Patterico's Pontifications

9/18/2012

Now That’s More Like It, Mitt

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 5:43 pm



Romney was on Cavuto today and finally started clearly expressing the central message of the SUPER SEKRIT UNDERCOVER VIDEO: namely, that Barack Obama is trying to use government to redistribute wealth, and Mitt Romney is trying to grow the economy and make more people successful:

We need more of this and less stumbling defensiveness like we saw last night.

The less defensible part of Romney’s secretly recorded statements was when he tarred everyone who doesn’t pay federal income tax as a victim looking for a handout, and fixed that percentage at 47%.

But the main message was that we don’t want a society of moochers. We want a land where government gets out of the way and lets us make our own way.

That’s a solid message. It’s a gutsy message, but it has waaaay more common sense appeal than liberal media hacks realize. And Romney does a much better job today than last night at articulating that message.

And who knows? Instead of being THE END OF HIS CAMPAIGN!!!!!1!!!1!!! . . . this could actually be a winning issue for him.

He just needs to keep making the case — and not just on Fox News.

Play it again:

P.S. I want to reclaim this song from the Democrats anyway. Larry Elder played it for years on his radio show because it embodies his spirit — long before the Democrats stole it for their convention. I don’t care that Petty is a Democrat. Most of those artists are. Doesn’t matter. The spirit is the spirit of freedom and independence. That doesn’t belong to Barack Obama.

UPDATE: Here’s the video Romney talks about in the interview, in which Obama cheers on the idea of redistributing income:

142 Responses to “Now That’s More Like It, Mitt”

  1. Ding.

    Patterico (83033d)

  2. The US credit rating took a hit last week, with a downgrade by Egan Jones, due to the fact that Helicopter Ben Bernanke is now Printing Press Ben. President Downgrade is now Bozo the Clown President as the White House flat out lies about the deaths of American State Dept employees and security contractors to cover up its failed Middle East policy.

    The President can’t count to four. The Vice President is a dementia patient.

    But the media wants to pretend that Romney has “gaffes”.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  3. I hope Mittens has enuff cojones to fight the Liberal Media like Gingrich does.

    When Gingy hears a loaded “do you have proof you did not kill your mother” question he goes after them.

    Romney needs to do the circuit and be the lead tiger.

    Anyway, he still elicits little confidence but I am hoping.

    Rodney King's Spirit (aeda60)

  4. Looking at the transcript of what Romney said at the time, and his later clarification of it, it seems that Romney was conflating several groups of people.

    Essentially, he was giving a condensed version his campaign’s strategy to get to 50+%.

    He said that Obama starts out with about 47%. He then said that 47% of people don’t pay taxes. Which would lead people to believe that it’s the same 47%, but obviously many of those not paying taxes now didn’t vote for Obama in 2008 and aren’t paying taxes because Obama killed off their jobs.

    Then he said that those who are lost to him are those who see themselves as entitled to “share” other people’s hard-earned money. I.e. that same 47%. But I don’t believe that’s what he himself believes.

    I think this is just a result of the fact he didn’t intend these comments for public consumption and was engaging in a form of verbal shorthand. He would have put it differently if he intended it for public consumption.

    He simply has to treat all events as if they are public; he’s operating in an environment in which the leftist press will give their Romney/Ryan event passes to code pink agitators so they can disrupt them, then give an interview to the leftist press that set out to create the news as it dutifully waits outside the exits for their friends as they are ejected.

    Steve57 (63f83b)

  5. Instead of being on the defensive, just go on offense and explain, without apology, the point he was trying to make, and let the MSM be sorry they asked the question.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  6. Capitalism is like evolution in the sense that it creates new and better things without any overall control.

    In exactly the same sense, Baracky believe instead in Intelligent Design. Two things wrong with that, the second being that it doesn’t work.

    Kevin M (bf8ad7)

  7. Or maybe he believes in Creationism, with Himself as G-d. But that would pretty much mark him as a megalomaniac and I sure wouldn’t want to say that.

    Kevin M (bf8ad7)

  8. Comment by Kevin M — 9/18/2012 @ 6:03 pm

    For there to be Intelligent Design there first has to be Intelligence. (Or was that the “first thing” you were alluding to?)

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  9. But that would pretty much mark him as a megalomaniac and I sure wouldn’t want to say that.
    Comment by Kevin M — 9/18/2012 @ 6:05 pm

    And why not?

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  10. The less defensible part of Romney’s secretly recorded statements was when he tarred everyone who doesn’t pay federal income tax as a victim looking for a handout, and fixed that percentage at 47%.

    Only those that want to take it that way. Again, what you say in private to like-minded people is based on understandings you’d not assume in public.

    Kevin M (bf8ad7)

  11. 8. of course.
    9. because I think he’s really a sociopath.

    Kevin M (bf8ad7)

  12. “Mitt Romney is trying to grow the economy and make more people successful:”

    No way.

    “We want a land where government gets out of the way and lets us make our own way.”

    Hell, yes!

    Dave Surls (46b08c)

  13. The only argument I heard today against Romney’s statement is that it hurts people’s feelings.

    AZ Bob (1c9631)

  14. I don’t want the government dicking around with the economy. That’s a guaranteed loser.

    Don’t try and make me rich, just piss the hell off and leave me alone.

    Dave Surls (46b08c)

  15. That’s why we have one political party, the Mommy Party, and another, the Daddy Party.

    AZ Bob (1c9631)

  16. Get rid of Tom Petty, sub Johnny Cash-

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yUQCmDfKFac&feature=related

    Bugg (6cf7f9)

  17. I wish miss romney thighs horse would do horseshoe/face stuff to mz big arms

    pdbuttons (0b4b1b)

  18. Not only is Obama a redistributionist, Obamacare also cuts Medicare!

    beerandcoffee (fce22b)

  19. Bugg:

    Thanks. I’ll use that one next.

    Patterico (83033d)

  20. Only those that want to take it that way. Again, what you say in private to like-minded people is based on understandings you’d not assume in public.

    I’d say that’s a good point.

    But would-be presidents have to get the message that nothing they say in front of a group of people is private.

    Patterico (83033d)

  21. Instead of being on the defensive, just go on offense and explain, without apology, the point he was trying to make, and let the MSM be sorry they asked the question.

    I think he did in this interview, no?

    I’d like to see him be more direct and forceful though.

    Patterico (83033d)

  22. Not only is Obama a redistributionist, Obamacare also cuts Medicare!

    Comment by beerandcoffee — 9/18/2012 @ 6:16 pm

    First honest thing you have said here.

    JD (e4479f)

  23. Florida farmhand arrested for sex with miniature donkey…

    “Carlos Romero, 31, was collared yesterday and charged with misdemeanor sexual activity with an animal.

    Investigators report that a witness last month spotted Romero, pictured in the mug shot at right, “up against the rear of the donkey” apparently having sex with the animal.

    When interviewed Friday by cops, Romero made a series of shocking admissions. Romero freely admitted to voting for Barack Obama a total of three times in 2008…”

    http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/miniature-donkey-sex-bust-576142

    Colonel Haiku (d5aaff)

  24. And who knows? Instead of being THE END OF HIS CAMPAIGN!!!!!1!!!1!!! . . . this could actually be a winning issue for him.

    If he had a little more confidence in himself it would definitely be a positive for him. Can anyone imagine Reagan being on the defensive over this? Probably he would have come up with a humorous line in his speeches that didn’t in any way back down from it but reinforced it, and maybe pointed out that it was a media made controversy to boot. He was the master of political jujitsu.

    Maybe someone here can put themselves in a Reaganesque mindset and think up something and send it to the Romney campaign. I know it’s hard to fill Ronaldus Maximus’ shoes.

    Gerald A (f26857)

  25. “If he had a little more confidence in himself it would definitely be a positive for him. Can anyone imagine Reagan being on the defensive over this? ”

    Reagan helped increase the number of people who don’t pay income tax.

    beerandcoffee (fce22b)

  26. Reagan helped increase the number of people who don’t pay income tax.

    I think he did but what’s your point?

    Gerald A (f26857)

  27. 23. Is that for real? I’m not going to sleep well.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  28. “I think he did but what’s your point?”

    That he wouldn’t be on the defensive over the number of people who don’t pay income tax!

    beerandcoffee (fce22b)

  29. State Senator Barack Hussein Obama said that he wanted to redistribute wealth, and now, as President, he has finally achieved that. One in seven people is on food stamps, the disability rolls are growing faster than the number of new jobs, and, in fact, the number of jobs per 100 people eligible to work was lower in August than during the worst of the recession.

    So, Hell yeah, he has redistributed wealth!

    The Dana who gives the President full credit (f68855)

  30. “I think he did but what’s your point?”

    That he wouldn’t be on the defensive over the number of people who don’t pay income tax!

    Comment by beerandcoffee — 9/18/2012 @ 6:44 pm

    Unless I’ve missed something Romney’s not on the defensive over the number of people who don’t pay income tax.

    Gerald A (f26857)

  31. When interviewed Friday by cops, Romero made a series of shocking admissions. Romero freely admitted to voting for Barack Obama a total of three times in 2008…”

    — What a coincidence! The last time I got drunk at a party I asked for a show of hands if they had voted for Obama . . .

    Then I told everyone who raised their hand that they were a bunch of donkey f***ers.

    Icy (84c440)

  32. Icy wins.

    JD (e4479f)

  33. I think he did in this interview, no?
    Yes, I was just cheering him on.

    Re #23, only the first part was documented, but it doesn’t say that he denied voting 3 times for Obama.

    He does say that he thinks Florida is “backwards” for not allowing his activity.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  34. Bass ackward?

    Gazzer (e76ff7)

  35. 21. I’d like to see him be more direct and forceful though.

    Comment by Patterico — 9/18/2012 @ 6:21 pm

    There’s no reason why he shouldn’t be more forceful. He’ll be tapping into the same energy that resulted in the anti-Obama rout of 2010.

    Besides, the whole premise that what Romney said amounts to some sort of gaffe is bizarre.

    I think Treacher at the Daily Trawler summed it up nicely in this post:

    The Democrats think Romney just self-destructed by pointing out, um, THEIR ENTIRE STRATEGY

    Has everybody already forgotten “Julia”?

    If you haven’t seen the whole “Life of Julia” slideshow on Obama’s campaign site, or if you need a refresher, check it out. The entire premise is that you’re dependent on the government from cradle to grave, and The Evil Mitt Romney is going to take it all away from you and make you fend for yourself.

    That’s Obama’s reelection message: “Vote for me or Romney will take away all the free goodies you’ve got coming to you! By the way, can you believe he called you a mooch?” The Democrats based their whole convention around the premise that you need Obama just to survive. (Well, that and killing Bin Laden. Which they suddenly don’t feel like talking about anymore, for some odd reason…)

    Steve57 (63f83b)

  36. “…[Romney] tarred everyone who doesn’t pay federal income tax as a victim looking for a handout, and fixed that percentage at 47%”

    LOL And you say you’re not funny.

    “…as you know, the important thing is to understand what you’re doing, rather than to get the right answer.” – Tom Lehrer

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

    DCSCA (9d1bb3)

  37. Why does The International Man of Parody keep referencing FIDO when we all know Obama ate Fido?

    JD (e4479f)

  38. “If you haven’t seen the whole “Life of Julia” slideshow on Obama’s campaign site, or if you need a refresher, check it out. The entire premise is that you’re dependent on the government from cradle to grave…”

    Some people sure are. Poor old Julia can’t even wipe her own arse, unless Barack is there to hold the roll for her.

    Dave Surls (46b08c)

  39. Since Romney was exactly correct in his statement, I really doubt it will make much difference in the election.

    If he loses, it will be trumpeted as the “turning point.” If he wins, “You didn’t build that” or the Mideast turmoil will be blamed.

    I could and probably will be wrong, but I’m betting the economy might actually swing the election one way or another, absent something catastrophic in the Mideast.

    Since the media and the left is trying really, really hard to ignore the economy and the Mideast, I expect something really, really bad to get their attention.

    Oh, wait, something really, really bad did happen in the Mideast and it’s already gone from coverage.

    The left thinks they reign over a nation of fools. They regularly post here for some reason.

    Ag80 (b2c81f)

  40. _____________________________________________

    and fixed that percentage at 47%.

    In broader terms — and regrettably (because the number is so high) — I think he’s referring mainly to people who are so innately leftwing that no matter how corrupt and dysfunctional a society or community becomes, they won’t change their way of thinking (and voting) one iota.

    There’s at least nearly a majority of such people in many of the states of America that are a blend of blue and red colors (purple?), an overwhelming majority of such people in urban America, an absurdly huge majority of such people in academia, Hollywood, the media, the black community and, somewhat less, the Latino demographic.

    Beyond that, this matter is to Romney what “bigger clingers” was to Obama in 2008.

    When I see the “empathy” card being bandied about by liberal observers in 2012, I remember that such people are the same ones who’ve given, and will continue to give, a million benefits of the doubt to far worse lapses from Obama than merely his take on “bitter” people.

    npr.org, Frank James:

    The emergence of video secretly recorded in May, in which Mitt Romney speaks scornfully of President Obama’s supporters, has sparked the inevitable comparisons to controversial comments President Obama made in 2008. It was then, as a candidate in the Democratic primaries who continued to do poorly against Hillary Clinton with many white, blue-collar Democrats, that Obama spoke of “bitter” Pennsylvanians who “cling to guns or religion” to explain his failure to attract more of those voters.

    [B]oth Obama and Romney were trying to explain to their well-heeled supporters why their campaign messages were failing to connect with certain voter groups. Beyond that, however, the comments are qualitatively different to a wide degree.

    It’s difficult to read or listen to, in an open-minded and objective way, Obama’s 2008 remarks without concluding that the then-senator from Illinois was demonstrating significant empathy toward the white, blue-collar, small-town and rural Pennsylvania voters of whom he spoke. He also appears to be holding out hope that he can find a way to persuade them that his approach would do more to improve their lives than Clinton’s.

    OBAMA: “But the truth is, is that our challenge is to get people persuaded that we can make progress when there’s not evidence of that in their daily lives.”

    By contrast, empathy isn’t exactly the word the mind summons up after reading or listening to Romney’s comments.

    ROMNEY: “And so my job is not to worry about those people. I’ll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives.”

    William Kristol, conservative influencer and editor of The Weekly Standard, insists that Obama’s and Romney’s private fundraiser utterances are morally equivalent:

    KRISTOL: “So we have in 2012 two presidential candidates who — when they thought they were speaking privately to their fellow 1 percenters — have shown contempt for fellow Americans.”

    Mark (94ed7f)

  41. Great comment, Steve, @ 35.

    Indeed the reason Romney’s comment has infuriated the left is because of the truth there. A truth that is so ugly most people avoid it.

    The democrats are promising dependency, and a lot of their supporters are taking it, and the lot of them are well aware that this costs money this country does not have. That makes them deeply unpatriotic and selfish. If Romney thinks it such people could never support him, then good for Romney. He obviously overstated the numbers of people who feel this way, but whoop dee doo.

    Dustin (73fead)

  42. Icy wins.
    Comment by JD — 9/18/2012 @ 7:06 pm

    — Yay, me! I’m the king of unremunerated comedy.

    Icy (84c440)

  43. We do not need an old quote from Obama to show that he wants to redistribute wealth. We only need to look at his deeds, such as his actual redistribution of wealth to banks, to energy companies, to pharmaceutical companies, etc.

    Michael Ejercito (2e0217)

  44. “America was built on the principle of government caring for those in need”?! Houston, we have a problem.

    Madison knew better: “I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.”

    Milhouse (15b6fd)

  45. As long as we’re going to see this video, when is the LA Times going to release the Obama/Rashid Khalidi video? Shouldn’t we know everything there is to know about both candidates?

    Bugg (6cf7f9)

  46. 43. We do not need an old quote from Obama to show that he wants to redistribute wealth. We only need to look at his deeds, such as his actual redistribution of wealth to banks, to energy companies, to pharmaceutical companies, etc.

    Comment by Michael Ejercito — 9/18/2012 @ 9:57 pm

    Of course, you’re right in that regard.

    But the purpose the old quotes serve is to highlight the fact that the press was a willing accomplice in what Clint Eastwood aptly called the greatest hoax ever perpetrated against the American people.

    When Obama said, “if you have a successful business, you didn’t build that,” the Obama campaign tried to claim conservatives were using that quote out of context. But as numerous people pointed out, the context made it worse. Not only was Obama running down the whole idea of individual achievement, he was telling public employees they had a right to vote themselves a larger share of all that wealth the private sector didn’t really earn on its own.

    Obama has been denigrating individual achievement since he first entered public life. He is a firm believer in the collective. If you achieved anything, you owe your success to the collective. And in that “you didn’t build it” speech he was telling those he thinks are primarily responsible for the success of the collective that they are entitled to demand their tribute if the private sector doesn’t willingly pay homage to government.

    I couldn’t find the exact quote I was looking for, but here’s a blog post from 2008 looking at the history of Obama lecturing people that their individual salvation depends upon collective salvation.

    To Obama the individual is nothing; the collective is everything. He’s been repeating the same warmed over communist claptrap for decades at every opportunity. And the press covered it up so he could run as a centrist.

    So you’re right, we don’t need these old quotes to prove what he is. Now. But they do help to show just how vile the propaganda arm of the media/Democratic complex has been. The same press that demands we know everything about Romney including alleged bullying incidents in high school 50 years ago has insisted we know nothing about Obama.

    And it was all there. All the time. We could have saved ourselves the bother of finding out who Obama was, because he’s the same pothead Che/Castro/Mao fan he was during his freshman year in college.

    Steve57 (c8ac21)

  47. Anyone got a gold-plated, jewel-encrusted fork to stick in this guy?

    P. Tillman (fcbc8b)

  48. “Since Romney was exactly correct in his statement, I really doubt it will make much difference in the election.”

    Yes, I think everyone should know that Romney was correct in saying that his job is not to worry about:

    Students
    Senior Citizens
    Soldiers and veterans
    Working people below the poverty line

    Who are among the “47%”.

    LOL….please, let Romney speak more often about his policies and beliefs.

    P. Tillman (fcbc8b)

  49. And of course the “conversation” will also allow everyone to realize the truth behind the myth of the “makers” in the top 1%…many are trust-fund babies and slackers who haven’t worked a day in their lives but DEMAND to be treated with the same respect that those of us who do deserve.

    Furthermore, they do not “create jobs” nor contribute to society in proportion to the benefits they drain.

    I like this line of inquiry…

    P. Tillman (fcbc8b)

  50. So, you are envious and jealous. Gotcha.

    JD (e4479f)

  51. ____________________________________________

    many are trust-fund babies and slackers who haven’t worked a day in their lives but DEMAND to be treated with the same respect that those of us who do deserve.

    It’s interesting to me how the wealth and built-in comfortability of such people, housed in the cushy comfort of a Manhattan, San Francisco or Malibu, can easily lead to the silly idealism and naivete of “limousine liberalism.” They’re sort of the Eva Perons of any society, weeping over the masses, then helping create a big socio-economic mess.

    But they always have the safety valve of being able to jet off to some wonderful retreat where they can rest their weary idealism and get away from the two-faced nature of their lives and politics.

    “Private schools for you, Malia and Sasha!!”

    Mark (94ed7f)

  52. DEMAND to be treated with the same respect that those of us who do deserve.

    Your envy and hatred is deserving of no respect.

    JD (e4479f)

  53. Yes, I think everyone should know that Romney was correct in saying that his job is not to worry about:

    Students
    Senior Citizens
    Soldiers and veterans
    Working people below the poverty line

    Soldiers in peacetime, and veterans, pay income tax. Why the weird talking point? The idea Romney was describing them as the moocher class who can’t be talked out of supporting Obama is ridiculous.

    And the president’s focus should not be on further supporting the poor. It should be on getting wasteful spending under control.

    The democrat cradle to grave dependency on government is something this country can’t afford. It is now exposed as rank vote buying, and Romney was right to call it out.

    Dustin (73fead)

  54. “Your envy and hatred is deserving of no respect.”

    Please…scorn is more like it. And not earning the respect of someone like you is a badge of honor, simp.

    P. Tillman (fcbc8b)

  55. Furthermore, they do not “create jobs” nor contribute to society in proportion to the benefits they drain.

    People who pay enormous and often punitive taxes are draining benefits?

    I think it’s the people who don’t pay a lot of taxes and are on disability or food stamps who are draining this country’s wealth.

    Dustin (73fead)

  56. I just noticed the troll stole the name of a killed in action soldier.

    Democrats can be really trashy sometimes.

    Dustin (73fead)

  57. “Soldiers in peacetime, and veterans, pay income tax. ”

    The point is that there are many soldiers, vets and students among the 47% Dustin…get it? Not that they are ALL in that group…of course.

    Take them out of the equation and the percentage drops way below 47%…..but that’s the number Willard used, so he obviously means to include them among those he disdains as “moochers”.

    The more he squirms, the deeper he sinks into the quicksand…with all of you helping I might add.

    P. Tillman (fcbc8b)

  58. Dustin – dishonest hate-filled trolls are just that. This one is quite noxious.

    JD (e4479f)

  59. The point is that there are many soldiers, vets and students among the 47% Dustin…get it?

    There are many soldiers in the 47%? How many?

    Students ARE moochers, largely, so why do you lump them in with soldiers and veterans? That is dishonest.

    Why do you troll from the name of a killed in action soldier? What’s wrong with you?

    Dustin (73fead)

  60. that’s the number Willard used, so he obviously means to include them among those he disdains as “moochers”.

    Actually, it’s obvious he was not referring to soldiers.

    He’s referring to the huge number of people on food stamps and disability under President Obama. It’s a sad record. The democrats explain this country of entitlement with their life of Julia story, where they envision everyone dependent on government from the day they are born until the day they die.

    That is not possible. We need business leaders to generate prosperity, and government to get out of the way of this prosperity. The only problem with this approach is that democrats can’t buy the votes of moochers… moochers who are never going to to support Romney, so as a candidate he would be a fool to compete for them.

    The democrat entitlement dream will fail regardless… it’s just a matter of math. With Romney I’m not convinced we will change things swiftly enough to stop major problems, but it is clearly the wiser direction for those who are not moochers.

    Moocher.

    Dustin (73fead)

  61. “Why do you troll from the name of a killed in action soldier?”

    It’s not “trolling” to confront irrational hatred, ignorance and delusion head on.

    Clearly, if you knew anything at all about the person I honor with the screen name other than that he served you wouldn’t be so clueless. But aggressive defense of ignorance is what Wingnuts do best, isn’t it?

    P. Tillman (fcbc8b)

  62. Assuming Tillman is not a multi-millionaire does it bother him at all when the Occupoopers do terrible things and chant “we are the 99 percent”? Because it sure does bother me when these idiots pretend they represent me and my interests (along with 99% of all other Americans) when they most certainly do not.

    elissa (f9a102)

  63. “Actually, it’s obvious he was not referring to soldiers.”

    Sure, everything’s “obvious” to those with a pre-existing bias to hearing things the way they want and not the way they were said..

    “Moocher.”

    LOL…you people can do nothing other than call names. What juvenile pathetic non-citizens you are.

    P. Tillman (fcbc8b)

  64. Absolutely noxious, this troll is. Full of hate. Full of discredited theories. Hatred of the American ideal.

    JD (e4479f)

  65. Tillman brings some very persuasive and reasoned arguments to this thread in order to influence thinking and change minds, doesn’t he?

    elissa (f9a102)

  66. “Because it sure does bother me when these idiots pretend they represent me and my interests ”

    Typical displaced aggression and false characterization, no doubt brought about by a steady (unhealthy) diet of Wingnut news.

    I’ve never heard a OWS protestor say they represent anyone’s interest.

    And of course you certainly represent their right to say whatever they want, right?

    P. Tillman (fcbc8b)

  67. “Absolutely noxious, this troll is. Full of hate. Full of discredited theories. Hatred of the American ideal.”

    Here we go….let the temper tantrums begin.

    P. Tillman (fcbc8b)

  68. LOL…you people can do nothing other than call names.

    You are what you are. Stealing the name someone venerated through their life of accomplishment and sacrifice in order to troll conservatives is indeed mooching. You have low character to do something like that. I’m not losing sleep over it, but it is remarkable how trashy democrats have been lately.

    That you behave that way undermines your ridiculous attempt to claim Romney doesn’t care about soldiers and veterans. You’re the one who doesn’t care and delights in trolling in such an obnoxious and hateful manner.

    I think the dems have played a bad hand. you clearly don’t see yourself as a moocher. No one who possibly could be brought to Romney’s side does. But we all know that this country is full of moochers. This is a healthy conversation to have. Do we really want a huge percentage of this country to be dependent? Do we really want this life of Julia?

    Dustin (73fead)

  69. “Absolutely noxious, this troll is. ”

    Thanks for the insight, Yoda. Now go back to your swamp on your home planet.

    P. Tillman (fcbc8b)

  70. Elissa – how very racist of you. The 99% era speak for the 99% except when they don’t.

    JD (e4479f)

  71. This troll just happened to stumble in here.

    JD (e4479f)

  72. Yeah, JD. Why do they take on that catchy 99% mantle unless they want the world to think they have both the hearts and minds and the collective power of the masses behind them –and that they represent all of us except the mega rich? Math is funny that way. Do you think Tillman may be a veteran of the failed and pooped out Occupooper Wars?

    elissa (f9a102)

  73. Sandra Fluke, Planned Parenthood, unions, occupiers, class warfare envious proponents like Tillman, green energy, etc …. Moochers

    JD (e4479f)

  74. PT – Are you in favor of Obama strengthening and extending the life of more government programs by ripping hundreds of billions of dollars out of them, the way he did with Medicare?

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  75. “…delights in trolling in such an obnoxious and hateful manner.”

    In contrast to Republican politicians and wingnuts like yourself who live their entire public lives in an obnoxious and hateful manner.

    You’re a discredit not only to America but the human race.

    P. Tillman (fcbc8b)

  76. PT – Are you in favor of Obama unconstitutionally waiving work requirements of welfare reform that was passed and proved to be a great success under Bill Clinton?

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  77. “by ripping hundreds of billions of dollars out of them, the way he did with Medicare?”

    Not only didn’t he do this already, as you imply, but this won’t occur under Obamacare once it kicks in.

    But of course that’s not what Sean Hannity told you is it?

    Gullible simps.

    P. Tillman (fcbc8b)

  78. Tillman is really getting its hatred on today. Let it out, small person.

    JD (e4479f)

  79. PT o Do you believe this is a good distraction from Obama’s failed foreign policy of appeasement?

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  80. Not only didn’t he do this already, as you imply

    He didn’t imply it. He straight up said it. And it is 100% accurate. Obama did strip hundreds of billions from Medicare.

    Unfortunately, he did that to fund a different entitlement structure. I’d just strip the funds out for the sake of saving money.

    It is very amusing to see this troll screech about Romney not caring enough about moochers while declaring Republicans subhuman. Make the other side live up to their own set of rules, ‘eh? Can’t stand a taste of your own medicine, ‘eh?

    After all this mooching, it’s no surprise you are horrified by Romney shining a spotlight on your selfishness.

    Dustin (73fead)

  81. “Not only didn’t he do this already, as you imply, but this won’t occur under Obamacare once it kicks in.”

    PT – That is exactly the effect Obama claimed of his actions during his speech at the DNC. Didn’t you watch?

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  82. We still have a problem with Romney claiming that “America was built on the principle of government caring for those in need”. No, Mr Romney, it was not.

    Milhouse (15b6fd)

  83. “PT o Do you believe this is a good distraction from Obama’s failed foreign policy of appeasement?”

    LOL…keep pushing the obvious lies wingnut. I think this little game of demanding that your easily-disproven lies receive as much or more attention than the truth is wearing out very very fast.

    But still not fast enough.

    P. Tillman (fcbc8b)

  84. “PT – That is exactly the effect Obama claimed of his actions during his speech at the DNC. Didn’t you watch?”

    Really? How about providing the text to back this up.

    P. Tillman (fcbc8b)

  85. PT – Have gasoline prices double under the regime of President Algae?

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  86. Really? How about providing the text to back this up.

    Obama admits it right here.

    “cuts in Medicare are being made to fund health insurance”

    This is one of those things where democrats just deny the truth over and over and call it a lie over and over, despite it being plainly accurate. I’m not sure how that works, but apparently that’s the best they’ve got.

    Dustin (73fead)

  87. “you clearly don’t see yourself as a moocher. No one who possibly could be brought to Romney’s side does. But we all know that this country is full of moochers. ”

    Of course not, that’s why the “Red” southern states that take in far more federal aid than they contribute are solid Romney supporters, right?

    Romney’s got plenty of “moochers” supporting his campaign. Difference being many of them are rich moochers, but not all. You see, a rich moocher has deluded themselves into thinking that only their own hard work and toil, and not the government-created social and physical infrastructure, has allowed their wealth. These rich whiners are among the planet’s most despicable people…and they’re solidly supporting their fellow Trust Fund Baby, Romney.

    P. Tillman (fcbc8b)

  88. “Really? How about providing the text to back this up.”

    PT – My bad, Clinton said it, not Obama.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  89. Furthermore, they do not “create jobs” nor contribute to society in proportion to the benefits they drain.
    — The 1% ‘drains’ benefits now, do they? Pray tell, how?

    LOL…you people can do nothing other than call names. What juvenile pathetic non-citizens you are.
    — See, in comedy we call that irony; calling us names AS he’s chastising us for being name-callers. Brilliant!

    I’ve never heard a OWS protestor say they represent anyone’s interest.
    — Slackers Unite!!!

    Icy (23c030)

  90. “Of course not, that’s why the “Red” southern states that take in far more federal aid than they contribute”

    PT – Why is that. Care to explain?

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  91. ==These rich whiners are among the planet’s most despicable people…and they’re solidly supporting their fellow Trust Fund Baby, Romney==

    Wow! When did Michael Moore, Bill Maher and David Letterman start supporting Mitt? This is news!!!

    elissa (f9a102)

  92. Of course not, that’s why the “Red” southern states that take in far more federal aid than they contribute

    Don’t want it, don’t need it. The dems want to create federal control and dependency. Cut it all off.

    Dustin (73fead)

  93. PT – Can you double my money on a used car?

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  94. Can you double my money on a used car?

    That is exactly who he sounds like.

    Nasty as always. Yet he comes here to condemn far milder comments. Absolutely zero self awareness.

    Dustin (73fead)

  95. ___________________________________________

    Wow! When did Michael Moore, Bill Maher and David Letterman start supporting Mitt?

    Yea, that’s news to me. LOL. I’d never think I’d see the day that latte liberals or champagne socialists would be struck by a bolt of common sense.

    Praise, Bejesus!

    Mark (94ed7f)

  96. “Tillman is really getting its hatred on today.”

    The left wing scum can hate ’til heir blue in the face for all I care, as long as I’m not forced to pay their bills.

    Dave Surls (46b08c)

  97. government-created social and physical infrastructure, has allowed their wealth.

    I love it when leftists accidentally blurt out their true feelings. Govt allows wealth.

    JD (e4479f)

  98. They lurves us! Bejing Protesters railing against Japan surround and damage U.S. Ambassador’s car. It’s almost like there’s a disturbance in the force of some kind.

    elissa (f9a102)

  99. “Now That’s More Like It, Mitt”

    He pretty much had it right the first time. About half the people in this country are getting some kind of transfer payment from the federal government, and a lot more than that are financially dependent on the federal government (federal employees, beneficiaries of corporate handouts, etc.).

    And, anyone who tries to cut them off isn’t likely to win elections, which is why, for all their blather, the Republicans never actually cut anyone off or put an end to government handout programs. They mostly just talk about doing so.

    Dave Surls (46b08c)

  100. “government-created social and physical infrastructure, has allowed their wealth.”

    JD – Without the government you would have nothing! And like it!

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  101. You’re a discredit not only to America but the human race.
    — Then again, irony can turn into bile very quickly.

    a rich moocher has deluded themselves into thinking that only their own hard work and toil, and not the government-created social and physical infrastructure, has allowed their wealth.
    — “From the Er-ie Ca-nal
    To the Gol-den Gate Bridge,
    This infrastructure was made for you and me!”

    Icy (23c030)

  102. “You see, a rich moocher has deluded themselves into thinking that only their own hard work and toil, and not the government-created social and physical infrastructure, has allowed their wealth.”

    LOL.

    That’s what the Democrats used to say to their slaves: if it wasn’t for us and the cotton plantation infrastructure we provide you with, you wouldn’t have anything!

    Some things never change.

    Dave Surls (46b08c)

  103. Charles Johnson of LittleGreenFootballs.com wrote a post suggesting that Obama favors “redistriubtion of government resources,” not “redistribution of wealth.”

    http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/40936_Obama_in_1998-_I_Actually_Believe_in_Redistribution_(Of_Government_Resources)

    In other words, the government is redistributing its own money—not redistributing money that belongs to taxpayers, because once the government taxes you, its no longer your money. So we can’t say the government is spending taxpayer money once it belongs to the US Treasury. Or something. Whatever. “Look, squirrel !”

    Elephant Stone (65d289)

  104. Mitt said something better. But it is not exactly what he said on that tape. But he’s trying to pretend they are the same. Because he can’t admit he got anything wrong. Because what kind of a president makes mistakes?

    I don’t think he lost the election. But he needs to become coherent and a little more honest. But I repeat myself.

    The Wall Street Journal wrote an even better thing Mitt Romney could have said (and that itself could be slightly improved).

    But it is not Mitt Romney.

    Sammy Finkelman (eb1481)

  105. 75. In contrast to Republican politicians and wingnuts like yourself who live their entire public lives in an obnoxious and hateful manner.

    You’re a discredit not only to America but the human race.

    Comment by P. Tillman — 9/19/2012 @ 9:01 am

    Romney gives billions of his own money to charity. He’ll buy and deliver Christmas gifts to families who can’t afford them. He’ll comfort a dying child.

    Republicans are hateful.

    President “I am my brother’s keeper” Obama let’s his own brother wallow in squalor in a Nairobi slum. His brother George has to call Conservative film maker and author Dinesh D’souza for money when his son falls ill because his own brother won’t contribute a dime of his own money to his own family.

    He’s a generous guy.

    Generous. With other people’s money.

    Meanwhile, conservatives are obnoxious and hateful because we won’t let parasites like Tillman steal our money and waste it.

    You’re a steaming pile of fail, troll. On this comment thread, as you are no doubt in life.

    Steve57 (63f83b)

  106. the “Red” southern states that take in far more federal aid than they contribute

    This is a common lefty claim, which falls apart on scrutiny. It’s based on the inane notion that any federal spending within the boundaries of a state is “aid” to that state. So if the army buys maple syrup made in Vermont, that’s “aid” to VT, which should for some reason be compared to the federal taxes paid by VT residents, and if the total spent on the syrup is more than the total taxes paid by VTers then VT is some sort of mendicant or aid recipient, and a leech on the other states, or some such thing. This is so silly a claim that to state it openly is to refute it.

    Milhouse (15b6fd)

  107. trust-fund babies and slackers who haven’t worked a day in their lives

    Examples, please. Romney earned every penny he’s got.

    Milhouse (15b6fd)

  108. ‘We still have a problem with Romney claiming that “America was built on the principle of government caring for those in need”.’

    Yeah, that’s total hogwash, especially if you’re talking about the federal government.

    No such thing as welfare back when it was first built, other than ordinary government corruption.

    Dave Surls (46b08c)

  109. P. Tillman,

    Dude, why do you need my money ?
    If you’re so smart and capable, and as a Republican I am inherently a dummy, then shouldn’t you be able to make it on your own without being subsidized by me ?

    Elephant Stone (65d289)

  110. “trust-fund babies and slackers who haven’t worked a day in their lives”

    Whatever. You can slack as much as you want…as long as you pay your own bills.

    Dave Surls (46b08c)

  111. About half the people in this country are getting some kind of transfer payment from the federal government, and a lot more than that are financially dependent on the federal government (federal employees, beneficiaries of corporate handouts, etc.).

    And, anyone who tries to cut them off isn’t likely to win elections,

    Exactly. Which is why the only real solution is to return to a principle that was obvious and universally accepted in the 19th century, that anyone who is a beneficiary of the public fisc should not be allowed to vote. No representation without taxation.

    Milhouse (15b6fd)

  112. “This is a common lefty claim, which falls apart on scrutiny. It’s based on the inane notion that any federal spending within the boundaries of a state is “aid” to that state.”
    So now you like big gub’mint?

    But still, a lefty claim, in the Economist?
    http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2011/08/americas-fiscal-union

    Reason is lefty?
    http://reason.com/archives/2011/07/14/the-redblue-paradox

    The 47 percent live in Red States!

    “But red-state lawmakers’ ability to bring home the bacon isn’t the main reason for the paradox. Red states, on average, are also lower-income states. Because of the progressive federal income tax, states with higher incomes pay vastly higher federal taxes. These payments are unlikely to be matched by federal spending directed back into those states.”

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-09-18/what-mitt-romney-doesn-t-get-about-responsibility.html
    “Let’s do away with the ridiculous myth that 47 percent of Americans are tax-evading moochers. Of the 46 percent of Americans who were expected to pay no federal income tax in 2011, more than 60 percent of them were working and contributing payroll taxes — which means they paid a higher effective tax rate on their income than Romney does — and an additional 20 percent were elderly. So more than 80 percent were either working or past retirement age.”

    It’s not Mitt’s job to worry about the Republican base.

    sleeeepy (b5f718)

  113. “But I repeat myself.”

    Sammy Finkelman – Constantly, but everybody has faults.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  114. sleeeepy – I want to hear more about your life as a self-loathing anti-Semitic coke whore to billionaires.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  115. “Dude, why do you need my money ?”

    Because he’s part of the class of worthless leftoid parasites, who would die like the miserable rats they are, if they didn’t have crap like food stamps, unemployment payments, NEA grants, and SSI to keep their parasitical asses fed.

    And, guys like him hate people with trust funds (unless they’re Kennedys), because he has to go crawling to the government for handouts, and they don’t.

    “LOL…you people can do nothing other than call names.”–some lefty welfare leech

    I can pay my own bills without any help from you or Obambi.

    Dave Surls (46b08c)

  116. When Johnny Cash covers your song, it’s not your song anymore. (Not mine, but I agree.)

    nk (875f57)

  117. The 47 percent live in Red States!

    I heart leftist tropes and canards.

    JD (318f81)

  118. I think sleeeepy was a coke whore for Arab billionaires.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  119. return to a principle that was obvious and universally accepted in the 19th century, that anyone who is a beneficiary of the public fisc should not be allowed to vote. No representation without taxation.
    Comment by Milhouse — 9/19/2012 @ 12:11 pm

    Hmmm, that’s an interesting thought.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  120. Tropes and Canards would be a great name for a band made up of Obamabot musicians. They could play at rallies and stuff up through Nov. 6.

    elissa (f9a102)

  121. “the “Red” southern states that take in far more federal aid than they contribute”

    Comment by Milhouse — 9/19/2012 @ 11:59 am

    This is a common lefty claim, which falls apart on scrutiny. It’s based on the inane notion that any federal spending within the boundaries of a state is “aid” to that state.

    I think it was Senator Ddaniel Patrick Moynihan (D-N.Y, 1976-2000) whio started it. New York State always came out the loser in such statistics. His argument was we started this, a lot of it came from New York and New York was helping other states and not getting things back itself, like aid to mass transit.

    Of course this counted as taxes that came from New York state all corprorate income taxes from corporations headquartered in New York. However it is also true that incomes (and the cost of living) was higher here.

    So if the army buys maple syrup made in Vermont, that’s “aid” to VT, which should for some reason be compared to the federal taxes paid by VT residents, and if the total spent on the syrup is more than the total taxes paid by VTers then VT is some sort of mendicant or aid recipient, and a leech on the other states, or some such thing. This is so silly a claim that to state it openly is to refute it.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  122. Tom Petty video with 2 Beatles, the guy from ELO and Mike Campbell. There’s some players!

    Birdbath (716828)

  123. “This is a common lefty claim, which falls apart on scrutiny. It’s based on the inane notion that any federal spending within the boundaries of a state is “aid” to that state.”

    So now you like big gub’mint?

    Um, huh? Did you mistake this blog for Nonsequiturs ‘R’ Us (“we may not make sense, but we do like pizza”)?

    But still, a lefty claim, in the Economist?

    Why not?

    Reason is lefty?

    Reason likes to take potshots at Republicans, and isn’t too fussy about fairness. Especially since Gillespie took over.

    Because of the progressive federal income tax, states with higher incomes pay vastly higher federal taxes. These payments are unlikely to be matched by federal spending directed back into those states

    So what? Why would you expect them to be? That is the very essence of this lefty sleight-of-hand. Repeating it as if it refutes my point simply shows us that you’re not very bright.

    Milhouse (15b6fd)

  124. “. It’s based on the inane notion that any federal spending within the boundaries of a state is “aid” to that state. So if the army buys maple syrup made in Vermont, that’s “aid” to VT, which should for some reason be compared to the federal taxes paid by VT residents, and if the total spent on the syrup is more than the total taxes paid by VTers then VT is some sort of mendicant or aid recipient, and a leech on the other states, or some such thing.”

    Aid is the wrong word, spending is better.

    beerandcoffee (15c8d4)

  125. Imdw – every time you and yours trot this nonsense out, it shows how unserious you are. And that you are brazen liars.

    JD (dbb735)

  126. Aid is the wrong word, spending is better.

    Why is it “better”? What point does it make? Why ought there to be any particular ratio between federal spending in any given state and federal revenues from that state?

    Milhouse (15b6fd)

  127. “Why is it “better”? What point does it make? ”

    Because it is more accurate. It’s not aid that we’re concerned with, it’s the economic impact of taking resources out of a state or putting resources in.

    Take the VT example. If VT pays into the fed government less than the feds buy in maple syrup from VT, they’re a net gainer of economic activity.

    BeerandCoffee (c770a7)

  128. Imdw/beerandcoffee – how many names are you up to now?

    JD (1b45d7)

  129. 130. “Why is it “better”? What point does it make? ”

    Because it is more accurate. It’s not aid that we’re concerned with, it’s the economic impact of taking resources out of a state or putting resources in.

    Take the VT example. If VT pays into the fed government less than the feds buy in maple syrup from VT, they’re a net gainer of economic activity.

    Comment by BeerandCoffee — 9/21/2012 @ 4:52 am

    See, I couldn’t write a description of the feds sucking resources out of the economy, money that would be far better spent if left in the hands of the citizenry than after the government away taxed it away, then laundered through the bloated federal bureaucracy before the government makes a purchase and write “net gainer of economic activity” with any degree of seriousness.

    Because the whole model is asinine.

    It’s how libtards think the economy works.

    Steve57 (c8ac21)

  130. Just because you dislike it doesn’t mean there aren’t net gainers and losers. Disliking facts doesn’t make them go away. Some states get more federal dollars than give. It’s just that simple.

    beerandcoffee (c770a7)

  131. So crackcocaineandcoffee, you think states that get more federal dollars than they contribute, are moochers.

    Would you say the same about people who take more federal dollars than they contribute to the federal treasury ? Or are those people the angels and saints among us ?

    Elephant Stone (65d289)

  132. These are the same folks that count all military spending towards these figures. So places like Texas and Georgia And the Carolina’s and FL fare less well than they would. Regardless it is fatuous nonsense, pushed by the likes of imdw, economically illiterate and in its case, vile and nasty to boot.

    JD (89e14d)

  133. “Would you say the same about people who take more federal dollars than they contribute to the federal treasury ? Or are those people the angels and saints among us ?”

    I would say if think so of one, then you have to think so of the other.

    “These are the same folks that count all military spending towards these figures. ”

    Yes because why wouldn’t military spending count? Try closing some bases and see how those locales react if you think the economics aren’t there.

    BeerandCoffee (77ac66)

  134. Good morning, imdw. How was your weekend? Why are you on your 57th name here after being banned repeatedly? When you tell your team of therapists about your actions, do they approve ?

    JD (89e14d)

  135. I have never understood serial trolls.

    Simon Jester (b525a0)

  136. That’s because you’re sane, Simon.

    nk (875f57)

  137. crackcocaineinyourcoffee,

    So you finally assert that all the people who are on welfare and food stamps are moochers ? Wow, Barack Stinko isn’t gonna like hearing that. Some of Richard Trumka’s boys are gonna come knockin’ at your door at 3 in the morning.

    Also, we’re glad to see you finally admit that you equate the Constitutionally-authorized military bases with routine government bureaucracy such as the Department of Energy. Ironically, you would never advocate for laying off workers in the Dept of Energy—but you think making huge cuts to the military is no big thang. Hey, isn’t that Barack Stinko’s point of view, too ?

    Elephant Stone (65d289)

  138. “So you finally assert that all the people who are on welfare and food stamps are moochers ?”

    You wouldn’t be asking this question if you just read what I wrote.

    “Also, we’re glad to see you finally admit that you equate the Constitutionally-authorized military bases with routine government bureaucracy such as the Department of Energy.”

    Why would your constitutional views on it change the economics?

    BeerandCoffee (77ac66)

  139. This is vintage imdw, by the way.

    JD (89e14d)

  140. BeerandCoffee, be afraid. Be very afraid. Soros does not like it when his minions fail. And you are failing.

    nk (875f57)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 2.7326 secs.