control and your own life not being your own, but your brothers. You make it sound like communism is a fiction that never existed. We've seen what happens when the 25, 50 and 75% solutions don't work. They move on to 100%.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #155 of 197
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

I think he was alluding more to the possibility of a racist explanation for lack of resources in that particular situation, rather than a general condition of racism existing throughout the country. Racism is a tough issue - it does still exist in the US; it is hard to fix via legislation, and slow to fix via cultural change.

 

So I think that you are caricaturing the Democrats. No government, however left leaning, believes that economies survive by just taxing the rich.

 

He wasn't alluding. He expressly called for transitional jobs that would put up with black folks learning to dress right, show up on time and other skills they lacked. He called for them directly. It wasn't a suggestion.

 

Well if they are more left leaning they do more than tax the rich. They just confiscate all private property and declare it centrally controlled for the public interest. It's a continuum. When their ideals fail at 75% taxation it will be because those rich assholes still own too much, refuse to work harder and properly care and toil for their brother. The solution becomes central control and your own life not being your own, but your brothers. You make it sound like communism is a fiction that never existed. We've seen what happens when the 25, 50 and 75% solutions don't work. They move on to 100%.

 

I didn't realize that we were extending the discussion to include communism, but I still don't follow your reasoning - are you worrying that the Democrats are in danger of becoming communists? Very few socialist states have ever ended up progressing to communism, and the Democrats are not even socialists. While socialism and communism are both on the left, there is a huge gulf between them, primarily because socialism does not proscribe, or even deprecate, private ownership. I suspect that you and others here have never lived under a socialist government, and that there may be two consequences to that: (1) it's difficult to resolve the spectrum of implementations (2) it's difficult to appreciate that Democrats are not socialists.

post #156 of 197
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

Very few socialist states have ever ended up progressing to communism, and the Democrats are not even socialists. While socialism and communism are both on the left, there is a huge gulf between them, primarily because socialism does not proscribe, or even deprecate, private ownership.

 

How do you define socialism or what definition of socialism are you using?

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #157 of 197
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

I think he was alluding more to the possibility of a racist explanation for lack of resources in that particular situation, rather than a general condition of racism existing throughout the country. Racism is a tough issue - it does still exist in the US; it is hard to fix via legislation, and slow to fix via cultural change.

 

So I think that you are caricaturing the Democrats. No government, however left leaning, believes that economies survive by just taxing the rich.

 

He wasn't alluding. He expressly called for transitional jobs that would put up with black folks learning to dress right, show up on time and other skills they lacked. He called for them directly. It wasn't a suggestion.

 

Well if they are more left leaning they do more than tax the rich. They just confiscate all private property and declare it centrally controlled for the public interest. It's a continuum. When their ideals fail at 75% taxation it will be because those rich assholes still own too much, refuse to work harder and properly care and toil for their brother. The solution becomes central control and your own life not being your own, but your brothers. You make it sound like communism is a fiction that never existed. We've seen what happens when the 25, 50 and 75% solutions don't work. They move on to 100%.

 

I didn't realize that we were extending the discussion to include communism, but I still don't follow your reasoning - are you worrying that the Democrats are in danger of becoming communists? Very few socialist states have ever ended up progressing to communism, and the Democrats are not even socialists. While socialism and communism are both on the left, there is a huge gulf between them, primarily because socialism does not proscribe, or even deprecate, private ownership. I suspect that you and others here have never lived under a socialist government, and that there may be two consequences to that: (1) it's difficult to resolve the spectrum of implementations (2) it's difficult to appreciate that Democrats are not socialists.

 

What we are seeing is unique and new. We have large swaths of socialistic governments borrowing their way to financial ruin. Most or Europe, Japan and I suspect many would argue China (even while it claims to be communistic) all practicing advanced forms of centrally planned economies and socialist programs. Almost all are going broke. There is growing suspicion that China will soon go through a bust very similar Japan in the early 90's. Basically the only countries that seem to make it work are those who exploit their natural resources and pump wealth from the ground (see Canada and Denmark) The U.S. isn't going broke exclusively from socialistic programs. (Medicare/Medicaid, Social Security, etc.) We are also going broke due to our Pax Americana policies of empire/nation building and being the cop for the world.

 

The point remains that socialists are bankrupting their various countries and when push comes to shove, they won't blame themselves but will blame the private sector. The refrain of taking more from the "rich" however they are defined is first and foremost in their thoughts. When they can't get enough from them then of course certain industries will be need to be nationalized "in the public interest." The next step in their reasoning isn't hard to fathom or follow.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #158 of 197
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

Very few socialist states have ever ended up progressing to communism, and the Democrats are not even socialists. While socialism and communism are both on the left, there is a huge gulf between them, primarily because socialism does not proscribe, or even deprecate, private ownership.

 

How do you define socialism or what definition of socialism are you using?

 

There are many kinds of course, but my comments apply mostly to the democratic varieties, and exclude the Marxist variants. Wikipedia has a quite comprehensive summary, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism, a more specific article on democratic socialism, and an interesting article on socialism in the United States. Not that I am advocating or endorsing socialism, in case anyone gets the wrong idea here.

post #159 of 197
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

There are many kinds of course, but my comments apply mostly to the democratic varieties, and exclude the Marxist variants. Wikipedia has a quite comprehensive summary, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism, a more specific article on democratic socialism, and an interesting article on socialism in the United States.

 

Thank you for clarifying what definitions you're referring to. So that I'm clear though: You're claiming that Democrats (in the US) are not "democratic socialists"? Or are you claiming they are not socialists of the Marxist variety? I ask because you admit there are many kind (or varieties) of socialism. And I've seen this myself from the main Wikipedia article you linked to. I'm just trying to make sure I understand what you're claiming.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

Not that I am advocating or endorsing socialism, in case anyone gets the wrong idea here.

 

I didn't necessarily think you were. I was asking so that I could better understand your claim that "Democrats (in the US) are not socialists."

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #160 of 197
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

There are many kinds of course, but my comments apply mostly to the democratic varieties, and exclude the Marxist variants. Wikipedia has a quite comprehensive summary, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism, a more specific article on democratic socialism, and an interesting article on socialism in the United States.

 

Thank you for clarifying what definitions you're referring to. So that I'm clear though: You're claiming that Democrats (in the US) are not "democratic socialists"? Or are you claiming they are not socialists of the Marxist variety? I ask because you admit there are many kind (or varieties) of socialism. And I've seen this myself from the main Wikipedia article you linked to. I'm just trying to make sure I understand what you're claiming.

 

The former; I do not view the Democrats as democratic socialists. They do not espouse any of the key (IMO) principles of nationalization of essential industries, production and services, and their idea of a welfare state is still a long way from the typical socialist (or in most of the world, centrist) model.

 

And I should clarify - I'm just stating that as my opinion - I'm not claiming any kind of authority on the question.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › ūüöď Conservative Elite Mitt Romney: 47% of Americans Are Hopeless Losers Who Never Wash.