|
|
On September 18 2012 15:25 Defacer wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2012 14:24 rogzardo wrote:
Those freeloaders live so lavishly on their $125 of food stamps each month too. Such an easy ride for them. I mean, listen to this freeloading bitch whine about Romney. What a lazy, useless cunt. Show nested quote +That Romney quote about people in the 47 percent not taking responsibility for their lives made me so angry I almost cried. I'm in that 47 percent. My household hasn't paid income taxes in ten years - not since my husband became seriously disabled and could no longer work. How dare Romney tell me I'm not taking responsibility. I've been nothing but responsible - responsible for raising three children and caring for my husband for five years until he died, through some very tough times. I worked part-time through much of this, but SSDI and private disability insurance made it possible for my family to survive financially. My two sons received federal loans for college. One is now a public school teacher, and a darn good one - a worthwhile investment, I'd say. The other is still in college. My third child is disabled and continues to receive SSDI, and I'm still responsible for her. I work full-time, pay payroll taxes, property taxes, sales taxes, gas taxes. But I work for a not-for-profit and don't receive the kind of salary people of my abilities earn in investment banking.
The stuff that happened to me - a spouse who died prematurely, a child with a genetically-based disability - these things can happen to anyone. Anyone. Reader submitted to the Daily Dish
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/12/the-veil-of-opulence/
Create a world where anyone can succeed, but you can't know in what situation you can be born (the veil of ignorance). Therefore, you must assume the worst for yourself in this alternate world, e.g. you are born without toes and have a chronic liver disorder. People tend to want to say "oh, you can succeed with hard work even if you're pretty mediocre", but it just doesn't work that way (this is the veil of opulence).
|
On September 18 2012 14:24 rogzardo wrote:
Those freeloaders live so lavishly on their $125 of food stamps each month too. Such an easy ride for them.
I mean, listen to this freeloader bitch and whine about Romney. What a lazy, useless cunt.
That Romney quote about people in the 47 percent not taking responsibility for their lives made me so angry I almost cried. I'm in that 47 percent. My household hasn't paid income taxes in ten years - not since my husband became seriously disabled and could no longer work. How dare Romney tell me I'm not taking responsibility. I've been nothing but responsible - responsible for raising three children and caring for my husband for five years until he died, through some very tough times. I worked part-time through much of this, but SSDI and private disability insurance made it possible for my family to survive financially. My two sons received federal loans for college. One is now a public school teacher, and a darn good one - a worthwhile investment, I'd say. The other is still in college. My third child is disabled and continues to receive SSDI, and I'm still responsible for her. I work full-time, pay payroll taxes, property taxes, sales taxes, gas taxes. But I work for a not-for-profit and don't receive the kind of salary people of my abilities earn in investment banking.
The stuff that happened to me - a spouse who died prematurely, a child with a genetically-based disability - these things can happen to anyone. Anyone.
Reader submitted to the Daily Dish
|
Washington Post has a recap of Mitt Romney's past two weeks ... sigh.
The release of a recording of former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney at a private fundraiser in May telling donors that “there are 47 percent of the people…who are dependent on government, who believe that they are the victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them…I’ll never convince them that they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives” is the latest body blow for a campaign that can’t seem to get out of its own way of late.
Consider what has happened to Romney since the Democrats concluded their convention in Charlotte earlier this month:
* The release of a Romney polling memo that seemed decidedly defensive over the idea of a convention bounce for the incumbent.
* A too-quick statement regarding the tumult in Libya that polling suggests was not looked on favorably by the voting public.
* A Politico story laying bare strife within the campaign that hit Sunday night.
And now comes this video tape featuring Romney offering a blunt assessment of his economic worldview to a group of wealthy donors — an assessment that is more candid, more calculating and more conservative than the GOP nominee has been in public.
Taken individually, none of the incidents referenced above are that big a deal in the constant swirl of politics. Taken together, they paint an image of a campaign in disarray and a candidate not ready for primetime. Context always matters in politics and the context in which this videotape has landed is just plain awful for Romney’s campaign.
Before we get too much further, it’s worth taking a step back to say that there is little evidence that missteps — whether minor or major — have an obvious and immediate impact on polling in this race.
Thanks to our friend John Sides at the Monkey Cage Blog, we have evidence of that lack of movement here:
So, it’s worth taking the immediate analysis of what it all means for Romney — including this one — cum grano salis.
Caveats dispatched, we do think there are at least two real impacts of Romney’s brutal past two weeks — even if they are not evident in polling.
The first — and most important — is that this story will serve as a major distraction for a Romney campaign who just today announced its plans to re-boot itself by offering more specifics on what he would do on the economy if elected president.
“We do think the timing is right to reinforce more specifics about the Romney plan for a strong middle class,” senior Romney adviser Ed Gillespie told reporters on a conference call Monday morning that now seems like a millenium ago.
Whether or not you believe Romney offered a window into his true feelings about the election (and the electorate) in the leaked video from the fundraiser (and we will leave that up to others to decide), it’s impossible to see how Romney’s comments don’t dominate the political conversation for the next 48-72 hours — and maybe longer.
That reality virtually ensures a second straight week lost to off-message stories that are far afield from the economic focus that the Romney campaign is hoping to lean on in the final weeks of the race. Mitt Romney isn’t going to win this race on foreign policy and he certainly isn’t going to win it on too-candid comments about his view of the economic realities present in the electorate. Any one — Republican, Democrat or Independent — who tells you differently is just wrong.
Wasting two weeks when there are only seven weeks left in a race that even the most loyal Republicans acknowledge they are currently losing — albeit it narrowly — is a major problem for Romney.
The second way the leaked video impacts the race is that it fuels the “gang who can’t shoot straight” narrative that Politico began with its story and that the Romney campaign was hoping to quickly extinguish with its conference call Monday morning.
If donors and other political professionals were skittish about where the race generally — and Romney’s bid specifically — stood on Monday morning, you can imagine they will be worked up into a full lather by Tuesday morning.
The video will fuel the growing sentiment within the Republican chattering class that Romney is in the process of losing a winnable race. That means the second-guessing that goes on privately in every campaign will go more public. And the more public it becomes, the longer it takes Romney and his team to move beyond unhelpful process stories focused on whether his own party thinks he’s blowing it.
To be clear: Declaring the race over — as some people will do in the next 48 hours — is a mistake. Seven weeks remain before voters vote and what looks determinative to the outcome now might look very different come November 1.
But, anyone who thinks that Romney isn’t weathering his darkest days as a candidate right now would be sorely mistaken.
|
On September 18 2012 15:55 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2012 15:08 BlueBird. wrote:On September 18 2012 14:56 Zaqwert wrote:
The % argument is completely insane to me.
Someone paying 15% of their 30K income is really gonna complain about the millionarie on the other end of town who paid 14%?
So the guy who paid 4,500 bucks is chaffed the guy who paid 140,000 isn't paying enough?
Mitt Romney has paid more in taxes over the last 2 or 3 years than pretty much anyone on this board will their entire lives.
The rich aren't "screwing" over the society, they are the ones making it possible.
I'm squarely cushy middle class btw. But just because I can't afford a new Mercedes or private jet doesn't make me think it's ok to pillage from those who can. It's because that 4,500 actually makes a difference for that person's life, it could mean living comfortably, or struggling. I know 4,500 is a decent chunk of money too me. Romney it's just another 140,000, he's got plenty of millions in his accounts and what not. These number's are nothing too him. I disagree about the rich making things possible, they've seen most of the economic growth over these years with their extremely low tax rates, and they're still calling for lower tax rates for the rich as if it's actually going to go back into the economy or something? (sorry about misusing they're and their, feel silly, freaking tired, goodnight all  ) Well, the funny thing is, the rich payer higher tax rates, so a flat tax (15% across the board for example) would actually mean the rich are taxed less. I would support a flat tax, but I think it is kind of bullshit we are double taxed. I would completely get rid of income tax and just raise sales tax.
There is no federal general sales tax, so...?
And aside from being extremely regressive, replacing the federal income tax with a sales tax (i.e. the FairTax plan) would double tax the shit out of seniors who spent their lives paying income taxes.
|
On September 18 2012 16:16 Mindcrime wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2012 15:55 kmillz wrote:On September 18 2012 15:08 BlueBird. wrote:On September 18 2012 14:56 Zaqwert wrote:
The % argument is completely insane to me.
Someone paying 15% of their 30K income is really gonna complain about the millionarie on the other end of town who paid 14%?
So the guy who paid 4,500 bucks is chaffed the guy who paid 140,000 isn't paying enough?
Mitt Romney has paid more in taxes over the last 2 or 3 years than pretty much anyone on this board will their entire lives.
The rich aren't "screwing" over the society, they are the ones making it possible.
I'm squarely cushy middle class btw. But just because I can't afford a new Mercedes or private jet doesn't make me think it's ok to pillage from those who can. It's because that 4,500 actually makes a difference for that person's life, it could mean living comfortably, or struggling. I know 4,500 is a decent chunk of money too me. Romney it's just another 140,000, he's got plenty of millions in his accounts and what not. These number's are nothing too him. I disagree about the rich making things possible, they've seen most of the economic growth over these years with their extremely low tax rates, and they're still calling for lower tax rates for the rich as if it's actually going to go back into the economy or something? (sorry about misusing they're and their, feel silly, freaking tired, goodnight all ) Well, the funny thing is, the rich payer higher tax rates, so a flat tax (15% across the board for example) would actually mean the rich are taxed less. I would support a flat tax, but I think it is kind of bullshit we are double taxed. I would completely get rid of income tax and just raise sales tax. There is no federal general sales tax, so...? And aside from being extremely regressive, replacing the federal income tax with a sales tax (i.e. the FairTax plan) would double tax the shit out of seniors who spent their lives paying income taxes.
Anyone bother asking the seniors? Average retirement age just keeps on going up (for those of us not in public sector units or private sector ones in certain states) so more and more seniors are subject to these income taxes. A flat sales tax replacing the income tax would be neat; only advisable if the income tax amendment were repealed (The only way politicians would not end up with both a national sales tax and income tax in an "emergency situation." Totally unfeasible from the lack of knowledge about how it would function and potential gains. Kinda like the gold standard. Pipe dreams, both of them.
And I'm still calling for an across-the-board tax cut. Naturally, the rich, who pay more, would feel the most relief. And have more money to invest, hire more workers, etc.
|
On September 18 2012 14:56 Zaqwert wrote:
The % argument is completely insane to me.
Someone paying 15% of their 30K income is really gonna complain about the millionarie on the other end of town who paid 14%?
So the guy who paid 4,500 bucks is chaffed the guy who paid 140,000 isn't paying enough?
Mitt Romney has paid more in taxes over the last 2 or 3 years than pretty much anyone on this board will their entire lives.
The rich aren't "screwing" over the society, they are the ones making it possible.
I'm squarely cushy middle class btw. But just because I can't afford a new Mercedes or private jet doesn't make me think it's ok to pillage from those who can.
Lol...the scary thing is that so many Americans think like this guy. U actually think the rich give a damn about u? Or that the CEO's making millions are whats making society work? Nah its not engineers, doctors, teachers, firefighters, etc making society work. Its the wall street guys making it rain millions, oil tycoons and celebrities. I feel bad for your mindstate....keep waiting for that wealth to trickle down you'll be waiting a while tho
|
On September 18 2012 16:58 antelope591 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2012 14:56 Zaqwert wrote:
The % argument is completely insane to me.
Someone paying 15% of their 30K income is really gonna complain about the millionarie on the other end of town who paid 14%?
So the guy who paid 4,500 bucks is chaffed the guy who paid 140,000 isn't paying enough?
Mitt Romney has paid more in taxes over the last 2 or 3 years than pretty much anyone on this board will their entire lives.
The rich aren't "screwing" over the society, they are the ones making it possible.
I'm squarely cushy middle class btw. But just because I can't afford a new Mercedes or private jet doesn't make me think it's ok to pillage from those who can. Lol...the scary thing is that so many Americans think like this guy. U actually think the rich give a damn about u? Or that the CEO's making millions are whats making society work? Nah its not engineers, doctors, teachers, firefighters, etc making society work. Its the wall street guys making it rain millions, oil tycoons and celebrities. I feel bad for your mindstate....keep waiting for that wealth to trickle down you'll be waiting a while tho
I think what really shows how Romney is out of touch with reality is that insinuation that 47% of people pay no taxes because they're lazy, incompetent buffoons who rely on government for everything.
Let's use a student with a part time job making 10k a year alongside school(~20 hours a week at $10), living with his parents. This guy wouldn't and shouldn't be considered lazy at all. Between work and school he probably works as much or more than many full-time employees.
Assuming he's cheap, he gets by with $10 a day spent on food(This is cheap, but it is absolutely possible). ~6400 left.
School at $2.5k per semester, 2 per year. $1400 left on discretionary spending. If you taxed him at 15% with no deductions, you just took away ALL his discretionary spending, and then some.
Same thing with the guy who earns $1000000 per year. He goes out to eat every day, often buys a few drinks for $100 a day on food. Let's assume he spends 100,000 a year paying for utilities/food/rent/insurance etc.
He has roughly 860000 left as discretionary spending. After a flat 15% he still has 710k. That's ~17.4% of his discretionary spending. He'll probably miss it, but it's not the end of the world for him.
Sure, the millionaire pays more taxes, but the student is the one who suffers from not having the ability to pay zero income tax. Very simplistic example, but that's why I hope that Obama wins.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On September 18 2012 17:33 Amui wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2012 16:58 antelope591 wrote:On September 18 2012 14:56 Zaqwert wrote:
The % argument is completely insane to me.
Someone paying 15% of their 30K income is really gonna complain about the millionarie on the other end of town who paid 14%?
So the guy who paid 4,500 bucks is chaffed the guy who paid 140,000 isn't paying enough?
Mitt Romney has paid more in taxes over the last 2 or 3 years than pretty much anyone on this board will their entire lives.
The rich aren't "screwing" over the society, they are the ones making it possible.
I'm squarely cushy middle class btw. But just because I can't afford a new Mercedes or private jet doesn't make me think it's ok to pillage from those who can. Lol...the scary thing is that so many Americans think like this guy. U actually think the rich give a damn about u? Or that the CEO's making millions are whats making society work? Nah its not engineers, doctors, teachers, firefighters, etc making society work. Its the wall street guys making it rain millions, oil tycoons and celebrities. I feel bad for your mindstate....keep waiting for that wealth to trickle down you'll be waiting a while tho I think what really shows how Romney is out of touch with reality is that insinuation that 47% of people pay no taxes because they're lazy, incompetent buffoons who rely on government for everything. Let's use a student with a part time job making 10k a year alongside school(~20 hours a week at $10), living with his parents. This guy wouldn't and shouldn't be considered lazy at all. Between work and school he probably works as much or more than many full-time employees. Assuming he's cheap, he gets by with $10 a day spent on food(This is cheap, but it is absolutely possible). ~6400 left. School at $2.5k per semester, 2 per year. $1400 left on discretionary spending. If you taxed him at 15% with no deductions, you just took away ALL his discretionary spending, and then some. Same thing with the guy who earns $1000000 per year. He goes out to eat every day, often buys a few drinks for $100 a day on food. Let's assume he spends 100,000 a year paying for utilities/food/rent/insurance etc. He has roughly 860000 left as discretionary spending. After a flat 15% he still has 710k. That's ~17.4% of his discretionary spending. He'll probably miss it, but it's not the end of the world for him. Sure, the millionaire pays more taxes, but the student is the one who suffers from not having the ability to pay zero income tax. Very simplistic example, but that's why I hope that Obama wins.
University is more like $15K a year here for public schools. =P For private it's anywhere around $45K or something.
|
On September 18 2012 17:40 Souma wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2012 17:33 Amui wrote:On September 18 2012 16:58 antelope591 wrote:On September 18 2012 14:56 Zaqwert wrote:
The % argument is completely insane to me.
Someone paying 15% of their 30K income is really gonna complain about the millionarie on the other end of town who paid 14%?
So the guy who paid 4,500 bucks is chaffed the guy who paid 140,000 isn't paying enough?
Mitt Romney has paid more in taxes over the last 2 or 3 years than pretty much anyone on this board will their entire lives.
The rich aren't "screwing" over the society, they are the ones making it possible.
I'm squarely cushy middle class btw. But just because I can't afford a new Mercedes or private jet doesn't make me think it's ok to pillage from those who can. Lol...the scary thing is that so many Americans think like this guy. U actually think the rich give a damn about u? Or that the CEO's making millions are whats making society work? Nah its not engineers, doctors, teachers, firefighters, etc making society work. Its the wall street guys making it rain millions, oil tycoons and celebrities. I feel bad for your mindstate....keep waiting for that wealth to trickle down you'll be waiting a while tho I think what really shows how Romney is out of touch with reality is that insinuation that 47% of people pay no taxes because they're lazy, incompetent buffoons who rely on government for everything. Let's use a student with a part time job making 10k a year alongside school(~20 hours a week at $10), living with his parents. This guy wouldn't and shouldn't be considered lazy at all. Between work and school he probably works as much or more than many full-time employees. Assuming he's cheap, he gets by with $10 a day spent on food(This is cheap, but it is absolutely possible). ~6400 left. School at $2.5k per semester, 2 per year. $1400 left on discretionary spending. If you taxed him at 15% with no deductions, you just took away ALL his discretionary spending, and then some. Same thing with the guy who earns $1000000 per year. He goes out to eat every day, often buys a few drinks for $100 a day on food. Let's assume he spends 100,000 a year paying for utilities/food/rent/insurance etc. He has roughly 860000 left as discretionary spending. After a flat 15% he still has 710k. That's ~17.4% of his discretionary spending. He'll probably miss it, but it's not the end of the world for him. Sure, the millionaire pays more taxes, but the student is the one who suffers from not having the ability to pay zero income tax. Very simplistic example, but that's why I hope that Obama wins. University is more like $15K a year here for public schools. =P For private it's anywhere around $45K or something.
You can go to a community college full time for ~$1,000 a semester, so his 2.5k is valid for some people.
|
On September 18 2012 11:48 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2012 10:25 kwizach wrote:On September 18 2012 09:27 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 18 2012 08:03 kwizach wrote:On September 18 2012 07:43 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 18 2012 07:09 kwizach wrote: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:
[quote]
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. For one thing, please stop telling me to not discuss perception. My post was about perception, we can't set it aside because that changes the context of the word "attack". If you don't want to discuss perception then you shouldn't have responded to my post. I'm not discussing perception. If you want to discuss perception, do so with someone else. Your post contained something else than your statement about perception, I explained what, and I'm discussing that. If I ever say "people view Mitt Romney negatively because he's called Obama a communist pig", it'll be perfectly fine for you to only want to discuss and refute my assertion that Romney called Obama a "communist pig", without having to also discuss whether or not people view Romney negatively. Yes, and I gave examples of where Obama called bankers "fat cats". That was an attack on certain bankers. If you want more examples to give a broader picture then too bad - I'm not spending hours compiling an exhaustive list - nor should I have to. Indeed, that was an attack on certain bankers - those bankers who, according to Obama, don't accept their share of responsibility for the financial crisis and get big bonuses while the economy is still recovering. If your initial statement had been that Obama had attacked certain bankers for practices he was condemning, that example would have been spot-on. Unfortunately, your initial statement was that he had made attacks on "the rich, the successful and private enterprise in general", and your example therefore is hardly helpful in supporting that claim. Of course, you can choose not to support your claim - I didn't think you could anyway. On September 18 2012 09:27 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
My statement was the sentiment behind "you didn't build that" comes from attacks Obama has made on certain groups. I have since demonstrated that Obama has, in fact, levied attacks on those groups. Your arguments that they are not attacks are weak - either that they are only attacks on a segment of that group (just some bankers) or a thing that the group possesses (money). You have absolutely not demonstrated that Obama has levied "attacks [...] on the rich, the successful and private enterprise". Like I said, there's a clear and fundamental difference between wanting to reform the tax system because of a belief it will help with the budget and wanting to punish people for being rich (see below for an answer regarding your "segment of that group" argument). I find it funny that you try to pass off my arguments as "weak" when you did not even try to address the part of my post you just replied to that actually contains the said arguments. On September 18 2012 09:27 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
Whatever. Attacking a segment of a group or an aspect of a group is the same thing as attacking that group. Granted, it is much more forgivable on its own, but over time a multitude of small attacks will add up to something significant. No, attacking a segment of a group is very clearly not the same thing as attacking that group. If, among the group "human beings", I single out mass murderers and call them "bloodthirsty bastards", I'm obviously not calling every human being a bloodthirsty bastard. On September 18 2012 09:27 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
I think I'm done discussing this with you. I'm trying to explain why people have a certain opinion and you seem to want to argue that your opinion is the 'correct' one. I announced from the start, and in pretty much every single one of my posts, that I was not discussing your explanation of "why people have a certain opinion". I was discussing a specific assertion that has an existence independent of the causal relation you inserted it in. To repeat my example, "if I ever say "people view Mitt Romney negatively because he's called Obama a communist pig", it'll be perfectly fine for you to only want to discuss and refute my assertion that Romney called Obama a "communist pig", without having to also discuss whether or not people view Romney negatively". Again, I shouldn't have to give an exhaustive account of everything Obama has said to make a point. You wanted examples and I gave them. The end - I'm not wasting my time digging up more and more and more and more and more and more examples just so you can cover your eyes and pretend its all GOP propaganda.
I'm not asking for "an exhaustive account of everything Obama has said". Stop pretending I put the bar super high when all I asked for were a few relevant examples - I explained why the two you provided did not actually support what you said.
|
And I'm still calling for an across-the-board tax cut. Naturally, the rich, who pay more, would feel the most relief. And have more money to invest, hire more workers, etc.
Doesn't mean they will. It's been said time and time again that cutting taxes for the rich does not solve the problem of unemployment as people think it would.
|
On September 18 2012 16:05 Defacer wrote:Washington Post has a recap of Mitt Romney's past two weeks ... sigh. Show nested quote +The release of a recording of former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney at a private fundraiser in May telling donors that “there are 47 percent of the people…who are dependent on government, who believe that they are the victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them…I’ll never convince them that they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives” is the latest body blow for a campaign that can’t seem to get out of its own way of late.
Consider what has happened to Romney since the Democrats concluded their convention in Charlotte earlier this month:
* The release of a Romney polling memo that seemed decidedly defensive over the idea of a convention bounce for the incumbent.
* A too-quick statement regarding the tumult in Libya that polling suggests was not looked on favorably by the voting public.
* A Politico story laying bare strife within the campaign that hit Sunday night.
And now comes this video tape featuring Romney offering a blunt assessment of his economic worldview to a group of wealthy donors — an assessment that is more candid, more calculating and more conservative than the GOP nominee has been in public.
Taken individually, none of the incidents referenced above are that big a deal in the constant swirl of politics. Taken together, they paint an image of a campaign in disarray and a candidate not ready for primetime. Context always matters in politics and the context in which this videotape has landed is just plain awful for Romney’s campaign.
Before we get too much further, it’s worth taking a step back to say that there is little evidence that missteps — whether minor or major — have an obvious and immediate impact on polling in this race.
Thanks to our friend John Sides at the Monkey Cage Blog, we have evidence of that lack of movement here:
So, it’s worth taking the immediate analysis of what it all means for Romney — including this one — cum grano salis.
Caveats dispatched, we do think there are at least two real impacts of Romney’s brutal past two weeks — even if they are not evident in polling.
The first — and most important — is that this story will serve as a major distraction for a Romney campaign who just today announced its plans to re-boot itself by offering more specifics on what he would do on the economy if elected president.
“We do think the timing is right to reinforce more specifics about the Romney plan for a strong middle class,” senior Romney adviser Ed Gillespie told reporters on a conference call Monday morning that now seems like a millenium ago.
Whether or not you believe Romney offered a window into his true feelings about the election (and the electorate) in the leaked video from the fundraiser (and we will leave that up to others to decide), it’s impossible to see how Romney’s comments don’t dominate the political conversation for the next 48-72 hours — and maybe longer.
That reality virtually ensures a second straight week lost to off-message stories that are far afield from the economic focus that the Romney campaign is hoping to lean on in the final weeks of the race. Mitt Romney isn’t going to win this race on foreign policy and he certainly isn’t going to win it on too-candid comments about his view of the economic realities present in the electorate. Any one — Republican, Democrat or Independent — who tells you differently is just wrong.
Wasting two weeks when there are only seven weeks left in a race that even the most loyal Republicans acknowledge they are currently losing — albeit it narrowly — is a major problem for Romney.
The second way the leaked video impacts the race is that it fuels the “gang who can’t shoot straight” narrative that Politico began with its story and that the Romney campaign was hoping to quickly extinguish with its conference call Monday morning.
If donors and other political professionals were skittish about where the race generally — and Romney’s bid specifically — stood on Monday morning, you can imagine they will be worked up into a full lather by Tuesday morning.
The video will fuel the growing sentiment within the Republican chattering class that Romney is in the process of losing a winnable race. That means the second-guessing that goes on privately in every campaign will go more public. And the more public it becomes, the longer it takes Romney and his team to move beyond unhelpful process stories focused on whether his own party thinks he’s blowing it.
To be clear: Declaring the race over — as some people will do in the next 48 hours — is a mistake. Seven weeks remain before voters vote and what looks determinative to the outcome now might look very different come November 1.
But, anyone who thinks that Romney isn’t weathering his darkest days as a candidate right now would be sorely mistaken.
Ouch, not really a good couple of weeks for Willard Mittensen Romney.
|
On September 18 2012 14:56 Zaqwert wrote:
The % argument is completely insane to me.
Someone paying 15% of their 30K income is really gonna complain about the millionarie on the other end of town who paid 14%?
So the guy who paid 4,500 bucks is chaffed the guy who paid 140,000 isn't paying enough?
Mitt Romney has paid more in taxes over the last 2 or 3 years than pretty much anyone on this board will their entire lives.
The rich aren't "screwing" over the society, they are the ones making it possible.
I'm squarely cushy middle class btw. But just because I can't afford a new Mercedes or private jet doesn't make me think it's ok to pillage from those who can.
Do you really think it's just when someone who has inherited a fortune and gets a thousandfold of an income compared to someone working in a lower position pays an about equal amount of taxes? After this speech, I wondered how anybody without the income of the top 10% would vote for this guy, but it seems the Hollywood money-makes-good-people movies had much effect on some. Or is it this naive way of thinking 'the Democrats are giving all our money away, economy will spiral down and this will effect my own income negatively'?
|
On September 18 2012 14:56 Zaqwert wrote:
The % argument is completely insane to me.
Someone paying 15% of their 30K income is really gonna complain about the millionarie on the other end of town who paid 14%?
So the guy who paid 4,500 bucks is chaffed the guy who paid 140,000 isn't paying enough?
Mitt Romney has paid more in taxes over the last 2 or 3 years than pretty much anyone on this board will their entire lives.
The rich aren't "screwing" over the society, they are the ones making it possible.
I'm squarely cushy middle class btw. But just because I can't afford a new Mercedes or private jet doesn't make me think it's ok to pillage from those who can.
It's funny that against all evidences in the world, people still believe in old good trickle down economics...
By the way, considering how low taxes are for the richest compared to 30 years ago, i guess we should live in some kind of paradise right now. And the Bush years should have been an incredible moment of weakth happiness and prosperity since giving more to the wealthiest have basically been all his economic program.
Anyway, IF money saved by the richest was all invested in real companies that treat properly their employees, trickle down economics could at least superficially make sense. But since most of the capital goes into speculation today, it just doesn't match with reality one little bit. Or you explain me how speculating on sugar, or gold, or oil, or financial products, helps anybody belonging to the middle class....
Last thing: the gap between poors and rich increases at an exponential speed since the introduction of neoliberal policies, where will it stops? When 0,01% of the people own 99,9% of the wealth? We are getting there, thanks to the billionaire that conduct the GOP and average joes that vote again and again and again and again against their most elementary interests
|
For the rich making the country last page I thought I would throw this out there.
Statistics Canada took a look at average earning rates over the years for each income bracket and it broke down like this. The top tier of earners saw their average income increase by 20% over the 30 year span. The middle class saw an increase of $50 dollars a year (30,000 to 30,050) over 30 years while poor people saw a 20% decrease. This is obviously not directly related but I would expect to see roughly the same thing in the US since we are so close in pretty much every way and even more left than you guys are.
|
In Australia Fox News is generally laughed at...
|
On September 18 2012 17:33 Amui wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2012 16:58 antelope591 wrote:On September 18 2012 14:56 Zaqwert wrote:
The % argument is completely insane to me.
Someone paying 15% of their 30K income is really gonna complain about the millionarie on the other end of town who paid 14%?
So the guy who paid 4,500 bucks is chaffed the guy who paid 140,000 isn't paying enough?
Mitt Romney has paid more in taxes over the last 2 or 3 years than pretty much anyone on this board will their entire lives.
The rich aren't "screwing" over the society, they are the ones making it possible.
I'm squarely cushy middle class btw. But just because I can't afford a new Mercedes or private jet doesn't make me think it's ok to pillage from those who can. Lol...the scary thing is that so many Americans think like this guy. U actually think the rich give a damn about u? Or that the CEO's making millions are whats making society work? Nah its not engineers, doctors, teachers, firefighters, etc making society work. Its the wall street guys making it rain millions, oil tycoons and celebrities. I feel bad for your mindstate....keep waiting for that wealth to trickle down you'll be waiting a while tho I think what really shows how Romney is out of touch with reality is that insinuation that 47% of people pay no taxes because they're lazy, incompetent buffoons who rely on government for everything. Let's use a student with a part time job making 10k a year alongside school(~20 hours a week at $10), living with his parents. This guy wouldn't and shouldn't be considered lazy at all. Between work and school he probably works as much or more than many full-time employees. Assuming he's cheap, he gets by with $10 a day spent on food(This is cheap, but it is absolutely possible). ~6400 left. School at $2.5k per semester, 2 per year. $1400 left on discretionary spending. If you taxed him at 15% with no deductions, you just took away ALL his discretionary spending, and then some. Same thing with the guy who earns $1000000 per year. He goes out to eat every day, often buys a few drinks for $100 a day on food. Let's assume he spends 100,000 a year paying for utilities/food/rent/insurance etc. He has roughly 860000 left as discretionary spending. After a flat 15% he still has 710k. That's ~17.4% of his discretionary spending. He'll probably miss it, but it's not the end of the world for him. Sure, the millionaire pays more taxes, but the student is the one who suffers from not having the ability to pay zero income tax. Very simplistic example, but that's why I hope that Obama wins.
I don't get fixated on the numbers, but it is true that there are a lot of people who will vote for Obama regardless of his motives or records simply because he is a democrat. Romney is right in saying that he is wasting his time trying to convert these people. I mean, just look at the poll numbers on how many people would vote for Obama and whether Obama has done a good job as president. There's the number that makes zero sense if there ever was one.
Another thing. If you think that some of the people in US, the ones who are "struggling to get by", are really living the way they live due to the reasons outside of their control, then you really should get out of fucking US and see how people in other countries live, and then you will realize what it means by "struggling to get by". The way I look at it, there are way too many people in US who would do nothing but to complain about their situation, instead of doing something about it.
|
On September 18 2012 18:29 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2012 14:56 Zaqwert wrote:
The % argument is completely insane to me.
Someone paying 15% of their 30K income is really gonna complain about the millionarie on the other end of town who paid 14%?
So the guy who paid 4,500 bucks is chaffed the guy who paid 140,000 isn't paying enough?
Mitt Romney has paid more in taxes over the last 2 or 3 years than pretty much anyone on this board will their entire lives.
The rich aren't "screwing" over the society, they are the ones making it possible.
I'm squarely cushy middle class btw. But just because I can't afford a new Mercedes or private jet doesn't make me think it's ok to pillage from those who can. It's funny that against all evidences in the world, people still believe in old good trickle down economics... By the way, considering how low taxes are for the richest compared to 30 years ago, i guess we should live in some kind of paradise right now. And the Bush years should have been an incredible moment of weakth happiness and prosperity since giving more to the wealthiest have basically been all his economic program. Anyway, IF money saved by the richest was all invested in real companies that treat properly their employees, trickle down economics could at least superficially make sense. But since most of the capital goes into speculation today, it just doesn't match with reality one little bit. Or you explain me how speculating on sugar, or gold, or oil, or financial products, helps anybody belonging to the middle class.... Last thing: the gap between poors and rich increases at an exponential speed since the introduction of neoliberal policies, where will it stops? When 0,01% of the people own 99,9% of the wealth? We are getting there, thanks to the billionaire that conduct the GOP and average joes that vote again and again and again and again against their most elementary interests
If you think that GOP's core concept is to empower the rich, then you really have no idea what you are talking about.
|
On September 18 2012 19:41 jellyjello wrote:
I don't get fixated on the numbers, but it is true that there are a lot of people who will vote for Obama regardless of his motives or records simply because he is a democrat. Romney is right in saying that he is wasting his time trying to convert these people. I mean, just look at the poll numbers on how many people would vote for Obama and whether Obama has done a good job as president. There's the number that makes zero sense if there ever was one.
Actually it does make sense. In the US you only get to choose between two candidates. People think the previous one didn't do a good job, but expect the competitor to do worse, so they vote for the previous one.
Maybe, if there were more parties to choose from, like in many democratic nations, people would vote for someone else. But since they only get two options... It's marginally better than in a one party system.
EDIT: I have to step back a little now wondering why Obama became the Democratics' candidate when people are thinking so poorly of his work.
|
On September 18 2012 19:41 jellyjello wrote:
I don't get fixated on the numbers, but it is true that there are a lot of people who will vote for Obama regardless of his motives or records simply because he is a democrat. Romney is right in saying that he is wasting his time trying to convert these people. I mean, just look at the poll numbers on how many people would vote for Obama and whether Obama has done a good job as president. There's the number that makes zero sense if there ever was one.
Those numbers make perfect sense to people who don't buy into Romney's economic plans and completely disagree with him on social issues. Much like some republicans are voting Romney because "He's not Obama" some democrats are voting Obama because "At least he's not Romney."
EDIT to Kukri: Because the incumbent historically has a good advantage in the general election.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
