|
|
On September 17 2012 23:17 xDaunt wrote: As long as Romney doesn't shit the bed, I think he'll win. You think he'll win despite the fact that he's down in most polls, both in popular vote and electoral college? Despite the fact that he's down in many of the swing states (hell, Romney and the gop dropped ads in MI and PA)? True, he's within the margin of error, but he's consistently on the losing end.
On September 18 2012 02:54 xDaunt wrote: His campaign has come out today and said that Romney will be providing details on his economic, tax, and energy plans soon. We'll see what he comes up with. Looks like they provided no new details.
|
On September 18 2012 04:30 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2012 03:38 kwizach wrote:On September 18 2012 02:53 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 17 2012 18:19 kwizach wrote:On September 17 2012 11:03 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 17 2012 10:11 kwizach wrote:On September 17 2012 09:34 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 17 2012 08:55 kwizach wrote:On September 17 2012 08:48 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 17 2012 08:11 kwizach wrote: [quote] I'm not asking you to "read every Obama speech", I'm asking you to provide examples supporting your claim that he's made "attacks [...] on the rich, the successful and private enterprise". I did. I don't understand what else you want. If you want something specific say so, don't beat around the bush saying that my examples aren't good enough without saying why. You didn't. Your examples weren't sourced, meaning one could hardly look at the context and verify how closely you reported them, and they weren't even examples of him making "attacks [...] on the rich, the successful and private enterprise". For example, denouncing a particular practice ("vulture capitalism") is not making an attack on the rich. Saying the rich should pay a "fair share" of taxes is not making an attack on the rich, it's being critical of a system in which the rich do not, according to Obama, pay a fair share of taxes. etc. I don't think you get it. I'm talking about sentiment. Little things like negative word choice, used repeatedly, give people the idea that you really don't like them. So if Obama calls someone on Wall St a fat cat once it doesn't really matter. But when you repeat it along with other negative words (other 'attacks') you create certain sentiment. You made a claim. The claim was that Obama had levied "a whole host of attacks [...] on the rich, the successful and private enterprise in general" (and you also said that, according to you, he "doesn't honestly value and respect private businesses"). I asked you to provide concrete examples that would illustrate and support that claim. You haven't been able to come up with anything else than non-sourced examples that do not actually support your claim. If you want to retreat and only argue that some people feel Obama hates rich people then sure, some people do feel that way - and those people are wrong. edit: and by the way, Kaitlin, seeing how badly you tried changing the topic to taxes in general when discussing the "you didn't build that" quote and even stopped replying to me altogether, I suppose we can agree that it was indeed taken out of context by Republicans. Get real. I'm not going to comb through his speeches just so you can have a source, which you'll just toss aside as not a big deal. (Note here: if you say something that's not a big deal enough, it can become a bid deal.) People have been complaining about his anti-business rhetoric for years. Articles like " The wages of negligence: The president has gained a reputation for being hostile to business. He needs to change it." and " No love lost: Corporate America’s complaints about the president keep getting louder" don't just crop up because of GOP propaganda. I like how you have no problem digging up sources about an argument I've repeatedly said I'm not interested in discussing (how Obama is perceived), but somehow can't find any source to back up your own claim that I'm responding to. Here's where he calls bankers fat cats. President Obama has ratcheted up his rhetoric against Wall Street just as some of the nation's top bankers head to the White House for what looks increasingly likely to be a tense and combative meeting.
In an interview with "60 Minutes" correspondent Steve Kroft, the president went after what he called the "fat cat bankers on Wall Street." He said bankers have not shown "a lot of shame" about their behavior and outsized compensation despite the bank bailouts and economic downturn.
After stating that the financial crisis was "caused in part by completely irresponsible actions on Wall Street," Mr. Obama suggested that some banks paid TARP bailout money back to the government specifically to free themselves from government-mandated constraints on executive compensation.
"I think in some cases that was a motivation," said Mr. Obama. "Which I think tells me that the people on Wall Street still don't get it. They don't get it. They're still puzzled, why is it that people are mad at the banks?"
"Well, let's see," continued the president. "You guys are drawing down $10, $20 million bonuses after America went through the worst economic year that it's gone through in decades, and you guys caused the problem. And we've got ten percent unemployment. Why do you think people might be a little frustrated?" Link That's not "attacking" the rich for being rich. That's certainly not attacking "private enterprise". That is, instead, criticizing two things some bankers were, according to him, guilty of: not taking and admitting to their share of responsibility for the financial crisis, and already getting back to big bonuses despite what had just happened. There's no other reproach there. Had the bankers not been guilty of those two things according to him, he would not have said those words. The relevant independent variable is therefore not that they're rich or that they're bankers, but that they're guilty in his view of what he denounces in the interview. You are missing the point completely. When you choose to use terms like "fat cats" enough, eventually the people that the term is levied at start to dislike you. For the nth time, I am not discussing the perception that people have of Obama. I am discussing the claim that you made regarding the "attacks" that you said he's made "on the rich, the successful and private enterprise". It seems that you're the one missing the point, since I've explained this several times already.
|
Who is voting Green with me?
Issue's in spoiler. + Show Spoiler +JOBS
Enact the Full Employment Program which will directly provide 25 million green jobs in sustainable energy, mass transit, sustainable organic agriculture, and clean manufacturing, as well as social work, teaching, and and other service jobs. Provide grants and low-interest loans to green businesses and cooperatives, with an emphasis on small, locally-based companies that keep the wealth created by local labor circulating in the community, rather than being drained off to enrich absentee investors. Renegotiate NAFTA and other "free trade'' agreements that export American jobs, depress wages, and undermine the sovereign right of Americans and citizens of other countries to control their own economy.
WORKER RIGHTS
Provide full protection for workplace rights, including the right to a safe workplace and the right to organize a union without fear of firing or reprisal by passing the Employee Free Choice Act. Support the formation of worker-owned cooperatives to provide alternatives to exploitative business models. Make the minimum wage a living wage. Oppose two-tier wage systems. Ensure equal pay for equal work, ending discrimination based on race, gender, or generation.
BUDGET AND TAXES
Reduce the budget deficit by restoring full employment, cutting the bloated military budget, and cutting private health insurance waste. Eliminate needless tax giveaways that increase the deficit. Require full disclosure of corporate subsidies in the budget and stop hiding subsidies in complicated tax code. Rewrite the entire tax code to be truly progressive with tax cuts for working families, the poor and middle class, and higher taxes for the richest Americans. Reject cuts to Medicare and Social Security. Stop draining the non-profit sectors of our economy in order to give tax cuts to the for-profit sectors. Relieve the debt overhang holding back the economy by reducing homeowner and student debt burdens.Ensure the right to accessible and affordable utilities – heat, electricity, phone, internet, and public transportation – through democratically run, publicly owned utilities that operate at cost, not for profit. Maintain and upgrade our nation's essential public infrastructure, including highways, railways, electrical grids, water systems, schools, libraries, and the Internet, resisting privatization or policy manipulation by for-profit interests. Establish a 90% tax on bonuses for bailed out bankers.
FINANCIAL REFORM
Break up the oversized banks that are “too big to fail,” starting with Bank of America. Create a Corporation for Economic Democracy, a new federal corporation (like the Corporation for Public Broadcasting) to provide publicity, training, education, and direct financing for cooperative development and for democratic reforms to make government agencies, private associations, and business enterprises more participatory. End bailouts for the financial elite and use the FDIC resolution process for failed banks to reopen them as public banks where possible after failed loans and underlying assets are auctioned off. Bring monetary policy under democratic control by prohibiting private banks from creating money, thus restoring government's Constitutional authority. Let pension funds be managed by boards controlled by workers, not corporate managers. Regulate all financial derivatives and require them to be traded on open exchanges. Require banks to use honest bookkeeping so that toxic assets cannot be hidden or sold to unsuspecting persons. Restore the Glass-Steagall separation of depository commercial banks from speculative investment banks. Democratize monetary policy to bring about public control of the money supply and credit creation. This means nationalizing the private bank-dominated Federal Reserve Banks and placing them under a Federal Monetary Authority within the Treasury Department. Establish federal, state, and municipal publicly-owned banks that function as non-profit utilities and focus on helping people, not enriching themselves.
EDUCATION
Provide tuition-free education from kindergarten through college, thus eliminating the student debt crisis. Forgive existing student debt. Protect our public school systems from privatization End high-stakes testing and stop punishing students and teachers for failures of the system in which they work. Stop denying students diplomas based on tests. Stop using merit pay to punish teachers.
HEALTH CARE
Provide complete, affordable, quality health care for every American through an improved Medicare-for-all insurance program. Allow full access to all medically justified contraceptive and reproductive care. Expand women's access to the "morning after" contraception by lifting the Obama Administration's ban. Roll back the community drivers of chronic disease, including poor nutrition, health-damaging pollution, and passive dirty transportation. Avoid chronic diseases by investing in essential community health infrastructure such as local, fresh, organic food systems, pollution-free renewable energy, phasing out toxic chemicals, and active transportation such as bike paths and safe sidewalks that dovetail with public transit. End overcharging for prescription drugs by using bulk purchasing negotiations. Ensure that consumers have essential information for making informed food choices by expanding product labeling requirements for country of origin, GMO content, toxic chemical ingredients, fair trade practices, etc.
HOUSING
Impose an immediate moratorium on foreclosures and evictions. Offer capital grants to non-profit developers of affordable housing until all people can obtain decent housing at no more than 25% of their income. Create a federal bank with local branches to take over homes with distressed mortgages, and either restructure the mortgages to affordable levels, or if the occupants cannot afford a mortgage, rent homes to the occupants. Expand rental and home ownership assistance and create ample public housing.
CLEAN ENERGY
Create a binding international treaty to reduce atmospheric carbon dioxide to levels deemed safe by scientific analysis to reduce global warming. Phase out coal power plants to end their unacceptable harm to the climate, health and the economy. End mountaintop removal in Appalachia. Redirect research funds from fossil fuels and other dead-end industries toward research in renewable energy and conservation. Build a nationwide smart electricity grid that can pool and store power from a diversity of renewable sources, giving the nation clean, democratically-controlled, terrorist-proof energy. Phase out nuclear power and end nuclear subsidies. Stop hydrofracking to prevent devastating pollution of groundwater, destruction of roads from the transport of millions of tons of toxic water, and the threats of earthquakes recently determined to be caused by drilling and disposal of fracking water in seismically unstable regions. End Federal subsidies for "clean coal" -- an expensive, carbon intensive, unproven technology promoted by the coal industry public relations campaign. Halt all drilling that poses a threat to public lands or water resources. Halt the Keystone XL pipeline and bring the tar sand oils under a comprehensive climate protection treaty.
CIVIL LIBERTIES
Issue an Executive Order prohibiting Federal agencies from conspiring with local police to infringe upon right of assembly and peaceful protest. Repeal the Patriot Act that violates our constitutional right to privacy and protection against unreasonable search and seizure. Repeal the unconstitutional provisions of the National Defense Authorization Act that gives the president the power to indefinitely imprison and even assassinate American citizens without due process. Oppose the Online Piracy Act and all other legislation that would undermine freedom and equality on the Internet. Pass the Equal Rights Amendment to forever end discrimination based on gender. Eliminate the doctrine of corporate personhood with a constitutional amendment to clarify that only human beings have constitutional rights. Implement marriage equality nationwide to end discrimination against same-sex couples. Expand federal support for locally-owned broadcast media and local print media.
VOTING RIGHTS AND DEMOCRACY
Enact the full Voter's Bill of Rights guaranteeing each person's right to vote, the right to have our votes counted on hand-marked paper ballots, and the right to vote within systems that give each vote meaning. Abolish the electoral college and directly elect the President. Get the big money payoffs out of politics by implementing public funding of election campaigns. Reverse the Citizens United ruling to revoke corporate personhood, and amend our Constitution to make clear that corporations are not persons and money is not speech. Restore the right to run for office and eliminate unopposed races by removing ballot access barriers. Require the use of auditable, hand-counted paper ballots in all local, state, and federal elections. Guarantee equal access to the ballot and to the debates to all qualified candidates Eliminate “winner take all” elections in which the “winner” does not have the support of most of the voters, and replace that system with instant runoff voting and proportional representation. Provide equal and free access to the airways for all candidates, not just those with big campaign warchests. Enact statehood for the District of Columbia to ensure the region has full representation in Congress, and full powers of self-rule. Restore voting rights to ex-offenders who’ve paid their debt to society. Require that all votes are counted before election results are released. Replace partisan oversight of elections with non-partisan election commissions. Celebrate our democratic aspirations by making Election Day a national holiday. Bring simplified, safe same-day voter registration to the nation so that no qualified voter is barred from the polls. Protect our right to vote by supporting Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr.’s proposed “Right to Vote Amendment,” to clarify to the Supreme Court that yes, we do have a constitutional right to vote. Protect the legitimate exercise of local democracy by making clear that acts of Congress establish a floor, and not a ceiling, on laws relating to economic regulation, workers rights, human rights, and the environment.
PEACE AND FOREIGN POLICY
Cut the bloated Pentagon budget by 50%. End use of assassination as an instrument of U.S. foreign policy, including collaborative assassination through intermediaries. Increase our energy security by reducing our nation's dependence on oil. Demilitarize U.S. foreign policy to emphasize human rights, international law, multinational diplomatic initiatives and support for democratic movements across the world. Restore the National Guard as the centerpiece of our defense. Create a nuclear free zone in the Middle East region and require all nations in area to join. Oppose attacks on nuclear facilities. Ban use of drone aircraft for assassination, bombing, and other offensive purposes. End the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, withdrawing both troops and military contractors. Make human rights and international law the basis of our policy in the Middle East. Join 159 other nations in signing the Ottawa treaty banning the use of anti-personnel land mines. Close some 140 U.S. military bases abroad. Initiate a new round of nuclear disarmament initiatives.
ENVIRONMENT
Create millions of green jobs in areas such as weatherization, recycling, public transportation, worker and community owned cooperatives, and energy-efficient infrastructure. Adopt the EPA's new tougher standards on ozone pollution. Promote conversion to sustainable, nontoxic materials. Promote use of closed-loop, zero waste processes. Promote organic agriculture, permaculture, and sustainable forestry.
IMMIGRATION
Grant undocumented immigrants who are already residing and working in the United States a legal status which includes the chance to become U.S. citizens. Halt deportations of law-abiding undocumented immigrants. Repeal the deceptively named Secure Communities Act. Improve economic conditions abroad to reduce flow of immigrants, in part by repealing NAFTA. Demilitarize border crossings throughout North America. End the war on immigrants, including the cruel, so-called “secure communities” program.
CRIMINAL JUSTICE
Repair our communities rather than dump resources into the prison-industrial complex. Work to eliminate laws tying judge’s hands with mandatory sentencing requirements. Immediately legalize medical use of marijuana and move to permit general legal sales under suitable regulatory framework. End the ineffective and costly War on Drugs and begin to treat drug use as a public health problem, not a criminal problem.
|
On September 17 2012 23:40 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2012 23:34 DoubleReed wrote:On September 17 2012 23:17 xDaunt wrote:On September 17 2012 21:10 DoubleReed wrote: Has xDaunt changed his prediction of Obama losing and the Democrats losing big? Nope. There won't be any reason to change the prediction until the debates. As long as Romney doesn't shit the bed, I think he'll win. Wait, is your plan if Romney loses to say something like "Well I would've been right, if it wasn't for such and such"? Because that's no fun. No. If Romney loses, the loss is on him. This should be an easy election for him. He has everything going in his favor. Only his own incompetence and timidity can lose this. As for the timidity, I'm not convinced that he can't win with this approach because of how damaged Obama is. However, I don't think Romney is doing himself any favors. What? Polls last week had Obama way ahead.
|
On September 18 2012 05:04 ImAbstracT wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2012 23:40 xDaunt wrote:On September 17 2012 23:34 DoubleReed wrote:On September 17 2012 23:17 xDaunt wrote:On September 17 2012 21:10 DoubleReed wrote: Has xDaunt changed his prediction of Obama losing and the Democrats losing big? Nope. There won't be any reason to change the prediction until the debates. As long as Romney doesn't shit the bed, I think he'll win. Wait, is your plan if Romney loses to say something like "Well I would've been right, if it wasn't for such and such"? Because that's no fun. No. If Romney loses, the loss is on him. This should be an easy election for him. He has everything going in his favor. Only his own incompetence and timidity can lose this. As for the timidity, I'm not convinced that he can't win with this approach because of how damaged Obama is. However, I don't think Romney is doing himself any favors. What? Polls last week had Obama way ahead.
He meant the political climate and economy and such is in Mitts favor. He's just saying it's Mitts game to lose right now.
I don't know if I really agree. Mitt had very little to do with the war on women, which may have singlehandedly turned Virginia blue. There were political things that really went against Mitt.
|
On September 18 2012 04:53 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2012 04:30 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 18 2012 03:38 kwizach wrote:On September 18 2012 02:53 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 17 2012 18:19 kwizach wrote:On September 17 2012 11:03 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 17 2012 10:11 kwizach wrote:On September 17 2012 09:34 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 17 2012 08:55 kwizach wrote:On September 17 2012 08:48 JonnyBNoHo wrote: [quote] I did. I don't understand what else you want. If you want something specific say so, don't beat around the bush saying that my examples aren't good enough without saying why. You didn't. Your examples weren't sourced, meaning one could hardly look at the context and verify how closely you reported them, and they weren't even examples of him making "attacks [...] on the rich, the successful and private enterprise". For example, denouncing a particular practice ("vulture capitalism") is not making an attack on the rich. Saying the rich should pay a "fair share" of taxes is not making an attack on the rich, it's being critical of a system in which the rich do not, according to Obama, pay a fair share of taxes. etc. I don't think you get it. I'm talking about sentiment. Little things like negative word choice, used repeatedly, give people the idea that you really don't like them. So if Obama calls someone on Wall St a fat cat once it doesn't really matter. But when you repeat it along with other negative words (other 'attacks') you create certain sentiment. You made a claim. The claim was that Obama had levied "a whole host of attacks [...] on the rich, the successful and private enterprise in general" (and you also said that, according to you, he "doesn't honestly value and respect private businesses"). I asked you to provide concrete examples that would illustrate and support that claim. You haven't been able to come up with anything else than non-sourced examples that do not actually support your claim. If you want to retreat and only argue that some people feel Obama hates rich people then sure, some people do feel that way - and those people are wrong. edit: and by the way, Kaitlin, seeing how badly you tried changing the topic to taxes in general when discussing the "you didn't build that" quote and even stopped replying to me altogether, I suppose we can agree that it was indeed taken out of context by Republicans. Get real. I'm not going to comb through his speeches just so you can have a source, which you'll just toss aside as not a big deal. (Note here: if you say something that's not a big deal enough, it can become a bid deal.) People have been complaining about his anti-business rhetoric for years. Articles like " The wages of negligence: The president has gained a reputation for being hostile to business. He needs to change it." and " No love lost: Corporate America’s complaints about the president keep getting louder" don't just crop up because of GOP propaganda. I like how you have no problem digging up sources about an argument I've repeatedly said I'm not interested in discussing (how Obama is perceived), but somehow can't find any source to back up your own claim that I'm responding to. Here's where he calls bankers fat cats. President Obama has ratcheted up his rhetoric against Wall Street just as some of the nation's top bankers head to the White House for what looks increasingly likely to be a tense and combative meeting.
In an interview with "60 Minutes" correspondent Steve Kroft, the president went after what he called the "fat cat bankers on Wall Street." He said bankers have not shown "a lot of shame" about their behavior and outsized compensation despite the bank bailouts and economic downturn.
After stating that the financial crisis was "caused in part by completely irresponsible actions on Wall Street," Mr. Obama suggested that some banks paid TARP bailout money back to the government specifically to free themselves from government-mandated constraints on executive compensation.
"I think in some cases that was a motivation," said Mr. Obama. "Which I think tells me that the people on Wall Street still don't get it. They don't get it. They're still puzzled, why is it that people are mad at the banks?"
"Well, let's see," continued the president. "You guys are drawing down $10, $20 million bonuses after America went through the worst economic year that it's gone through in decades, and you guys caused the problem. And we've got ten percent unemployment. Why do you think people might be a little frustrated?" Link That's not "attacking" the rich for being rich. That's certainly not attacking "private enterprise". That is, instead, criticizing two things some bankers were, according to him, guilty of: not taking and admitting to their share of responsibility for the financial crisis, and already getting back to big bonuses despite what had just happened. There's no other reproach there. Had the bankers not been guilty of those two things according to him, he would not have said those words. The relevant independent variable is therefore not that they're rich or that they're bankers, but that they're guilty in his view of what he denounces in the interview. You are missing the point completely. When you choose to use terms like "fat cats" enough, eventually the people that the term is levied at start to dislike you. For the nth time, I am not discussing the perception that people have of Obama. I am discussing the claim that you made regarding the "attacks" that you said he's made "on the rich, the successful and private enterprise". It seems that you're the one missing the point, since I've explained this several times already. My claim was regarding perceptions. His "attacks" were not Obama hitting people with sticks. The attacks I was referring to were pokes and jabs at certain people. Reread my original post:
The one liner comes from there, but the sentiment comes from a whole host of attacks Obama has levied on the rich, the successful and private enterprise in general.
Note that I use the word sentiment. I'm arguing that the sentiment stems from Obama's attacks - things like calling people "fat cats" or saying that the rich aren't doing their part. These are attacks - justified or not - it doesn't matter. Do you have a better explanation or do you just not like my choice of the word "attack"?
|
On September 18 2012 05:04 ImAbstracT wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2012 23:40 xDaunt wrote:On September 17 2012 23:34 DoubleReed wrote:On September 17 2012 23:17 xDaunt wrote:On September 17 2012 21:10 DoubleReed wrote: Has xDaunt changed his prediction of Obama losing and the Democrats losing big? Nope. There won't be any reason to change the prediction until the debates. As long as Romney doesn't shit the bed, I think he'll win. Wait, is your plan if Romney loses to say something like "Well I would've been right, if it wasn't for such and such"? Because that's no fun. No. If Romney loses, the loss is on him. This should be an easy election for him. He has everything going in his favor. Only his own incompetence and timidity can lose this. As for the timidity, I'm not convinced that he can't win with this approach because of how damaged Obama is. However, I don't think Romney is doing himself any favors. What? Polls last week had Obama way ahead.
As DoubleReed said, you're missing the context of the discussion here. Romney should be ahead considering the state of the economy. He's saying that the only thing in the way of Romney is Romney.
I disagree. I think having to pander to the far right just to win the nomination, combined with the Democrat's overachieving convention, Bill Clinton dunking all over Romney and Ryan's face, and the fact that Obama is still an exceedingly charming and relentlessly likeable sonovabitch are also factors.
|
On September 18 2012 04:30 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2012 03:38 kwizach wrote:On September 18 2012 02:53 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 17 2012 18:19 kwizach wrote:On September 17 2012 11:03 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 17 2012 10:11 kwizach wrote:On September 17 2012 09:34 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 17 2012 08:55 kwizach wrote:On September 17 2012 08:48 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 17 2012 08:11 kwizach wrote: [quote] I'm not asking you to "read every Obama speech", I'm asking you to provide examples supporting your claim that he's made "attacks [...] on the rich, the successful and private enterprise". I did. I don't understand what else you want. If you want something specific say so, don't beat around the bush saying that my examples aren't good enough without saying why. You didn't. Your examples weren't sourced, meaning one could hardly look at the context and verify how closely you reported them, and they weren't even examples of him making "attacks [...] on the rich, the successful and private enterprise". For example, denouncing a particular practice ("vulture capitalism") is not making an attack on the rich. Saying the rich should pay a "fair share" of taxes is not making an attack on the rich, it's being critical of a system in which the rich do not, according to Obama, pay a fair share of taxes. etc. I don't think you get it. I'm talking about sentiment. Little things like negative word choice, used repeatedly, give people the idea that you really don't like them. So if Obama calls someone on Wall St a fat cat once it doesn't really matter. But when you repeat it along with other negative words (other 'attacks') you create certain sentiment. You made a claim. The claim was that Obama had levied "a whole host of attacks [...] on the rich, the successful and private enterprise in general" (and you also said that, according to you, he "doesn't honestly value and respect private businesses"). I asked you to provide concrete examples that would illustrate and support that claim. You haven't been able to come up with anything else than non-sourced examples that do not actually support your claim. If you want to retreat and only argue that some people feel Obama hates rich people then sure, some people do feel that way - and those people are wrong. edit: and by the way, Kaitlin, seeing how badly you tried changing the topic to taxes in general when discussing the "you didn't build that" quote and even stopped replying to me altogether, I suppose we can agree that it was indeed taken out of context by Republicans. Get real. I'm not going to comb through his speeches just so you can have a source, which you'll just toss aside as not a big deal. (Note here: if you say something that's not a big deal enough, it can become a bid deal.) People have been complaining about his anti-business rhetoric for years. Articles like " The wages of negligence: The president has gained a reputation for being hostile to business. He needs to change it." and " No love lost: Corporate America’s complaints about the president keep getting louder" don't just crop up because of GOP propaganda. I like how you have no problem digging up sources about an argument I've repeatedly said I'm not interested in discussing (how Obama is perceived), but somehow can't find any source to back up your own claim that I'm responding to. Here's where he calls bankers fat cats. President Obama has ratcheted up his rhetoric against Wall Street just as some of the nation's top bankers head to the White House for what looks increasingly likely to be a tense and combative meeting.
In an interview with "60 Minutes" correspondent Steve Kroft, the president went after what he called the "fat cat bankers on Wall Street." He said bankers have not shown "a lot of shame" about their behavior and outsized compensation despite the bank bailouts and economic downturn.
After stating that the financial crisis was "caused in part by completely irresponsible actions on Wall Street," Mr. Obama suggested that some banks paid TARP bailout money back to the government specifically to free themselves from government-mandated constraints on executive compensation.
"I think in some cases that was a motivation," said Mr. Obama. "Which I think tells me that the people on Wall Street still don't get it. They don't get it. They're still puzzled, why is it that people are mad at the banks?"
"Well, let's see," continued the president. "You guys are drawing down $10, $20 million bonuses after America went through the worst economic year that it's gone through in decades, and you guys caused the problem. And we've got ten percent unemployment. Why do you think people might be a little frustrated?" Link That's not "attacking" the rich for being rich. That's certainly not attacking "private enterprise". That is, instead, criticizing two things some bankers were, according to him, guilty of: not taking and admitting to their share of responsibility for the financial crisis, and already getting back to big bonuses despite what had just happened. There's no other reproach there. Had the bankers not been guilty of those two things according to him, he would not have said those words. The relevant independent variable is therefore not that they're rich or that they're bankers, but that they're guilty in his view of what he denounces in the interview. You are missing the point completely. When you choose to use terms like "fat cats" enough, eventually the people that the term is levied at start to dislike you.
Holy shit. I actually agree with you. It's one thing to criticize the banking industry for being amoral and irresponsible, but to characterize them as moustache-twirling monocle-wearing fat cats is uncouth.
|
On September 18 2012 05:27 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2012 04:53 kwizach wrote:On September 18 2012 04:30 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 18 2012 03:38 kwizach wrote:On September 18 2012 02:53 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 17 2012 18:19 kwizach wrote:On September 17 2012 11:03 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 17 2012 10:11 kwizach wrote:On September 17 2012 09:34 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 17 2012 08:55 kwizach wrote: [quote] You didn't. Your examples weren't sourced, meaning one could hardly look at the context and verify how closely you reported them, and they weren't even examples of him making "attacks [...] on the rich, the successful and private enterprise". For example, denouncing a particular practice ("vulture capitalism") is not making an attack on the rich. Saying the rich should pay a "fair share" of taxes is not making an attack on the rich, it's being critical of a system in which the rich do not, according to Obama, pay a fair share of taxes. etc.
I don't think you get it. I'm talking about sentiment. Little things like negative word choice, used repeatedly, give people the idea that you really don't like them. So if Obama calls someone on Wall St a fat cat once it doesn't really matter. But when you repeat it along with other negative words (other 'attacks') you create certain sentiment. You made a claim. The claim was that Obama had levied "a whole host of attacks [...] on the rich, the successful and private enterprise in general" (and you also said that, according to you, he "doesn't honestly value and respect private businesses"). I asked you to provide concrete examples that would illustrate and support that claim. You haven't been able to come up with anything else than non-sourced examples that do not actually support your claim. If you want to retreat and only argue that some people feel Obama hates rich people then sure, some people do feel that way - and those people are wrong. edit: and by the way, Kaitlin, seeing how badly you tried changing the topic to taxes in general when discussing the "you didn't build that" quote and even stopped replying to me altogether, I suppose we can agree that it was indeed taken out of context by Republicans. Get real. I'm not going to comb through his speeches just so you can have a source, which you'll just toss aside as not a big deal. (Note here: if you say something that's not a big deal enough, it can become a bid deal.) People have been complaining about his anti-business rhetoric for years. Articles like " The wages of negligence: The president has gained a reputation for being hostile to business. He needs to change it." and " No love lost: Corporate America’s complaints about the president keep getting louder" don't just crop up because of GOP propaganda. I like how you have no problem digging up sources about an argument I've repeatedly said I'm not interested in discussing (how Obama is perceived), but somehow can't find any source to back up your own claim that I'm responding to. Here's where he calls bankers fat cats. President Obama has ratcheted up his rhetoric against Wall Street just as some of the nation's top bankers head to the White House for what looks increasingly likely to be a tense and combative meeting.
In an interview with "60 Minutes" correspondent Steve Kroft, the president went after what he called the "fat cat bankers on Wall Street." He said bankers have not shown "a lot of shame" about their behavior and outsized compensation despite the bank bailouts and economic downturn.
After stating that the financial crisis was "caused in part by completely irresponsible actions on Wall Street," Mr. Obama suggested that some banks paid TARP bailout money back to the government specifically to free themselves from government-mandated constraints on executive compensation.
"I think in some cases that was a motivation," said Mr. Obama. "Which I think tells me that the people on Wall Street still don't get it. They don't get it. They're still puzzled, why is it that people are mad at the banks?"
"Well, let's see," continued the president. "You guys are drawing down $10, $20 million bonuses after America went through the worst economic year that it's gone through in decades, and you guys caused the problem. And we've got ten percent unemployment. Why do you think people might be a little frustrated?" Link That's not "attacking" the rich for being rich. That's certainly not attacking "private enterprise". That is, instead, criticizing two things some bankers were, according to him, guilty of: not taking and admitting to their share of responsibility for the financial crisis, and already getting back to big bonuses despite what had just happened. There's no other reproach there. Had the bankers not been guilty of those two things according to him, he would not have said those words. The relevant independent variable is therefore not that they're rich or that they're bankers, but that they're guilty in his view of what he denounces in the interview. You are missing the point completely. When you choose to use terms like "fat cats" enough, eventually the people that the term is levied at start to dislike you. For the nth time, I am not discussing the perception that people have of Obama. I am discussing the claim that you made regarding the "attacks" that you said he's made "on the rich, the successful and private enterprise". It seems that you're the one missing the point, since I've explained this several times already. My claim was regarding perceptions. His "attacks" were not Obama hitting people with sticks. The attacks I was referring to were pokes and jabs at certain people. Reread my original post: Show nested quote +The one liner comes from there, but the sentiment comes from a whole host of attacks Obama has levied on the rich, the successful and private enterprise in general. Note that I use the word sentiment. I'm arguing that the sentiment stems from Obama's attacks - things like calling people "fat cats" or saying that the rich aren't doing their part. These are attacks - justified or not - it doesn't matter. Do you have a better explanation or do you just not like my choice of the word "attack"?
Isn't this a disagreement of how specific Obama is by using terms like "fat cats" and who he is actually attacking with them? With you seeing it as a more broad attack and with kwizach seeing it as only with regards to certain rich/successful people (i.e. not the rich and successful in general).
|
On September 18 2012 05:27 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2012 04:53 kwizach wrote:On September 18 2012 04:30 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 18 2012 03:38 kwizach wrote:On September 18 2012 02:53 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 17 2012 18:19 kwizach wrote:On September 17 2012 11:03 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 17 2012 10:11 kwizach wrote:On September 17 2012 09:34 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 17 2012 08:55 kwizach wrote: [quote] You didn't. Your examples weren't sourced, meaning one could hardly look at the context and verify how closely you reported them, and they weren't even examples of him making "attacks [...] on the rich, the successful and private enterprise". For example, denouncing a particular practice ("vulture capitalism") is not making an attack on the rich. Saying the rich should pay a "fair share" of taxes is not making an attack on the rich, it's being critical of a system in which the rich do not, according to Obama, pay a fair share of taxes. etc.
I don't think you get it. I'm talking about sentiment. Little things like negative word choice, used repeatedly, give people the idea that you really don't like them. So if Obama calls someone on Wall St a fat cat once it doesn't really matter. But when you repeat it along with other negative words (other 'attacks') you create certain sentiment. You made a claim. The claim was that Obama had levied "a whole host of attacks [...] on the rich, the successful and private enterprise in general" (and you also said that, according to you, he "doesn't honestly value and respect private businesses"). I asked you to provide concrete examples that would illustrate and support that claim. You haven't been able to come up with anything else than non-sourced examples that do not actually support your claim. If you want to retreat and only argue that some people feel Obama hates rich people then sure, some people do feel that way - and those people are wrong. edit: and by the way, Kaitlin, seeing how badly you tried changing the topic to taxes in general when discussing the "you didn't build that" quote and even stopped replying to me altogether, I suppose we can agree that it was indeed taken out of context by Republicans. Get real. I'm not going to comb through his speeches just so you can have a source, which you'll just toss aside as not a big deal. (Note here: if you say something that's not a big deal enough, it can become a bid deal.) People have been complaining about his anti-business rhetoric for years. Articles like " The wages of negligence: The president has gained a reputation for being hostile to business. He needs to change it." and " No love lost: Corporate America’s complaints about the president keep getting louder" don't just crop up because of GOP propaganda. I like how you have no problem digging up sources about an argument I've repeatedly said I'm not interested in discussing (how Obama is perceived), but somehow can't find any source to back up your own claim that I'm responding to. Here's where he calls bankers fat cats. President Obama has ratcheted up his rhetoric against Wall Street just as some of the nation's top bankers head to the White House for what looks increasingly likely to be a tense and combative meeting.
In an interview with "60 Minutes" correspondent Steve Kroft, the president went after what he called the "fat cat bankers on Wall Street." He said bankers have not shown "a lot of shame" about their behavior and outsized compensation despite the bank bailouts and economic downturn.
After stating that the financial crisis was "caused in part by completely irresponsible actions on Wall Street," Mr. Obama suggested that some banks paid TARP bailout money back to the government specifically to free themselves from government-mandated constraints on executive compensation.
"I think in some cases that was a motivation," said Mr. Obama. "Which I think tells me that the people on Wall Street still don't get it. They don't get it. They're still puzzled, why is it that people are mad at the banks?"
"Well, let's see," continued the president. "You guys are drawing down $10, $20 million bonuses after America went through the worst economic year that it's gone through in decades, and you guys caused the problem. And we've got ten percent unemployment. Why do you think people might be a little frustrated?" Link That's not "attacking" the rich for being rich. That's certainly not attacking "private enterprise". That is, instead, criticizing two things some bankers were, according to him, guilty of: not taking and admitting to their share of responsibility for the financial crisis, and already getting back to big bonuses despite what had just happened. There's no other reproach there. Had the bankers not been guilty of those two things according to him, he would not have said those words. The relevant independent variable is therefore not that they're rich or that they're bankers, but that they're guilty in his view of what he denounces in the interview. You are missing the point completely. When you choose to use terms like "fat cats" enough, eventually the people that the term is levied at start to dislike you. For the nth time, I am not discussing the perception that people have of Obama. I am discussing the claim that you made regarding the "attacks" that you said he's made "on the rich, the successful and private enterprise". It seems that you're the one missing the point, since I've explained this several times already. My claim was regarding perceptions. His "attacks" were not Obama hitting people with sticks. The attacks I was referring to were pokes and jabs at certain people. Reread my original post: Show nested quote +The one liner comes from there, but the sentiment comes from a whole host of attacks Obama has levied on the rich, the successful and private enterprise in general. Note that I use the word sentiment. I'm arguing that the sentiment stems from Obama's attacks - things like calling people "fat cats" or saying that the rich aren't doing their part. These are attacks - justified or not - it doesn't matter. Do you have a better explanation or do you just not like my choice of the word "attack"? Again, I am not interested in discussing how Obama is perceived. Yes, the main point of your original post was about how Obama is perceived. I am not interested in discussing this. What I am interested in discussing is the assertion you made to explain that perception, and that assertion only (not even the causal link you established between that assertion and the sentiment you evoked). Let me repeat (I really hope I'm not going to have to write this again in my next post): I did not reply to your post to discuss the main point you were making - only the assertion underlying it.
That assertion was that "Obama has levied ["a whole host of attacks"] on the rich, the successful and private enterprise in general". Since this idea that Obama has waged some kind of war against rich people and against private enterprise in particular is a blatantly ridiculous narrative that Republicans are and have been trying to push, I replied to your post to ask you to provide actual examples of such attacks. So far, you've provided me with absolutely nothing but cases where Obama did not actually attack "the rich", "the successful" or "private enterprise", but instead denounced practices. To assert that Obama is attacking rich people because he's denouncing some types of practices and actions that happen to be conducted by some rich people is a fallacy. I would therefore like you to provide me with actual examples of "attacks [...] on the rich, the successful and private enterprise", or admit that such "attacks" don't actually exist in reality (only in the minds of some).
|
On September 18 2012 04:40 madsweepslol wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2012 23:17 xDaunt wrote: As long as Romney doesn't shit the bed, I think he'll win. You think he'll win despite the fact that he's down in most polls, both in popular vote and electoral college? Despite the fact that he's down in many of the swing states (hell, Romney and the gop dropped ads in MI and PA)? True, he's within the margin of error, but he's consistently on the losing end.
As was discussed at length previously in the thread, the current polls aren't worth the paper that they're written on. They all are oversampling democrats by anywhere from 5% to 10%.
Show nested quote +On September 18 2012 02:54 xDaunt wrote: His campaign has come out today and said that Romney will be providing details on his economic, tax, and energy plans soon. We'll see what he comes up with. Looks like they provided no new details.
Rather than relying upon some hack outfit like TPM, you could just wait and see what the Romney campaign actually releases. Just saying....
|
On September 18 2012 06:31 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2012 04:40 madsweepslol wrote:On September 17 2012 23:17 xDaunt wrote: As long as Romney doesn't shit the bed, I think he'll win. You think he'll win despite the fact that he's down in most polls, both in popular vote and electoral college? Despite the fact that he's down in many of the swing states (hell, Romney and the gop dropped ads in MI and PA)? True, he's within the margin of error, but he's consistently on the losing end. As was discussed at length previously in the thread, the current polls aren't worth the paper that they're written on. They all are oversampling democrats by anywhere from 5% to 10%. Link? Further, if your political assertion relies on all or the majority of polls being wrong, you're gonna have a bad time.
On September 18 2012 06:31 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2012 04:40 madsweepslol wrote:On September 18 2012 02:54 xDaunt wrote: His campaign has come out today and said that Romney will be providing details on his economic, tax, and energy plans soon. We'll see what he comes up with. Looks like they provided no new details. Rather than relying upon some hack outfit like TPM, you could just wait and see what the Romney campaign actually releases. Just saying.... Sure, TPM's biased, but Romney's speech was supposed to be the beginnings of a new, detail oriented push after all his vague mumbling and, guess what, no new details.
|
On September 18 2012 05:04 ImAbstracT wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2012 23:40 xDaunt wrote:On September 17 2012 23:34 DoubleReed wrote:On September 17 2012 23:17 xDaunt wrote:On September 17 2012 21:10 DoubleReed wrote: Has xDaunt changed his prediction of Obama losing and the Democrats losing big? Nope. There won't be any reason to change the prediction until the debates. As long as Romney doesn't shit the bed, I think he'll win. Wait, is your plan if Romney loses to say something like "Well I would've been right, if it wasn't for such and such"? Because that's no fun. No. If Romney loses, the loss is on him. This should be an easy election for him. He has everything going in his favor. Only his own incompetence and timidity can lose this. As for the timidity, I'm not convinced that he can't win with this approach because of how damaged Obama is. However, I don't think Romney is doing himself any favors. What? Polls last week had Obama way ahead. We're close enough to the election that you shouldn't be looking at general polls. What really matters is Ohio, North Carolina, and Florida. Romney needs to win at least two out of those three to stand a chance. If Obama wins more than one (especially Ohio), he'll win re-election and it will only come down to whether he wins by a little or a lot.
The way the polls look right now, Obama will win the election. But it's far from inevitable. With QE3, protests in the Middle East, this flare-up in Asia, the EU going all-in, and the US fiscal cliff, not to mention the debates, a lot can happen in the next 50 or so days.
|
On September 18 2012 06:42 madsweepslol wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2012 06:31 xDaunt wrote:On September 18 2012 04:40 madsweepslol wrote:On September 17 2012 23:17 xDaunt wrote: As long as Romney doesn't shit the bed, I think he'll win. You think he'll win despite the fact that he's down in most polls, both in popular vote and electoral college? Despite the fact that he's down in many of the swing states (hell, Romney and the gop dropped ads in MI and PA)? True, he's within the margin of error, but he's consistently on the losing end. As was discussed at length previously in the thread, the current polls aren't worth the paper that they're written on. They all are oversampling democrats by anywhere from 5% to 10%. Link? Further, if your political assertion relies on all or the majority of polls being wrong, you're gonna have a bad time.
Go look at the internals of any poll. If you want a summary, go look here.
Besides, the political polling outfits have skewed hilariously in favor of democrats over the past few years. They got 2010 wrong. They got the Scott Walker recall election wrong. The problem is that they are basing their models upon the 2008 general election turnout, which simply isn't going to happen again.
|
Good to see Obama will find the time to do Letterman, wouldn't want silly things like turmoil in the middle east and dead ambassadors getting dragged through the street to get in the way of his PR campaign.
(Note: I'm sure Romney would be doing the same thing were he sitting President, it's more an indictment of how awful the people in politics are in general than a specific party)
|
On September 18 2012 06:51 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2012 06:42 madsweepslol wrote:On September 18 2012 06:31 xDaunt wrote:On September 18 2012 04:40 madsweepslol wrote:On September 17 2012 23:17 xDaunt wrote: As long as Romney doesn't shit the bed, I think he'll win. You think he'll win despite the fact that he's down in most polls, both in popular vote and electoral college? Despite the fact that he's down in many of the swing states (hell, Romney and the gop dropped ads in MI and PA)? True, he's within the margin of error, but he's consistently on the losing end. As was discussed at length previously in the thread, the current polls aren't worth the paper that they're written on. They all are oversampling democrats by anywhere from 5% to 10%. Link? Further, if your political assertion relies on all or the majority of polls being wrong, you're gonna have a bad time. Go look at the internals of any poll. If you want a summary, go look here. Besides, the political polling outfits have skewed hilariously in favor of democrats over the past few years. They got 2010 wrong. They got the Scott Walker recall election wrong. The problem is that they are basing their models upon the 2008 general election turnout, which simply isn't going to happen again.
Didn't 538 call every single state correct in 2010? As far I know the only other organized polling and model outfit out there is Rasmussen, and they're a pretty pathetic joke.
|
On September 18 2012 06:13 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2012 05:27 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 18 2012 04:53 kwizach wrote:On September 18 2012 04:30 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 18 2012 03:38 kwizach wrote:On September 18 2012 02:53 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 17 2012 18:19 kwizach wrote:On September 17 2012 11:03 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 17 2012 10:11 kwizach wrote:On September 17 2012 09:34 JonnyBNoHo wrote: [quote] I don't think you get it. I'm talking about sentiment. Little things like negative word choice, used repeatedly, give people the idea that you really don't like them. So if Obama calls someone on Wall St a fat cat once it doesn't really matter. But when you repeat it along with other negative words (other 'attacks') you create certain sentiment. You made a claim. The claim was that Obama had levied "a whole host of attacks [...] on the rich, the successful and private enterprise in general" (and you also said that, according to you, he "doesn't honestly value and respect private businesses"). I asked you to provide concrete examples that would illustrate and support that claim. You haven't been able to come up with anything else than non-sourced examples that do not actually support your claim. If you want to retreat and only argue that some people feel Obama hates rich people then sure, some people do feel that way - and those people are wrong. edit: and by the way, Kaitlin, seeing how badly you tried changing the topic to taxes in general when discussing the "you didn't build that" quote and even stopped replying to me altogether, I suppose we can agree that it was indeed taken out of context by Republicans. Get real. I'm not going to comb through his speeches just so you can have a source, which you'll just toss aside as not a big deal. (Note here: if you say something that's not a big deal enough, it can become a bid deal.) People have been complaining about his anti-business rhetoric for years. Articles like " The wages of negligence: The president has gained a reputation for being hostile to business. He needs to change it." and " No love lost: Corporate America’s complaints about the president keep getting louder" don't just crop up because of GOP propaganda. I like how you have no problem digging up sources about an argument I've repeatedly said I'm not interested in discussing (how Obama is perceived), but somehow can't find any source to back up your own claim that I'm responding to. Here's where he calls bankers fat cats. President Obama has ratcheted up his rhetoric against Wall Street just as some of the nation's top bankers head to the White House for what looks increasingly likely to be a tense and combative meeting.
In an interview with "60 Minutes" correspondent Steve Kroft, the president went after what he called the "fat cat bankers on Wall Street." He said bankers have not shown "a lot of shame" about their behavior and outsized compensation despite the bank bailouts and economic downturn.
After stating that the financial crisis was "caused in part by completely irresponsible actions on Wall Street," Mr. Obama suggested that some banks paid TARP bailout money back to the government specifically to free themselves from government-mandated constraints on executive compensation.
"I think in some cases that was a motivation," said Mr. Obama. "Which I think tells me that the people on Wall Street still don't get it. They don't get it. They're still puzzled, why is it that people are mad at the banks?"
"Well, let's see," continued the president. "You guys are drawing down $10, $20 million bonuses after America went through the worst economic year that it's gone through in decades, and you guys caused the problem. And we've got ten percent unemployment. Why do you think people might be a little frustrated?" Link That's not "attacking" the rich for being rich. That's certainly not attacking "private enterprise". That is, instead, criticizing two things some bankers were, according to him, guilty of: not taking and admitting to their share of responsibility for the financial crisis, and already getting back to big bonuses despite what had just happened. There's no other reproach there. Had the bankers not been guilty of those two things according to him, he would not have said those words. The relevant independent variable is therefore not that they're rich or that they're bankers, but that they're guilty in his view of what he denounces in the interview. You are missing the point completely. When you choose to use terms like "fat cats" enough, eventually the people that the term is levied at start to dislike you. For the nth time, I am not discussing the perception that people have of Obama. I am discussing the claim that you made regarding the "attacks" that you said he's made "on the rich, the successful and private enterprise". It seems that you're the one missing the point, since I've explained this several times already. My claim was regarding perceptions. His "attacks" were not Obama hitting people with sticks. The attacks I was referring to were pokes and jabs at certain people. Reread my original post: The one liner comes from there, but the sentiment comes from a whole host of attacks Obama has levied on the rich, the successful and private enterprise in general. Note that I use the word sentiment. I'm arguing that the sentiment stems from Obama's attacks - things like calling people "fat cats" or saying that the rich aren't doing their part. These are attacks - justified or not - it doesn't matter. Do you have a better explanation or do you just not like my choice of the word "attack"? Again, I am not interested in discussing how Obama is perceived. Yes, the main point of your original post was about how Obama is perceived. I am not interested in discussing this. What I am interested in discussing is the assertion you made to explain that perception, and that assertion only (not even the causal link you established between that assertion and the sentiment you evoke). Again (I really hope I'm not going to have to repeat this in my next post), I did not reply to your post to discuss the main point you were making - only the assertion that underlaid it. That assertion was that "Obama has levied ["a whole host of attacks"] on the rich, the successful and private enterprise in general". Since this idea that Obama has actually waged some kind of war against rich people is a blatantly ridiculous narrative that Republicans are and have been trying to push, I replied to your post to ask you to actually provide examples of such attacks. So far, you've provided me with absolutely nothing but cases where Obama did not actually attack "the rich", "the successful" or "private enterprise", but instead denounced practices. To assert that Obama is attacking rich people because he's denouncing some types of practices and actions that happen to be conducted by some rich people is a fallacy. I would therefore like you to provide me with actual examples of "attacks [...] on the rich, the successful and private enterprise", or admit that they don't actually exist. Whether or not calling someone a "fat cat" constitutes an attack is a matter of opinion and perspective. It is not something we can really have a factual discussion about. You need to understand that different people have a different point of view and because of that will react to things differently.
Ex. You can state that oil company profits in '08 were "excessive" and argue that it is a factually correct choice of words. The price of oil was extremely high making profits "excessive". However, people in the oil industry, and other businesses for that matter, will view it as an attack. Justified or not, factual or not, it doesn't matter - they will view it as an attack.
Basically anything negative can be perceived as an attack. That's why we call negative ads "attack ads". When Obama says negative things about bankers (fat cats) or the rich (fair share) then those groups will often view that negativity as an attack.
|
On September 18 2012 06:55 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2012 06:13 kwizach wrote:On September 18 2012 05:27 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 18 2012 04:53 kwizach wrote:On September 18 2012 04:30 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 18 2012 03:38 kwizach wrote:On September 18 2012 02:53 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 17 2012 18:19 kwizach wrote:On September 17 2012 11:03 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 17 2012 10:11 kwizach wrote: [quote] You made a claim. The claim was that Obama had levied "a whole host of attacks [...] on the rich, the successful and private enterprise in general" (and you also said that, according to you, he "doesn't honestly value and respect private businesses"). I asked you to provide concrete examples that would illustrate and support that claim. You haven't been able to come up with anything else than non-sourced examples that do not actually support your claim. If you want to retreat and only argue that some people feel Obama hates rich people then sure, some people do feel that way - and those people are wrong.
edit: and by the way, Kaitlin, seeing how badly you tried changing the topic to taxes in general when discussing the "you didn't build that" quote and even stopped replying to me altogether, I suppose we can agree that it was indeed taken out of context by Republicans. Get real. I'm not going to comb through his speeches just so you can have a source, which you'll just toss aside as not a big deal. (Note here: if you say something that's not a big deal enough, it can become a bid deal.) People have been complaining about his anti-business rhetoric for years. Articles like " The wages of negligence: The president has gained a reputation for being hostile to business. He needs to change it." and " No love lost: Corporate America’s complaints about the president keep getting louder" don't just crop up because of GOP propaganda. I like how you have no problem digging up sources about an argument I've repeatedly said I'm not interested in discussing (how Obama is perceived), but somehow can't find any source to back up your own claim that I'm responding to. Here's where he calls bankers fat cats. President Obama has ratcheted up his rhetoric against Wall Street just as some of the nation's top bankers head to the White House for what looks increasingly likely to be a tense and combative meeting.
In an interview with "60 Minutes" correspondent Steve Kroft, the president went after what he called the "fat cat bankers on Wall Street." He said bankers have not shown "a lot of shame" about their behavior and outsized compensation despite the bank bailouts and economic downturn.
After stating that the financial crisis was "caused in part by completely irresponsible actions on Wall Street," Mr. Obama suggested that some banks paid TARP bailout money back to the government specifically to free themselves from government-mandated constraints on executive compensation.
"I think in some cases that was a motivation," said Mr. Obama. "Which I think tells me that the people on Wall Street still don't get it. They don't get it. They're still puzzled, why is it that people are mad at the banks?"
"Well, let's see," continued the president. "You guys are drawing down $10, $20 million bonuses after America went through the worst economic year that it's gone through in decades, and you guys caused the problem. And we've got ten percent unemployment. Why do you think people might be a little frustrated?" Link That's not "attacking" the rich for being rich. That's certainly not attacking "private enterprise". That is, instead, criticizing two things some bankers were, according to him, guilty of: not taking and admitting to their share of responsibility for the financial crisis, and already getting back to big bonuses despite what had just happened. There's no other reproach there. Had the bankers not been guilty of those two things according to him, he would not have said those words. The relevant independent variable is therefore not that they're rich or that they're bankers, but that they're guilty in his view of what he denounces in the interview. You are missing the point completely. When you choose to use terms like "fat cats" enough, eventually the people that the term is levied at start to dislike you. For the nth time, I am not discussing the perception that people have of Obama. I am discussing the claim that you made regarding the "attacks" that you said he's made "on the rich, the successful and private enterprise". It seems that you're the one missing the point, since I've explained this several times already. My claim was regarding perceptions. His "attacks" were not Obama hitting people with sticks. The attacks I was referring to were pokes and jabs at certain people. Reread my original post: The one liner comes from there, but the sentiment comes from a whole host of attacks Obama has levied on the rich, the successful and private enterprise in general. Note that I use the word sentiment. I'm arguing that the sentiment stems from Obama's attacks - things like calling people "fat cats" or saying that the rich aren't doing their part. These are attacks - justified or not - it doesn't matter. Do you have a better explanation or do you just not like my choice of the word "attack"? Again, I am not interested in discussing how Obama is perceived. Yes, the main point of your original post was about how Obama is perceived. I am not interested in discussing this. What I am interested in discussing is the assertion you made to explain that perception, and that assertion only (not even the causal link you established between that assertion and the sentiment you evoke). Again (I really hope I'm not going to have to repeat this in my next post), I did not reply to your post to discuss the main point you were making - only the assertion that underlaid it. That assertion was that "Obama has levied ["a whole host of attacks"] on the rich, the successful and private enterprise in general". Since this idea that Obama has actually waged some kind of war against rich people is a blatantly ridiculous narrative that Republicans are and have been trying to push, I replied to your post to ask you to actually provide examples of such attacks. So far, you've provided me with absolutely nothing but cases where Obama did not actually attack "the rich", "the successful" or "private enterprise", but instead denounced practices. To assert that Obama is attacking rich people because he's denouncing some types of practices and actions that happen to be conducted by some rich people is a fallacy. I would therefore like you to provide me with actual examples of "attacks [...] on the rich, the successful and private enterprise", or admit that they don't actually exist. Whether or not calling someone a "fat cat" constitutes an attack is a matter of opinion and perspective. It is not something we can really have a factual discussion about. You need to understand that different people have a different point of view and because of that will react to things differently. Ex. You can state that oil company profits in '08 were "excessive" and argue that it is a factually correct choice of words. The price of oil was extremely high making profits "excessive". However, people in the oil industry, and other businesses for that matter, will view it as an attack. Justified or not, factual or not, it doesn't matter - they will view it as an attack. Basically anything negative can be perceived as an attack. That's why we call negative ads "attack ads". When Obama says negative things about bankers (fat cats) or the rich (fair share) then those groups will often view that negativity as an attack. You are still discussing perception. That there is a degree of subjectivity in determining whether or not a statement is an "attack" does not prevent us from looking at what and/or whom the statements are targeting in the first place (and, by the way, we can in addition discuss their degree of hostility, since "attacks" obviously denotes a high degree of hostility). When Obama says that rich people are not paying their fair share of taxes, he's not attacking the rich because that statement is not about the rich but about how much they pay in taxes - it is therefore about the tax system. One of his selling points is actually that many rich people agree with him on the matter (see even the name of his tax plan, the "Buffet rule"). That's why in the very speech the "you didn't built that" quote is taken from, he says, and I quote, "There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me".
He's therefore very clearly not attacking "the rich, the successful and private enterprise in general", because he's not even targeting them. Obama has never criticized "the rich" for being rich, "the successful" for being successful, or private enterprise. Never. That's why it's perfectly possible to answer objectively the question of whether he's done attacks like the ones you evoked, and the answer is he hasn't.
|
On September 18 2012 06:51 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2012 06:42 madsweepslol wrote:On September 18 2012 06:31 xDaunt wrote:On September 18 2012 04:40 madsweepslol wrote:On September 17 2012 23:17 xDaunt wrote: As long as Romney doesn't shit the bed, I think he'll win. You think he'll win despite the fact that he's down in most polls, both in popular vote and electoral college? Despite the fact that he's down in many of the swing states (hell, Romney and the gop dropped ads in MI and PA)? True, he's within the margin of error, but he's consistently on the losing end. As was discussed at length previously in the thread, the current polls aren't worth the paper that they're written on. They all are oversampling democrats by anywhere from 5% to 10%. Link? Further, if your political assertion relies on all or the majority of polls being wrong, you're gonna have a bad time. Go look at the internals of any poll. If you want a summary, go look here. Wow, that's interesting. Thanks.
|
On September 18 2012 07:09 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2012 06:55 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 18 2012 06:13 kwizach wrote:On September 18 2012 05:27 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 18 2012 04:53 kwizach wrote:On September 18 2012 04:30 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 18 2012 03:38 kwizach wrote:On September 18 2012 02:53 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 17 2012 18:19 kwizach wrote:I like how you have no problem digging up sources about an argument I've repeatedly said I'm not interested in discussing (how Obama is perceived), but somehow can't find any source to back up your own claim that I'm responding to. Here's where he calls bankers fat cats. President Obama has ratcheted up his rhetoric against Wall Street just as some of the nation's top bankers head to the White House for what looks increasingly likely to be a tense and combative meeting.
In an interview with "60 Minutes" correspondent Steve Kroft, the president went after what he called the "fat cat bankers on Wall Street." He said bankers have not shown "a lot of shame" about their behavior and outsized compensation despite the bank bailouts and economic downturn.
After stating that the financial crisis was "caused in part by completely irresponsible actions on Wall Street," Mr. Obama suggested that some banks paid TARP bailout money back to the government specifically to free themselves from government-mandated constraints on executive compensation.
"I think in some cases that was a motivation," said Mr. Obama. "Which I think tells me that the people on Wall Street still don't get it. They don't get it. They're still puzzled, why is it that people are mad at the banks?"
"Well, let's see," continued the president. "You guys are drawing down $10, $20 million bonuses after America went through the worst economic year that it's gone through in decades, and you guys caused the problem. And we've got ten percent unemployment. Why do you think people might be a little frustrated?" Link That's not "attacking" the rich for being rich. That's certainly not attacking "private enterprise". That is, instead, criticizing two things some bankers were, according to him, guilty of: not taking and admitting to their share of responsibility for the financial crisis, and already getting back to big bonuses despite what had just happened. There's no other reproach there. Had the bankers not been guilty of those two things according to him, he would not have said those words. The relevant independent variable is therefore not that they're rich or that they're bankers, but that they're guilty in his view of what he denounces in the interview. You are missing the point completely. When you choose to use terms like "fat cats" enough, eventually the people that the term is levied at start to dislike you. For the nth time, I am not discussing the perception that people have of Obama. I am discussing the claim that you made regarding the "attacks" that you said he's made "on the rich, the successful and private enterprise". It seems that you're the one missing the point, since I've explained this several times already. My claim was regarding perceptions. His "attacks" were not Obama hitting people with sticks. The attacks I was referring to were pokes and jabs at certain people. Reread my original post: The one liner comes from there, but the sentiment comes from a whole host of attacks Obama has levied on the rich, the successful and private enterprise in general. Note that I use the word sentiment. I'm arguing that the sentiment stems from Obama's attacks - things like calling people "fat cats" or saying that the rich aren't doing their part. These are attacks - justified or not - it doesn't matter. Do you have a better explanation or do you just not like my choice of the word "attack"? Again, I am not interested in discussing how Obama is perceived. Yes, the main point of your original post was about how Obama is perceived. I am not interested in discussing this. What I am interested in discussing is the assertion you made to explain that perception, and that assertion only (not even the causal link you established between that assertion and the sentiment you evoke). Again (I really hope I'm not going to have to repeat this in my next post), I did not reply to your post to discuss the main point you were making - only the assertion that underlaid it. That assertion was that "Obama has levied ["a whole host of attacks"] on the rich, the successful and private enterprise in general". Since this idea that Obama has actually waged some kind of war against rich people is a blatantly ridiculous narrative that Republicans are and have been trying to push, I replied to your post to ask you to actually provide examples of such attacks. So far, you've provided me with absolutely nothing but cases where Obama did not actually attack "the rich", "the successful" or "private enterprise", but instead denounced practices. To assert that Obama is attacking rich people because he's denouncing some types of practices and actions that happen to be conducted by some rich people is a fallacy. I would therefore like you to provide me with actual examples of "attacks [...] on the rich, the successful and private enterprise", or admit that they don't actually exist. Whether or not calling someone a "fat cat" constitutes an attack is a matter of opinion and perspective. It is not something we can really have a factual discussion about. You need to understand that different people have a different point of view and because of that will react to things differently. Ex. You can state that oil company profits in '08 were "excessive" and argue that it is a factually correct choice of words. The price of oil was extremely high making profits "excessive". However, people in the oil industry, and other businesses for that matter, will view it as an attack. Justified or not, factual or not, it doesn't matter - they will view it as an attack. Basically anything negative can be perceived as an attack. That's why we call negative ads "attack ads". When Obama says negative things about bankers (fat cats) or the rich (fair share) then those groups will often view that negativity as an attack. You are still discussing perception. That there is a degree of subjectivity in determining whether or not a statement is an "attack" does not prevent us from looking at what and/or whom the statements are targeting in the first place (and, by the way, we can in addition discuss their degree of hostility, since "attacks" obviously denotes a high degree of hostility). When Obama says that rich people are not paying their fair share of taxes, he's not attacking the rich because that statement is not about the rich but about how much they pay in taxes - it is therefore about the tax system. One of his selling points is actually that many rich people agree with him on the matter (see even the name of his tax plan, the "Buffet rule"). That's why in the very speech the "you didn't built that" quote is taken from, he says, and I quote, "There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me". He's therefore very clearly not attacking "the rich, the successful and private enterprise in general", because he's not even targeting them. Obama has never criticized "the rich" for being rich, "the successful" for being successful, or private enterprise. Never. That's why it's perfectly possible to answer objectively the question of whether he's done attacks like the ones you evoked, and the answer is he hasn't. Oh c'mon, you're just playing word games now. What you're doing is the same as Bush justifying his tax cuts that everyone is free to take advantage of reductions in capital gains taxes, even though in real terms the vast majority of the benefit goes to the rich.
I might agree that Republicans exaggerate increased taxes into some kind of devoted hatred of the rich, but you can't get away with saying forcing the top 1% of the population to pay higher taxes is not targeting a specific group or attacking their success. Of course he is, he's taking money from them.
Now, you may still support that. But be open and transparent about what you're exactly trying to do. If you want to tax the rich to fund programs for the poor out of a sense of fairness and equality, then that's fine as an opinion. But don't muddy up the waters and say the rich should be happy about it.
|
|
|
|