Republicans' appalling comments can tip the scale for undecided voters-IMHO

[iluvatar5150]

Well, do they pay tax? No. Or do you contest that?

Mittens said he wasn't about to pursue their vote, knowing they will vote Democratic. Are you suggesting that is poor strategy?

Other than these 2 points, I fail to see what you have to take exception to, and I hardly see any legitimate disagreement on these two points. What's the beef?

He made two points: one was about campaign strategy (i.e. why he doesn't care about those people)

The other point was that that 47% is looking for handouts and doesn't want to take responsibility for themselves. It wasn't his primary point, but it was in support of his primary point.

-Dan.

 

[razeontherock]

He made two points: one was about campaign strategy (i.e. why he doesn't care about those people)

The statement had NOTHING to do with not caring about those people! It was about not wasting effort pursuing their votes. surely you can see the difference?

The other point was that that 47% is looking for handouts and doesn't want to take responsibility for themselves. It wasn't his primary point, but it was in support of his primary point.

-Dan.

The point was that they don't pay into our tax system like the rest, and that part of them draw out of it instead. Do you contest that? Is his figure wrong? Do you disagree that that portion of society becoming more productive is our best way out of poverty?

 

[mzungu]

It's all propaganda, and I think Americans know it. They don't care about rhetoric or "comments", they care about the issues, and the records, of the leaders they are choosing. Only one of your comments is even partially relevant to Romney, and everyone has heard the 47% story 10 million times now. Romney already said he cares about 100% of Americans. Need I find something stupid Obama and Biden have said? It won't take 10 seconds.

Next time you want to set an OP "trap", you might not want to be so obvious to expose the trap before the cheese.

This is exactly how the Nazis used to answer. They ignore the issue and the allegations against them as lies and propaganda.

 

[iluvatar5150]

The statement had NOTHING to do with not caring about those people! It was about not wasting effort pursuing their votes. surely you can see the difference?

You misunderstood me. On this part of what he said, we agree.

The point was that they don't pay into our tax system like the rest, and that part of them draw out of it instead. Do you contest that? Is his figure wrong? Do you disagree that that portion of society becoming more productive is our best way out of poverty?

Here is what he said: " There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe that government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you name it. That that's an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what. And I mean, the president starts off with 48, 49, 48—he starts off with a huge number. These are people who pay no income tax. Forty-seven percent of Americans pay no income tax."

He says that the 47% of people who don't pay income tax (and btw, that's only federal income tax - they pay all sorts of other taxes) are, basically, looking for a handout.

Do I contest that "they don't pay into our tax system"? Yes, because as I pointed out, this figure only refers to federal income tax, not to any of the myriad other taxes and fees that are levied.

Do I disagree that causing this portion of society to become more productive is their best way out of poverty? I don't see the two as being necessarily related. The American worker is more productive now than ever before, but wages are stagnant and the bulk of the profits from these efficiency gains have gone to the few people at the top.

I think that tackling the problem requires a multitude of things, but it's not going to be laissez faire capitalism that does it. You're going to have to invest much more deeply in things like education and community development.

-Dan.

 

[SolomonVII]

....

The point was that they don't pay into our tax system like the rest, and that part of them draw out of it instead. Do you contest that? Is his figure wrong? Do you disagree that that portion of society becoming more productive is our best way out of poverty?

Romney realizes that his off camera comment was inelegant, and has offered his assurance that he will be President for the 100%.
He is not into the class warfare routine against even 1%.

That being said, 53% would be a very good number for him on election day.

 

[iluvatar5150]

Romney realizes that his off camera comment was inelegant,

There's "inelegant" and there's flat-out wrong. His "who let the dogs out" comment was inelegant; referring to the half of the country too poor to pay income taxes as being irresponsible and looking for a handout is wrong.

and has offered his assurance that he will be President for the 100%.

How will he be "president for the 100%" when he has a fundamental misunderstanding of what it's like to be on the bottom half of the economic ladder?

He is not into the class warfare routine against even 1%.

His comment was a perfect example of class warfare. He was pitting wealthy folks against the poor.

-Dan.

 

[SolomonVII]

There's "inelegant" and there's flat-out wrong.

Yes, his comment was off the cuff, and inelegant.
Flat out wrong is the way that the left spins it into way more than what was meant by it.

 

[iluvatar5150]

Yes, his comment was off the cuff, and inelegant.
Flat out wrong is the way that the left spins it into way more than what was meant by it.

Interesting. What was wrong about my characterization of it?

-Dan.

 

[ElijahW]

Well, do they pay tax? No. Or do you contest that?

Mittens said he wasn't about to pursue their vote, knowing they will vote Democratic. Are you suggesting that is poor strategy?

Other than these 2 points, I fail to see what you have to take exception to, and I hardly see any legitimate disagreement on these two points. What's the beef?

As pointed out, it was the personal responsibility and entitled comment that crossed the line. Plenty of those 47% took or take personal responsibility and don't use the system because they feel entitled to do so.

Yes, it would be an incredibly poor strategy to not pursue the vote of that 47% since a large percentage still vote Republican. That comment was said in what he thought was a room free of the 47%. He would have never told the truth if he thought it was going to be shown to the world.

 

[razeontherock]

This is exactly how the Nazis used to answer. They ignore the issue and the allegations against them as lies and propaganda.

The issue has not been ignored. I don't see why you want to twist this, nor to Godwin the thread

 

[razeontherock]

Do I contest that "they don't pay into our tax system"? Yes, because as I pointed out, this figure only refers to federal income tax, not to any of the myriad other taxes and fees that are levied.

Agreed. And yet his statement was qualified well enough.

Do I disagree that causing this portion of society to become more productive is their best way out of poverty? I don't see the two as being necessarily related.

Notice that I didn't even say their best way out of poverty, but "our best way out of poverty." As a Nation, we are impoverished. And my point is, that the most likely way to fix that, is by increasing the productivity of the lowest echelon. I think these two things are VERY related!

The American worker is more productive now than ever before, but wages are stagnant and the bulk of the profits from these efficiency gains have gone to the few people at the top.

I was a union official, elected to 3 offices, in 1989. 'Nuff said? You're preaching to the choir here. I don't particularly see that either major candidate will amount to a hill of beans worth of difference on this issue.

I think that tackling the problem requires a multitude of things, but it's not going to be laissez faire capitalism that does it. You're going to have to invest much more deeply in things like education and community development.

-Dan.

False dilemma. There has been no capitalism w/o education, and "community development" is notoriously vague. What isn't vague is the fact that the middle class is disappearing, and there has been a Nation wide move to bust unions as a whole. I'm not sure that this is evident anywhere moreso than here in WI? Neither do I see a solution along the socialism / capitalism continuum. The first thing is to stop the bleeding, referring to the loss of jobs to outside the Country.

 

[razeontherock]

As pointed out, it was the personal responsibility and entitled comment that crossed the line.

Well, I grew up poor, and it took me quite a few years of hard work to lift myself out of poverty. I certainly understand the dignity of honest work, and of turning down handouts that are available. Then again, I've run my own business for 20 years now. (No public assistance in that, either) Statistics would suggest not all have that kind of drive, and that some will languish in an entitlement mentality if allowed. I think he is incorrect about the 47%, but don't know what an accurate figure might be

Plenty of those 47% took or take personal responsibility and don't use the system because they feel entitled to do so.

It would seem to me that anyone taking the entitlements, feels entitled to do so. And a great many of them have been responsible, which is why they are entitled in the first place. A lot of this entitlement is unemployment insurance, which you have to pay into by working. This 47% figure is meaningless without a breakdown, although I'm thinking Romney's take on this is disclosed, somewhere.

Yes, it would be an incredibly poor strategy to not pursue the vote of that 47% since a large percentage still vote Republican.

If there is any issue in this comment at all, this is it! I have not encountered anyone else willing to tackle it. I think the first step is to break down that 47% into primary components

That comment was said in what he thought was a room free of the 47%. He would have never told the truth if he thought it was going to be shown to the world.

All right, let's go there; was it privileged information, or a campaign fund raising speech?

 

[mzungu]

Well, I grew up poor, and it took me quite a few years of hard work to lift myself out of poverty. I certainly understand the dignity of honest work, and of turning down handouts that are available. Then again, I've run my own business for 20 years now. (No public assistance in that, either) Statistics would suggest not all have that kind of drive, and that some will languish in an entitlement mentality if allowed. I think he is incorrect about the 47%, but don't know what an accurate figure might be



It would seem to me that anyone taking the entitlements, feels entitled to do so. And a great many of them have been responsible, which is why they are entitled in the first place. A lot of this entitlement is unemployment insurance, which you have to pay into by working. This 47% figure is meaningless without a breakdown, although I'm thinking Romney's take on this is disclosed, somewhere.



If there is any issue in this comment at all, this is it! I have not encountered anyone else willing to tackle it. I think the first step is to break down that 47% into primary components



All right, let's go there; was it privileged information, or a campaign fund raising speech?

Do you think that unemployment benefits get stashed in banks? All that money is almost immediately recirculated into the market (paying bills, buying food and clothing etc). The Rich however recirculate a pittance of their personal income and most of it goes to offshore and local accounts.

Recirculating money keeps the economy going!

 

[razeontherock]

Do you think that unemployment benefits get stashed in banks? All that money is almost immediately recirculated into the market (paying bills, buying food and clothing etc). The Rich however recirculate a pittance of their personal income and most of it goes to offshore and local accounts.

Recirculating money keeps the economy going!

This is not really related to the conversation at hand. (Neither do you really know what any individual does with their money)

 

[TheQuietRiot]

This is not really related to the conversation at hand. (Neither do you really know what any individual does with their money)

You say he doesn't or couldn't know what individuals do with their money

It would seem to me that anyone taking the entitlements, feels entitled to do so. And a great many of them have been responsible, which is why they are entitled in the first place.A lot of this entitlement is unemployment insurance, which you have to pay into by working.

Yet you seem to know how individuals feel about talking entitlements and welfare!

I understand you say that a great many should be entitled because they have been working and thus have already paid into the system to support them during unemployment which is fair but a great many may have also never worked, or worked very little.

 

[razeontherock]

You say he doesn't or couldn't know what individuals do with their money



Yet you seem to know how individuals feel about talking entitlements and welfare!

2 entirely different situations; not comparable

I understand you say that a great many should be entitled because they have been working and thus have already paid into the system to support them during unemployment which is fair but a great many may have also never worked, or worked very little.

It becomes significant to slice up Romney's 47% comment into smaller, more meaningful numbers. For example, the fraction of that that could vote other than D, the fraction that takes entitlements w/o having paid into the system ... what other categories are significant here?

 

[TheQuietRiot]

2 entirely different situations; not comparable

Doesn't matter how different you claim the situation to be.

You are still saying you have the ability to know how many millions of individuals are thinking in terms of their entitlements but claim mzungu cannot possibly know how millions of people think in terms of their money?

Its blatant hypocrisy.

It wouldn't matter if you said you knew how millions of individuals felt about the concerning state of Jamaica's banana field.

It becomes significant to slice up Romney's 47% comment into smaller, more meaningful numbers. For example, the fraction of that that could vote other than D, the fraction that takes entitlements w/o having paid into the system ... what other categories are significant here?

I agree we have the same problems here. Many in this country claim unemployment benefits and have done since leaving school, often never working at all. However many currently claiming JSA (job-seekers allowance) and other benefits have been working and have lost their jobs so I agree it is very important to make the distinction.

 

[razeontherock]

Doesn't matter how different you claim the situation to be.

You are still saying you have the ability to know how many millions of individuals are thinking in terms of their entitlements but claim mzungu cannot possibly know how millions of people think in terms of their money?

No, not at all. In one situation you're talking about barely enough to scrape by, or less. It's very predictable where the money will go. In the other situation you're talking about far fewer people; the elite, with vast wealth. Only a tiny portion is predictable, and even that no so much. The rest is disposable income. They could sew it in their mattress, give it to charity, or start a new business and create great jobs. (And anywhere in between)

The two situations are not comparable

 

[TheQuietRiot]

No, not at all. In one situation you're talking about barely enough to scrape by, or less. It's very predictable where the money will go. In the other situation you're talking about far fewer people; the elite, with vast wealth. Only a tiny portion is predictable, and even that no so much. The rest is disposable income. They could sew it in their mattress, give it to charity, or start a new business and create great jobs. (And anywhere in between)

The two situations are not comparable

I know personally people who barely scrape by but have always found (even if it is very small amounts) to put away for a even rainier day. So as much as you like to think you know its all very predictable, it may not be and the same could be said for the "elite". So ease on up the mind reading of the poor.

I think the clear evidence that more money and more money is congregating nearer the top few percent is actually evidence in opposition to your claim.

 

[razeontherock]

I know personally people who barely scrape by but have always found (even if it is very small amounts) to put away for a even rainier day. So as much as you like to think you know its all very predictable

There's just not that much in this unknown category; it's insignificant, to a National scale

and the same could be said for the "elite".

No it is not the same. There is a great amount that is not known. As Mzungu said, it could sit in accounts, either offshore or not; and as he failed to account for, it could go to literally any other possible use, including space exploration, or becoming a drug lord. (Just as 2 off the wall examples)

I think the clear evidence that more money and more money is congregating nearer the top few percent is actually evidence in opposition to your claim.

No, that actually supports my claim, and is the basis of it. Anyway, yes that is the problem. I don't think Govt has an answer for that short of socialism / communism, and history shows those to be no solution at all.