Start explaining liberty to people and what it means, and explain that they don't have to be in that 47%. There's no reason for them, for everybody, to essentially have given up on their future in this country. There's no reason for it. This is, to me, such an opportunity to espouse conservatism and to explain to people. Now that people are focused on this, now that people are paying attention to it, this is a golden opportunity, and we know Romney's got it in him because of what he said to these people.Whether Rush has that exactly right or not, Romney is being tested, and we will see if he can rise to the occasion. The media are showing what they can do, putting Romney on the defensive, using what they have to make us look at something negative about him even and especially when some truly newsworthy problem is plaguing Obama. I want to see what Romney can do, getting on top of this media beating (which is not going to end).
September 18, 2012
"This could be the opportunity for Romney and for that campaign to finally take the gloves off and take the fear off and just start explaining conservatism."
Said Rush Limbaugh on his show today.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
283 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 283 of 283He will run ads showing seniors and disabled veterans telling the camera that they are not moochers.
Which will go over as well as "I am not a witch." And "Not your father's Oldsmobile." Say whatever happened to that woman from Delaware? And whatever happened to Oldsmobile?
Yes, let's discuss moochers. That's goo over so well for Obama. I'm sure he's going to get right on using the word "moocher" several times in ads and in his speeches. It'll be his slogan: "We're not moochers. We're Democrats!"
What a silly, silly, overwrought person troll you are.
On the subject of taxable Social Security income, we seniors would like to know how many times the government needs to tax our income?
Wages were taxed at 12.4% when originally earned and non-tax deferred income (that subsequently became investments) were previously taxed at full income tax rates. When these investments are cashed, "slam, bam, thank you, M'am" - we get taxed all over again.
Seems to me that the government is the "taker" here, Ann.
the "Payroll Tax" isn't a tax, remember, it's premiums.
Andy's come a long way.
Shiloh is still stuck on stupid.
I'm not sure why anyone bothers to argue with Andy R.
Last week, he spent hours in various threads criticizing Romney because Romney had criticized Obama's statement "...the United States rejects efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others..."
And then in the very next thread, Andy R said: “Religious people don't get to do whatever they want, no matter how damaging or destructive it might be, and then say, "Magic sky fairy god told me it's ok!"."
So he’s denigrating religion (magic sky fairy god), after criticizing Romney’s statement that religions shouldn’t be protected from denigration by free men. That’s not just hypocrisy; it’s industrial-grade stupidity and cowardice.
Andy R has demonstrated that he’s here not to actually discuss issues in good faith; but to score points, to make himself feel smart, and to piss into the stream of discourse and foul the water for everyone downstream. He’s no better than “whoresoftheinternet” or J of “capeeshay perp” fame.
He is not worth your time.
Matt
I am unaware and frankly uninterested in whatever 'math' you believe Romney used.
Do you believe this 47% is made up solely of freeloaders?
Perhaps we do need a VAT to start spreading that ever increasing income tax burden a bit more equitably.
Freder: Actually the income tax burden is lower than it has been in many years.
...and yet for the one-percenters...
For households in the top one percent, income fell by 36 percent, reducing their share of before-tax income from 18.7 percent to 13.4 percent.
[..]
Declines in before-tax income among households in the top income percentile lowered their share of tax liabilities from 26.7 percent in 2007 to 22.3 percent in 2009.
What did Bubba say cons have trouble with?
Arithmetic!
@ Purple
I like the concept of a 'fair tax', however the idea is still only half baked.
It seems to be all about retail sales. What about businesses like ours where we are purchasing goods (pumps, well pipe, fittings, lumber, and various parts) and are not actually 'selling' them but installing as part of a permanent fixture or as a whole assemblage plus labor and warranty. Which parts are taxable? Any of it? All of it? None of it? How about a building contractor? Nails, screws, joist hangers, lumber, sheetrock. What a freaking nightmare to try to keep tabs of every itty bitty component.
While the idea has some merit. It just isn't all the way thought through.
The story here is that Romney pissed off a bunch of people who aren't going to vote for Romney, if they bother to vote at all.
The fact that our resident latte-drinking, Volvo-driving Occupy! leftists are up in arms is merely wasted rhetoric. Sorry, dudes, to piss on your deeply held beliefs that you should be a vanguard of free shit giving. And, of course, Alex, who persistently manages to have his panties in a wad.
Meanwhile, the economy is shit. Romney is going to win.
Althouse, time for another thread as your cons are totally exasperated "trying" to defend Willard.
Most of the 47% consider themselves the 53%. It is this little disconnect that the Dems should ponder. Pollsters for decades have marveled at how people of low incomes identify themselves with the middle class. Many of the 47% are there temporarily and would rather hang themselves than stay there. This is an issue on which no one will pass a pop quiz on in two weeks.
What did Bubba say cons have trouble with?
What did Bubba have trouble with?
Testifying under oath!
Definitely let Rush Limbaugh run the strategy for the GOP.
Another point to consider. we all say we want to be told the truth and treated like adults, but what's the big rap on Romney?
He hasn't got enough passion.
Or something.
He looks you in the eye and tells you what he's going to do and how he sees things, but some people want the dog-and-pony show Zero gave us (thinking of Shout, but there are others).
The guy who needs the dog-and-pony show is probably going to lie to you. some people want to be told only what they want to hear and we all bemoan the state of american politics.
Say what you will about the man, but he's giving to you straight from the shoulder.
The question is: Is that want you really want or is it just a different flavor of the dog-and-pony show?
shiloh said...
He is running a 'conservatives only' campaign.
According to 2004/2008 exit polls, cons comprised ((( 34% ))) of the electorate.
Willard's a frickin' genius!
Actually, it's 41%, genius, so he's closer to a majority than you and Zero with 21%.
And he;'s leading with independents by 10.
What did Bubba say cons have trouble with?
Arithmetic!
He should know. He couldn't tell a balanced budget from an unbalanced one.
[Andy was] criticizing Romney because Romney had criticized Obama's statement "...the United States rejects efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others..."
That's not why I was criticizing Romney.
" Many of the 47% are there temporarily and would rather hang themselves than stay there."
Copy that.
That's not why I was criticizing Romney.
AndyR please, I don't think he was done.
"And so Andy sez...and then I sez, but he sez, so I sez back at him, see..."
phx is in full passive-aggressive mode again. Good on you, dude. Don't let a psychological malady stop you from contributing.
I want to see what Romney can do, getting on top of this media beating.
I'm kind of not expecting him to do a triple Salchow jump with a toe loop. I thought calmly saying that his comment was 'inartful' was nicely unruffled though.
While the idea has some merit. It just isn't all the way thought through.
The very first question/answer in the FAQs addresses the concerns you raised, so maybe it is thought out a bit more than you think.
Services (not just parts) for personal use are also taxed. (In exchange, we get rid of "federal income taxes including personal, estate, gift, capital gains, alternative minimum, Social Security, Medicare, self-employment, and corporate taxes")
So if you're charging for every individual nail then every individual nail would be taxed, but if the parts are included with the total bill then the tax is simply added to that total bill.
Alex predicted: SM - you are delusional if you think that trashing the 47% is smart electoral politics.
Romney blasphemed the 47%? Will they fire ballots against him? Will Mother Jones take the blame? I'm sure they'll take the credit if Romney tanks--which he won't.
"However most Americans do hate and despise the lazy, leeches who are sucking the lifeblood from the country."
So, you agree with those who hate and despise the 1%?
Holy shit! Robert Cook!
How is the imprisoning of Obama and Bush going on account of those illegal wars going? Haven't heard in awhile. You got the indictment?
I thought you liked George Soros and William Buffett, Cook.
"Meanwhile, the economy is shit. Romney is going to win."
He may or may not. Whoever wins will result in no material change in our shit economy.
Everything is a lie, the "reality" we are presented via the media is a sham, and I fear we'll have a global economic and social collapse in the near future.
William Buffett = Warren Buffett.
Anybody who wants to see the Cavuto interview, it's here.
Everything is a lie
Alrighty then, Noam. Keep fighting. You'll get those war criminal presidents and dastardly profiteers like Proctor & Gamble. People will see you for the vanguard you are. The proletariat revolution is just around the corner.
7 Machos, it may take decades, or it may never happen. This does not lessen by one iota the fact of the crimes of the present and preceding administrations.
Your moral authority is certainly vast, Cook. What rectitude! How did you get such a high position?
And why won't the proletarians follow you? Can't they see that they have nothing to lose but their chains?
Doesn't the 47% simply mean the people who are going to vote for Obama no matter what, who see government as the source of sustenance--a position which is defined by the Fluke and Julia topics?
Which means that 47% are going to vote Democrat, because that's the governing approach they want. Romney will thus not be getting more than 53% of the vote total.
That seems pretty straightforward stuff, and I don't get why it's controversial when the whole Occupy, Teacher's Unions, birth control, etc. and so on were precisely about government paying for stuff.
Wasn't getting government to pay for all sorts of stuff the argument that Obama is trying to make?
Record number of people on food stamps.
Record number of people on SS disability.
Double digit real unemployment.
Gas at $4.00 and rising.
Food prices starting to soar.
GM keeping afloat with Gov't $$.
'Green industry' propped up with Gov't loan guarantees.
Romney is deluded...it's got to be more than 47%
Here’s Romney’s statement: [M]y job is not to worry about those people [the 47%]. I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives."
Here’s a stat you have to love when it comes to Romney’s statement:
Nine of the top 10 states with the lowest income tax liability are Republican-leaning states.
AL, FL GA, SC, LA, AR, MS, TX, ID,
Romney says it is not his job to worry about these people....
So he’s denigrating religion (magic sky fairy god), after criticizing Romney’s statement that religions shouldn’t be protected from denigration by free men. That’s not just hypocrisy; it’s industrial-grade stupidity and cowardice.
There's Andy for you.
Matt offered: Nine of the top 10 states with the lowest income tax liability are Republican-leaning states.
There is something interesting about your map: none of the individual states approach the 47% non-payer number which must be a national average. The percentages shown in each state must be a percent of that state's population. Explain using population weighting how those numbers are relevant to Romney's statement.
Drudge posted this video today wherein Prez Zero admitted that he favored wealth redistribution.
Charles Johnson got his panties in a bind because someone (1) posted the video on Youtube today (2) in time for Drudge to carry it (3) in order that Mitt could use it in his press conference.
Chucky's blog head read "Obama in 1998: 'I Actually Believe in Redistribution’ (Of Government Resources)." I guess economics and taxation are not the turnaround man's strong suits.
Nary a word about suspicious Mother Jones' actions though. So what's good for the goose in this case, turns out to be also good for the gander.
The very first question/answer in the FAQs addresses the concerns you raised, so maybe it is thought out a bit more than you think.
And so it is.
"The FairTax is a single-rate, federal retail sales tax collected only once, at the final point of purchase of new goods and services for personal consumption. Used items are not taxed. Business-to-business purchases for the production of goods and services are not taxed. A prebate makes the effective rate progressive."
Services (not just parts) for personal use are also taxed. (In exchange, we get rid of "federal income taxes including personal, estate, gift, capital gains, alternative minimum, Social Security, Medicare, self-employment, and corporate taxes")
So..if we install a pump system for a business or ranch, no one is taxed?
So if you're charging for every individual nail then every individual nail would be taxed, but if the parts are included with the total bill then the tax is simply added to that total bill.
I see a lot more bookkeeping and record keeping in this system for the small business owner who will need to prove that the items they purchased, untaxed, for business purposes actually went to business uses and not to the owner's personal use.
I also see a lot more opportunity for fudging the books and the sales in this method. But....any tax method will always present opportunities for the entrepreneurial mind, I suppose
Romney says it is not his job to worry about these people....
Por contrario, he said he doesn't have to worry about those people voting for him and this discussion is about him being slightly wrong about that because a portion of that 47% will vote for him for reasons he failed to recognize in that specific statement. La la la, you're freaking out.
Remember this from a previous thread?
shiloh said...
Since Althouse #1 trained seal, edutcher, harped in ...
Washington Post:
Virginia ~ Obama +8 52/44
i asked for the skew and the little animal ran and hid for 3 hours.
For those interested, skew is D +8.
Funny how that works out.
I don't know how this is going to play out. I haven't seen any media since last night's 6:00 pm news.
I don't see why people shouldn't feel like he's caught saying bad stuff about people (47% of those jerks are playing victim) behind their backs. It has the feel of him not being honest, or now he's being honest because he got busted. I can't see that as good for Romney.
chickelit
It's relevant because the assumption is that Democrats are the only ones that are getting gov't benefits. But in fact the numbers show that the percentage of filers with no liability are in conservative states. Romney is essentially knocking a good number of people from the states that like him.
For the sake of argument let’s say that ALL these people in the most conservative states are Democrats. Then one could say it would not matter because Romney will win those states. But then what does it say about the states he won't win? You can't say all those Democrats in the states he won’t win are also moochers as well because it would far exceed 47%.
The argument he made is simply pure red meat that he was pitching to rich donors.
Maybe this is his response to George Wills' "He doesn't know how to speak conservative."
You people need to stop committing the ecological fallacy.
Armstrong and Getty say Romney's secret comments ought to have been his convention speech.
The strawperson factory of the leftists trolling here is humming along nicely.
Go ahead and think smartly of yourselves.
A cocky foe is ill-prepared by definition.
In the meantime, singing the praises of the fruits of your party would be most enlightening.
Do indulge us with the greatness of today's democrat party, the fantastic accomplishments and future prospects.
Go ahead, popping my popcorn now.
Sell it. Make your best sales pitch. Slamming the competition isn't selling - see if you can sell today's dem party.
Make us wanna buy.
Romney just won Florida. Even if you don't currently but once did pay income tax you are not thrilled with the blood suckers who have never paid. Old people are old but not stupid. Only a dem would consider it an insult.
I don't know if this one issue won Florida, but it didn't hurt.
Once again, the video is a free campaign ad for Romney. I honestly believe that while still very influential, the media no longer has the controlling interest over the narrative. They are capable of providing a few points forcing their own spin contrasting the conventions, and that faded.
This will backfire. This election is a referendum on Obama, not Romney. If the Obama campaign were competent, they'd be imploring the media to emphasis ANYTHING but the contrast between increasingly strapped middle class taxpayers and the loads. The people getting help that want to work and seniors on SS do not consider themselves part of the load. They may vote for Obama for other reasons, but not this.
Armstrong and Getty say Romney's secret comments ought to have been his convention speech.
That's the thing I'm wondering, given they weren't part of his speech or his campaign patter, doesn't it seem like he's deceitful?
Your hat is too tight, Andy R.
No bllodflow to the brain.
Make us wanna buy.
But you don't want to buy. Nobody's trying to sell that to you. You're about as hardcore as they come on this site.
Re: DBQ:
I see a lot more bookkeeping and record keeping in this system for the small business owner who will need to prove that the items they purchased, untaxed, for business purposes actually went to business uses and not to the owner's personal use.
Maybe. Showing business vs. personal use is already a significant issue with business deductions for closely-held/family companies, though. I've seen criminal investigations that revolved around that question.
gadfly
The video that Drudge 'unearthed' is hilariously silly. Hahaha.
Come on. He is not saying anything radical at all. What Obama says in the video is that he supports exactly the kind of government America has had for about 80 years! In that 80 year period America has amazing economic growth. It's simply a leg up to help build the middle class.
Good piece from Professor Jacobson with which I concur heartily.
The money quote: Don’t be disheartened, be encouraged. The moment of weakness shown by some Republican commentators will pass.
Had dinner with NYT, NPR, PBS, and MSNBC representatives at a K-street lobby shop. The word is that the Press is ready to destroy Romney as that is the only way POTUS will be re-elected.
Me very happy, as the Member of the CORE (COmmittee to Re-Elect) the best and the greatest POTUS.
"Come on. He is not saying anything radical at all. What Obama says in the video is that he supports exactly the kind of government America has had for about 80 years! In that 80 year period America has amazing economic growth. It's simply a leg up to help build the middle class."
Except, of course, the "kind of government America has had for about 80 years!" is now bankrupt, adding $1 trillion per year to its debt under your affirmative action president.
That kind of wealth redistribution no longer works, is no longer sustainable and, if you were honest about it, isn't redistributing wealth from the presently wealthy to those who aspire to be middle-class at someone else's expense; it is redistributing wealth from future generations, of unknown wealth, to those are already middle-class but want more free shit they did not earn.
The mistake Romney made is that some of the 47% will vote for him. He could add to that number too: Say something like, "Look, nobody who relies on handouts is truly free", "I want to get our economy on track, so that everyone will have a plenty of opportunities to work hard and live a better life".
"Look, nobody who relies on handouts is truly free"
Do people not understand the difference between not paying taxes and not relying on handouts?
Something else to ruin the little animal's day.
Majority of CNBC commenters (75%) like what he said and 48% more likely to support him.
Too cute.
dbp said...
"The mistake Romney made is that some of the 47% will vote for him."
No. No mistake.
Here's the thing. If you *know* you are in the 47%, *believe* you are in the 47%, then no, you will not be voting for Romney. That was his point, and he's right.
We can parse the math (to mix a metaphor), but Romney's "47%" is much more about identity and mindset than it is about who actually collects transfer payments and who does not.
If you listen to the video, it is clear that who Romney is talking about are those who collect, who know they collect, who know they are dependent upon transfer payments alone.
This shouldn't cause him to lose votes from people who've led productive lives, have paid taxes, are concerned about the nation's ability to pay unfunded liabilities for Medicare and Social Security (and public employee pensions and high speed rail and "stimulus" pissed away on urban cities) who also now draw SS or Medicare.
Those people will not identify as part of Romney's "47%," even if, as a mathematical certainty they are part of it.
Althouse wrote:
That's my point. They're in the 47% and obviously not unreachable. Romney should therefore not have portrayed them that way. But Romney was talking to his donors, leveraging their distaste for the takers, which doesn't extend to these people.
The sticking point obviously is the 47% stat and the use of the word "All". All he has to say is a large chunk of the electorate who don't pay taxes view various programs as entitlements and so his arguments of lowering taxes to help the middle class will not traslate. But all he has to do is substitue the word All with the word MANY. ANd for those who don't make that much money but do believe in self reliance over govt intervention he can simply say "I was inartful. I obviously dind't mean you. I was referring obviously to those who will not listen to a rpublican and thus are unreachable when it comes to getting their vote."
Except that the brush he used was a BIT too broad his point is absolutely accurate.
Don't Tread 2012 wrote;
Romney has not alienated anyone that is already resolute about voting for him.
The 'independents' are greatly overstated. And, there is a *certain* amount of this 'magical' 47% that don't want to be there, but are there because of bad policy and general liberal stupidity and greed.
THe same 47% that will try to turn this into a "Romney hates the poor" are the same 47% that wouldn't vote for Romney anway and thuse are twisting the words to mean what they want it to mean.
A comment at Vodkapundit:
“We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work….After eight years of this administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started…and an enormous debt to boot!”
Henry Morgenthau Jr., Secretary of the Treasury, address before Congress, 1939.
The word is that the Press is ready to destroy Romney as that is the only way POTUS will be re-elected.
There's always the possibility that Romney will destroy Romney.
"possibility that Romney will destroy Romney."
Possibility?
Bigger possibility the Romster will destroy Choom.
Or, more likely, Choom will destroy Choom.
Althouse #1 trained seal is quite an original thinker ... for a seal!
A seal who keeps biting the little animal firmly in the ass until he runs away.
Seriously edutcher, are you still in grade school? Your imaginary "blonde" must be quite impressed w/your kindergarten vocabulary. Almost 64 year old shut-in, blabbering fool.
Apologies to blabbering fools ...
The media are showing what they can do, putting Romney on the defensive, using what they have to make us look at something negative about him even and especially when some truly newsworthy problem is plaguing Obama.
You mean some truly newsworthy problem like the Mormons baptizing Obama's mother?
It was "some truly newsworthy problem" when they did it to the Jews,...
shiloh said...
Seriously edutcher, are you still in grade school? Your imaginary "blonde" must be quite impressed w/your kindergarten vocabulary. Almost 64 year old shut-in, blabbering fool.
I take it I've reduced him to a frustrated, impotent husk. That's what happens when one loses every round; they get awfully vile and start name-calling.
But then I'm only using the little animal's phraseology, stunted as it is.
I don't ever recall using lol, except with a /sarc tag implicit.
(implicit, that means unspoken, little buddy)
That goes for smileys, as well.
And I don't recall using shopworn taglines from failed Presidential candidates.
In fact, I don't recall the little animal ever writing in anything but simple (and I do mean simple) sentences; more often unsupported clauses intended as a poor simulacrum for wit.
He might try reading some of my stuff. It goes on for several paragraphs in some cases. He may even learn to adequately express himself.
And keep guessing, sweetie. You may figure out my age some time, but I warn you, it's got to take more appendages than you have.
Continuing incoherent, childish blabbering side, when you're in a hole, stop digging ...
or not!
In other words, no real rebuttal.
Still.
No sense of humor, either.
I notice I had to find the skew in the WaPo poll for myself. He felt obliged to run and hide for 3 hours because it would shoot down his big FUD post.
Careful, your sockpuppetry is showing.
There's never anything to rebut notwithstanding, edutcher, anyone who wastes time replying to you definitely has a sense of humor!
And not to worry, by Althouse popular demand, I'll be here the day after the election. hmm, maybe a couple days before too!
Pleasant dreams 64 y.o. Althouse doting boy toy ...
Wow. The fact that one of the two major candidates for president has contempt for half the country, and views them as inferior, is not "newsworthy", so sayeth Ann Althouse.
Wow.
Oh yeah, I forgot. Some loudmouths went to the streets across the Middle East to demonstrate over a perceived insult. Yes, very newsworthy, that. Never happens. It's like Haley's Comet.
The fact that one of the two major candidates for president has contempt for half the country, and views them as inferior
That's how you interpreted it? Contempt? Inferior?
Find someone who gives a shit about you to explain. In small words.
Yep. There's that contempt that you fail to identify in either yourself or Romney.
No. I won't explain it to you.
What a fragile little boy you must be to parade around that sense of false superiority. And yet, you can't even realize it.
Unhinged.
and especially when some truly newsworthy problem is plaguing Obama.
Romney's PR problem? It's Obama's fault.
Sorry, shithead. You don't get to define what Romney feels when we can discern for ourselves that there's no hint of your deluded interpretation in that video. There are plenty of people who would swallow your spin, but neither they nor you matter.
In addition, you haven't demonstrated owning enough logic to interpret the most common events, much less what if any lasting impact that video will have.
DBQ,
For a financial advisor, you seem surprisingly worried--not that I expect you to know the particulars of what ever manufacturer or retailer goes through, but are you really unaware that all those details are well-characterized?
shiloh said...
There's never anything to rebut notwithstanding, edutcher, anyone who wastes time replying to you definitely has a sense of humor!
There's plenty to rebut if the little animal had a case.
He doesn't, so he runs and hides until he thinks it's safe to come out.
All he has, however, is a few tired non sequiturs and a lot of boilerplate somebody else wrote for him.
Pleasant dreams 64 y.o. Althouse doting boy toy ...
Seems like I've struck a nerve or two.
Jealousy is such a wasted emotion.
Wow. The fact that one of the two major candidates for president has contempt for half the country, and views them as inferior, is not "newsworthy", so sayeth Ann Althouse.
Yes, let us say we will sell out our children's and grandchildren's future productivity to be "nice."
Post a Comment