Patterico's Pontifications

9/18/2012

Allahpundit’s Analysis on the Romney Video

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 7:27 am



Very similar to mine, but much more, er, “elegantly stated”:

Two political difficulties here. One: While some Obama supporters may not pay federal income tax, they still pay federal payroll tax and may well pay state and city taxes. They do contribute something to government. Two: A lot of pro-Republican working-class voters pay no income tax due to the Earned Income Tax Credit, and a lot of pro-Republican seniors pay no income tax because most or all of their income is Social Security. Not sure how either of those groups will react to Romney’s critique of O’s fans, but my hunch is that Ben Domenech’s right in believing that no one really thinks they’re part of the 47 percent. Everyone thinks they’re a “maker,” not a “taker,” due to whatever little tax they pay, so when Mitt lays into freeloaders, even people who pay no income tax think he’s talking about someone else. It’s sort of the flip side of senior citizens saying that America needs small government while telling politicians “Hands off my Medicare.” I doubt it’ll end up hurting Romney badly, but the media will do its level best. Buckle up!

That’s about right. Meanwhile, you don’t need me to catalogue the caterwauling about how IT’S ALL OVER!!! (mostly coming from liberals). Just look, well, anywhere.

Message to Mitt: downplay the 47% bit (rank overestimation) and go after freeloaders wholeheartedly. Again: nobody thinks they’re a freeloader themselves, and if they do, they ain’t voting for you. Relax and have fun with it.

Have some music to help you buck up.

372 Responses to “Allahpundit’s Analysis on the Romney Video”

  1. Obama: The Candidate of the Freeloaders!!

    Patterico (83033d)

  2. So, everyone is eager to talk about this, and Romney says, “I can state this more elegantly. But I’ll do that later.”

    Why in the heck didn’t he come back with a 5 minute speach that elegantly stated what he meant? Does he not know what he meant? Does he not know how to say it? Is there some tactical reason where he wants to let the badly stated video be the way he communciates his position? Not really confidence inspiring for me.

    time123 (33ce8e)

  3. I’m not “caterwauling” but this is going exactly as I predicted…once people get to know Romney (and Ryan) better (i.e., the details & specifics, not just the vague comments and attacks) they have no other direction to go but down.

    P. Tillman (fcbc8b)

  4. #4 Another shitty RINO the Media and RINO Leaders convince folks is the way to go to win.

    I agree with many — if you can’t be this bozo, what does it say about your nominating process and basic premises to attaining victory?

    Rodney King's Spirit (aeda60)

  5. be = beat. Sorry.

    Rodney King's Spirit (aeda60)

  6. Why are Portugal, Ireland (or Italy?), Greece and Spain (PIGS) bringing Europe down?

    The same debate applies in the USA.

    The media spent all last year glorifying the so called Occupy Movement.

    Is anyone surprised at the media’s take on this?

    AZ Bob (1c9631)

  7. Blaming the media is the last refuge for a Loser Candidate.

    It’s the signal that the Romney Apocalypse is upon us.

    P. Tillman (fcbc8b)

  8. How did Romney actually win the nomination? He really seems bad at this.

    time123 (33ce8e)

  9. Say, where’s that Obama/Khalidi tape? Why won’t the L.A.Times release it? Oh, who am I kidding? They won’t release it because it would make Obama look terrible. What other reason can there be?

    –Glenn Reynolds

    AZ Bob (1c9631)

  10. He won because the Big Money Boys wanted him to win. They buried Santorum and Paul and in doing so alienated most of the Republican base, expecting that they’d follow along like nice little sheep once they made the election about Obama.

    Fail.

    One problem being that they thought they could obfuscate the fact that Obama has governed like a moderate Republican except for a few social issues that only motivate the already convinced hardcore right. For everyone else in the middle, Romney has no distinguishing policies or characteristics.

    P. Tillman (fcbc8b)

  11. Obama has governed like a food stamp whore on crack who thought he won the lottery

    happyfeet (5e4920)

  12. Downplay the 47% bit (rank overestimation) and go after freeloaders wholeheartedly. Again: nobody thinks they’re a freeloader themselves, and if they do, they ain’t voting for you. Relax and have fun with it.

    If he does, he’s going to have to specify who the “freeloaders” are. If he doesn’t, retired seniors on Medicare are going to think he is talking about them (there goes Florida). So are students taking out college loans. These people, despite what Allahpundit says, know they are not “makers” (although seniors believe there once were, and students believe they someday will be).

    Kman (5576bf)

  13. #11 Frankly, it should be stolen by any non-violent means necessary.

    Rodney King's Spirit (aeda60)

  14. #15 Like his college records and admission record to Harvard, Columbia and Occidental.

    Rodney King's Spirit (aeda60)

  15. I am shocked that time, Kmart, and new troll Tillman are in a lather over this. Shocked, I tell you.

    JD (e4479f)

  16. Uh oh, I’m a “troll” now…amazing how quickly that epithet is dragged out in a pathetic effort to marginalize people who say things you don’t agree with…especially by those who have nothing substantive to contribute themselves.

    P. Tillman (fcbc8b)

  17. “Again: nobody thinks they’re a freeloader themselves, and if they do, they ain’t voting for you.”
    “citizens saying that America needs small government while telling politicians “Hands off my Medicare.”

    Those would be Republicans. Now you’re mocking your readers.

    Romney has just insulted half the country, including a lot of conservative republicans who aren’t rich. When he says screw the poor he means it. The same with his Ayn Rand sidekick.

    Obama was trying to explain how difficult it is to get through to people who don’t trust you. Romney admits it’s not his job to care.

    The billionaires you like don’t give a damn about you. They don’t give a damn about your moralizing holier than though crap, or abortion, any more than they care about girls working in their Chinese factories.

    I don’t like Obama because we need something better. You want something worse. You want bread and circuses and banners that say “Mission Accomplished”
    It does’t matter than the mission failed. The banner keeps you happy.

    sleeeepy (b5f718)

  18. Food stampers will vote for the food stamp candidate Mr. sleepy.

    It’s all they know. Plus?

    Doritos!

    happyfeet (5e4920)

  19. _________________________________________________

    Obama has governed like a moderate Republican

    LOL. If Obama is a moderate — including governing like one — then you must be judging him from the standpoint of an ultra-ultra-liberal.

    I could try to be a variation of you and claim that George Bush Jr was a moderate Democrat, merely because of his squishiness on a few issues like, say, illegal immigration. IOW, I’d have to be an ultra-ultra-conservative to take that leap of logic (or lack of such) and label him that way.

    Incidentally, Romney with his credentials straight out of ultra-blue Massachusetts is a lot closer to “moderate” than Obama is, if only because of the latter’s ties to “goddamn America” sentiments courtesy of people like Jeremiah Wright.

    Mark (df4ead)

  20. Sleeeeerpy, the avowed socialist, objects to the description of a government controlled client state.

    Tillman is not a troll because it has a differing point of view. It is the aggressive bad faith.

    JD (e4479f)

  21. Spin: Meant 47 MM food stampers. Not 47%.

    Rodney King's Spirit (aeda60)

  22. What I see around me are “citizens” who are clueless and if engaged at all politically, focus on the media soundbites and opinions spewed by msnbc and cnn or their local rags, which here is the far left palm beach post and fort lauderdale sun-sentinel. So naturally said potential voters tend to buy into the agitprop. Or see the obama internet ad banners or tv ads that are replete with outright lies. It is galling to me that the media outright refuses to call Obama’s minions on their lies. And of course we hear endlessly how conservatives will prevent blacks from voting through use of any voter ID laws.
    Whatever Romney’s faults, does anyone believe that the media would have been any easier on the likes of Gingrich, Bachmann, Perry,Santorum or Mr. 9-9-9 whom the media vilified over sexual charges, mostly emanating from cretins associated with axelrod.
    Still, why the hell can’t romney and ryan take the gloves off and go on the attack? Just lovely that stupid white single females prefer Obama by a two to one margin. Having your abortions/condoms/birth control/sex change operations paid for by the taxpayers on money borrowed from China makes so much sense.

    Calypso Louis Farrakhan (e799d8)

  23. Well, in the days when i was young and earning too little to pay any federal income taxes, i sure knew i was paying soc sec and state taxes and so on. i certainly knew i was a taxpayer. AND, although i didn’t divide the country into ‘makers’ and ‘takers’ (i find that an obnoxious notion), if you had explained it to me i would have said i was sure enough a ‘maker.’ and intended to be more so as i built a career. Even though i guess that at the time i would have fallen into MR’s moocher definition.

    now that i am an adult, i have a son-in-law who is unemployed after serving three tours in Iraq–he is helped a very little by the VA; is he a taker? is he ‘entitled to’ the VA benefits? I have a daughter (his wife) who just became an MD and will eventually earn a living at it (boy it takes a long while–i didn’t realize), but who has to pay back $200k in federally subsidized student loans; is she a taker? was she ‘entitled’ to those loans? My mother recently passed away. it had been decades since she had worked fulltime or even nearly so; she consumed enormous Medicare resources over the last few years and of course was also receiving social security; was she a taker?
    Who the heck was MR referring to?
    i don’t think he can answer that question in public.

    He has said things which he either does not mean, or the things he said mean something he cannot be proud of.

    he is an idiot candidate or a person of very mean views, and i am amazed at the agreement and support his comments are getting on this and other blogs. if you are right, and any liberals proclaiming his candidacy ‘over’ are wrong, i am not happy with what that means about us or our presidential selection process.

    brendanyc (1de907)

  24. ___________________________________________

    I don’t like Obama because we need something better.

    BS. I bet you’ll close your eyes and give a big wet kiss to him or anyone else who leans left. I might say otherwise or give you some credit if Obama were running against an ultra-conservative, but he isn’t. So that says a lot more about you than what it says about those voters who’ll be plucking a chad for Romney based on the desire of ABO (“Anyone But Obama”).

    Mark (df4ead)

  25. Obama has governed like a food stamp whore on crack who thought he won the lottery
    Comment by happyfeet — 9/18/2012 @ 8:09 am

    — He did win, Mr. feets; and just like any other lottery, the rest of us lose.

    Icy (84c440)

  26. Well, in the days when i was young and earning too little to pay any federal income taxes, i sure knew i was paying soc sec and state taxes and so on. i certainly knew i was a taxpayer.

    Neither of which is income tax. You tried that last night too.

    JD (e4479f)

  27. social security taxes don’t go towards social security in the future – they go to pay for food stamps and disability checks in the here and now

    America America God she his grace on thee. We’re food stamp whores for evermore – Doritos for you and me!

    happyfeet (5e4920)

  28. God *shed* his grace on thee I mean

    happyfeet (5e4920)

  29. From the prior thread:

    “53.“These are people who pay no income tax.”–Romney

    One minor correction though. These are people who THINK they pay no income tax.

    Comment by Dave Surls — 9/17/2012 @ 8:14 pm”

    Laura was on fire today. Mittens needs to just shutter his Boston Campaign Headquarters. As his untutored “47 percent” speech shows he does better without consultants.

    And it would free millions for ads in PA and MI.

    As Mr. Surls so concisely distilled the issue, most of the 47 percent pay ample taxes but lowering the remainder’s taxes will in short order boost most of their incomes, so much so, that they will again pay Federal income tax.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  30. And before you answer that “of course’ he didn’t mean the returning soldier who is having trouble finding work or the mother who had paid into SS all those years, before you say ‘of course’ he didn’t mean they were not ‘entitled’ why the heck would he say something that sounded like it? and go on at length to similar effect? it wasn’t a one-sentence ‘gaffe’ after all.

    not enough to say ‘inelegantly worded.’ i would say ‘inconsiderate,’ ‘out of touch,’ ‘hurtful,’ and also, and this is not trivial: ‘wrong.’
    not attractive qualities in a man who wants to lead a nation.

    brendanyc (1de907)

  31. “LOL. If Obama is a moderate — including governing like one — then you must be judging him from the standpoint of an ultra-ultra-liberal.”

    Said like someone judging him from the standpoint of the ultra-ultra conservative…

    Obamacare=Romneycare=Republican proposal during Clinton
    Guantanemo, indefinite detention, domestic spying=Bush II
    Taxes=continued Bush tax cuts
    Afghanistan=expanded Bush involvement
    Israel=more of the same pledges of fealty to a foreign government

    P. Tillman (fcbc8b)

  32. I think brendan should not vote for Romney.

    JD (e4479f)

  33. Tillman shouldn’t vote for Romney either.

    JD (e4479f)

  34. Too bad that Khalidi tape won’t surface. Mitt ought to offer the LA Times $1 million for “that video of Barack Obama speaking at a PLO get-together that they are sitting on.”

    Kevin M (bf8ad7)

  35. JD, I suspect that they both do exactly the same thing, all of the time.

    Simon Jester (c8876d)

  36. _________________________________________

    Who the heck was MR referring to?

    You’re being disingenuous, if only because you know full well that your son-in-law and daughter either earned whatever benefits they received or are required to pay them back—and Romney (who ain’t no laissez-faire libertarian) undoubtedly is aware of that too. IOW, one has to be quite a mooch before someone like Romney will call them out on it.

    Your mother is more of an iffy matter, since the medical care she received most likely was far more than she kicked in. As such, you better not take the issue of government-funded services lightly and wave your hand and dismiss the importance of that—and not see it as Greece or Spain writ large. If you don’t see such benefits as an ongoing game of musical chairs, where more and more of us are going to be left standing when the music stops, then your mindset is THE reason that parts of Europe (hello, France!) are going down the toilet.

    Mark (df4ead)

  37. Romney needs to stop trying to please everyone. He seems to live on his back foot.

    Kevin M (bf8ad7)

  38. KevinM – even if that tape were released, it would be ignored by the MFM, kind of like how much of an EPIC fail Teh One’s presidency is, or how they are ignoring the abject failure of his foreign policy, resulting in the deaths of Americans in Lubya and attacks on embassies throughout the middle east. Because they would rather question the timing of an accurate criticism, blame a YouTube clip, and scream SQUIRREL

    JD (e4479f)

  39. 18. “Romney has just insulted half the country”

    How so, tapeworm? Because he implied 5% who would rather be part of the 53% and will not vote for Stinkh*le are parasites like yourself?

    Because getting a break on Federal Income Taxes is just a ploy to misdirect the less educated, the families with stay-at-home child-raisers, the charter-school teachers, rural small business owners, etc., that keeping Bottom Feeder in charge is their key to the good life, the American Dream?

    Romney can’t accidentally insult half of this country. We don’t have half agreed on anything whatever.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  40. One problem being that they thought they could obfuscate the fact that Obama has governed like a moderate Republican except for a few social issues that only motivate the already convinced hardcore right.

    — No one has obfuscated this “fact” more than Obama, himself.

    Icy (84c440)

  41. The Mob President….

    The President “owns” two mobs, one domestic, the other overseas.
    The mobs we see in Cairo and other places are his, as he promised that his “understanding” and outreach would make the Arab Street love us;
    The other mob that he owns is OWS.
    Hit him hard, and long, repeatedly, with these images, and how the Obama Presidency is Mobocracy!

    AD-Restore the Republic/Obama Sucks! (b8ab92)

  42. ….and the tag line should always include one of those pix from Cerritos of a citizen being hustled away by the “brownshirts”.

    AD-Restore the Republic/Obama Sucks! (b8ab92)

  43. Is it true that many of those in the 47% are old white people who mostly vote Republican?

    Jeremy Wolcott (4228f0)

  44. There’s nothing wrong with what Romney is saying, yet he is hardly defending himself properly. He should be using the opportunity to pound Obama on his policies. Is it too much to ask for Romney to be his biggest defender?

    MyOpinion (4ff715)

  45. The only way Romney could pry that tape loose from the LAT is if he bought the company –
    and he’s too smart to take on a loser like that.

    AD-Restore the Republic/Obama Sucks! (b8ab92)

  46. 18. “Romney has just insulted half the country”

    How so, tapeworm? Because he implied 5% who would rather be part of the 53% and will not vote for Stinkh*le are parasites like yourself?

    Romney wasn’t talking about 5% (or 5% of the 47%). He was talking about all 47% of the people who pay no income taxes. He said they (which include some of the people reading this) don’t want to engage in work or have any sense of personal responsibility.

    Kman (5576bf)

  47. ______________________________________

    Obamacare=Romneycare=Republican proposal during Clinton
    Guantanemo, indefinite detention, domestic spying=Bush II
    Taxes=continued Bush tax cuts

    That makes a better case of just how leftwing Obama is and, in turn, just how “centrist” Romney is, or his being squishy enough to know he won’t be comfortable with hard-core rightists the way that Obama has long been comfortable with hard-core leftists.

    Obamacare is an ultra version of Romneycare, and Obama is happy to see just about all the Bush tax cuts put out to pasture starting on January 1, 2013. I have a hunch that Romney (regrettably) is a wee bit less doctrinaire on the other side of the aisle, since I sense there’s some George “read-my-lips” Bush Sr in him.

    As for issues like Guantanamo, if Obama allowed his inner liberalism to fully bloom — which he did with his reaction to Libya and Egypt (“it’s the fault of that mean ol’ bigoted film maker!), he’d gladly close down that base and send all its prisoners over to a courtroom in New York City.

    Mark (df4ead)

  48. “Certainly, the Obama campaign’s never done anything to tout the sort of cradle-to-grave dependency that Romney describes here.”

    How soon they forget the ridiculous Life of Julia video.

    Obama’s governing philosophy is based on a zero sum economy, while Romney’s is based on growth.

    “At some point, haven’t you made enough money?”

    “I believe in spreading the wealth around.”

    People talking about social security taxes and other taxes are just changing the subject, which is fine, but it was not what Romney was addressing.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  49. As I said on the other thread, PowerLine has a good suggestion of how Romney can clarify and make it work.

    It would be nice if we went back, to perhaps a fabled time, when people were interested in amplifying and understanding a candidate’s views in an even-handed fashion, instead of trying to manipulate history by trying to make up issues to influence an election (while claiming objectivity).

    Countdown on how long it will be before Patterico is issued a cease and desist order on having Tom Petty on a conservative blog…unless Tom Petty is above being “one of those” (I don’t know his politics).

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  50. If he does, he’s going to have to specify who the “freeloaders” are.

    — Let’s go with food stamps, 99 weeks of unemployment compensation and questionable disability claims. If you had bothered to think for yourself for a second, you probably wouldn’t need Romney to “specify” for you.

    Icy (84c440)

  51. “I believe in spreading the wealth around.”
    Comment by daleyrocks — 9/18/2012 @ 9:10 am

    Not only does he believe that, but he believes it is the right thing to do even if it ends up with everyone doing worse, because it would be “more fair”.

    His own words.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  52. “Is it true that many of those in the 47% are old white people who mostly vote Republican?”

    Jeremy Wolcott – The 47% is a good number, perhaps slightly understated. In are probably some old white, yellow and brown people who mostly vote Republican as well as some old white yellow, brown and black people who vote mostly Democrat.

    Nice try for the race card.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  53. Let’s go with food stamps, 99 weeks of unemployment compensation and questionable disability claims. If you had bothered to think for yourself for a second, you probably wouldn’t need Romney to “specify” for you.

    That would be a nice start. Of course, that represents a miniscule portion of the 47% that Romney is now touting, which is why he DOES need to specify.

    Kman (5576bf)

  54. Comment by Icy — 9/18/2012 @ 9:18 am

    I’d say the freeloaders are those who don’t mind being supported by the fed govt indefinitely. A person with no job has to feed his family, for example someone who once worked in the oil in industry in the Gulf.

    The libs claim the argument is about those who care about people and want a safety net vs. those who don’t care and don’t mind if people go splat. Most of us do mind if people go splat, it’s just we also mind when people enjoy bouncing around in the net for fun like it was a trampoline.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  55. “Not only does he believe that, but he believes it is the right thing to do even if it ends up with everyone doing worse, because it would be “more fair”.”

    MD in Philly – Except to his own family, because somehow that’s errrr, different or something. Pay attention to what he does, not what he says.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  56. Obama was trying to explain how difficult it is to get through to people who don’t trust you. Romney admits it’s not his job to care.

    — sleeeeepy, did Kman’s lips move when you typed this?

    Icy (84c440)

  57. Telling Obama to control the expansion of government programs and spending is like telling a tweaker with $5,000 in his pocket not to spend it.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  58. Obamacare=Romneycare=Republican proposal during Clinton
    Guantanemo, indefinite detention, domestic spying=Bush II
    Taxes=continued Bush tax cuts
    Afghanistan=expanded Bush involvement
    Israel=more of the same pledges of fealty to a foreign government
    Comment by P. Tillman — 9/18/2012 @ 8:50 am

    — PeeTee is claiming to be a Paulestinian.

    Icy (84c440)

  59. “Romney admits it’s not his job to care.”

    sleeeepy – About making the effort to get their votes. But you don’t care about context, do you?

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  60. “That makes a better case of just how leftwing Obama is and, in turn, just how “centrist” Romney is, or his being squishy enough to know he won’t be comfortable with hard-core rightists the way that Obama has long been comfortable with hard-core leftists.”

    Hmm…now you seem to be defining “most of America” as “hard-core leftists”, since a majority of people:

    1) Want to tax the rich at a higher rate than currently.
    2) Support universal, government-sponsored healthcare
    3) Preserve and expand social welfare programs.

    By my reckoning, Obama has only signaled agreement with 1, making him to the right of even the majority who want 2 and 3.

    P. Tillman (fcbc8b)

  61. ICY – PT likes to live in the past.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  62. PT – Move to Europe. They have what you want and it’s not working.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  63. “– Let’s go with food stamps, 99 weeks of unemployment compensation and questionable disability claims. If you had bothered to think for yourself for a second, you probably wouldn’t need Romney to “specify” for you.”
    as i think you know, or would if you stopped to think about it, unemployment insurance and disability insurance are INSURANCE programs, and most recipients will have paid many times over whatever they may get by the time they are finished with their working lives. Food stamps, interestingly enough, were touted and passed as assistance to agriculture– (ask Conagra or Archer Daniels Midland how much they spent lobbying for these and for expansions to the program). Let’s go after those farmers as the biggest moochers in America! oh, no, that would be highway builders.

    My point is that HUGE portions of our populace have enjoyed, or have needed govt assistance at times. This does not disqualify them (us) from participating in the vote or make our political views less important. Nor does it tie us to one candidate or anther–ask those farmers or roadway contractors.

    it was just an idiotic comment, and an insulting one. and it was not a one-sentence gaffe as so many of those media-created moments have been. it was a considered statement that he elaborated on. And the media got to it late, if anything.

    and no, i will not vote for Romney, you got that right.

    brendanyc (1de907)

  64. “PeeTee is claiming to be a Paulestinian.”

    Hardly…that idiot shouldn’t even be in charge of running a 7-11, let alone being an elected US representative.

    P. Tillman (fcbc8b)

  65. “PT – Move to Europe. They have what you want and it’s not working.

    That’s a Rightwing media fantasy…the cause of the problems in Europe is the same as here….greedy lying Banksters and Austerity-obsessed politicians.

    P. Tillman (fcbc8b)

  66. Is it true that many of those in the 47% are old white people who mostly vote Republican?
    Comment by Jeremy Wolcott — 9/18/2012 @ 9:03 am

    — Have you really come back here to lie again, Mr “all of the embassy’s tweets came before the protests began”?

    Smacked you down then, and I can do it again.

    And NO, most of those on food stamps, unemployment & specious disability are not ‘old, white, Republican voters’.

    Icy (84c440)

  67. Hmm…now you seem to be defining “most of America” as “hard-core leftists”, since a majority of people:

    1) Want to tax the rich at a higher rate than currently.
    2) Support universal, government-sponsored healthcare
    3) Preserve and expand social welfare programs.

    Lie

    JD (e4479f)

  68. Exactly, P.Tillman is the one living in the fantasy world.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  69. “Lie”

    1) PRINCETON, NJ — Americans generally favor raising taxes on higher-income Americans and eliminating tax deductions for some corporations as ways of paying for President Obama’s proposed jobs plan.

    2)
    “In general, would you favor or oppose a program that would increase the federal government’s influence over the country’s health care system in an attempt to lower costs and provide health care coverage to more Americans?” Americans favor government intervention in the health system by 69%-29%.

    “In general, would you favor or oppose a program that would increase the federal government’s influence over the health care you and your family receive in an attempt to lower costs and provide health care coverage to more Americans?” When it involves their own care and their families, approval is still high, but a bit lower: 63%-36%.

    “Do you think the federal government should guarantee health care for all Americans, or don’t you think so?” Americans favor guaranteed health care for all, by a margin of 62%-38%.

    P. Tillman (fcbc8b)

  70. Romney wasn’t talking about 5% (or 5% of the 47%). He was talking about all 47% of the people who pay no income taxes. He said they (which include some of the people reading this) don’t want to engage in work or have any sense of personal responsibility.
    Comment by Kman — 9/18/2012 @ 9:06 am

    — There are a lot of people like that, Kman; from Mayor Liaraigosa at the DNC convention on down to people that subsist on govt handouts and never work.

    Icy (84c440)

  71. “Exactly, P.Tillman is the one living in the fantasy world.”

    LOL.

    P. Tillman (fcbc8b)

  72. Push polling rocks

    JD (318f81)

  73. “Push polling rocks”

    Of course it does….so where’s yours backing up your comment?

    P. Tillman (fcbc8b)

  74. “That’s a Rightwing media fantasy…the cause of the problems in Europe is the same as here….greedy lying Banksters and Austerity-obsessed politicians.”

    PT – A beautiful twisted view of reality. Europe had the opportunity for a fresh start after WWII and voluntarily screwed it up. It’s been screwed up for decades yet you focus on some Krugmanesque analysis of the present.

    You want to import screwed up systems, guaranteed to fail into the United States. Does it hurt to be so stupid?

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  75. You didn’t link yours. Your claims fly in the face of the lack of support for your beloved ObamaCare. Or like in #1, you claim general support for taking more more for the rich, but your proof is in specifics as to how to pay for a “jobs bill”. It is always easier to spend somebody else’s money. You claimed preserve, and expand, welfare programs. Funny how you offer no support for that. Actually, it isn’t funny. It ain’t true, except amongst the left.

    JD (318f81)

  76. Does it hurt to be so stupid?

    It should.

    JD (318f81)

  77. Why are the lefties crying about VA assistance and student loans, when they know very well that Romney was talking about the culture of dependency such as welfare and food stamps, as well as the incredible number of people who do not pay federal income taxes ?

    Actually, speaking of student loans, Obama put on quite the drama production a couple months ago, campaigning at colleges with speeches narrowly tailored toward incoming college students vis a vis the interest rates on student loans. That was totally a play for expanding his base a la “see what government can do for you !”

    That’s the arching point about what Romney was touching on…there’s a high percentage of voters who are dependent on government largesse, and they are voting for Obama who promises to continue expanding government.
    I mean, student loans that will now be “forgiven” after twenty years, even if you haven’t paid them back in full ?
    Are you kidding me ?

    How is that fair to the rest of us who paid back our student loans in their entirety ?

    Elephant Stone (65d289)

  78. ““In general, would you favor or oppose a program that would increase the federal government’s influence over the country’s health care system in an attempt to lower costs and provide health care coverage to more Americans?” Americans favor government intervention in the health system by 69%-29%.”

    PT – The only problem is that question does not describe ObamaCare. 53% of Americans support the total repeal of ObamaCare, so suck it.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  79. as i think you know, or would if you stopped to think about it, unemployment insurance and disability insurance are INSURANCE programs, and most recipients will have paid many times over whatever they may get by the time they are finished with their working lives
    Comment by brendanyc — 9/18/2012 @ 9:34 am

    1) Employees do not pay into unemployment insurance.
    2) Disability insurance is part of SSI; if you do not collect disability, then (theoretically) there will be more money in the SSI fund to cover your Social Security payments when you reach retirement age.

    Icy (84c440)

  80. “The only problem is that question does not describe ObamaCare. 53% of Americans support the total repeal of ObamaCare, so suck it.”

    LOL…they support all of the provisions, but if you ask them about “Obamacare” they want it gone…wonder what the source of that discrepancy is??

    P. Tillman (fcbc8b)

  81. _____________________________________________

    making him to the right of even the majority who want 2 and 3.

    Wow, then, yea, a lot of the public you’re describing is super liberal, ultra-liberal. Assuming they are, and guessing the way they’d react if they didn’t get their way, I’m reminded of a classic comedic scene where a person is holding a gun to his own head and threatens the encroaching cops by shouting “come any closer and I’ll shoot!”

    pollingmatters.gallup.com, May 2012:

    Those who believe that Obama’s ideology is different than theirs overwhelmingly say that he is more liberal than they are. In fact, 54% of all Americans say that Obama is more liberal than they are, while 9% say he is more conservative than they are. Looked at differently, if we just examine the pool of those who say that Obama’s ideology is different than theirs, 86% of this group say he is more liberal than they are.

    Naturally, this perception of Obama as being more liberal is driven by Republicans, almost eight in 10 of whom say that Obama is more liberal than they are. Importantly, independents also tilt that way, with 59% saying that Obama is more liberal than they are.

    One would imagine that Democrats would be more likely to say that Obama shares their ideology. This is generally the case, although not overwhelmingly so. About six in 10 Democrats say that Obama is about the same as they are. But, almost a quarter say Obama is more liberal than they are (14% say that Obama is more conservative than they are).

    the cause of the problems in Europe is the same as here….greedy lying Banksters and Austerity-obsessed politicians.

    Another comment that makes me LOL. However, I did suspect you were quite leftwing, and my hunch has proven correct. Of course, as such, I’m sure you’ll never characterize the bloated pension plans for government workers throughout the country as greedy — yet fought for with tooth and nail by government-employee unions — and a big part of the problem. Or you’ll sidestep the issues of the $500 million that Obama is funneling to the IRS, because, after all, we just need far more of that type of job growth. Wonderful new jobs, thanks to Obama! The great boost that tax agents provide to our society is beyond reproach. (Er, ah, I won’t mention that Obama’s Secretary of the Treasury and, in turn, head of the IRS is a known tax cheat.)

    Mark (df4ead)

  82. My point is that HUGE portions of our populace have enjoyed, or have needed govt assistance at times.
    and no, i will not vote for Romney, you got that right.
    Comment by brendanyc — 9/18/2012 @ 9:34 am

    — And is this because you need govt assistance, or because you ‘enjoy’ it?

    Icy (84c440)

  83. “You didn’t link yours.”

    You know the google? You can plug in the quotes and find the site/s yourself.

    Point is, I provided EVIDENCE; you, bluster and insult.

    And people wonder why Romney is getting his ass kicked…

    P. Tillman (fcbc8b)

  84. “You want to import screwed up systems, guaranteed to fail into the United States. Does it hurt to be so stupid?”

    After reading your nonsensical reply, I think it’s clear you’re in the best position to answer that question for yourself…

    P. Tillman (fcbc8b)

  85. Hardly…that idiot [Ron Paul] shouldn’t even be in charge of running a 7-11, let alone being an elected US representative.
    Comment by P. Tillman — 9/18/2012 @ 9:34 am

    — According to our current Vice President, Sloe “You cannot go to a 7/11 or a Dunkin’ Donuts unless you have a slight Indian accent” Joe, he is racially disqualified from doing so.

    Icy (84c440)

  86. Our gullible media folk are distracted by the importance of celebrating the “birthday” birthday????? of the Occupy movement while the Mideast is exploding in violent murderous anti-American fervor– both the president’s picture and the American flag are being burned– and our brave military are being slaughtered by the very “freed” people they are trying to help and train. Obama appointees and officials are caught in lie after lie about their foreign policy bungles. Americans’ first amendment rights are being openly challenged.

    Meanwhile, a weeks old fundraising video is suddenly “leaked” with purposely manipulated and nearly identical class and race warfare headline memes from coast to coast. I question the timing. Well, actually no I don’t.

    elissa (56a2c6)

  87. “…he is racially disqualified from doing so.”

    Agreed, Randroids are definitely a different race, species, organism altogether.

    P. Tillman (fcbc8b)

  88. brendanyc,

    C’mon, bro, have an honest debate with us.

    You’re pulling the same stunt that Obama uses to justify his over-the-top government expansion and debt. Obama likes to say, “well, the people who oppose my policy X which costs taxpayer money never complain when the government builds roads with taxpayer money—that means they’re hypocrites !”

    It’s not a black/white issue.
    The federal government has certain Constitutional responsibilities which we all appreciate and support. But that support doesn’t “automatically” guarantee support for every boondoggle that someone wants the federal government to pay for.
    Support for VA assistance does not mean that I “must” therefore support the rest of Obama’s smorgasboard menu of handouts, entitlements, boondoggles, wasted money, and kickbacks, all on taxpayer dime.

    Seriously, bro, if you have specific federal policy spending issues you wish to defend, then lay it out there.
    But please stop inferring that opposition to Obama’s debt and spending and taxing is an implicit opposition to other widely accepted programs such as VA assistance.

    Elephant Stone (65d289)

  89. Tillman is predictably droll.

    JD (318f81)

  90. Our serial trolls never get less tyresome.

    JD (318f81)

  91. brendanyc wins the thread.

    It’s over.

    sleeeepy (b5f718)

  92. “4% of all Americans say that Obama is more liberal than they are,” etc.

    I really don’t need to explain to you why public OPINION on an issue is not proof of a policy position, do I now Mark?

    Just like the foolish counterargument that “a majority of Americans want to repeal Obamacare”…but paradoxically (not really) support it’s provisions when asked about them individually.

    Remember, no one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the public…however, perhaps an election will be lost from it in this cycle.

    P. Tillman (fcbc8b)

  93. Sleeeepy’s brilliant “coke with billionares” line will inhabit and infest every single thread at which he appears and tries to influence/distract honest debate from now on. Others may disagree but as far as I am concerned that comment is second only to “I work here is done” in the annals of Patterico blog trolldom infamy.

    elissa (56a2c6)

  94. The only way Romney could pry that tape loose from the LAT is if he bought the company –

    It’s in Chapter 11. You would think the creditors would have a say.

    Kevin M (bf8ad7)

  95. A Gallup poll from SEP 2011 about a jobs bills proves all sorts of generalized desire for leftisms, but opinion polling is not proof?

    JD (318f81)

  96. 70. “Americans favor guaranteed health care for all, by a margin of 62%-38%.”

    Hmm, maybe. I’d think it safe to say 100% favor eating tomorrow, and next year as well.

    Federal spending is now 40% borrowed. The Federal Reserve is currently printing out of thin air 10% of our GDP. They will be buying all debt maturing over 7 years.

    They will have a balance sheet of $4 Trillion in 2014 when Chairman Bernanke comes to the end of his term.

    Our GDP is currently under $15 Trillion and falling. Our total debt now exceeds GDP. If we confiscated all income from the top 1% we would gain $800 Billion in revenue.

    Our deficit would be cut by 2/3, but next years revenue would likely disappear altogether. Revenue is falling as we speak.

    Democrat controlled government has not produced a budget for the last 3 cycles.

    What do you propose?

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  97. Elephant Stone, of course it’s not a black and white issue, i thought i was making that point.
    many people depend on government in many ways at different (many?) points in their lives. those who truly do no ‘making,’ who truly depend on others for everything and who are not ‘deserving’ certainly do not make up 47% of the country.
    Even those on welfare–who may have been his true target– are on it for a good deal less than all their life–especially since Clinton. [by the way, they also tend to vote in much lower percentages than other demos. a bad foundation to build Obama’s coalition, eh?]
    i think the myth of lifetime mooching was a caricature even before Clinton, but it certainly misleads now.
    You are advancing my point: that MR is out of touch, contemptuous of many or perhaps most of us, is either stupid to have said things he does not believe, or mean-spirited and bigoted to believe these things. And incorrect in the bargain.
    these are not the things we look for in a leader.

    brendanyc (1de907)

  98. Sleeeeerpy’s coke with billionaires quip was EPIC

    JD (318f81)

  99. Brendan wasn’t voting for Romney before this, so his faux concern and vapors over this bigoted comment is laughable.

    JD (318f81)

  100. That’s a Rightwing media fantasy…the cause of the problems in Europe is the same as here….greedy lying Banksters and Austerity-obsessed politicians.
    Comment by P. Tillman — 9/18/2012 @ 9:35 am

    — Belt-tightening IS an idea that’s as old & outdated as the Constitution. Why, I’d even bet you that the person that came up with the phrase “tighten one’s belt” never foresaw the Internet or Lady Gaga!

    “Do you think the federal government should guarantee health care for all Americans, or don’t you think so?” Americans favor guaranteed health care for all, by a margin of 62%-38%.
    Comment by P. Tillman — 9/18/2012 @ 9:46 am

    — We’ve had “guaranteed health CARE” since Obama was in diapers. So, what’s your point? If you’re talking about “guaranteed health INSURANCE” (which, coincidentally, we’ve had since Biden has been BACK in diapers) there remains an important difference between “guaranteed” and “mandatory”.

    Does it hurt to be so stupid?
    It should.
    Comment by JD — 9/18/2012 @ 9:55 am

    — Why would it, when he has his fluffy entitlement pillow & mattress to fall back upon?

    Icy (84c440)

  101. __________________________________________

    Our gullible media folk….[and their] purposely manipulated and nearly identical class and race warfare headline memes from coast to coast.

    With the bilge they’re dishing out, I feel somewhat better that they’re at least not making out like bandits, per this chart at breitbart.com and linked to at the drudgereport.com.

    Nothing is more irritating to me then when limousine liberals (and many on the left, regardless of their income level, behave in a way that fits exactly that label) make a big mess of things, then get in their nice, comfy cars and drive to their nice, comfy homes, while waving “bye bye” to everyone who has to pick up the garbage (including various forms of dysfunction) they leave behind. Sort of like a Barack and Michele praising the virtues of public education and the public sector (hello, teachers in Chicago!) while sending Malia and Sasha to private academies in Chicago and now in DC.

    Mark (df4ead)

  102. brendanyc wins the thread.
    It’s over.
    Comment by sleeeepy — 9/18/2012 @ 10:16 am

    — I work hear isssss done.

    Sleeeeestak (84c440)

  103. Tillman is predictably dtroll.
    Comment by JD — 9/18/2012 @ 10:13 am

    — Fixed

    Icy (84c440)

  104. The billionaires you like don’t give a damn about you.

    Of course they don’t. Nor do politicians or bureaucrats, they’re just trying to get over.

    You seem to have missed a point about capitalism: it is designed so that greed is channeled into positive work, and millionaires who understand that become billionaires and those who don’t, don’t.

    I have dealt with three billionaires. Two of them were very happy to see other people do well — they loved a positive-sum outcome where everyone came out a winner. The other one was a real jerk and wanted everyone else to lose because he thought he’d get more (false on its face). He’s no longer a billionaire and may soon not even be a millionaire because his attitude has caused everyone to shun him and screw him at every turn.

    They don’t have to care about me. Enlightened self-interest is good enough. Problem is though, that unlike capitalism, government IS a zero-sum game. At best.

    Kevin M (bf8ad7)

  105. ______________________________________________

    or mean-spirited and bigoted to believe these things.

    Oh, brother. Cheap compassion and hollow generosity are a dime a dozen in today’s era.

    You might not have been displaying the stereotype of the nonsensical “bleeding heart liberal” over 70 years ago, when the size of the social-safety net was much smaller (or didn’t even exist), when political correctness wasn’t running amok, and when the checks and balances of society were somewhat similar to what is found today in India, the People’s Republic of China or the hand-to-mouth sweatshops (and corresponding corrupt regimes) of the Third World.

    Mark (df4ead)

  106. Brendanyc, the idea that Mitt Romney is more out of touch than Barack “the private sector is doing fine” Obama is beyond parody. That’s weapons grade comedy.

    SPQR (06f712)

  107. I’m not sure if it’s Brendan or Brenda. But I am sure that person is misinformed if it believes that farmers in general and ADM in general are one in the same and that ADM lobbyists represent farmers or that farmers think or want ADM lobbyists to represent them.

    elissa (56a2c6)

  108. Remember, no one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the public.
    Comment by P. Tillman — 9/18/2012 @ 10:17 am

    — In that betting world, YOU are what’s known as a “sure thing”.

    Icy (84c440)

  109. ___________________________________________

    Problem is though, that unlike capitalism, government IS a zero-sum game

    I’ve spoken in the past with a very liberal person, an acquaintance of mine who told me (believe it or not) that he didn’t consider Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez to be an extremist. The one thing I will give that person credit for is he at least is employed by the government. IOW, he at least gets something out of what I consider a Faustian bargain of thinking and acting like a liberal in today’s era.

    For most others, certainly those trying to make a go of it in the private sector, to be no less liberal is truly stupefying to me. They’re the epitome of the sucker and naif, closing their eyes and handing over money to a mostly opaque entity (ie, much of the bureaucracy, including public schools) in the ridiculous belief that such a response therefore makes one noble, humane, generous, caring and sophisticated.

    Mark (df4ead)

  110. “What do you propose?”

    Raise taxes on those earning over $500K. Top tax rate at least 50%.

    P. Tillman (fcbc8b)

  111. Brenda NYC?

    Icy (84c440)

  112. Raise taxes on those earning over $500K. Top tax rate at least 50%.

    — Is that “raise it BY 50%” or “raise it TO 50%”?

    Icy (84c440)

  113. “LOL…they support all of the provisions, but if you ask them about “Obamacare” they want it gone…wonder what the source of that discrepancy is??”

    PT – LOL. That’s easy. The question describes a fantasy world. When people understand what government run health care really involves, long waits, eliminating procedures, rationing and taking decision making out the hands of doctors and giving it to faceless unaccountable death panels, they don’t properly appreciate the gifts they are being given and believe there are better solutions. Idiots like you believe it is the only solution.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  114. “While some Obama supporters may not pay federal income tax, they still pay federal payroll tax and may well pay state and city taxes.”

    Just about all of them are paying income tax too, maybe not directly, but they’re paying just the same.

    Dave Surls (46b08c)

  115. Either way, Icy. It solves nothing, but it does illustrate their perpetual class warfare, jealousy, and financial idiocy.

    JD (e4479f)

  116. PT – Push polling = Do you want more and cheaper stuff?

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  117. The top 2% pay almost 70% of income taxes, and that just isn’t enough.

    JD (e4479f)

  118. To me the question is whether Romney is an upgrade over the precious affirmative action lightworker. There’s no comparison. I think Romney is an improvement over all the dem nominees/Presidents going at least as far back as carter. Yes, Bob Dole and McCain were stiffs but does anyone on the right think dukakis, mondale, clinton, man/bear/pig and Lurch would have been good for the country, especially on foreign policy?
    I imagine a Pres.Romney would make more of an effort to reach out to the liberals, much like W did (read:caved to their demands), but at least we’d most likely get better Supreme court picks.
    Maybe we’re already too far gone even if Romney pulls it out. What is Obama, like 1/8 black descendant of slave traders and playing the perpetual race card? Pity people are just too damn stupid and 2/3 of libtards believe government doesn’t do enough. Most everything government touches turns to kaka and more so under Urkel’s malevolent stewardship.

    Calypso Louis Farrakhan (e799d8)

  119. Let’s all remember what constitutes a political “gaffe.”

    Telling the truth.

    That’s all Romney did. And not only won’t this hurt him, it is the perfect time to expose the pack of lies Obama has been inflicting on the country. Actually, the pack of lies Obama has been selling since he entered public life.

    Obama has been inflicting a deliberate policy of private sector job destruction on this country, and calling it “investment” from the get go. No, we can’t have drilling in the gulf (and he had to deceive outside experts to get that moratorium, though his administration was caught in the lie, to get his way). No, we can’t have the keystone pipeline. No, we can’t have power generation per his EPA.

    What can we have? Solyndra. Fisker. The Chevy Volt.

    Bobby Jindal noted with shock that Obama could not be convinced that it was better that people work then be on unemployment and food stamps. What you’ve got to understand is that from Obama’s perspective, it isn’t. Creating dependency is a deliberate Democratic strategy. As Jesse Jackson put it to Illinois state workers forced to attend a political rally for his son and Pelosi against their will, per the affidavit of Marcy Bailey (one of those forced to be there):

    11. ISAC JOB COACHING BY JESSE JACKSON SR AFTER “SATURDAY FORUM” ENDED

    11. After the hour-long “Forum” program, all agency personnel were ushered into a room for a private meeting with Jesse Jackson Sr. and Rev. Janet Wilson of Rainbow PUSH. Jesse Jackson Sr. thanked us for our attendance at the “Saturday Forum.” Jesse Jackson Sr. said to work hard to help as many students as possible to acquire student loans. Jackson Sr. encouraged us to network students, hold rallies, and organize for “student loan forgiveness legislation.”
    12. Jesse Jackson Sr. told us not to worry to about loading students up with too much college debt, because Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats would eventually forgive all student loan debt. On the promise of debt forgiveness, “those people will continue to vote Democratic.”

    Romney isn’t in a bind. The liberals have given him all the pieces to put together. This is why the Democrats like Pelosi embraced the Occupy movement. The parasisites forming that movement, of course, demanding that people pay off their student loans, and give them all the free stuff their hearts desire.

    This was the purpose of Obama’s “if you have a successful business, you didn’t build that,” as well as Elizabeth Warren’s earlier and equally execrable speech about how the private sector gets rich on “our” roads. To convince the various taxpayer-dependent Democratic consitiencies that they aren’t the parasites they actually are. That they are demanding what the private sector owes them. In fact, that the private sector should feel lucky they aren’t taking it all.

    Romney needs to clear up the fact that not all those 47% want to be in the position they are in. Those gulf oil workers now on the dole would rather be working. They need to be reminded that Obama put them out of work, just like President Downgrade (Obozo the Clowngrade?) put millions of other people out of work in order to reward his cronies and create dependents.

    It’s an obvious fact, which is why the press is howling. Just as Romney spoke an obvious truth last week when he said the Cairo embassy’s statement was an embarrassment. Similarly, he spoke the truth when he said the Palestinians don’t want a peaceful two state settlemnent. This is just a glaring fact; it’s why the PLO logo depicts a Palestinian state on a map with no Israel. This is why the Gazans voted for the local branch of the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, which refuses to recognize the right of Israel to exist.

    Obama’s foreign policy “vision,” like his domestic economic policies, is a lie. A fraud. Delusional. It is visibly falling apart before our eyes. And his response, and those of his enablers such as Rice is to lie to our faces a la DWS and tell us we aren’t seeing what is right before our eyes.

    Oh. And to bend over and give the Egyptian MB whatever it demands.

    Now’s not the time for Romney to back off. The reason the press is howling that “it’s over” and that Romney has just lost is because they know they can’t cover up for the Klown Kar presidency for another two months. All the lies are falling apart.

    They are partisan hacks. Not wizards.

    Steve57 (63f83b)

  120. – Is that “raise it BY 50%” or “raise it TO 50%”?

    To 50%, or above, say 75% on income over 10M.

    And capital gains tax to same level as regular income.

    P. Tillman (fcbc8b)

  121. ___________________________________________

    Raise taxes on those earning over $500K. Top tax rate at least 50%.

    50%!! Pfft. I say we should emulate Republican Herbert Hoover, who pushed it up to the 60 percent range, while his successor, Democrat Franklin Roosevelt, actually, unbelievably, ludicrously wanted to ratchet it up to the high 80 percentile level. Of course, that was after one of the heroes of the Democrats and leftist cabal had discovered the new-found religion of liberalism gone berserk and allowed his inner “progressive” instincts to percolate to the surface.

    thefreemanonline.org: Unemployment in 1930 averaged a mildly recessionary 8.9 percent, up from 3.2 percent in 1929. It shot up rapidly until peaking out at more than 25 percent in 1933. Until March 1933, these were the years of President Herbert Hoover — the man that anti-capitalists depict as a champion of noninterventionist, laissez-faire economics.

    Did Hoover really subscribe to a “hands off the economy,” free-market philosophy? His opponent in the 1932 election, Franklin Roosevelt, didn’t think so. During the campaign, Roosevelt blasted Hoover for spending and taxing too much, boosting the national debt, choking off trade, and putting millions of people on the dole. He accused the president of “reckless and extravagant” spending, of thinking “that we ought to center control of everything in Washington as rapidly as possible,” and of presiding over “the greatest spending administration in peacetime in all of history.” Roosevelt’s running mate, John Nance Garner, charged that Hoover was “leading the country down the path of socialism.”

    Contrary to the modern myth about Hoover, Roosevelt and Garner were absolutely right.

    Hoover dramatically increased government spending for subsidy and relief schemes. In the space of one year alone, from 1930 to 1931, the federal government’s share of GNP increased by about one-third. Hoover’s agricultural bureaucracy doled out hundreds of millions of dollars to wheat and cotton farmers even as the new tariffs wiped out their markets. His Reconstruction Finance Corporation ladled out billions more in business subsidies. Commenting decades later on Hoover’s administration, Rexford Guy Tugwell, one of the architects of Franklin Roosevelt’s policies of the 1930s, explained, “We didn’t admit it at the time, but practically the whole New Deal was extrapolated from programs that Hoover started.”

    To compound the folly of high tariffs and huge subsidies, Congress then passed and Hoover signed the Revenue Act of 1932. It doubled the income tax for most Americans; the top bracket more than doubled, going from 24 percent to 63 percent. Exemptions were lowered; the earned income credit was abolished; corporate and estate taxes were raised; new gift, gasoline, and auto taxes were imposed; and postal rates were sharply hiked.

    ^ Do-gooder liberalism is such a wonderful, profound quality, welling up in the hearts of both, yep, Republicans and — naturally — Democrats.

    Mark (df4ead)

  122. 92. “It’s over.”

    You are correct, that is just what you don’t get.

    What is the Market doing today? Nothing.

    Mortgage rates? Nothing.

    Treasuries, Oil, Gold? Nothing, nada, squat.

    All the ‘good’ news is priced in, and no more is coming, save Spain asks for a bailout.

    Google ‘central bank monetization’ just to prove you can.

    Fed, ECB, PBOC, BOJ, BOE, SNB, etc. What do you see? Liquidity thru the roof.

    Now Google “velocity of money”. Why the total inverse. What is going on, you say?

    The end of your world.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  123. “When people understand what government run health care really involves”

    How are they going to “understand” something that hasn’t happened yet, simp?

    Answer: their belief is based on Wingnut lies and conjecture propagated by the complicit Corporatist media.

    Ever look at a recent ranking of health care satisfaction and costs around the world? Guess where the US is at, where it has been going? Go ahead, take a guess; or better yet, go learn something that might not agree with your pre-conceptions and demonstrably false assumptions.

    P. Tillman (fcbc8b)

  124. 111. Reading comprehension, try it, you’ll be glad you did.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  125. P.Tillman hilariously enough repeats the long debunked fabrication of Euro austerity and tops it off with economically destructive, Great Depression creating tax increases.

    Always sidesplitting to see the economically illiterate spew their stupidity.

    SPQR (06f712)

  126. “The top 2% pay almost 70% of income taxes, and that just isn’t enough.”

    You said it, not me.

    P. Tillman (fcbc8b)

  127. Because if you raise it BY 50% then that’s taking half of the top rate of 35% which is 17.5% and adding them together which makes it 52.5% but if you meant raise it TO 50% then that’s a lower number than raising it BY 50% being only a 42.8% increase

    Icy (84c440)

  128. “Raise taxes on those earning over $500K.”

    Go ahead. It won’t do any good though. You’re going to end up paying just as much as they do (ratewise). Those are the guys that set wages and prices, and they’re going to adjust wages and prices to cancel out whatever taxes they’re hit with, and their profit margin will be exactly what it always was…and, you’re going to lose.

    If you ever think you’re going to set up a tax system where guys like Mitt Romney and Barack Obama pay at a higher rate than you do…you’re dreaming.

    They run the show and they’re never going to take a hit for your sake.

    Dave Surls (46b08c)

  129. To 50%, or above, say 75% on income over 10M.

    And capital gains tax to same level as regular income.

    Comment by P. Tillman

    Why do you hate success? I would like to thank you for at least admitting that.

    JD (e4479f)

  130. 124. Drooling imbecilty personified. Obamacare adds $1 Trillion to Healthcare costs after removing $800 Billion from Medicare over a decade meaning tens of thousands fewer providers bumping the customer base and usage.

    QED, less Healthcare.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  131. Here’s a little call from the cluephone: high taxes means Moochelle takes million dollar vacations to Europe and you get $200 bucks a month in food stamps (if that).

    Always has been that way…always will be that way.

    Dave Surls (46b08c)

  132. Yet Tillman got the vapors over Romney’s comments. Because Romney was talking about the Tillmans of the world.

    JD (e4479f)

  133. To 50%, or above, say 75% on income over 10M.

    — So, the person that earns $10 million takes home $2.5 million, while the person that earns $9 million takes home $4.5 million?

    Thank you for so clearly illustrating how the Fair Tax came by its name.

    Icy (84c440)

  134. 130. The genius of raising Federal taxes to confiscatory levels and just transferring revenues to States and Local governments is that we reduce the time frame require to achieve Soviet central planning from 70 years down to 5.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  135. ____________________________________________

    They run the show and they’re never going to take a hit for your sake.

    Even more so if they also take the route of those in ObamaNation.

    westernjournalism.com, July 2012: If you have ever been hauled into an Internal Revenue Service office for an audit, think about that feeling as you read this.

    According to a new IRS report, Barack Obama is harboring at least three dozen tax cheats right on his own staff! Together, this bunch has made a joke of Obama’s shopworn line about the “rich paying their fair share of taxes.” They owe a collective $833,970 in back taxes – and we thought liberals were patriotic! These aren’t “little people”; they must be well-paid (with our money) and well-educated to be where they are.

    More than one in three of Obama’s royal staff makes over $100,000 a year, and his entire staff of 457 people makes over 37 million dollars each year. Twenty-one make almost as much as a Congressman! And the tax cheats aren’t just in the White House. An IRS report says the aggregate amount owed to the IRS by all federal employees is a stunning $3.4 BILLION, which is an increase of 3% just since last year.

    Foxnews.com, March 2009: Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, who was forced to fork up $34,000 in unpaid back taxes, told the House Ways and Means Committee Tuesday that the Obama administration will be going after people who avoid and evade taxes.

    Geithner himself never used a tax haven to avoid payment, but did neglect to pay Medicare and Social Security taxes while he was a self-employed staffer for the International Monetary Fund. He even hired an accountant for two of the years he forgot to file.

    “Over the next several months,” he said Tuesday, “the President will propose a series of legislative and enforcement measures to reduce such U.S. tax evasion and avoidance.”

    But the Treasury secretary might want to heed something of a caveat legislator: such a dragnet could quickly catch a handful of Obama’s top appointees.

    Tom Daschle, Obama’s pick to be Secretary of Health and Human Services, had to bow out when it was disclosed that he had failed to pay $128,000 in back taxes. Nancy Killefer, who was appointed by Obama to scrutinize government spending for the OMB, also had to withdraw her nomination because of tax issues.

    And just a day before Geithner’s appearance in the House, Obama’s designated Trade Representative, Ron Kirk, told the Senate Finance Committee that he owed some $10,000 in back taxes that he had agreed to pay.

    Some of the administrations enforcement measures, put forth in good faith inside the president’s proposed budget, might be hitting just a little too close to home.

    Mark (df4ead)

  136. ==To 50%, or above, say 75% on income over 10M.
    And capital gains tax to same level as regular income.==

    Has the president put these proposals in his ads in the swing states? Is he proudly running on a promise to do this should he be re-elected? Is this his fervent pitch to the billionaire and millionaire supporters and bundlers from whom he is seeking additional campaign contributions? Or is class warfare just a linguistic tic–a wink and nod ploy to get uninformed and gullible people like you to shill for him? Just asking.

    elissa (56a2c6)

  137. Fairness is the goal according to Urkel. Despite the fact that receipts went up when capital gains tax rates were lowered, Obama doesn’t care that the government would take in less by increasing the rate. He stated unequivocally that higher rates were “fairer”. He is indeed his brother’s keeper. Upwards of $20 mil net worth and can’t help his illegal alien relatives in Boston or his half-brother George living on a $1 a month in Kenyan slums? Better the welfare authorities in Boston assist auntie and dear DUI uncle.

    Calypso Louis Farrakhan (e799d8)

  138. To 50%, or above, say 75% on income over 10M.

    So, the person that earns $10 million takes home $2.5 million, while the person that earns $9 million takes home $4.5 million?

    Thank you for so clearly illustrating how the Fair Tax came by its name.

    Thank you for so clearly demonstrating that you don’t know how taxes work.

    The top income tax bracket isn’t a tax on ALL of one’s income. It’s a tax on the highest income.

    So if the top tax rate is set at 75% for $10 million or higher, a person won’t start paying 75% until he earns his 10-million-and-first dollar. And that dollar alone gets taxed at 75%. The other ten million is taxed at a lower rate.

    Kman (5576bf)

  139. “The end of your world.”

    Gary, my portfolio is up 20% this year.

    sleeeepy (b5f718)

  140. Jimmy Carter’s grandson (whose bio says he is looking for work) was “research assistant” for the David Corn article and the “leaked” video.–Drudge

    elissa (4b3896)

  141. Sadly, when he’s high on coke Sleeeeeepy sees extra zeros in his portfolio balance that aren’t really there.

    elissa (4b3896)

  142. Yet kmart’s description is no more palatable.

    JD (e4479f)

  143. At some point, you have earned enough money, amirite?!

    JD (e4479f)

  144. brendanyc,

    C’mon, bro, is that all you got ?
    Telling me that I’m advancing your point ?
    Weak.
    If you have specific Obama policies you wish to defend or advocate for, then descend from the cheap seats in the outfield bleachers, and step up to the plate.

    Dependence on food stamps and disability payments have gone thru the roof during the past 4 years. I don’t think our nation has had a legitimate “epidemic” of work related injuries. Last month, there were more people placed on “disability” than jobs created.

    Inferring that Romney was inherently attacking current/former servicemen for seeking VA assistance is cheap and vile—it sounds like something that Richard Trumka would say after having one Pabst Blue Ribbon too many during Thursday Night Bowling League “wit ‘da boys”. Of course, if you had any other cards to play, you’d play them, rather than play the VA card.

    Elephant Stone (65d289)

  145. Gary, my portfolio is up 20% this year.
    Comment by sleeeepy — 9/18/2012 @ 11:39 am

    — Must be from all that good advice you got from your friends in the Billionaire Blow Club.

    Icy (84c440)

  146. “And capital gains tax to same level as regular income.”

    Go ahead. The rich and powerful will just change the wages they pay and the prices of the goods and services they sell, so that you end up paying at a higher rate than they do.

    Also, they’ll make sure that whatever government they’re paying for will benefit them more than it does you. G.M. gets billion dollar loans, Moochelle goes on vacations to Spain, and you get some food stamps (maybe)…and you’re paying a bigger chunk of what you have than they ever will.

    You lose.

    No matter how you set it up.

    Dave Surls (46b08c)

  147. “Gary, my portfolio is up 20% this year.”

    Maybe he has a big stash of blow, and coke prices suddenly rose dramatically?

    Dave Surls (46b08c)

  148. Florida (the location of the taped meeting) is a two party consent state, otherwise it’s illegal wiretapping. The Florida State’s Attorney’s Office should subpoena Mother Jones to compel the identity of the wiretapper to be revealed.

    509th Bob (fe3b5b)

  149. You’re buddy Jan Crawford was the only MSM reporter to compare Romney’s 47% remarks to Obama’s bitter clingers remarks. See Newsbusters

    Chipperoo (72b8e3)

  150. “Ee i ee i oh!”- Mitt Romney [Jason Sudeikis]-SNL, NBC, airdate, 9/15/12

    “FIDO says it couldn’t be any better.” – NASA PAO- STS-1, 4/14/81

    DCSCA (9d1bb3)

  151. “Go ahead. It won’t do any good though. You’re going to end up paying just as much as they do (ratewise). Those are the guys that set wages and prices, and they’re going to adjust wages and prices to cancel out whatever taxes they’re hit with, and their profit margin will be exactly what it always was…and, you’re going to lose.”

    “Those are the guys that set wages and prices”
    No, the market sets wages and prices. What’s Facebook going for these days?

    But if you don’t like government intervention in the market end copyright, patent protection and all trade restrictions and supports on everything. Hell, what is this “money” thing anyway. The state prints it, it must be bad.

    Congressional Research Service Report: Tax cuts do not spur economic growth

    http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/09/romney-47-percent-rankles-conservative-policy-wonks.php?ref=fpa
    “Since when has it been the job of Republicans and conservatives to make sure everyone has IRS obligations?” wrote Jim Antle at the Daily Caller. He accused Romney of “[i]gnoring the rising payroll tax burden of the last few decades while dismissing many of those who have borne it as deadbeats.”

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-09-17/the-right-is-wrong-to-pin-obama-s-edge-on-welfare-state.html
    One major reason for the growth of the federal government in recent years has been that entitlement spending per beneficiary has increased, and so has the number of beneficiaries as people have retired. Yet senior citizens — who benefit from federal programs, on average, far more than younger people — have become more Republican over that same period. They actually voted for John McCain over Obama in 2008 by a slightly higher margin than they did for George W. Bush over John Kerry in 2004.
    In 2010, their Republican margin increased even more, to a whopping 21 points. Pollster Scott Rasmussen told me that in his latest poll, Romney still leads among seniors by 19 points.
    It’s true that Americans with low incomes — more and more of whom now receive food stamps and federally subsidized health insurance — have generally voted for Democrats over Republicans. But in 2010, these voters shifted toward Republicans even as food stamps, unemployment benefits and the like continued to increase.


    If you want to talk about “takers” then if you live in the Solid South you know I subsidize your ass. That’s how federal taxes work, from rich states to poor.

    sleeeepy (b5f718)

  152. R.I.P. Steve Sabol, president of NFL films

    Icy (84c440)

  153. Obama eats FIDO, IMP.

    JD (e4479f)

  154. Disco Stu pooches the screw!

    Icy (84c440)

  155. sleeeeepy’s generosity of spirit toward those Americans less fortunate than he and his billionaire blow friends seems rather lacking today, I notice.

    elissa (4b3896)

  156. Link got stripped:
    Congressional Research Service Report: Tax cuts do not spur economic growth

    http://graphics8.nytimes.com/news/business/0915taxesandeconomy.pdf

    Also this
    http://www.nationalreview.com/agenda/322408/makers-takers-taxpayers-etc-reihan-salam

    You really don’t think poor people work. That’s what’s pathetic. Only bankers really work. The rest are suckers and takers.

    sleeeepy (b5f718)

  157. > Why are the lefties crying about VA assistance and student loans, when they know very well that Romney was talking about the culture of dependency such as welfare and food stamps, as well as the incredible number of people who do not pay federal income taxes ?

    Because Romney’s words were broad enough to incorporate the VA assistance and the student loans.

    His words may have diverged from his intended meaning. But he didn’t *say* his intended meaning, he said his words.

    aphrael (5d993c)

  158. Billionaires are not my friends, but it’s good to know your adversaries. And “coke” was hyperbole. I haven’t done coke since I was 20, and that was decades ago. It’s wine and whiskey now.

    sleeeepy (b5f718)

  159. aphrael, read the link from the National Review.

    sleeeepy (b5f718)

  160. Wine, whiskey, and cocaine. No wonder sleeeeeerrpy is so incoherent. And angry.

    JD (e4479f)

  161. sleeepy, while that link has some interesting things to say about the issue of tax policy, it really doesn’t address the question of what romney *said* or what he *meant to say*. on those subjects, it’s noise.

    aphrael (5d993c)

  162. Because Romney’s words were broad enough to incorporate the VA assistance and the student loans.

    His words may have diverged from his intended meaning. But he didn’t *say* his intended meaning, he said his words.

    The author is dead. Long live the critic.

    IOW, his words mean whatever an enemy operating in bad faith can say they mean, as long as the enemy maintains a serious face while he says it.

    re: arresting the person who recorded the statement for wiretapping . . . I would say go for it if I thought that the average leftist/media shill had any capacity to recognize cognitive dissonance. As it is, they would call Romney a tyrant for threatening the free speech rights of a whistleblower without pausing for a second to think of what the Obama administration has done to free speech.

    Hadlowe (33cc56)

  163. Hadlowe: what?

    Romney’s said, straight up, that 47% of the country will vote for Obama no matter what. He then listed 47% of the country who had certain characteristics. He did so in such a fashion that his comments can really only reasonably be construed as linking the two 47% sets to one another.

    This isn’t the argument of an enemy in bad faith; it’s the good faith argument of someone who listened to the words and read the transcript and who thinks, really and truly, that english works like this.

    I don’t see any good faith way to interpret his words, absent some clarification from him, as saying anything other than (a) 47% of americans will vote for obama no matter what, and (b) that 47% of americans will vote for obama *because* they are dependant upon government, believe they are victims, believe that the government has a responsibility to care for them, etc.

    Drawing *any* other conclusion requires that I make the assumption that he meant to say something other than the straightforward interpretation of the words; doing so requires that I put words in his mouth.

    aphrael (5d993c)

  164. IOW, his words mean whatever an enemy operating in bad faith can say they mean…

    Romney didn’t merely slip up and use the “wrong words”. The notion that 30 or 40 (or whatever) percent of the public are lazy moochers dependent on government is a well-nurtured meme among many of the well-to-do (i.e., the kind that can sit at a 50,000-per-seat fundraiser dinner). Even Limbaugh today doesn’t dispute it or try to correct it.

    There are actual people who believe that the lower, lower-middle, and even middle classes are rife with moochers, and Romney knew who he was speaking to when he said those words. In fact, if he “meant something else”, then his speech didn’t make sense in context.

    Kman (5576bf)

  165. As for arresting the guy for wiretapping, a former conservative-leaning regular commenter on this site posted the following question elsewhere online today, and I think it’s a good point:

    —–
    Two questions for liberal Breitbart critics (but I repeat myself) and Romney supporters who, like me, cringed at Romney’s latest Kinsley-gaffe. How do you feel about:

    1. Two conservative activists posing as a pimp and a prostitute in San Diego, CA in 2009, surreptitiously videotaping ACORN employees in violation of Cal. Pen. Code § 632, and Andrew Breitbart broadcasting the video on the Internet?

    2. One liberal activist posing as a Republican donor in Los Angeles, CA in 2012 and surreptitiously videotaping Mitt Romney in violation of in violation of Cal. Pen. Code § 632, and Mother Jones broadcasting the video on the Internet?

    If your answers to #1 and #2 are not the same, please explain why.
    ——

    aphrael (5d993c)

  166. Do you deny there is a dependent class of the State?

    JD (e4479f)

  167. #1 makes me remember that halloween is coming I love halloween which also means it’s getting close to time where you should start looking out for persimmons in the grocery store

    #2 makes me think of grilled cheese sammiches – the classic kind where they give you tomato soup for dipping

    happyfeet (5e4920)

  168. > Do you deny there is a dependent class of the State?

    Certainly not. My objection is to the implication that everyone who will vote for Obama no matter what is a member of that class.

    Again, i’m focusing on what Romney *said*, not what he *meant to say*.

    aphrael (5d993c)

  169. “Billionaires are not my friends, but it’s good to know your adversaries. And “coke” was hyperbole.”

    LOL. Don’t worry about it, dude. No one believed you, anyway.

    Dave Surls (46b08c)

  170. Sorry, Aphrael. That was directed at the much less honest and respectable Kmart.

    JD (e4479f)

  171. I don’t know if anyone knows this, but, as a country, we’re in seriously deep s—. Between our national debt and our unfunded liabilities, we’re in the hole to the tune of about a hundred trillion dollars. The violence in the Middle East is escalating, as are the calls to rethink the First Amendment (one of our most cherished freedoms) because of said violence.

    Why should any of us care about hurt feelings or “gaffes”? It’s not like we’re so rich that we can give everyone a Scrooge McDuck swimming pool full of gold, nor is the world a particularly stable place.

    Do these people really not care what happens to us, so long as they feeeel all warm and snuggly as we go down the road to perdition?

    bridget (a44b32)

  172. Bridget – the MFM would rather talk about a gaffe than our embassies getting overrun, ambassadors killed, soldiers shot, etc. anything except the utter economic failures.

    JD (e4479f)

  173. aphael,

    I think your reaction to what Romney said is still very misguided.
    This speech was not a deposition that should be examined letter for letter. It was a philosophical argument that a candidate was making off the cuff to supporters who paid money as part of a fundraiser. Could he have phrased it better, and punctuated it with better examples ? Sure, but I think reasonable people grasp the spirit of what he was saying.
    Again, it’s not a deposition about a murder case, where precise descriptions and words are inflexible.

    Romney’s point is that the left wing has a built in constituency—a voting bloc—that gives the Democrat candidate for President a “floor” of what his support will drop to on Election Day, simply due to the fact that there are so many people voting themselves a pay raise. Last month, there were more people who went on “disability” than net jobs created. That’s a staggering stat. What happened ? Did everyone slip and fall at work last month ? Seriously.

    People who have served our nation in uniform and are using the VA services, are a drop in the bucket compared to the total amound of money spent at the federal level on entitlements, handouts, freebies, and boondoggles. And once the interest rates evenutally go up, the national debt will absolutely EXPLODE upwards.

    There’s a staggering amount of people who have gone on food stamps during Obama’s tenure.

    Romney is talking about the people on welfare or food stamps, who see their entitlement check as a de facto paycheck, rather than as a helping hand to self-sufficiency.

    Our nation cannot continue down this path of expanded bureaucracy and entitlement programs without reform. And people who perceive those reforms as a “threat” to their paycheck are probably going to vote for Obama.

    Elephant Stone (65d289)

  174. Romney’s point is that the left wing has a built in constituency—a voting bloc—that gives the Democrat candidate for President a “floor” of what his support will drop to on Election Day

    Yes, but he SPECIFICALLY set that floor at 47%. And he justified setting it at 47% because (according to Mitt) that is the group that doesn’t believe in personal responsibility and that are dependent on government.

    I don’t deny that Romney was talking about people who feel a sense of entitlement to government handouts. But Romney was specifically referring to the 47% who don’t pay income taxes, and placing them in that group.

    Kman (5576bf)

  175. aphael,

    I do understand the CA penal code regarding unauthorized videotaping and broadcasting of each of the two examples. I’m not particularly interested in having Jimmy Cahtah’s grandson arrested for videotaping the Romney fundraiser, but there is a difference between the types of activities which were being taperecorded.

    It’s important to note that the ACORN employee was advocating for illegal activity involving who she believed was a minor, while Mitt Romney was not advocating for illegal activity.

    James O’Keefe was catching illegal activity on videotape, while Jimmy Cahtah’s grandson was not.

    I understand the comparison of illegal taping to illegal taping, but there’s also the comparison of illegally taping illegal activity VS illegally taping legal activity.

    Elephant Stone (65d289)

  176. The notion that 30 or 40 (or whatever) percent of the public are lazy moochers dependent on government is a well-nurtured meme among many of the well-to-do (i.e., the kind that can sit at a 50,000-per-seat fundraiser dinner).

    The notion that 30 or 40 (or whatever) percent of the public are lazy moochers dependent on government is a well-nurtured condition of the great society. A happy by-product, if you will.

    Again, i’m focusing on what Romney *said*, not what he *meant to say*.

    And differing interpretations of what Romney said are being put out. Did he mean to include college loan recipients in with welfare queens? Did he mean to include medicare grannies in with the swelling ranks of SSDI fraudsters? Mother Jones and Media Matters are crying to the heavens that he did. He and his campaign are crying to the heavens that he didn’t.

    Intent matters. The fact that ambiguous intent is harder to suss doesn’t make it any less important.

    You say it’s his fault for not being clear in his intent and that his words can now be freely twisted to whatever purpose an adversary can get them to mean by dint of latent ambiguity. The estimable host of this site would agree with you in other contexts.

    So, Obama really was complaining to a crowd that his wife failed to perform adequate cunnilingus on a lesbian celebrity. Good to know.

    Hadlowe (33cc56)

  177. > And differing interpretations of what Romney said are being put out.

    I think it’s clear from the words that he meant to include any person who is going to vote for Obama no matter what.

    > Intent matters. The fact that ambiguous intent is harder to suss doesn’t make it any less important.

    Intent only matters to a certain extent, though; it only matters when there’s ambiguity to begin with. I don’t see that there’s any actual ambiguity here.

    > Obama really was complaining to a crowd that his wife failed to perform adequate cunnilingus on a lesbian celebrity. Good to know.

    He might have been reporting that a lesbian celebrity had complained that his wife failed to perform adequate cunnilingus.

    “He said DeGeneres had complained “that Michelle didn’t go all the way down.””

    aphrael (5d993c)

  178. Intent matters. The fact that ambiguous intent is harder to suss doesn’t make it any less important.

    Romney was doing arithmetic (for a change), responding to a question about what he needed to do to win. He was adding up the percentage of people who, because of their alleged government dependency, would vote for Obama. So he was talking about that number — which he set at 47%.

    He then went on to assess how many people are firmly in the GOP camp, in order to get at the number whose votes he needed to get.

    Therefore, his “intent” was to be accurate about the numbers. And he set the number of people in the “no personal responsibility camp” at 47%.

    Now, if he was only talking about college loan recipients or medicare grannies or SSDI fraudsters, then it would have been irrelevant to the question asked.

    Context is key, and you should listen to the whole question and answer from the video.

    Kman (5576bf)

  179. I think much of this stems from conservatism being a second language for Romney. That there is a dependent class actively cultivated by the Dems is beyond dispute. That there are “takers”/clients -Sandra Fluke, green energy, unions, Planned Parenthood, people like Tillman that advocate tax rates of 50-75% on the successful is beyond dispute. The rest is typical Kmart.

    JD (e4479f)

  180. Elephant Stone at 176,

    (a) while I don’t think the CA penal code actually makes a distinction between taping illegal activity and taping legal activity, i’ll concede that it’s a legitimate reason why one might treat the two circumstances differently.

    (b) i do wonder, though, how viable the distinction is as an ethical matter unless you wait until *after some illegal activity is already going on*. because otherwise you have to go on whether the taper thought the activity would be illegal, not whether the activity actually was illegal.

    (c) i’m not ignoring 174, but i need more time to formulate a response.

    (d) please remember there’s an ‘r’ in ‘aphrael’. :)

    aphrael (5d993c)

  181. Context is key, and you should listen to the whole question and answer from the video.

    BS. All we got was what David Liar Corn chose to reveal.

    JD (e4479f)

  182. I think the 47% is a number Romney chose to say for two reasons.
    One, it’s basically been “about the number” that Obama had been stuck at in the polls for months.
    Two, it’s about the number that do not pay federal income taxes. The spirit of what Romney was saying is there’s a built-in voting bloc of voters who are planning to vote themselves a pay raise by voting for Obama, and Romney himself believes he has no chance to win their votes.

    This whole “literal” obsession with asserting that “Romney must believe that veterans who get assistance at the VA are moochers !” is getting silly.

    Seriously, you guys are now inferring that the GOP candidate for President wants our servicemen to go eat cat food ? (Gee, I thought until yesterday, the GOP candidate was considered a war monger who wanted to increase military spending !)

    C’mon, guys.

    Elephant Stone (65d289)

  183. JD, conservatism is beyond a second language for me, and I could have done a better job of making the point that ya’ll are saying was Romney’s intent. So if you’re right, he’s very, very, very, very bad at extemporaneous public speaking.

    aphrael (5d993c)

  184. So if you’re right, he’s very, very, very, very bad at extemporaneous public speaking.

    Comment by aphrael

    No worse than Obama. Or Biden.

    JD (e4479f)

  185. > Seriously, you guys are now inferring that the GOP candidate for President wants our servicemen to go eat cat food ?

    No! :) I’m being very careful not to go down that road; the only time i’ve mentioned specific categories of people other than “people who will vote for Obama no matter what” has been in response to other people who have mentioned categories of people. :)

    I’m observing that the GOP candidate for President said he believes that everyone who is going to vote for his opponent “no matter what” believes themselves to be a victim and can’t be persuaded to take responsibility for their own lives. *Some* of those people might be servicemen; some of them might not.

    aphrael (5d993c)

  186. “Do these people really not care what happens to us, so long as they feeeel all warm and snuggly as we go down the road to perdition?”

    No they don’t.
    Obama “wants to help” in a half assed-way, but if you actually look at his policies (and give up on pretending he’s a socialist) you’ll see just how much he supports the same redistribution of money from the poor and middle class to the rich.

    The difference between the leadership of Democrats and Republicans is the difference between Google and Microsoft. Both want to rule the world but the most important thing Bill Gates ever did was change the name of a drive and sign a contract with IBM. The rest is crony capitalism covering for gross incompetence. Google is winning for the same reason the democrats are winning.
    You get sidetracked.

    Remember last week when Obama was trying to “end welfare reform?” Look at the Republicans:
    http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-h4297/show

    http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/09/house-gop-bill-end-welfare-reform-work-requirent.php
    The measure is aimed at streamlining workforce training by letting states slash redundant programs and consolidate them with the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) welfare program — into one Workforce Investment Fund (WIF). States would be given so much flexibility that the restrictions in the 1996 welfare law need no longer apply, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service.

    “Thus, for example, if TANF funds were consolidated into the WIF, TANF program requirements (e.g., work requirements) may no longer apply to that portion of funding because the TANF funding would not exist (i.e., it would be part of the WIF and thus subject to WIF program requirements),” CRS concluded in a memo.

    Shortly before the Education & Workforce Committee approved separate legislation Thursday to block Obama’s welfare waivers, the panel’s top Democrat invoked the Congressional Research Service findings and charged Republicans with hypocrisy.

    I’m not opposed to the policy, I’m opposed to the bllsht.

    Obamacare is based on Romneycare. Obamacare saves money.
    If you don’t understand how, you should do some research. And if you’re opposed to it on principle you should be prepared to explain not just the under-financed NHS but health care in every other developed country in the world!! EVERY GOD DAMNED ONE.

    Why was John Wayne a right wing hero when he copped out of fighting in WWII? Why was the putz John Kerry mocked and not Bush, when Kerry actual fought in Vietnam? Cheney copped out. Bush copped out. How the fk could people get away with attacking Max Cleland?

    The middle class is shrinking. The poor are poorer. And you want a rich man to save you.
    The Mission was Not Accomplished, but-you-did-not-care.

    I blame Carter. I blame Reagan. I blame Bush, and Clinton, and Bush and Obama. But mostly I blame you. The American idiots.

    sleeeepy (b5f718)

  187. Look, the 47% number comes from the portion of the public with earned income who after exclusions, deductions, exemptions and transfers pay no net Federal Income Tax.

    That number is on the rise.

    This issue only highlites the fact that Dog is dead meat. Carter was well ahead at this point in the campaign. The lies were the same just not as off the freaking wall.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  188. Sleeeeerpy is still all coked up. Pity.

    JD (e4479f)

  189. 185. Next to Bubba he’s not great, next to Rubio or Cruz he’s mediocre.

    Next to UMagic or Uncle Bernie he’s a god.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  190. JD and aphrael–On this particular topic, Mitt could prolly benefit from some crash course message delivery lessons from Newt who (despite other flaws) has those skillz in spades.

    ==he’s very, very, very, very bad at extemporaneous public speaking==
    So I guess we must accept that both candidates for president in 2012 have that problem.

    elissa (4b3896)

  191. “… I’m opposed to the bllsht….”

    So are we, but we don’t mean the same things you do. It’s like your Kneepads Fantasy that Obamacare will “save money.” Your response is “do some research.”

    Um.

    I think that “sleeeepppy”‘s string has about run out. He’ll soon post a “I work here is done” kind of comment, slink away, and then return with yet another nickname.

    Jeez, what a tool. Literally.

    Simon Jester (c8876d)

  192. I think I prefer Leviticus’ honest passion to aphrael’s sophistry. Typical shyster.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  193. I think the 47% is a number Romney chose to say for two reasons.
    One, it’s basically been “about the number” that Obama had been stuck at in the polls for months.
    Two, it’s about the number that do not pay federal income taxes. The spirit of what Romney was saying is there’s a built-in voting bloc of voters who are planning to vote themselves a pay raise by voting for Obama, and Romney himself believes he has no chance to win their votes.

    I think that’s probably right. It would seem that he conflated two very different numbers. But even that is a huge mistake. Amateurish.

    This whole “literal” obsession with asserting that “Romney must believe that veterans who get assistance at the VA are moochers !” is getting silly.

    No, but when you add the retired/elderly, and the working poor, and college students, you come close to that 47%. And Romney needs to clarify who is talking about when he refers to these (in so many words) “moochers”.

    Because there are some, believe it or not, who think that Medicare/Medicaid IS a program for moochers… and/or that we shouldn’t spend government money on college loans. Or provide government assistance AT ALL to those out of work. If Romney doesn’t include those people in the 47%, he’s got to backtrack.

    Kman (5576bf)

  194. “takers”/clients/moochers -Sandra Fluke, green energy, single payer advocates, unions, Planned Parenthood, people like Tillman that advocate tax rates of 50-75% on the successful, welfare fraud, SSDI spikes in participation, etc

    The rest is typical Kmart.

    JD (e4479f)

  195. Some of you are just being ridiculous.

    The Democrats made Sandra Fluke the poster girl of their convention.

    All Romney has to do is make Sandra Fluke the poster children of his campaign. A spoiled child of privilege who went to a $60k/yr law school, who stayed in school until she was 31, and now feels entitled to demand that someone else pay off her student loans as well as for her contraceptives.

    Romney’s point is made. And the Democrats, as I mentioned previously, are the ones who made it.

    Gallup: Majority still says gov’t does too much

    Whither the independents, then? Gallup doesn’t provide any historical data on this demographic, but today’s result is at least somewhat salutary. Independents are far more likely to object to the amount of intervention conducted by the federal government, 62/29, far outstripping the electorate as a whole. Only 24% of Democrats now agree, while Republicans now hit 82%. The distrust of federal power still looks like a potent force in American politics, thankfully.

    This is a gold mine for Romney; the mother lode. As Morrissey notes over at hotair, the majority that is repulsed by government intervention in their lives is down to 54% from 61% from earlier this summer. But all that means is that this number can change rapidly. It shouldn’t take too much effort on Romney’s part to remind a lot of people why they thought government was overstepping its bounds just a couple of short months ago.

    Lord knows the democrats have given him enough material, what with their never-ending appeals to the greed and envy of those who would rather vote themselves a living rather than work for one, to work with.

    Of course, Romney needs to clear up the fact that not all of the 47% of Americans with no tax liability fall into the parasitic permanent-government-dependancy catetory. Lots of them, those who’ve been forced out of work due to Obama’s disastrous economic policies, students who never entered the work force following graduation (who now live at home, back in their old bedrooms at their parents house, staring at those faded “Hope and Change” posters) due to Obama’s economic scorched-earth policies, would rather have opportunities than an EBT card.

    Frankly, it doesn’t surprise me that the Democrats held on to this tape from earlier this year til now, releasing it as Obama’s foreign policy blows up in his face. But it’s revealing this is how they think they can get out of the trouble they’re in. They actually think that their message of managed economic decline, in which the feds redistribute the ever-shrinking economic pie after taking their own hefty cut so they can live large (cue the GSA party tapes commemorating the hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars to party in vegas [just like the preezy!):

    ABC: Cheers! Photos Show Embattled GSA Official Enjoying Wine and Soak in Spa Tub at M Hotel During “Pre-Conference” Meeting

    The Democratic convention was all about offering a laundry list of government services to create new middle class dependents. That’s what created the T.E.A. Party. The death of which has been greatly exaggerated.

    The Democrats astroturfed and embraced the Occupy movement in response. A movement of Sandra Flukes of all sexes (being a liberal movement you never know how many sexes they’ve convinced themselves exist) demanding that someone step into the role of mommy and daddy as provider they’ve grown accustomed to. A movement that, as Iowahawk observed during their one-year anniversary protest march, that has been reduced to the size of a Texas H.S. marching band.

    If Romney can capitalize on this opportunity, and that’s exactly what this is, it’s the perfect chance to show that Emperor Magic Mouth has no clothes.

    Steve57 (63f83b)

  196. Gary, i’m not engaging in sophistry. You may disagree with my argument, but i’m making it honestly; I believe what i’m saying, and i’m being very careful to confine it to the specific words Romney used.

    Nor am I trying to deceive anyone. I don’t think I’ve ever said anything on this site which would make it reasonable to infer that I am.

    We disagree on how to interpret Romney’s words, sure. I think it’s bizarre; I think everyone who is defending him is basically inserting qualifications into his statement for him, notwithstanding that he didn’t make the qualifications himself. I think what he *said* was a perfectly straightforward slam against anyone who will vote for Obama “no matter what”, and that you have to engage in creative reconstruction of his words to hit a different conclusion.

    But that disagreement hardly equates to sophistry on my part.

    aphrael (5d993c)

  197. I have this great idea.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ge3aGJfDSg4

    Kman and Sleeeepy can double what they pay in, since they don’t want to be heartless. C’mon dudes. Your man believes in redistribution of wealth. Pony up.

    No…you want someone else to pay more. Hypocritical partisan hacks.

    Hey, for that matter: nothing is preventing the Preezy from giving more either. I wonder why he doesn’t?

    Simon Jester (c8876d)

  198. 188. “Obamacare is based on Romneycare. Obamacare saves money.”

    Lie. CBO alone says it does nothing, nada, zip, to control costs. These 30 million now covered were getting care anyway. Now they simply have more excuse to darken ER doors.

    Romneycare saved MA $700 Million in matching Federal Medicare dollars. MA had a fine Healthcare system. Now ER visits are up, insurers have left the state, costs are increasing at above the national average.

    Doctors are eschewing Medicare patients altogether in increasing numbers.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  199. I believe Mitt is a skilled and natural problem solver. I do not believe he is a natural politician. I do not think Mitt is a power hungry ideologue. I’m preferring a problem solver as president this time around.

    elissa (4b3896)

  200. 179. Romney was doing arithmetic (for a change), responding to a question about what he needed to do to win. He was adding up the percentage of people who, because of their alleged government dependency, would vote for Obama. So he was talking about that number — which he set at 47%.

    He then went on to assess how many people are firmly in the GOP camp, in order to get at the number whose votes he needed to get.

    Therefore, his “intent” was to be accurate about the numbers. And he set the number of people in the “no personal responsibility camp” at 47%.

    Now, if he was only talking about college loan recipients or medicare grannies or SSDI fraudsters, then it would have been irrelevant to the question asked.

    Context is key, and you should listen to the whole question and answer from the video.

    Comment by Kman — 9/18/2012 @ 1:25 pm

    Context being key is exactly why Romney demanded Mother Jones release the whole tape.

    If you were brighter, Kmart, you’d realize this isn’t a problem for Romney. All Romney has to do is explain that 47% won’t be attracted to his low tax message. But many of them will be attracted to his economic opportunity message.

    Not all of that 47% is happy settling for unemployment benefits, food stamps, and Obama’s stagnant economy (or worse) as far as the eye can see.

    Steve57 (63f83b)

  201. > Context being key is exactly why Romney demanded Mother Jones release the whole tape.

    a perfectly reasonable demand with which they seem to have now complied.

    aphrael (5d993c)

  202. Steve57:

    Context being key is exactly why Romney demanded Mother Jones release the whole tape.

    It’s been out for several hours.

    All Romney has to do is explain that 47% won’t be attracted to his low tax message.

    No, but they know that to give low taxes to the wealthy as Romney plans, there’s going to be cutbacks in social spending.

    Kman (5576bf)

  203. 198. I cannot, by nature I’m sure, believe than anyone so obviously intelligent, can construct specious arguments from the facts and yet be so blythely unaware of the flip side.

    The academics I encounter regularly are simply unaware and uninterested in the facts.

    But tripping thru the facts routinely and never considering alternate explanations I find bizarre.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  204. No, but they know that to give low taxes to the wealthy as Romney plans, there’s going to be cutbacks in social spending.

    Assumes facts not in evidence and ignores reality of fiscal situation.

    JD (e4479f)

  205. I think it’s clear from the words that he meant to include any person who is going to vote for Obama no matter what.

    Which he ties directly to the 47 percent of people who pay no net federal income tax.

    Now, I think he overestimates Obama’s floor of support, which I would place closer to 40 percent.

    Consider, if you will, that Romney was speaking at a fundraising dinner. His job there was to motivate the people to get out and raise more money for him or to contribute more themselves.

    What do you think would make a better sales pitch in that situation: “I have this moderately difficult task in front of me that I need your help with” or “I have this incredibly difficult task, and I need every bit of help you can offer me?”

    Hadlowe (33cc56)

  206. Assumes facts not in evidence and ignores reality of fiscal situation.

    As does the conjecture that the 47% will be “attracted to Romney’s economic opportunity message”.

    Kman (5576bf)

  207. “No, the market sets wages and prices.”

    Yup, and here’s how markets work: You put a $10,000 tax on the Chairman of G.M., that’s going to get passed on to you the next time you buy a car.

    There’s no such thing as a progressive tax system.

    There never has been one, there never will be one.

    And more government ALWAYS benefits the haves more than the have nots.

    You can ask Moochelle about that, if you can catch her between luxury vacations (paid for by taxpayers).

    Dave Surls (46b08c)

  208. Kmart is nothing if not predictable.

    JD (e4479f)

  209. I think what he *said* was a perfectly straightforward slam against anyone who will vote for Obama “no matter what”, and that you have to engage in creative reconstruction of his words to hit a different conclusion.

    Comment by aphrael — 9/18/2012 @ 1:56 pm

    The greedy and envious Sandra Flukes of all sexes to whom Obama is blatantly appealing and who, in fact, will vote for Obama no matter what deserve to be slammed.

    And so what?

    This is supposed to be a horrid sentiment when the left is accusing anyone who won’t vote for Obama no matter what of being unreconstructed racists who are “gonna put y’all back in chains” (per Joe Biden) and bring back “thy lynchin’ tree” (per CBC chairman Rep. Cleaver)?

    Speaking of creative reconstruction, that’s what the liberals tried with Obama’s Charlottesville speech, when they said Obama’s “you didn’t build that” comments were taken out of context. Which was BS; context made it worse. He was telling the taxpayer-dependents who are the core of his redistributionist constituency that they are entitled to vote to take more from the private sector. Because the whole speech was dedicated to the premise that those in the private sector didn’t really earn that money themselves.

    Romney isn’t backing away from this. And it’s a stretch to say that the entire 47% without any net income tax liability belongs to Obama’s diehard constituency that will vote for him and larger public benefits no matter what.

    Frankly, the fact that liberals do want to get down into the weeds and quibble over percentage points is emblematic of their tendency to want to rearrange the deck chairs on the Titanic rather than change course and not hit the iceberg.

    It misses the larger point that not only is Romney’s larger point entirely correct, and defensible. It’s potentially a winner. And it’s a winner without too much effort on Romney’s part because it taps into themes that the majority of American’s already are inclined to believe.

    Steve57 (63f83b)

  210. Oh Noes! New Gallup Poll Reveals Obama Lead Declines Six Points From Prior Poll To Mere One Point Over Romney.

    Obamamedia Conclusion – Romney Campaign In Deep Trouble!!!!!!!11ty!!!!1!!!11!!!!

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  211. Consider, if you will, that Romney was speaking at a fundraising dinner. His job there was to motivate the people to get out and raise more money for him or to contribute more themselves.

    What do you think would make a better sales pitch in that situation: “I have this moderately difficult task in front of me that I need your help with” or “I have this incredibly difficult task, and I need every bit of help you can offer me?”

    I think he motivated the donors by demonizing the “have-nots”, i.e., the people not in that room. That’s why he’s in hot water today.

    He probably could have motivated his donors without “going there”, but that didn’t happen.

    Kman (5576bf)

  212. ==or that we shouldn’t spend government money on college loans==

    Bubble bubble toil and trouble. Escalating tuition costs for everybody. Huge college loan debts. Lotsa bad/useless degrees. No jobs.

    elissa (4b3896)

  213. 210. Kmart is nothing if not predictable.

    Comment by JD — 9/18/2012 @ 2:15 pm

    Predictably, missing the point is part of his M.O. As if the fact that Mother Jones complied with Romney’s demand and released the tape a couple of hours ago changes the fact that Romney demanded it.

    A certain amount of obtuseness is required for one to remain an Obama supporter this late in the game. Well, that or a government handout. Oddly, the “certain amount” of obtuseness is enormous, but the sale price of their vote is actually just a small amount of government cheese.

    Steve57 (63f83b)

  214. 209. Mr. Surls is on a serious roll.

    Ben Bernanke is holding $1.6 Trillion in reserves for the banking industry with which he purchased their toxic debt, MBS, and on which he as been paying them 0.25% going on four years.

    He has made in that time $17 Trillion in loans, much of it repaid, to the world’s banks.

    He’s now going to be buying another $40 Billion per month in MBS, indefinitely.

    At minimum, he will have $4 Trillion(notional value, not market resale) on his books having started in 2008 with $800 Billion.

    Who’s your daddy? Not Ben.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  215. 213. I think he motivated the donors by demonizing the “have-nots”, i.e., the people not in that room. That’s why he’s in hot water today.

    He probably could have motivated his donors without “going there”, but that didn’t happen.

    Comment by Kman — 9/18/2012 @ 2:16 pm

    Again, if you were brighter, Kmart, you’d know he didn’t demonize the “have nots” but the “want to vote to have yours.”

    And why wouldn’t he “go there” and demonize the spoiled brats who believe the world owes them a paycheck without an attendant work requirement? Considering the majority of voters have already arrived at that conclusion. Or did you miss the 2010 midterms?

    Steve57 (63f83b)

  216. Tu quoque, Kman. Was Obama motivating the jet set in San Fran by demonizing those bitter clingers in Pennsylvania?

    Politicians are salesmen. Good salesmen tailor their message to the audience, and fault a politician for giving different messages to different crowds. We should fault them for wanting to be politicians in the first place.

    Hadlowe (33cc56)

  217. > The greedy and envious Sandra Flukes of all sexes to whom Obama is blatantly appealing and who, in fact, will vote for Obama no matter what deserve to be slammed.

    Ah! but are those greedy and envious people who deserve to be slammed *a subset* of those who will vote for Obama no matter what, or are they the set of those who will vote for Obama no matter what?

    If you can concede the existence of people who will vote for Obama no matter what, I think you can see why it’s offensive *to those people* for someone to say that the sets are equal.

    aphrael (5d993c)

  218. “No, but they know that to give low taxes to the wealthy as Romney plans, there’s going to be cutbacks in social spending.”

    Kman – The Democrat Victimhood Industrial Complex will be suitably outrageously Outraged!

    Seriously, how can you dispute the negative campaigning of President Pander Pander Pander as treating his coalition of voters as potential victims of horrible Republican policies? Blacks, Hispanics, women, gays, students, the middle class. Think about each part of the coalition and the strawmen Obama has erected attacking supposed Republican positions concerning those identity groups.

    It is the Democrats who thrive on identity group politics, class warfare and perpetuating racial differences. It has been their playbook for decades.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  219. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P36x8rTb3jI

    Typical Obambi supporter.

    That’s what Romney’s talking about…and, he’s pretty much got it right.

    Dave Surls (46b08c)

  220. Edit on 218. Should read “Good salesmen tailor their message to the audience and we should not fault a politician for giving different messages to different crowds.”

    Hadlowe (33cc56)

  221. “Escalating tuition costs for everybody. Huge college loan debts. Lotsa bad/useless degrees. No jobs.”

    elissa – I still can’t figure out what to do with my joint degree in Medieval Spanish Lesbian Feminist Literature and Fat Studies.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  222. 219. If you can concede the existence of people who will vote for Obama no matter what, I think you can see why it’s offensive *to those people* for someone to say that the sets are equal.

    Comment by aphrael — 9/18/2012 @ 2:28 pm

    Aphrael, can you point to any of my comments where I’ve ever said or implied that the 47% with no federal income tax liability that Romney was talking about are the set of voters who will vote for Obama no matter what? Surely you can read that I’ve said that 47% includes a large number of people who are dissatisfied with their present circumstances and the bleak outlook for any sort of economic opportunity that Barack Obama has and will continue to offer.

    Steve57 (63f83b)

  223. I’m also curious, aphrael; do you think there isn’t a subset of the electorate who will vote for Obama no matter what?

    Steve57 (63f83b)

  224. > Aphrael, can you point to any of my comments where I’ve ever said or implied that the 47% with no federal income tax liability that Romney was talking about are the set of voters who will vote for Obama no matter what? Surely you can read that I’ve said that 47% includes a large number of people who are dissatisfied with their present circumstances and the bleak outlook for any sort of economic opportunity that Barack Obama has and will continue to offer.

    Steve57, it was not my intent, nor I think my action :), to imply that *you personally* think that the 47% are the same set of voters.

    That said, I think it’s perfectly clear that *Romney*’s words can only be reasonably construed as saying they’re the same sets of people.

    So: yeah, I think it’s reasonable for any person who is going to vote for Obama no matter what, but who isn’t in the set of voters who share the other characteristics Romney listed, to be offended.

    aphrael (5d993c)

  225. Drudge has an audio of Barack Obama from 1989. His message about redistribution is interesting but as interesting to me is comparing his schooled, well educated professorial cadence, his vocal timbre, and his word pronunciation/endings compared to all his speeches in 2012. Are those obvious speech pattern changes intentional or unintentional? Are they a natural evolution from living with Michelle, or are they forced for some other reason?

    elissa (4b3896)

  226. 217. I don’t think Twister is demonizing anyone. He knows everyone votes their bottom line.

    And he least of anyone holds ‘wanting dirty lucre for oneself’ against a person.

    He just figures a certain class is out of reach of his appeal.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  227. Steve57: no, of course there’s a subset of the electorate who will vote for Obama no matter what.

    My entire point is that (a) while there is such a subset, and (b) there is a subset of voters who meet all of the other characteristics Romney listed, (c) the subsets *are not identical*, and (d) the most plausible interpretation of his rhetoric is that he’s saying that they *are* identical.

    aphrael (5d993c)

  228. 1998 I mean.

    elissa (4b3896)

  229. Elissa, that’s an interesting question. I don’t know that we could easily find an answer, though. And I know that my speech patterns have changed substantially since 1989, not as a result of intentional shifts, but as a result of the people with whom I associate, etc. (In 1989 I was an officious jack***, so the changes were a good thing. :))

    aphrael (5d993c)

  230. Obama to media – The Middle East stuff is killing me.

    Please cue up another distraction.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  231. “Sandra Fluke”

    Poster slut for the kind of folks Romney is talking about.

    Dave Surls (46b08c)

  232. 226. “I think it’s reasonable for any person who is going to vote for Obama no matter what,…to be offended.”

    I have always been offended by these folks existence, whatever else I might think or feel about them.

    Gene rot.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  233. By the way…I sure hope that none of the Lefties who so like this idea of releasing secret tapes were disturbed by any of the O’Keefe tapes.

    I mean, that would be hypocritical.

    Simon Jester (c8876d)

  234. My entire point is that (a) while there is such a subset, and (b) there is a subset of voters who meet all of the other characteristics Romney listed, (c) the subsets *are not identical*, and (d) the most plausible interpretation of his rhetoric is that he’s saying that they *are* identical.

    Comment by aphrael — 9/18/2012 @ 2:40 pm

    I don’t think that’s the most plausible explanation at all, certainly not the only plausible explanation, and just to keep this grounded firmly in reality I wouldn’t expect any candidate to be as precise in his or her phrasing when involved in an unscripted Q&A session at a closed fundraiser than at a public event where the press is supposed to be present.

    I certainly don’t see how it could be remotely as hard for Romney to clarify that he meant that 47% he was referring to in that private discussion included diehard Obama voters, but certainly not everyone in that 47%, as it would be for, say, Obama to walk back a comment given during a televised interview that Egypt isn’t an ally.

    When, you know, by law it is. And if it isn’t anymore, who “built that?”

    Steve57 (63f83b)

  235. What it boils down to is if the “tax payers” are finally tired of supporting the “tax users”, there will be a change of government (administrations).
    If the “tax users” outnumber the “tax payers”, then nothing will change except the credit-worthiness of the Federal Government, and we are consigned to a long slow descent into Greece.

    AD-Restore the Republic/Obama Sucks! (b8ab92)

  236. 233. “Sandra Fluke”

    Poster slut for the kind of folks Romney is talking about.

    Comment by Dave Surls — 9/18/2012 @ 2:44 pm

    And DWS already made the commercials for the Romney campaign.

    As did Occupy Wall Street. Obama is going to have an uphill battle explaining why he needs to increase taxes to redistribute the wealth to a crowd that’s s******g on cop cars and people’s door steps.

    Steve57 (63f83b)

  237. “…nothing will change except the credit-worthiness of the Federal Government…”

    It’s changing all right:

    9/14/12

    “(CBS/AP) NEW YORK – Credit rating agency Egan-Jones is downgrading its rating on U.S. debt to AA- from AA, citing Federal Reserve plans to try to stimulate the economy.”

    “The firm said the Fed’s plans to buy mortgage bonds will likely hurt the economy more than help it. Egan-Jones said the plan will reduce the value of the dollar and raise the price of oil and other commodities, hurting businesses and consumers.”

    Socialism: the gift that keeps on taking.

    Hope and change, baby.

    Dave Surls (46b08c)

  238. “And DWS already made the commercials for the Romney campaign.”

    I wish she would change her initials.

    (signed)

    David William Surls

    Dave Surls (46b08c)

  239. 227. Drudge has an audio of Barack Obama from 1989. His message about redistribution is interesting but as interesting to me is comparing his schooled, well educated professorial cadence, his vocal timbre, and his word pronunciation/endings compared to all his speeches in 2012. Are those obvious speech pattern changes intentional or unintentional? Are they a natural evolution from living with Michelle, or are they forced for some other reason?

    Comment by elissa — 9/18/2012 @ 2:39 pm

    Ace – Clever: Romney Now Apparently Answering Every Question About “47%” By Noting He Doesn’t Believe In Redistribution of Wealth

    The media don’t want to cover “redistribution,” but boy oh boy do they want to cover “47%.”

    Even before Ace put up that post, I was beginning to suspect that Romney may have arranged for that tape to get made and smuggled to Mother Jones.

    Now, like a David Axelrod speech in Boston, I’m seriously smelling an ambush. And the Obama campaign walked right into it.

    Steve57 (63f83b)

  240. > I don’t think that’s the most plausible explanation at all, certainly not the only plausible explanation

    Here’s what Romney 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 the 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.”

    Structurally, that’s “There are 47% of the people who will X. There are 47% who will Y.”

    I see three plausible uses for such a linguistic construct. (this is change from something i said a few hours ago in the other thread, when i saw only two; i’m seeing more the more i think about it): (a) the speaker is saying that the 47% who will X and the 47% who are Y the same set of people, (b) the speaker is trying to make you *think* he’s saying they’re the same set of people but is being very careful to avoid outright saying it, or (c) the speaker is doing a compare-and-contrast where he’s saying that the 47% who will X and the 47% who are Y are disjoint sets.

    Option (c) is clearly absurd; I don’t think it’s at all plausible that Romney is saying that the 47% who will vote for Obama no matter what and the 47% who are dependant on government are disjoint sets, and that he’s comparing the two as though they were different entities.

    (b) is possible, but requires such a negative evaluation of Romney’s character – that he was basically trying to bait the listeners into believing he was saying something he wasn’t saying – that i’m not willing to conclude that without further evidence of it.

    so (a) strikes me as being the most plausible explanation.

    what explanation am i missing? everything i’ve seen from conservatives on this subject requires me to assume qualifications that romney didn’t make. looking *just at the structure of the language he used*, how else should i interpret “There are 47% of the people who will X. There are 47% who will Y.”?

    aphrael (5d993c)

  241. Is Romney treading dangerous ground?

    “Gallup reports that, by a 54 percent to 39 percent margin, voters think government is trying to do too much, as opposed to not doing enough.”
    H/T- Insty

    AD-Restore the Republic/Obama Sucks! (b8ab92)

  242. > I certainly don’t see how it could be remotely as hard for Romney to clarify

    nor do I. it shouldn’t be hard for him to make this clarification at all. and yet he isn’t making it.

    > Obama to walk back a comment given during a televised interview that Egypt isn’t an ally.

    that was a pretty stupid thing for him to say.

    aphrael (5d993c)

  243. Comment by Dave Surls — 9/18/2012 @ 2:54 pm

    Just the first shoe: E-J preceeded both Moody’s and S&P in the downgrade last year.

    AD-Restore the Republic/Obama Sucks! (b8ab92)

  244. There are people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are people who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the 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.

    That’s much better (without the 47% baloney).

    Dave Surls (46b08c)

  245. Well, there are victims, and there are victims.
    I don’t think “Sam Becile” will be voting for The-O.

    AD-Restore the Republic/Obama Sucks! (b8ab92)

  246. Dave Surls, I agree that’s a much more ambiguous statement, and that my position that the set of people described in the first sentence are clearly the same as the set of people described in the second statement is more tenuous if your phrasing is used.

    That is: i think your phrasing is ambiguous and could go either way, but I think Romney’s phrasing is unambiguous.

    aphrael (5d993c)

  247. The reality that the media and the trolls commenting here today are desperate to hide is that Romney is running against the failed presidency of Barack Obama. Instead they want to create a false world in which Obama succeeded and met his campaign or early administration promises, was not a clueless, shameless and lawless president and has not advanced any plans for a second term.

    Focusing on alleged Romney gaffes, his tax returns, his dog or Ann Romney’s horse fit the bill as long as the focus is off holding Obama accountable.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  248. Aphrael – Venn Diagram. X and Y can overlap partially.

    JD (e4479f)

  249. JD: yeah, X and Y can overlap partially, but I think that if you’re speaking about them in the way Romney was, the implication is not that they overlap partially.

    Part of this is that [x] is [y], [x] is [z], [x] is [aa] type repetition is a common rhetorical device in which the entire point is that x is the same thing in each statement. that’s a normal speech pattern, particularly among people who’ve had any sort of rhetorical or public speaking training.

    if you’re using [x] is [y], [x] is [z] and you’re intending them to be overlapping sets, you normally *call that out* as part of your statement. which Romney didn’t do.

    aphrael (5d993c)

  250. New NBC/WSJ poll: last month 54% approve of Obama foreign policy handling. Now, 49% approve. Go figure. Despite all their valiant efforts to obfuscate the issues in the mideast, we are seeing the dying gasps of the MSM’s ability to spin away the reality that people see in front of them.

    elissa (b10ba6)

  251. All right, there are 47 percent

    a) who are with him,
    b)who are dependent upon government,
    c)who believe that they are victims,
    d)who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them,
    e)who believe that they are entitled to health care,
    f)to food,
    g)to housing,
    h)to you-name-it.
    i)That that’s an entitlement.

    a+b+c+d+e+f+g+h+i = 47. With “a” being diehard Obamabots/Democrats with not necessarily anything in common with b through i?

    nk (875f57)

  252. Elissa – because of the racisms. And bigotry. And STFU.

    JD (e4479f)

  253. I called my cousin Vennie for a Venn Diagram but she was busy preparing dinner. 😉

    nk (875f57)

  254. 242. what explanation am i missing? everything i’ve seen from conservatives on this subject requires me to assume qualifications that romney didn’t make. looking *just at the structure of the language he used*, how else should i interpret “There are 47% of the people who will X. There are 47% who will Y.”?

    Comment by aphrael — 9/18/2012 @ 2:59 pm

    What you’re missing is that this wasn’t a public event. It therefore wasn’t tightly scripted.

    As Romney has said, his comments weren’t “elegantly stated” and were “off the cuff.”

    Had these comments been intended for the general public, I don’t think there’s any doubt he would have made a greater effort to distinguish between those voters among the 47% who don’t have a federal tax liability who are already dedicated clients of the Democratic party’s redistributionist approach and those who aren’t.

    I can’t see why this is so difficult to grasp. It’s a truism that a political gaffe is when a politician reveals a truth.

    Which is why the Obama camaign constantly has to try and convince the electorate that they didn’t hear what they heard, or the didn’t see what they saw. Obama is trying to hide the truth about what he believes. He doesn’t believe in class warfare, he claims while waging class warfare, and he doesn’t believe in punishing success, he says while implementing policies that punish success.

    Romney and Ryan, on the other hand, haven’t been hiding the fact that they are adamantly opposed to Obama’s redistributionist policies. And that there is a great danger that a majority of Americans will become conditioned to receiving benefits at someone else’s expense. While contributing nothing themselves.

    This is hardly a secret. Nor is it a new sentiment. It goes back even further than De Tocqueville who understood it as centuries-old common sense when he wrote that self-government can only last as long as a majority doesn’t realize it can (or feel entitled to) vote itself benefits at a minority’s expense.

    If you’re going to bitterly cling to that 47% figure as a hard and fast number that Romney is stuck with, then I suggest you’ve also got to stick Obama with the hard and fast number of 57 as a hard and fast number.

    If you insist that Romney has to believe that 47% is actually the number of voters that will vote for Obama no matter what, then unless you’re going to insist that only one candidate has to literally believe every figure that comes out of his mouth then it follows that Obama really is convinced there are 57 states.

    But I submit that anyone who is convinced that 47% of the electorate has already been bought and paid for by his opponent would never bother running for office. Seriously, if Romney believed that, it means Obama only has to convince 4% of voters who aren’t receiving more in benefits than they pay in taxes to vote for him. It’s a dead certainty that even Obama can do that. There are more than enough limousine liberals to make up the margin of victory and more.

    If you’re going to take these casual comments literally, aphrael, it means Romney is contesting an election that he can’t possibly win. And since he is contesting the election and believes that he can win, then he didn’t intend to say that 47% of voters really are off the table and lost to him.

    Steve57 (63f83b)

  255. This excerpt from a Romney interview is now just up over at Hot Air:

    Frankly, we have two different views about America. The president’s view is one of a larger government. There is a tape that came out today where is the president is saying he likes redistribution. I disagree. I think a society based upon a government-centered nation, where government plays a larger and larger role, redistributes money, that’s the wrong course for America. That will not build a strong America or help people out of poverty. … No, I’m talking about a perspective of individuals who I’m not likely to get to support me. I recognize that those people who are not paying income tax are going to say, ‘Gosh, this provision that Mitt keeps talking about lowering income taxes,’ that’s not going to be attractive to them. And those that are dependent on government and those that think government’s job is redistribute — I’m not going to get them.

    He is clarifying his position, aphrael. And his position is pretty much as conservatives understood it.

    1. His low tax message isn’t going to be attractive to people who don’t pay taxes (ergo he has to appeal to those among that 47% that he can appeal to with a different message).

    2. Within that 47% is a subset that he won’t be able to appeal to under any circumstances.

    3. He simply conflated the two during casual remarks, and believing those remarks to be private and that he was in front of a friendly audience he didn’t feel under any pressure to clarify his position at the time.

    This really isn’t that difficult. And when you get right down to it, actions do speak louder than words. I wasn’t trying to put words into his mouth; I arrived at the conclusion I did when I first heard that tape because if he really meant exactly what his critics are insisting he meant, then he wouldn’t be wasting his time and money running at all.

    Steve57 (63f83b)

  256. “Dave Surls, I agree that’s a much more ambiguous statement”

    Doesn’t sound too ambiguous to me. Folks who want a nanny state, and think they ought to be entitled to one, are going to vote for Obama, not Romney. Not too many ways to interpret that.

    And, I reckon that’s what Romney was driving at.

    Dave Surls (46b08c)

  257. aphrael – could it be that the reason that so many of us, here, are responding to you in this in the way that we are, is because while *you* are telling us about this dog-whistle that *you* tell us you are hearing, most of the rest of us are responding (to you) “We don’t hear a dog-whistle !” ?

    Alasdair (e7cb73)

  258. Conservatives in the Mist

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  259. I already said my piece about this on the other thread. It’s not worth spending the time dissecting the fine points of what Romney said if what Obama has clearly said hasn’t convinced you that we need him out of office.

    Obama promised he would cut the deficit, he hasn’t, he’s made it much worse, he hasn’t even been responsible enough to pass a budget with his own party in power.
    Obama has repeatedly said he thinks the rich should pay more taxes “just to be fair”, even if it decreased the total receivables to the fed govt. In other words, he is more concerned that the “rich” have money taken from them than the ability to provide services for those in need.
    Obama has shown his idea of foreign policy is to apologize and shrink from the world stage, and then to guarantee it by shrinking the military so we have no capacity to project force even if we wanted to. God help US citizens overseas if the ME really melts down, we no longer have a big enough Navy deployed to get people out in a speedy fashion.

    If with all of that, you want Obama reelected, go right ahead. No need to keep bickering when the basic concept is undeniable. When a majority of people figure out they can vote themselves money from the government, you got trouble.

    More people using fed safety nets is not a good thing. There should be fewer people needing them.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  260. Driving into work today, I had the misfortune to hear Jan Crawford reporting about “Romney’s latest gaffe” on CBS News. Misfortune, because she is not much different from the rest of the MSM. F*ck a bunch of ’em and f*ck ten Jan Crawfords.

    We need to kick this bum 0bama out of office before we hit the point of no return.

    Colonel Haiku (d5aaff)

  261. “When a majority of people figure out they can vote themselves money from the government, you got trouble.”

    Yeah, like this kind of trouble…

    “In August 1967, 74,767,000 Americans were working (according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics) and 1,152,861 were taking federal disability insurance (according to the Social Security Administration). That means that at that time there were about 65 Americans working for each worker collecting disability.”

    “In August 2012, 142,101,000 Americans were working and 8,767,941 were on disability–meaning there were only 16.2 people working for each person collecting disability.”–CBS

    And, it’s only going to get worse unless we boot nanny-state liberals (like Obambi) out of office, and keep them out.

    Dave Surls (46b08c)

  262. I think Romney buying the LA Times to get ownership of the tape is a grand idea. But I think it would end up “misfiled” or something.

    In a more just world, a political process that outs sealed divorce proceedings should out tapes that document a politician’s pro-jihadist mindset.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  263. 261. If with all of that, you want Obama reelected, go right ahead. No need to keep bickering when the basic concept is undeniable. When a majority of people figure out they can vote themselves money from the government, you got trouble.

    More people using fed safety nets is not a good thing. There should be fewer people needing them.

    Comment by MD in Philly — 9/18/2012 @ 4:35 pm

    The more people dependent upon government the better, from Obama’s point of view.

    Wealth creation isn’t on his agenda. The best way to ensure that wealth isn’t created is to ensure that those who attempt it have it confiscated. They’ll stop.

    He has, you must understand, not merely a domestic but global theory of social justice. And that involves reducing the amount of wherewithal available to the US to involve itself in foreign affairs. This requires a stagnant or shrinking US economy.

    I recall during the 2008 campaign that Obama said that no country could hope to maintain a strong military without a strong economy.

    I heard that and thought to myself, “Well, say goodbye to the economy.” As if someone who picked Rev. Wright as his spiritual adviser would want a strong US military.

    What’s happening here and abroad is no accident.

    I couldn’t find the exact quote I was searching for, but I did find this transcript of a 1010 speech Victor David Hanson gave in which he predicts with remarkable accuracy our current situation. Of course, he didn’t get everything right.

    Dissecting Obama

    Audience Member: Towards the end of your talk, you were mentioning how we’d been here before and you were talking about Jimmy Carter. And I was just wondering, do you think it’s the same? Because it seems to me it’s much worse this time, you know.

    Victor Hanson: The same what?

    Audience Member: Well, do you think we’re facing the same level of danger or chaos in the world? It seems like it’s much worse this time than what happened when Jimmy Carter let everything fall apart.

    Victor Hanson: Well, for all the talk about the end of the Cold War, what was dangerous about Jimmy Carter was he failed to grasp the rise of Radical Islam. And you can talk about Lebanon. You can talk about the East Africa bombings. You can talk about the USS Cole, the first World Trade Center. But all of those incidents in a strange sense go back to one incident. Radical Islam came on the scene with the storming of the US Embassy and the rise of Khomeinism.

    Had Jimmy Carter said privately to the Khomeini regime, “You’re going to release the hostages, and if you don’t do it, you’re not going to have a military, an Air Force, a Navy, or the Republican Guard in the next 15 days,” then I think the regime would have balked. We could have taken out their entire air force in a matter of hours in 1979.

    But even if such defiance did not save the hostages (and I think it would have earned their release), it would have saved more lives than were lost in the subsequent three decades. So most of our problems with Radical Islam came from the bad example of the Iranian hostage crisis—as the hostage-taker Mr. Ahmadinejad knew from the start.

    There were other things that were stupid, the Iran Contra and all that. But, nevertheless, that was a key moment.

    …And there’s one other thing—I am not a big fan of Jimmy Carter, in fact, I think he perhaps proved to be one of the worst of American Presidents that we’ve ever had. But, compared to Barack Obama, he came into office with executive experience. He was in the Navy. He was a one-term governor of Georgia. Mr. Obama has no similar executive experience whatsoever. We knew a little bit about Carter. We know in comparison nothing about Barack Obama. It’s one of the most stealthy Presidencies I’ve ever seen.

    …So we do know that all of the Al Arabiya interview, the myth making in Cairo in June where an Islamic pedigree was adduced for everything from the Enlightenment to the Renaissance, a General Casey saying that his big fear was that diversity would be a casualty of the Major Hasan assault—all of that stuff, the report from the former Secretary of the Army that Islamic terrorism was equivalent to other sorts of extremism. All of that proved of no utility because we still had a plot uncovered to blow up a subway, the so-called panty bomber Christmas Day, the Ft. Hood killing, and more still to come.

    Raymond Ibrahim was here yesterday, and if you look at his Al Qaeda Reader, what’s fascinating about Bin Laden and Dr. Zawahiri is that they list all the reasons that caused 9/11. I counted them. There were 19. Yet they include things like the lack of campaign finance reform and the failure to sign Kyoto Treaty. (Laughter)

    So what I’m saying is that these people really do monitor what they think our response will be. And whether it’s fair or not, a lot of them think that Obama is more than usual sympathetic to front-line states against Israel, that he bought into the argument that Israel weakens American security elsewhere. That he bought into the idea that Islam was a catalyst for western achievement. He bought into the idea that he wants to close Guantanamo. All that is very dangerous because it suggests to the unhinged that if you do something, you may not face the same kind of consequences that you otherwise would. The fact that you probably will, doesn’t matter; it’s the perception. That’s what scares me.

    As Obama is demonstrating following his serial blunders in the ME, his Islamist “partners-in-peace” won’t face the same kind of partners.

    But then, it’s hard to fault Hanson. It seemed inconceivable to a great many people I otherwise agree with that any American President would act as irresolutely and as cravenly as this President has in the face of anti-American mayhem and murder. It seemed that simple self-interest, especially a month and a half out from a presidential election, would dictate that a calculating politician who claims to want a second term would at least go through the motions of standing up for the country he pretends to lead.

    For a lot of people it’s the kind of thing you have to see before you believe it’s possible. I understand that.

    Steve57 (63f83b)

  264. Clever: Romney Now Apparently Answering Every Question About “47%” By Noting He Doesn’t Believe In Redistribution of Wealth
    —Ace

    The media don’t want to cover “redistribution,” but boy oh boy do they want to cover “47%.”

    How do you make sure they mention the “I actually believe in redistribution” quote? By linking the two in every single soundbite.

    If I were Romney I would not let three words pass in any quote without mentioning “redistribution.”

    A New Poll… Shows Obama losing 5 points on foreign policy, despite the media running interference for him. And:

    Still, in the current NBC/WSJ poll, only 41 percent of independents approve of Obama’s foreign-policy handling, versus 53 percent who did so last month.

    This is just a tease of the poll, which will be released at 6:30. It’s an NBC poll, so I expect Obama will once again be well ahead of Romney (as they tell it).

    Incidentally, just over 47% (49%) of the US still approves of Obama’s foreign policy. Even as the world is on fire.

    That Romney — what a simp!

    http://ace.mu.nu/archives/332979.php

    Colonel Haiku (d5aaff)

  265. As Obama is demonstrating following his serial blunders in the ME, his Islamist “partners-in-peace” won’t face the same kind of partners consequences.

    I certainly hope aphrael didn’t take me too literally if he read that before I “clarified” my position.

    Steve57 (63f83b)

  266. http://m.washingtonpost.com/opinions/how-obama-has-gutted-welfore-reform/2012/09/06/885b0092-f835-11e1-8b93-c4f4ab1c8d13_story.html?wprss=rss_opinions

    Another example of their desire to increase dependence. Given the multiple contemporaneous quotes from Teh Won opposing said reform and work requirements, their opposition to the truth being told now is hysterical, as is their shrieking.

    JD (e4479f)

  267. File this under, “Why they lie.”

    Because it works.

    Families facing £2,000 bills for green heating ‘that does not work in Britain’ Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2203899/Sustainable-energy-Families-facing-2-000-bills-green-heating-does-work-Britain.html#ixzz26sFWz3KE

    Mother-of-four Sam Claussen said she and her partner Jeff were excited in May 2010 when they moved into a three-bedroom house in St Neots, on an estate owned by the Bedfordshire Pilgrims Housing Association (BPHA).

    ‘I loved the idea of having this modern and green heating system which we were told was going to give us really low bills,’ said Ms Claussen, 40. Indeed, Energy Performance Certificates issued on the new properties estimated annual electricity costs for heating and water at between £400 and £500.

    But after living in the property for two months, Ms Claussen was shocked to receive an electricity bill for £252. Costs continued to mount for Ms Claussen and her neighbours on the Loves Farm Estate, and eventually the BPHA stepped in to help meet tenants’ bills – to the tune of £45,000.

    By last Christmas, the Claussen family had unpaid bills of £1,500 and were on a key meter.

    They found that during a cold snap they were having to spend £10 a day. ‘With such a high electricity bill, we had to choose between eating or keeping the house warm,’ Ms Claussen said. ‘The children were fed, but I hardly ate at all. It was an awful Christmas.’

    Unrelated to the topic? Hardly. If this woman were an American, she’d be part of that core Obama constituency that he can’t reach.

    She’ll believe things that are insane. Like Obama’s “green energy” plan is going to give her cheap reliable electricity. Obama’s going to fill her gas tank. The embassy attacks were spontaneous riots entirely due to a YouTube trailer for a movie no one saw.

    She’d believe it all.

    Steve57 (63f83b)

  268. The “he” before “can’t reach” is obviously Romney.

    Just saying, there are people you just have to write off.

    Steve57 (63f83b)

  269. aphrael,

    You’re really invested in this word for word “literalism” of Romney’s speech that he gave to supporters.

    As Steve cleverly observed, do you also believe Obama believes there are “57 states, with two more to go” ? How about Joe Biden saying that FDR went on television in 1929 to explain the stock market crash. (FDR was not President, nor did any average Americans have a TV in their home at that time. And that was said in an interview he gave to Katie Couric, no less !)
    You sound like you’ve been eavesdropping on the mob, and you’re behaving as if you just “caught” The Godfather admitting where he buried the bodies.

    Romney was merely giving an off the cuff speech to a bunch of supporters who paid money to be there. He may not have articulated himself with the best examples or anecdotes, but the spirit of what he said is true…we have an entitlement problem in this country. Our nation is going to hit the iceberg if we do not reverse course.

    There are too many people who are going to vote themselves a pay raise by voting for Obama—that’s the point Romney was trying to make. He also was pointing out that too many people who are getting paychecks from the taxpayer feel they’re “owed” something by their fellow countrymen.

    It may not have been the most politically correct speech, but the over-arching theme is true. There are a lot of self-identifying victims in our country—and it’s neither healthy for our nation, nor for those individuals.

    This is not an issue about veterans who get assistance from the VA.
    Please, please stop with that meme.

    Elephant Stone (65d289)

  270. Wait until her American counterparts who fell for the ObamaCare lies that their costs will go down and they can’t keep their plans if they like them run up against reality. As Ms. Claussen did Britain.

    Speaking of which, I believe they’ve finally reduced the wait for a bed in a maternity ward down to 12 months.

    Steve57 (63f83b)

  271. 272. “You’re really invested in this word for word “literalism” of Romney’s speech that he gave to supporters.”

    Deconstructionism, intentionalism, literalism, oh, and what’d I say, sophistry.

    But what matters is truly believing the crock you ladle from is full to the brim with clear, filtered water.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  272. I haven’t done coke since I was 20, and that was decades ago. It’s wine and whiskey now

    Red wine and whisky all the ti-i-i-i-ime.
    We had a lot of money but we blew it down the line.
    We’d love to take you out tonight but we haven’t got a dime.
    Red wine and whisky all the ti-i-i-i-ime – all the time.

    Icy (84c440)

  273. Comment by brendanyc — 9/18/2012 @ 8:35 am

    Who the heck was MR referring to?

    Mitt Romney had a statistic, and he didn’t relate it to people, and he didn’t question this statistic.

    The figure 47% is the percentage of households who don’t pay federal income tax. Actually that should be 46% because the figure was 46.4% and that should be rounded down, not up.

    Now there are some other statistics in this range David Brooks mentioned in his column today 49% – the fraction of the people receiving some kind of government benefit (it was 30% in 1980)

    Now there’s a trope about all of this, that people vote themselves benefits, and when it gets to 50% it is all over etc

    he is an idiot candidate

    He certainly sounded like an idiot, because he said:

    A. 47% of the people are in such a category that they won’t vote for him.

    B. He needs to get votes from the remaining 53%.

    This would man over 94% of their votes.

    C. (this week) He was explaining to donors how he could win.

    Now if he was explaining to donors why he had to lose, his political analysis might make sense.

    Sammy Finkelman (eb1481)

  274. Now if he had said, he won’t get a majority of votes, or he won’t get over 40% from such people, and it might make a little bit more sense.

    Mitt Romney still comes out as incoherent at best.

    And he’s wrong. He needs to go after groups of voter where a majority are not ready to vote for him.

    If he has an audience that is 80% opposed and he gets to 70%, he’s reduced the net margin his oppoonent gains by one third. Speaking or advertising to an audience where 65% are already going to vote for him, he’d have to get it up to 75% to have the same effect and turnout effects aren’t so great.

    He has to change 10% from 35% or 28% of the voters the other way, and there’s more of his own to risk, while in the 80% against him crowd he only has to switch 10/80 or 12.5%

    Sammy Finkelman (eb1481)

  275. “Yup, and here’s how markets work: You put a $10,000 tax on the Chairman of G.M., that’s going to get passed on to you the next time you buy a car.”

    Not if you buy a Honda. But you see the point, the ability of GM to squeeze another 10K out of consumers (or their suppliers or employees) depends on their market power.

    beerandcoffee (fce22b)

  276. How many names are you up to now, beerandcoffee?

    JD (e4479f)

  277. Him again, JD?

    Simon Jester (c8876d)

  278. Comment by MD in Philly — 9/18/2012 @ 4:35 pm

    More people using fed safety nets is not a good thing. There should be fewer people needing them

    That’s not what Romney said in May. He wrote off 47% of the electorate – well maybe that’s not identical with registered voters, but still. He should then have argued he can’t win, but he didn’t seem to see where this argument was taking him. It’s like he was regurgitating various things he had read or heard without really understanding anything.

    He said in public he didn’t care about the poor, meaning trying to help them or get their votes, but this gives “the poor” a very high number, a number so high it should preclude winning.

    And Obama’s response is to say Romney really cares only about 1% – and these people don’t care about a few itty bitty percentage points in federal income taxes so they should vote for him too (and contribute)

    Sammy Finkelman (eb1481)

  279. He said in public he didn’t care about the poor, meaning trying to help them or get their votes

    Cough cough BS cough

    JD (e4479f)

  280. Romney also sounds like he’d like to impose taxes on people who don’t pay them now so they will feel included when he later proposes a tax cut.

    I know Bloomberg insisted a tax plan for New York some years back include a 1/8 of a percent increase in the sales tax for the same sort of stupid reason that Romney unthinkingly repeated

    (it’s something like people should be affected by taxes so they’ll want to cut them or not see them go up)

    Sammy Finkelman (eb1481)

  281. The people to whom tax cuts really matter are people who in Mitt Romney’s words, are “Struggling”

    There’s not too many people who fall into that zone where it really matters.

    He could argue in favor of economic growth, but he doesn’t know enough.

    Sammy Finkelman (eb1481)

  282. Romney also sounds like he’d like to impose taxes on people who don’t pay them now so they will feel included when he later proposes a tax cut.

    Could you use your mad detective skills to quote the portion where he suggested this?

    JD (e4479f)

  283. He said in public he didn’t care about the poor, meaning trying to help them or get their votes, but this gives “the poor” a very high number, a number so high it should preclude winning.

    That’s not what he meant, he explained it elsewhere.

    Like I said on the other thread. I know enough of what Obama has clearly said that I don’t need to quibble about the details of what Romney has said.

    When there is a forest fire, you don’t need to see the forest or the trees, you just need to see the fire and smoke. (Copyright that one).

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  284. When he identifies as a problem the fact that people don’t pay income tax….

    beerandcoffee (fce22b)

  285. It is like the serial trolls are compelled to miss the point, obfuscate said point, or just make shlt up.

    JD (e4479f)

  286. Is Romney proposing to take people off disability, without giving them any other options? Is Romney proposing to end Social Security? Is Romney proposing to end student loans? Is Romney proposing to end unemployment insurance? is Romney proposing an end to Medicaid, or any massive changes that would leave many people with no insurance at all? Is Romney proposing an end to food stamps? is Romney proposing to end veteran’s pensions?

    Is he even proposing any cuts, except at the margin?

    Is Romney proposing a 10% flat tax starting at the first dollar, like Social Security?

    Then why is he supposing that people in that situation would not vote for him??

    It’s not because of anything he or Obama would actually do differently.

    Does Romney have any idea what he is talking about??

    NO!!

    Sammy Finkelman (eb1481)

  287. ZOMFG

    Beerandcoffee – how many different names are you up to now?

    JD (e4479f)

  288. “Romney also sounds like he’d like to impose taxes on people who don’t pay them now so they will feel included when he later proposes a tax cut.”

    Comment by JD — 9/18/2012 @ 7:21 pm

    Could you use your mad detective skills to quote the portion where he suggested this?

    I said he sounds like that, meaning that’s the logic.

    47% of Americans pay no income taxes. So our message of low taxes doesn’t connect.

    But if they did pay taxes, it would connect! I admit it doesn’t go further than that.

    Sammy Finkelman (eb1481)

  289. Now Romney argues that if things go on as they are, taxes will have to go up:

    someone calculated what would happen if we don’t change Medicare or Social Security, the tax rate– you know what the payroll tax is now? It’s 15.3%. If we don’t change those programs that tax rate will have to ultimately rise to 44%.

    Why would he think people not now paying federal income taxes would not be afraid of that??

    Sammy Finkelman (eb1481)

  290. The truth is, Romney is confusing the 45% minimum of the vote that polls consistently seem to show going to the Democratic candidate, with the around 45% to 50% of the people who, he thinks, are dependent on government, who believe they are entitled to health care etc, and talks about the two groups as if he thinks they are identical. This is a bad mistake.

    In one place he says:

    we do all these polls. I find it amazing. We poll all these people, see where you stand in the polls. About 45% of the people will vote for the Republican and 48% or 49%

    Tape chopped off, but he means to say Obama will get a minimum 48-49% of the vote.

    And in another place he says:

    the president starts off with 48%, 49%, 40– or he– he starts off with a huge number. These are people who pay no income tax. 47% of Americans pay no income taxes. So our message of low taxes doesn’t connect. And he’ll be out there talking about tax cuts for the rich. I mean that’s what they sell every– every four years.

    And– and so my job is not to worry about those people. I’ll never convince them that they should take personal responsibility and care for for their lives. What I have to do is convince the 5% to 10% in the center that are independents, that are thoughtful, that look at voting one way or the other depending upon in some cases emotion.

    So he thinks the minimum 45% – or maybe it’s 48% or 49% – is a non-changing group of people, and they are 100% of the people who pay no income tax. And then there’s’ the vast majority of the rest of the people, who do pay income tax, who don’t vote for the Democrat, so he gets 45%.

    There’s about 5 to 10% in the middle who might go either way. I see a maximum of 7% but maybe he thinks he could go down to 42%

    Sammy Finkelman (eb1481)

  291. Actually, most of his remarks aren’t so bad.

    Here’s a full transcript of what is available:

    Full video and transcript of what is available of Romney’s remarks at the Boca Raton fundraiser May 17, 2012 from NBC News

    The media only highlighted the remarks about his Mexican non-heritage and the percentage of dependent people which he equated with the people who would would vote for Obama.

    Sammy Finkelman (eb1481)

  292. I think it’s very amusing that the same horde of sophists have pulled out the same canard that Romney saying he can’t get the votes of 47% of the population (which is the truth), so he will focus on those whose support he can win, is replaced with this idea that he doesn’t care about that 47% in any way.

    It’s a predictable bit of drama from a predictable set of people.

    Dustin (73fead)

  293. ==The media only highlighted the remarks about his Mexican non-heritage and the percentage of dependent people which he equated with the people who would would vote for Obama==

    No sh*t Sherlock. Looks like you could have saved yourself and everyone else quite a bit of time had you bothered to find and read the whole package before you started analyzing the situation.

    elissa (0718a3)

  294. Romney’s worried about the total size of the federal but thinks people are too ignorant to talk to them about it, so the word deficit is used. This is actually a big worry for Romney. He thinks it needs to be solved by cutting entitlements. He takes the size of the economy as a given.

    Some people questioning him though, think there’s a more important issue: Iran.

    So he says:

    MITT ROMNEY: And you are right, which is– a nuclear Iran is an unthinkable outcome. Not just for our friends in Israel and our friends in Europe, but also for us because Iran is the state sponsor of terror in the world. Has Hezbollah now throughout Latin America. Hezbollah with fissile material.

    I mean if I were Iran, if I were Iran– I mean– and– and a crazed fanatic, I’d say, “Let’s get a little fissile– material to Hezbollah and have them carry it to Chicago or some other place. And then if anything goes wrong or America starts acting up, we’ll just say, ‘And guess what? Unless you stand down, why, we’re gonna let off a dirty bomb.'” I mean this– this is where we have– where America can be held up and blackmailed by Iran. By the mullahs. By crazy people. So– so we really don’t– have any option but to keep Iran from having– a nuclear weapon.

    I’ll give the specific on Iran and then maybe talk more broadly about foreign policy. The specific on Iran is– we should have put in place crippling sanctions at the beginning of the president’s term. We did not. He will say, “Yes, but Russia wouldn’t go along with us.”

    Well, he gave Russia their number one foreign policy objective. For a decade all they’ve cared about is getting the missile defense sites out of Poland. And he gave them that and got nothing in return. He could have, I presume, gotten them to agree to crippling sanctions against Iran. He did not, which is, in my opinion, one of the greatest foreign policy errors of the modern time.

    And, by the way, if he– if– if he could not have gotten that from Russia he should have kept the missile defense sites in Poland– just– just to keep a bargaining chip on the table. I mean– put nothing in ’em if he wants to. I mean I would have kept– I would have kept ’em. I wouldn’t have traded ’em away. But that’s– that’s where he was.

    Number two, we should have been aggressively supporting the voice of the dissent in Iran. And when there was an effort towards revolution there we should have been aggressively supporting it. And, finally, we should have made it clear, at least by now, that we have military plans to potentially remove their– their nuclear capabilities.

    That doesn’t mean we actually pull the trigger, but it means that we have-that we communicate to them that we’re ready to– to do so. And that it is unacceptable to America to have– a nuclear Iran. Instead, what this administration has done is communicate to the Iranians that we’re more worried about Israel attacking them than we are about them becoming nuclear. It’s– it’s extraordinary.

    He said that in May! But he hasn’t repeated this criticism outside of this fundraiser. Maybe he’s forgotten. The media did not help him with this.

    Continuing with Mitt Romney on Iran on May 17, 2012:

    So– those are– those are some thoughts directed at Iran. I’ll– I’ll step back. Foreign policy. The president’s foreign policy, in my opinion, is formed in part by a perception he has that his magnetism and his charm and his persuasiveness is so compelling that he can sit down with people like Putin and Chavez and– and Ahmadinejad and– and that they’ll find we’re such wonderful people that they’ll go along with us. And– and they’ll stop doing bad things.

    Obama probably never really believed that – more likely if anything, he thought they were not determined to do bad things, and if he did believe that, he doesn’t believe that any more. Here we have Romney repeating a facile criticism he’s heard before that just really actually add up.

    And it’s an extraordinarily naive– perception and has led to– huge errors in– in North Korea, in– in Iraq– obviously in Iran and Egypt. Around the world. My own view is that– that the centerpiece of American foreign policy has to be strength. Everything I do will be calculated to increasing America’s strength.

    When you stand by your allies you increase your strength. When you attack your allies you become weaker. When you stand by your principles you get stronger. When you have a big military, that’s bigger than anyone else’s, you’re stronger. I want to– when you have a strong economy, you build American strength. For me, everything is about strength.

    And– and communicating to people what is and is not acceptable. It’s speaking softly but carrying a very, very, very big stick. And this president has– speaks loudly and carries a tiny stick. And– and that– that is– you know, that– that’s not the right course for a foreign policy. I– I saw Dr. Kissinger in– in New York. You’re not eating. (LAUGHTER)

    He had earlier asked them to start eating, right before launching into this. But they preferred to listen to him speak.

    Sammy Finkelman (eb1481)

  295. Well, he did say: “[M]y job is is not to worry about those people.” I think that’s the basis of their argument, right?

    Patterico (83033d)

  296. “[M]y job is is not to worry about those people.”

    It depends on how it’s interpreted.

    I think he’s saying two things. 1) in his job as GOP candidate, it is not necessary to worry about those who are already committed to voting for Obama and reckless spending. 2) as a leader in a country that is needs to get its spending under control, he won’t focus on furthering entitlement spending. His job will be getting out of the way of the economy.

    Was Romney just saying he straight up doesn’t care at all about 47% of Americans? That they are not really citizens and are undeserving of empathy? To listen to some, that’s what he really meant. That’s a predictable interpretation and I do not believe many sincerely believe it when they offer it (those who do are mentally ill).

    Dustin (73fead)

  297. Comment by Steve57 — 9/18/2012 @ 2:15 pm

    And it’s a stretch to say that the entire 47% without any net income tax liability belongs to Obama’s diehard constituency that will vote for him and larger public benefits no matter what.

    You know that, I know that, most people reading this know that, but Romney didn’t seem to know that back in May.

    This is a fact. He did indeed confuse two totally different groups of people who both amounted to about the same percentage of the population.

    Sammy Finkelman (eb1481)

  298. it’s a stretch to say that the entire 47% without any net income tax liability belongs to Obama’s diehard constituency

    Perhaps he was not intending to speak so precisely. His point that there’s a huge block of moochers who aren’t voting for any Republican is accurate.

    It’s amusing to me, a long time Romney detractor, that I actually like this secret Romney guy. If this is the man behind the constant posturing, we’re in better shape than I thought.

    Dustin (73fead)

  299. Remember, this wasn’t a comment intended for mass consumption. This was probably a relaxed comment from someone who could use a few moments where he isn’t being scrutinized mercilessly (and apparently with editing).

    Not one of us could pass the bar being set. For conservatives, it is never possible. Make one hiccup and suddenly you’re a heartless monstrous imbecile.

    The people expecting perfection on the subject of empathy are calling the kettle black.

    Dustin (73fead)

  300. Sammy – With your mad detective skilz have you found all of Obama’s 57 states or location of the secret transcontinental railroad yet?

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  301. Make that intercontinental railroad, Doh!

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  302. More on Romney on Iran May 17, 2012:

    MITT ROMNEY: –I’m gonna ask you how do I duplicate that scenario.

    MALE VOICE: I think that that’s due to the fact that– the Iranians perceived Reagan would do something to really get them out. In other words, that he had strength and that’s why I’m (UNINTEL) on your (UNINTEL) about strength. And that’s why I’m suggesting that some– something that you say over the next few months gets the Iranians to understand that their pursuit of a bomb is something that– that you would predict (?). And I think that’s something that– that could possibly resonate very well with the American public and voters.

    MITT ROMNEY: I– I appreciate the idea. I– I– I can’t– one of the things that’s frustrating me is that– on a typical day like this when I do three or four events like this, the number of foreign policy questions I get are between zero and one. And the American people (LAUGHTER) are
    not– (FEMALE VOICE: UNINTEL)

    –are not concentrated at all upon China, on Russia, Iran, Iraq. This president’s failure to put in place a Status of Forces agreement, allowing 10,000 to 20,000 troops to stay in Iraq? Unthinkable. And– and yet in– in that election, in the Jimmy Carter election, the– the fact that we had hostages in– in– in Iran, I mean that was all we talked about.

    And we had the two helicopters crash in the desert. I mean that’s– that was– that was the focus. And so him solving that made all the difference in the world. I’m afraid today if you simply got Iran to agree to stand down on their nuclear weapon they’d go– you know, hold on. It’s really– you know, but– but, by the way, if something of that nature– presents itself, I– I will work to find a way to take advantage of the opportunity. Please. Yes?

    FEMALE VOICE: But tonight’s your lucky night. More foreign policy. (LAUGHTER)

    MITT ROMNEY: Yes. Huge (UNINTEL).

    FEMALE VOICE: (UNINTEL) actually this time you were in (UNINTEL). And we appreciate you being there. How do you think that the Palestinian problem can be solved? And what– what are you going to do about it?

    MITT ROMNEY: I– I’m torn by two perspectives in this regard. One is the one which I have had for some time, which is that the Palestinians have no interest whatsoever in establishing peace– and that the– and that the– the pathway to peace is– almost unthinkable to– to accomplish.

    Now why do I say that? Some might say, “Well, just let the Palestinians have the West Bank and– and have security and– and– and– and set up– a separate nation for the Palestinians.” And then– and then come a couple of thorny questions. And I– I don’t have a map here to look at the geography. But– but– the border between Israel and the West Bank is obviously right there, right next to– to Tel Aviv, which is the– the financial capital, the industrial capital of Israel. The center of Israel. It’s– (MALE VOICE: UNINTEL)

    –well, the border would be maybe seven miles from Tel Aviv to what would be the West Bank.

    MALE VOICE: Nine.

    MITT ROMNEY: Nine miles. Okay. (LAUGHTER) (UNINTEL) close. Nine miles (UNINTEL). The challenge is the other side–

    MALE VOICE: Don’t go (UNINTEL).

    MITT ROMNEY: –on the West Bank–

    MALE VOICE: –don’t go head-to-head with (UNINTEL).

    MITT ROMNEY: The other side of the West Bank, the other side of what would be this new Palestinian state, would either be Syria at one point or– or Jordan. And– and of course the Iranians would want to do through the West Bank exactly what they did through Lebanon. What they did– into Gaza. Which is the Iranians would wanna bring missiles and armament into the West Bank and potentially threaten Israel.

    So Israel of course would have to say, “That can’t happen. We’ve got to keep the Iranians from bringing weaponry into the West Bank.” Well, that means that who, the Israelis, are gonna– are gonna– patrol the border between Jordan, Syria and– and this new Palestinian nation? Oh, the Palestinians would say, “No way. We’re an independent country. You can’t– you can’t bor– you know, guard our border with other Arab nations.”

    And– and how about the airport? How about flying near to this Palestinian nation? Are we going to allow– their military aircraft to come in and– and weaponry to come in? And if not, who’s gonna keep it from coming in? Well, the Israelis. Well– the Palestinians are gonna say, “We’re not an independent nation if Israel is able to come in and tell us who can land at our airport.”

    These are problems. And they’re very hard to solve.

    (LAUGH) All right? And I look at the Palestinians not wanting to seek peace anyway for political purposes. Committed to the destruction and elimination of Israel and these thorny issue– thorny issues, that I say there’s just no way. And so what you do is you say you– you move things along the best way you can.

    You hope for some degree of stability, but you recognize this is gonna remain unsolved problem. We– we live with in– in China and Taiwan. All right? We have– we have– a potentially– volatile situation, but we sort of live with it. And we kick the ball down the field and hope that ultimately somehow, something will happen to resolve it. We don’t– we don’t go to war to– to try and– resolve it imminently.

    Romney probably means “immediately”

    He now speaks of talking with, some previous U.S. Secretary of State: (maybe not Kissinger since this was over the phone)

    On the other hand, I got a call from a former secretary of State– and I won’t mention which one it was. But this individual said to me– “You know, I think there is a prospect for– for– a settlement between the Palestinians and the Israelis– after the Palestinian elections.” I said, “Really?”

    They’re going to be election? Not very possible with Hamas controlling Gaza.

    And– you know, his answer was– was, “Yes. I think there’s some prospect.” And I– and I didn’t– delve into it, but, you know, I always– keep open– I mean I always keep open the idea– I should tell you, the idea of pushing on the Israelis to give something up to give the paleshin– to get the Palestinians to act is the worst idea in the world. We have done that time and time and time again. It does not work.

    MALE VOICE: That’s (UNINTEL).

    MITT ROMNEY: So– so this– the– the only answer is show strength. Again, American strength, American resolve. As the Palestinians– someday reach the point where they want peace more than we’re tryin’ to put– force peace on them. And then it’s worth having the discussion. But till then it’s just– it’s this legal (?) thing. (MALE VOICE: UNINTEL)

    But it– you can sit down and (UNINTEL), (OVERTALK)

    Sammy Finkelman (eb1481)

  303. Hey, it’s time for 10,000 quotes about Iran!

    Because the aristocrats.

    Dustin (73fead)

  304. Sammy, he must want a binational state; one man one vote: 5.5 million Palestinians. 5.5 million Jews.
    The Palestinians will accept.
    40 years of occupation is enough.

    “We did not create [Hamas] but we did not hinder its creation.”
    Romney is an idiot.

    The real Romney
    “First and foremost, I would like to offer a heartfelt apology to all the whores, junkies, bums, and grime-covered derelicts out there who make up nearly half our nation,” a visibly contrite and solemn Romney said outside a campaign stop at a local high school. “Let me assure you that I in no way meant to offend any of the putrid-smelling, barefoot masses out there. My campaign is not about dividing this nation, but about bringing all sides together—the rich, elegant members of the upper class, as well as the 47 percent who are covered in flies and eat directly from back-alley dumpsters.”
    “I am fully committed to building a better future for every American,” Romney continued, “and that means ensuring all 150 million grease-and-urine-soaked members of our society get a fair shake.””

    sleeeepy (b5f718)

  305. When he identifies as a problem the fact that people don’t pay income tax…
    Comment by beerandcoffee — 9/18/2012 @ 7:26 pm

    — Yeah well, since Harry Reid said that paying income taxes is “voluntary”, and people like Tim Geithner apparently believed him . . .

    Icy (84c440)

  306. Comment by Steve57 — 9/18/2012 @ 3:40 pm

    Had these comments been intended for the general public, I don’t think there’s any doubt he would have made a greater effort to distinguish between those voters among the 47% who don’t have a federal tax liability who are already dedicated clients of the Democratic party’s redistributionist approach and those who aren’t.

    Romney’s thoughts were confused. Had they been intended for the general public, he would have attempted to put them more in order, but election strategy is not something he would ordinarily intend for he general public!

    So his thoughts remained confused, until Jimmy Carter’s grandson revealed them.

    De Tocqueville who understood it as centuries-old common sense when he wrote that self-government can only last as long as a majority doesn’t realize it can (or feel entitled to) vote itself benefits at a minority’s expense.

    That;s the source of some of the confusion.

    Things aren’t really like that.

    If you insist that Romney has to believe that 47% is actually the number of voters that will vote for Obama no matter what

    Polls were showing a consistent minimum around that range. Romney didn’t realize that the 47% or 49% are not 100% the same people from poll to poll, nor that they’re not the same as the people receiving government benefits or not paying federal income taxes, nor that circumstances could cause that number to fall lower.

    Now, of course, he’s getting rid of some of the absurdities and obvious error in his thinking.

    then unless you’re going to insist that only one candidate has to literally believe every figure that comes out of his mouth then it follows that Obama really is convinced there are 57 states.

    There were 57 delegations to the Democratic National Convention in 2008. The ones after number 50 were the six on the state quarters of 2009 plus “Democrats Abroad”

    But I submit that anyone who is convinced that 47% of the electorate has already been bought and paid for by his opponent would never bother running for office. Seriously, if Romney believed that, it means Obama only has to convince 4% of voters who aren’t receiving more in benefits than they pay in taxes to vote for him. It’s a dead certainty that even Obama can do that. There are more than enough limousine liberals to make up the margin of victory and more.

    Romney, it seems, was too stupid to understand that, or all confused.

    He seemed to think there were almost as many people who would never vote for a Democrat as would always vote for a Democrat, and there was a swing 5-10%. The way he split it up, though, he’d have to get about 70%, which he seemed to think was not so hard, since the case for him was so good.

    since he is contesting the election and believes that he can win, then he didn’t intend to say that 47% of voters really are off the table and lost to him.

    He did mean to say it. He also thought almost as many voters were off the table for Obama.

    Sammy Finkelman (eb1481)

  307. Sleeeeerpy is on a bender. Again.

    JD (e4479f)

  308. sleeeeepy, can you not just stick to creating your own brand of stupidity, rather than simply copy-pasting the idiocy of others?

    Icy (84c440)

  309. http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2010/05/goldblog-vs-peter-beinart-part-ii/56934/
    Peter Beinart: I’m not asking Israel to be Utopian. I’m not asking it to allow Palestinians who were forced out (or fled) in 1948 to return to their homes. I’m not even asking it to allow full, equal citizenship to Arab Israelis, since that would require Israel no longer being a Jewish state. I’m actually pretty willing to compromise my liberalism for Israel’s security and for its status as a Jewish state. What I am asking is that Israel not do things that foreclose the possibility of a Palestinian state in the West Bank, because if it is does that it will become–and I’m quoting Ehud Olmert and Ehud Barak here–an “apartheid state.”

    JIm Crow in the middle east.

    sleeeepy (b5f718)

  310. Thank you, James Earl Carter, Jr.

    Icy (84c440)

  311. #307

    Somebody is doing lines with billionaires again.

    Dave Surls (46b08c)

  312. Pat Lang on the the Israeli attack on the The USS Liberty
    Colonel W. Patrick Lang is a retired senior officer of U.S. Military Intelligence and U.S. Army Special Forces (The Green Berets). He served in the Department of Defense both as a serving officer and then as a member of the Defense Senior Executive Service for many years. He is a highly decorated veteran of several of America’s overseas conflicts including the war in Vietnam. He was trained and educated as a specialist in the Middle East by the U.S. Army and served in that region for many years. He was the first Professor of the Arabic Language at the United States Military Academy at West Point, New York. In the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) he was the “Defense Intelligence Officer for the Middle East, South Asia and Terrorism,” and later the first Director of the Defense Humint Service.” For his service in DIA, he was awarded the “Presidential Rank of Distinguished Executive.”

    sleeeepy (b5f718)

  313. Comment by sleeeepy — 9/18/2012 @ 9:21 pm

    Sammy, he must want a binational state

    Who, Kissinger? Or the possibly other former Secretary of State?

    ; one man one vote: 5.5 million Palestinians. 5.5 million Jews.

    No, you wouldn’t get that. There are some people in the Likud thinking along these lines, but the key point is that Gaza (and Palestinian refuges) would not be part of it. Gaza might be annexed by Egypt, or treated as an Egyptian protecterate.

    In fat, I can’t see how Israel could tolerate there being free travel between Gaza and the West Bank under any dispensation, so long as Hamas. Gaza is where they’ve sent some terrorists from the West bank – they are not bout to give them access to Israel.

    If you have two states, a tight border has to be drawn either

    A) Between the West Bank and Gaza

    B) Between the West bank and East Jerusalem (retained by Israel

    C) Between East and West Jerusalem.

    Also the number of Palestinians (Arabs) in the West Bank has been exaggerated. It wouldn’t be close to 50-50.

    And this would all solve nothing.

    The Palestinians will accept.
    40 years of occupation is enough.

    “We did not create [Hamas] but we did not hinder its creation.”
    Romney is an idiot.

    The real Romney
    “First and foremost, I would like to offer a heartfelt apology to all the whores, junkies, bums, and grime-covered derelicts out there who make up nearly half our nation,” a visibly contrite and solemn Romney said outside a campaign stop at a local high school. “Let me assure you that I in no way meant to offend any of the putrid-smelling, barefoot masses out there. My campaign is not about dividing this nation, but about bringing all sides together—the rich, elegant members of the upper class, as well as the 47 percent who are covered in flies and eat directly from back-alley dumpsters.”
    “I am fully committed to building a better future for every American,” Romney continued, “and that means ensuring all 150 million grease-and-urine-soaked members of our society get a fair shake.

    Sammy Finkelman (eb1481)

  314. Comment by Dustin — 9/18/2012 @ 8:37 pm

    Was Romney just saying he straight up doesn’t care at all about 47% of Americans? That they are not really citizens and are undeserving of empathy? To listen to some, that’s what he really meant. That’s a predictable interpretation and I do not believe many sincerely believe it when they offer it..

    Some may not really have heard the whole thing in context. Romney was saying he doesn’t care (or hope) for their votes

    Sammy Finkelman (eb1481)

  315. First and foremost, I would like to offer a heartfelt apology to all the whores, junkies, bums, and grime-covered derelicts out there who make up nearly half our nation,” a visibly contrite and solemn Romney said outside a campaign stop at a local high school. “Let me assure you that I in no way meant to offend any of the putrid-smelling, barefoot masses out there.

    The reason the Onion satire is so funny is that there is truth in this. Not just in that Romney is not attempting to win the support of the losers, but that we all see these people and wonder what’s up with our society.

    I hope Romney can take this issue by the horns. The democrats are giving him a real opportunity. Imagine election night being a repudiation of dependency!

    Dustin (73fead)

  316. How the hell did the Palestinians get dragged into this?

    Oh, I forgot, they’re also dependent on federal handouts (as part of our “Let’s give money to Muslim Terrorists” program).

    Never mind.

    Dave Surls (46b08c)

  317. “I would like to offer a heartfelt apology to all the whores…”

    That’s baloney. Most whores work for a living…Sandra Fluke excepted, of course.

    Dave Surls (46b08c)

  318. 316. USS Liberty: Israel had no motive for attacking that ship, beyond believing it was really an Egyptian ship. Various far-fetched reasons have been developed to come up with some reason for attacking a ship they believed was American, like the U.S. might warn Syria about a decision to attack.

    Any pilots seeing an American flag would have believed it was really an Egyptian ship flying an American flag, so that means nothing. The Egyptians were known to do things like that. That’s what happens when the laws of war are violated.

    The story goes it was correctly identified at one stage, but later on the map board was cleared and shifts were changed and the ship was discovered again.

    There are numerous examples in history of a nation attacking its own forces – how much more so when they are not its own, and there’s no common chain of command?

    Sammy Finkelman (eb1481)

  319. 317. I forgot to eliminate a lot of the quote from sleeepy from my message. Everything after: “And this would all solve nothing.”

    Sammy Finkelman (eb1481)

  320. “First and foremost, I would like to offer a heartfelt apology to all the whores, junkies, bums, and grime-covered derelicts out there who make up nearly half our nation,””

    sleeeepy – You’re high if you ever thought the Democrat endorsed Occupy movement ever got that big.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  321. Comment by Dave Surls — 9/18/2012 @ 9:40 pm

    How the hell did the Palestinians get dragged into this?

    This was one of the topics Romney spoke about on the Sekreet Tape.

    He said the Palestinians didn’t want peace, and the problem was unsolvable but it didn’t need to be immediately solved any more than the question of China and Taiwan needed to be solved. If he was more imaginative or original, he might mention Cyprus.

    Romney said (if I interpret his drift correctly, because he wasn’t so clear here) a separate Palestinian state might become another Jordan, but it also might become another Syria or southern Lebanon, controlled by Iran with missiles put there.

    Which means a Palestinian state couldn’t be truly independent. Which might not be acceptable to Palestinians negotiators.

    Then he said a former Secretary of State told him he did see a prospect after the Palestinian elections, which surprised Romney, but he wasn’t going to dismiss it. I had also mentioned that Henry Kissinger was reported by gossip columnist Cindy Adams that in 10 years Israel would not exist.

    Sleeepy said – I don’t know if in reference to Kissinger or the possibly different former Secretary of State or even Romney (!?) – that he wants a bi-national state.

    Sammy Finkelman (eb1481)

  322. Comment by daleyrocks — 9/18/2012 @ 8:57 pm

    Sammy – With your mad detective skilz have you found all of Obama’s 57 states

    Yes.

    49. Alaska

    50. Hawaii

    51. District of Columbia

    52. Puerto Rico

    53. Virgin Islands

    54. Guam

    55. American Samoa

    56. Northern Marianas

    57. Democrats Abroad.

    or location of the secret transcontinental railroad yet?

    That goes from Missouri to California. Obamas flub was to use a different word, IIRC.

    Sammy Finkelman (eb1481)

  323. Message to Mitt: downplay the 47% bit (rank overestimation) and go after freeloaders wholeheartedly. Again: nobody thinks they’re a freeloader themselves, and if they do, they ain’t voting for you. Relax and have fun with it.

    A lot of people who are not paying taxes are people who are merely out of work and want to get a job. They do not think of themselves as freeloaders.

    Michael Ejercito (2e0217)

  324. Uh huh. Audio Gap! At Legal Insurrection David Corn finally admits that 1-2 minutes of tape are “missing”. (*End of critical 47% statement is cut off and audio picks up again with Mitt talking about China.) How conveeeeenient!

    Corn emails: “According to the source, the recording device inadvertently turned off. The source noticed this quickly and turned it back one. The source estimates that one to two minutes, maybe less, of recording was missed.”

    elissa (0718a3)

  325. Somewhere Rosemary Woods is doing an eye roll.

    elissa (0718a3)

  326. sleeeeepy:
    the most important thing Bill Gates ever did was change the name of a drive and sign a contract with IBM. The rest is crony capitalism covering for gross incompetence. Google is winning for the same reason the democrats are winning.
    — Geez, even your examples are stoopid!

    Obamacare saves money.
    — Saves WHO money?

    And if you’re opposed to it on principle you should be prepared to explain not just the under-financed NHS but health care in every other developed country in the world!!
    — If, God forbid, YOU get sick, to what country are you going to travel for treatment?

    Why was John Wayne a right wing hero when he copped out of fighting in WWII?
    — Believe it or not, most 35-year-olds were NOT first on the draft board list.

    Why was the putz John Kerry mocked and not Bush, when Kerry actual fought in Vietnam?
    — Because, as YOU said, Kerry is a putz. And in his case, especially regarding Vietnam, he was the supreme putz.

    The middle class is shrinking. The poor are poorer. And you want a rich man to save you.
    — Never let it be said that you didn’t fight in the Class War.

    Icy (84c440)

  327. 328. Comment by elissa — 9/18/2012 @ 10:17 pm

    Uh huh. Audio Gap! At Legal Insurrection David Corn finally admits that 1-2 minutes of tape are “missing”. (*End of critical 47% statement is cut off and audio picks up again with Mitt talking about China.) How conveeeeenient!

    He might have broken down the electorate a different way. That’s about the only thing that might be hidden here – but the tape could have been switched ff. Why stop exactly there?

    This is what we have:

    MITT ROMNEY: Well, there are 47% of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right? There are 47% who are with him. Who are dependent upon government, who believe that– that they are victims, who believe that government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they’re entitled to healthcare, to food, to housing, to you name it. But that’s– it’s an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what.

    He’s definitely saying the 47% who are dependent on government are the same people as say in polls they will vote for Obama. Which is political idiocy.

    And– and– I mean the president starts off with 48%, 49%, 40– or he– he starts off with a huge number. These are people who pay no income tax. 47% of Americans pay no income taxes.

    There again, they’re the same people

    So our message of low taxes doesn’t connect.

    Is that his only campaign issue?? And what about what he says elsewhere, of the danger of the need for great tax increases?

    His ideas are all incoherent here. He hasn’t
    t put them together.

    And he’ll be out there talking about tax cuts for the rich. I mean that’s what they sell every– every four years.

    It’s not so standard..

    Romney sounds he’s really new to politics.

    And– and so my job is not to worry about those people.

    Not to worry about how they will vote,

    I’ll never convince them that they should take personal responsibility and care for for their lives.

    Which you do by voting for him??

    And what does he say here? 47% of the population is hopeless? They gave up long ago? Now nothing will help?

    What I have to do is convince the 5% to 10% in the center that are independents, that are thoughtful, that look at voting one way or the other depending upon in some cases emotion.

    Wait, is it that they are thoughtful or is it they vote based on emotion? Both are reasons, of course, for voting sometimes for one party and sometimes for another. Is he talking about different kinds of independents?

    Hos pollsters have evidently told him, only 5-10% of the electorate are true swing voters.

    Whether they like the guy or not.

    He’s elaborating on what he means by emotion.

    What they– what it looks like.

    No, not “it” “He” If that’s not gender neutral enough, all right then, “he or she.” Or “they” But definitely not “it” unless you think one or more of the candidates is a robot. That’s the worst possible word you could have settled on.

    I know you were accused of being a robot yourself, but still. And you said “guy” didn’t you? Is a “guy” an “it??”

    This is another way “emotion” could be a factor. Or maybe looks is what might determine whether they like the guy or not.

    I mean the– it’s the– the–

    He runs out of steam. Starts over.

    when you ask those people–

    Starts over gain. Poor choice of words.

    we do all these polls. I find it amazing. We poll all these people, see where you stand in the polls. About 45% of the people will vote for the Republican and 48% or 49%–

    ….vote for the Democrat.

    Now maybe after that, he gave a different reason for the divided electorate, but he seems to equate the difference between Republican voters and Democratic voters mostly to whether or not they pay income taxes and the like.

    Actually he probably just goes on to say that the proportions haven’t changed much since he’s been campaigning, and what factors might affect the paltry few swing voters.

    Sammy Finkelman (eb1481)

  328. The polls probably weren’t as steady as he said they were, even if the Democrat in these polls was always Obama.

    Sammy Finkelman (eb1481)

  329. “Ace – Clever: Romney Now Apparently Answering Every Question About “47%” By Noting He Doesn’t Believe In Redistribution of Wealth”

    So does that mean he doesn’t want the 47% to pay payroll taxes either?

    beerandcoffee (fce22b)

  330. “Payroll Taxes” are contributions for Social Security, which are paid out upon retirement. They must have SOME skin in the game… at least in the real world, bub.

    Colonel Haiku (bde8ce)

  331. Col – point and laugh at serial troll beerandcoffee.

    JD (e4479f)

  332. Thanks for the auspicious writeup. It in reality used to be a amusement account it. Look complex to far brought agreeable from you! By the way, how could we keep up a correspondence?

    jak tu (03a6fb)

  333. What a surprise. Sammy has analyzed it and has come up with some ideas about what Mitt might have been saying or could have said in the unrecorded minutes of what we now know is an incomplete tape. Sammy shares lots of “maybes” and “probablies”. Not good enough. Was the purloined tape edited? For sure it was presented to the world by Corn as “complete” when it obviously was not.

    elissa (f9a102)

  334. Did you see it? Tingles interviewed Jimmy Carter’s loser grandson yesterday using his usual nauseating style, with the predictable nauseating results. And young Jimmah is clearly not the brightest bulb in the Carter chandelier.

    elissa (f9a102)

  335. Elissa – did Crissy ask him about the embassy and consulate attacks?

    JD (e4479f)

  336. sleeeeepy doubles down on the anti-semitism with looney USS Liberty nonsense.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  337. That did not come up in the interview, JD. It was more along the lines of you’re a wonderful researcher and your grandpa must be really proud of you for sourcing the tape.

    elissa (f9a102)

  338. Elissa – did he ask him “who in your view is worse, Gramps or Barcky ?”

    JD (e4479f)

  339. No, Tingles did not ask him directly, JD, but the spectre of that did seem to weirdly hang over the interview, I felt. Jimmah4 did mention (with prompting) that Mitt has said very mean things about gramps.

    elissa (f9a102)

  340. Comment by Steve57 — 9/18/2012 @ 6:19 pm

    The best way to ensure that wealth isn’t created is to ensure that those who attempt it have it confiscated. They’ll stop.

    And the best way to do that is to means test government benefits. And the king of them all is Medicaid. Medicaid not only has income tests, Medicaid has asset tests. Medicaid even has clawbacks!

    Sammy Finkelman (eb1481)

  341. Medicaid also has loopholes, though, which legislators occasionally try to close, and reporting requirements which nobody follows, and if they did, administrators would choke on it.

    But they do keep people from earning too much or doing mch of anything.

    And if someone graduates from Medicaid, insurance is not affordable

    But Romney is clueless about this. In fact, he has even speculated about imposing means tests on Social Security benefits. The old retirement test (now mostly abolished) isn’t enough for him. He’s contemplating asset tests too. Not that such an idea is too likely to pass Congress

    Means and asset tests also exist for student loans, but they are not so destructive there because these are mostly once in a lifetime things and people don’t plan too much.

    However, if someone faces the prospect of filling out a parents student financial aid form, I could advise (unless things have changed in the last few years) that, if possible, they should keep their federally reported adjusted gross income below $50,000 in the junior year of high school of the student involved because then there are no questions about assets or savings. But by and large there is no planning.

    And people don’t plan to get Medicaid or things like that. They are often put on it by doctors and hospitals who want to get paid. Once on it, though, the rules keep them on it. Family members avoid giving them money. They are counseled not to get jobs. Etc, etc. Would any social worker in their right mind advise differently?

    Sammy Finkelman (eb1481)

  342. Obamacare will see to it that people who have avoided Medicaid, who could qualify now even under the old rules, will be put on Medicaid. ‘

    Well, it will unless the tax penalty is zeroed out, which is not too unlikely, setting insurance companies and hospitals on a path toward financial ruin, because if Obama is elected he will veto all changes..and certainly a complete revamping of the system to eliminate means tests and perverse incentives. Especially frequent reviews of eligibility.

    You can avoid means tests by for instance giving everyone a refundable tax credit that can be spent on medical related things. That the gist of McCain’s proposal in 2008.

    This could be a big issue.

    But Romney (and even Ryan) is clueless about all this!!

    Sammy Finkelman (eb1481)

  343. ______________________________________________

    Sammy shares lots of “maybes” and “probablies”.

    I’ve always sensed a bit of squish in him, and some of his recent postings lead me to believe he’s more of a liberal than I originally assumed. A bit less surprising if his screen name is real or does reflect a part of his background, based on the following.

    online.wsj.com, Norman Podhoretz, September 2009:

    One of the most extraordinary features of Barack Obama’s victory over John McCain was his capture of 78% of the Jewish vote. To be sure, there was nothing extraordinary about the number itself. Since 1928, the average Jewish vote for the Democrat in presidential elections has been an amazing 75%—far higher than that of any other ethno-religious group.

    Just as it’s refreshing (if not surprising) when someone who is black is either a staunch moderate or conservative, the same applies to a person who’s Jewish. I guess a similar idea is true of anyone who identifies as gay, or is a member of academia, or is in show business, or a part of the mainstream media.

    Mark (94ed7f)

  344. So does that mean he doesn’t want the 47% to pay payroll taxes either?
    Comment by beerandcoffee — 9/19/2012 @ 4:14 am

    — Umbday

    Icy (23c030)

  345. 343. Yeah, baby!

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  346. Comment by Steve57 — 9/18/2012 @ 11:07 am

    Romney needs to clear up the fact that not all those 47% want to be in the position they are in.

    The problem is, that’s what Romney actually thought. Mostly still thinks, although he threw in a thought about getting people out of poverty..

    Just as Romney spoke an obvious truth last week when he said the Cairo embassy’s statement was an embarrassment.

    Worse than an embarrassment. There was maybe an embarrassment for Romney in saying this was the first and only statement in response to the attacks, but it is perfectly excusable.

    Similarly, he spoke the truth when he said the Palestinians don’t want a peaceful two state settlemnent.

    That’s one he doesn’t have to backtrack on at all, although he did, with his advisers saying he believes in a two-state solution, like President George W. Bush. Does anyone remember the conditions Bush gave for that state?

    The one thing he didn’t back down on was that Obama spends more time worrying about an Israeli strike than he does about stopping an Iranian bomb. Romney’s foreign and legal policy director, Alex Wong, repeated it almost verbatim yesterday.

    Oh. And to bend over and give the Egyptian MB whatever it demands.

    Obama read Morsi the riot act last week. So we see $1 billion or so per year can at least buy peace, if you insist on it. But you do have to insist, and be prepared to walk away, like from a car dealership.

    Sammy Finkelman (eb1481)

  347. Comment by elissa — 9/19/2012 @ 6:26 am

    What a surprise. Sammy has analyzed it and has come up with some ideas about what Mitt might have been saying or could have said in the unrecorded minutes of what we now know is an incomplete tape.

    I sort of gave two versions. But I think it;s more more likely nothing is missing for political reasons.

    Ket me analyze this thing:

    They tell us exactly how many seconds are missing, and it’s not too much time. You wouldn’t do that unless it had a time stamp.

    It’s pretty clear what the next few words are, and I am not sure what they could be so that it would make sense for someone against Romney to cut off the tape right there. Maybe if he split the electorate a different way and had the 47% mean something quite different from the people who don’t pay federal income taxes etc, but I doubt it. I gave you a possibility but I doubt that it was on purpose to hide something.

    It gets cut off where Romney seems to be is repeating himself, and that fits with the theory this is not a late edit, but that’s where the recording was cut off. If it was something helpful to Romney and it was edited out later he or she would have let Romney finish the sentence, because that sentence can only end with the words
    “vote for the Democrat”

    We do all these polls. I find it amazing. We poll all these people, see where you stand in the polls. About 45% of the people will vote for the Republican and 48% or 49%

    [of the people] will vote for the Democrat.

    So I think it’s probably not hiding anything on purpose right there at the break.

    If repetition is the reason for the break, you stop it where it is stopped, but if later editing is the reason, you let him finish the sentence.

    So therefore it was contemporaneously stopped, and it is not edited later. Q.E.D

    Sammy Finkelman (eb1481)

  348. “The problem is, that’s what Romney actually thought. Mostly still thinks, although he threw in a thought about getting people out of poverty..”

    Sammy – Are you now actually claiming to be able to read Romney’s mind? Seriously? Subsequent evidence does not support your conclusion.

    I think we should all practice being hyperliteral with numbers given in private speeches about how to achieve a majority of the electorate!

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  349. I have a simple theory here. Jimmy Carter IV got it from somebody who had made a copy of the video, not the original person. It’s that second person, (or third person even) not the person who did the original recording, who was anti-Romney.

    That also explains the long delay.

    It seems this was not all revealed at one time.

    It would be interesting to get the history of what was revealed first.

    Was it only NBC that got the full tape? How? Did they pay money? Or just trace it back to the person who made the recording?

    Now if the first person was not anti-Romney, he or she would have been anxious to get more context in. And there would have been a reason to skip when this was being recorded surreptitiously. Maybe illegally too, I don’t know what the law in Florida is.

    The reason to skip is this:

    Somebody might just have stopped it to conserve recording time. It wasn’t clear how long this would go on, and there was a finite amount of recording time available. And maybe the person had to move his or her arm or something.

    It is quite plausible that there’s nothing left out from what we have and what is there is all there is.

    Let’s consider: If we suppose somebody was trying to get things embarrassing to Romney, they wouldn’t have been trying to avoid things beneficial to him – but just trying to avoid running out of video. After all, selective excerpts could just be released if he said something the person didn’t want to show, so at that time, who cares if there’s something not good on he tape.

    The initial release came from person A (anti-Romney) who maybe did it twice, and the full tape came from person B, a pro-Romney person. Person A and person B are either members of the same family, or friends – person B is someone who had access to the secret tape or a copy of it.

    Person A actually wouldn’t have to be so pro-Romney. That person might have been a guest or spouse of the contributor. That somebody also might just have been looking for good stuff, or interesting stuff, and only later on did the political implications become clear – to someone.

    So anyway first the recording was first stopped – then later when something interesting about China was being said, he or she decided to start again and this time just let it rip. That would explain the gap.

    Sammy Finkelman (eb1481)

  350. “Worse than an embarrassment. There was maybe an embarrassment for Romney in saying this was the first and only statement in response to the attacks, but it is perfectly excusable.”

    Sammy – Why is there any embarrassment for Romney? The Embassy speaks for Obama. Theirs was the first statement and then they reiterated it. I watched a lot of the tweets coming out of the Embassy last Tuesday and was almost convinced I was watching a parody site. Romney is not responsible for the long delays in Washington responding to the crisis, but it Washington who should be embarrassed, not Romney.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  351. “The problem is, that’s what Romney actually thought. Mostly still thinks, although he threw in a thought about getting people out of poverty..”

    Sammy – Are you now actually claiming to be able to read Romney’s mind? Seriously? Subsequent evidence does not support your conclusion.

    I think he’s still thinking along these lines. He said so. It’s just no longer 100%.

    I think we should all practice being hyperliteral with numbers given in private speeches about how to achieve a majority of the electorate!

    I think it’s kind of unmistakeable that the two numbers of the same. Romney sounds just stupid or inexperienced in politics enough to fall for this kind of analysis

    Sammy Finkelman (eb1481)

  352. “Romney sounds just stupid or inexperienced in politics enough to fall for this kind of analysis”

    Sammy – Or you’re overanalyzing it.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  353. Sammy–God love ya, you’re on a roll. I can’t tell whether you’re playing at being an elite FBI psychological profiler today, or mimicking the Jon Lovitz SNL “yeah, that’s the ticket” character.

    elissa (f9a102)

  354. “Why was the putz John Kerry mocked and not Bush, when Kerry actual fought in Vietnam?”

    For the same reason people mock Benedict Arnold.

    Most people (lefties excluded) don’t like backstabbing turncoats.

    Dave Surls (46b08c)

  355. Right now Sammy is re-analyzing his previous analyses in order to determine if he has overanalyzed anything.

    Icy (23c030)

  356. Icy – Compounding of assumptions always results in more accuracy than reality.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  357. Hmmm … I wonder if we could get Mr Finkelman to make at least a nodding acquaintance with the word “succinct” ? Is not President Coolidge worthy of emulation ?

    Alasdair (e7cb73)

  358. Icy

    I think those were the executive summaries from SamFinkman

    EPWJ (d84fb0)

  359. Heh!

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  360. Another MEGO attack by Finkelman, I see.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  361. ““Payroll Taxes” are contributions for Social Security, which are paid out upon retirement. They must have SOME skin in the game… at least in the real world, bub.”

    No that’s not how social security works — you don’t get your contributions back. Sorry to break it to you but social security and medicare are two very popular programs that are basically transfer payments: redistribution.

    If Romney is against redistribution, he’s against Social Security, and against people paying payroll taxes to fund it.

    beerandcoffee (15c8d4)

  362. “beerandcoffee” – how many douchey names are you up to now?

    JD (dbb735)

  363. re:365… you’re full of beans as usual. I’ve seen my contributions to both. If the federal government would’ve invested my contributions over the years, it would be a fairly big chunk of change. Look at your SS statements that list your taxable wage earnings and your contributions… assuming you do work.

    http://lucianne.com/images/lucianne/DailyPhoto/2012-09-19-LAVGE.jpg

    Colonel Haiku (d22210)

  364. “I’ve seen my contributions to both. ”

    Yes indeed you have. And they make you eligible to claim Social Security. But the system is still a transfer payment redistributing money from those who work to those that don’t. And widely popular too!

    Now how do you think Medicare works?

    beerandcoffee (15c8d4)

  365. Beerandcoffee – your sophistry is dull, uninspired, and tedious. No matter how many names you use, your nature always shines through.

    JD (dbb735)

  366. You don’t read your statement carefully either, do you?

    beerandcoffee (15c8d4)

  367. Nicole gelinas at National Review has another criticism of Romney from the video:

    http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/327862/why-romney-needs-talk-about-bailouts-nicole-gelinas

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  368. I’ll right away grasp your rss feed as I can not in finding your e-mail subscription hyperlink or e-newsletter service. Do you have any? Please permit me realize in order that I may just subscribe. Thanks.

    badminton sport (5ed03a)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 1.2356 secs.