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:
1 – 200 of 283 Newer› Newest»We don't have to settle: We don't have to settle for high gas prices, becoming energy independent brings jobs. We don't have to settle for having Al Qaeda flying its flag over our embassies or or ambassadors murdered.
This could work, put the laundry list out there.
Obama and the media have already thrown the kitchen sink at Romney & Ryan and they are handling it well. Perhaps not perfectly, but the fact is the incumbent president continues to poll UNDER 50% which is a sure sign he is going to lose.
The economy sucks, its worse than four years ago for most people and that will drive the election even if they say Romney is a cross dresser.
Remember the CHIC-FIL-A turnout? WE ARE COMING!
We don't have to settle for finding out what really happened in Libya from the English papers.
We can do better.
Curious, since Romney made a clear call for Mother Jones to release the whole tape, I haven't heard anything about that from the media. Are they pursuing it?
Or will this be one of those rare times when they think voters are served by less context?
I agree. Romney should completely own these statements. He should take the time to discuss the issues behind them coherently. It would be a huge mistake for him to try to downplay them or try to make an excuse for them.
Except Romney isn't a conservative.
Uttering the words "becoming energy independent" means you don't know what the word fungible means.
Via Vodkapundit, by all means, let Romney explain his comment:
Since Obama has taken office ….
[through Q2 2012 for comparative purposes]
–> For every $1 added to the economy, we’ve added more than $3 in debt
–> added $5.23 trillion in debt vs. $1.68 trillion to the economy
–> 50% increase in debt vs. 12% increase in economic output
Total Public Debt:
$10,626T [Jan 20, 2009]
$15,856T [Jun 30, 2012]
–> $5.23 trillion increase in debt
[source: Treasury Dept]
Curious, since Romney made a clear call for Mother Jones to release the whole tape, I haven't heard anything about that from the media. Are they pursuing it?
What are you talking about? The whole video has been released.
I know what the word "fungible" means.
But do enough voters know?
I would say Obama didn't have that great of a week, myself. Let us count the ways:
1) QE3
2) Libyan embassy overrun, ambassador killed and dragged through streets - no USMC guards, documents lost, advance warning claimed by Libyans
3) Other embassies attacked - Cairo, Tunisia, etc.
4) Maker of bad film about Mohammed taken downtown to talk to Feds in the middle of the night.
5) Employment figures worse than expected.
6) Worst single day loss of US combat aircraft since Vietnam War.
7) Chicago teacher's strike.
Now, if you feel that all of this was good for Obama's chances, please tell me which of them you would like to see more of in the days ahead:
1) Even MORE quantitative easing? We are already in uncharted waters.
2) More embassies overrun? How many is optimal for Obama's re-election campaign?
3) More optics suggesting the administration is more worried about Islamic appeasement than the 1st Amendment?
4) Even worse unemployment numbers for September? The higher the better for O?
5) More and greater combat losses in Afghanistan?
6) How about have that teacher strike run right through the election? Is that good for Obama?
To my mind, the ONLY thing Obama has going for him this week is no matter WHAT happens in the world, the press will find a way to use it to criticize Mitt Romney. The level of their support goes even beyond what Pravda did for the Soviet leaders. This is the game we are in.
The humorous thing has been seeing people on Facebook who carp everyday about how the government should be providing more, taking offense at the 47% statement.
Face it, Romney only wants the conservative vote. He is running a 'conservatives only' campaign. He doesn't care to reach out to this so called 47% which is made up of students, elderly, disabled and unemployed but apparently no conservatives. What will Romney do for you? Absolutely nothing. But he wants your vote so he can make sure he does nothing for you.
That's a winning strategy? Not for president of the United States it's not. Maybe president of the Ayn Rand society.
It may be time for us to beat the media.
Well, as Tank said, the problem is that Romney isn't a conservative.
This is a very good test for Romney, would you call it a reverse Sister Souljah Moment?
Start explaining liberty to people and what it means, and explain that they don't have to be in that 47%.
Apparently, Rush, Romney, and Althouse all don't understand what they are talking about.
How are retirees who are living on social security supposed to start paying taxes? Should they all go get jobs so that they have taxable income? What about everyone in college or law school or medical job? Should people in law school go get a side job on nights and weekends so they have some taxable income?
GO FOR BROKE!!
http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/go+for+broke
This is all getting hilarious.
Romney is, precisely as Tank said earlier, a RINO. He's a big government RINO.
I think Tank is also correct that the stammering and stuttering is the result of Romney trying to express a conservative viewpoint that he doesn't fully embrace.
He was governor of MA.
Have to agree with Shantastik, Romney has't recanted anything he said in any of his "gaffes" (actually, excellent statements of analysis and principle) and that's the test.
A lot of Conservatives want him to go all Michael Savage and that's not going to work. Stand by what you say (above all) and use the attention to focus on the issues, but do it with some class.
Or is Ann readying us for a "How Romney Lost Me" based on how he didn't do it El Rushbo's way? One gets the feeling she's going wobbly and about to do the battered woman/Hillary thing.
If Mitt took 5 minutes to cogently explain Conservatism, and to differentiate it from the abject failure of the policies of the last 3+ years, the media would surely find it to be the gaffe of the century and play it non-stop from now until election day.
What's he going to do for the 47%? Reform Medicare.
He's talking to the kids who want to get a job so they can move out of their parents' basements.
The humorous thing has been seeing people on Facebook who carp everyday about how the government should be providing more, taking offense at the 47% statement.
I think the term is cognitive dissonance.
Actually if he would speak a little more like that in public, that is, bluntly, I would feel more comfortable with him. One reason why I got out of sales, I was always trying to say things in a diplomatic way, so that I wouldn't offend people by telling them exactly how they had made poor choices that had gotten them in the mess they were in. Romney always looks like he is trying to close a sale by saying something that won't offend, rather than saying what needs to be said. One reason I was lauded as a leader in teh military was because I came right out and said what needed to be said (to my superiors at higher headquarters; let's face it American voters are the Predident's higher HQ), sensibilities be darned, and I got the job done
How are retirees who are living on social security supposed to start paying taxes? Should they all go get jobs so that they have taxable income?
I'm going to be working, paying taxes and collecting SS soon.
My mother worked as an LPN and collected SS until she was 83.
When I look at my elderly friends, I conclude that ceasing to work and retiring is mostly a one way ticket to Alzheimer's and the grave.
Being on the dole as a senior is something best avoided, Andy. Dependency sucks at any age.
So Rush and Ann want Romney to pretend he's a conservative and explain the principals he does not really believe in?
That's sure to work out well. Oh yeah, he'll really come across as genuine then.
Oy.
AndyR said (@9/18/12 2:17 PM)
"How are retirees who are living on social security supposed to start paying taxes? Should they all go get jobs so that they have taxable income? What about everyone in college or law school or medical job? Should people in law school go get a side job on nights and weekends so they have some taxable income?"
We could start small. Sandra Fluke could buy her own contraceptives. And college grads could start paying back their student loans.
Etc.
What are you talking about? The whole video has been released.
Ah... I thought it was coming out in bits.
I read that Jimmy Carter's grandson is behind this? That can't be true, right?
If you're going to law school now, you're an idiot.
Why should I be on the hook for the debt they willingly took on?
Shouting Thomas said...
This is all getting hilarious.
Romney is, precisely as Tank said earlier, a RINO. He's a big government RINO.
I think Tank is also correct that the stammering and stuttering is the result of Romney trying to express a conservative viewpoint that he doesn't fully embrace.
He was governor of MA.
Think you just shot yourself.
MA was his home state for his adult life and, yeah, he had to deal with the most Leftist state legislature this side of the Politburo, so he wasn't going to be governing like Sarah Palin and get anything done. Yeah, he had to compromise.
I have a feeling that a lot of people who give Ann the business for not wanting to admit she made a mistake 4 years ago, don't want to admit Coulter may be right and his sensibilities may be more Conservative than they want to admit.
Because, like Ann, they don't want to admit they were wrong.
I agree that since Romney's not conservative, he's not really up to the task of articulating this. I still have no idea why he wants to be President.
The election is what, seven weeks out? In politics that's a lifetime. Obama is just softening Romney up -- the real dirt is coming out in October. Just wait for it.
CJinPA.......you see what is going on. Romney is being taped 100% of the time. While running for President, you talk nonstop for several hours a day. The Obama spies have released...what.....25 seconds over two segments, as a "gotcha" moment. I would like to see his entire talk.
That's a winning strategy? Not for president of the United States it's not. Maybe president of the Ayn Rand society.
That's pretty funny.
Signed,
A. Victim
The only people who have been able to get on top of the left wing media beating are Donald Trump and Newt Gingrich. Everyone else can't or won't think on their feet well enough. Part of that problem is listening to a leftwing narrative about being fair and gullibly assuming they really mean it. When they don't.
The leftist commentariat here knows that conservatism doesn't win elections. Except in 1980, 1984, 1988, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2002, 2004, and 2010.
Except those strange blips in recent electoral history.
Apparently, Rush, Romney, and Althouse all don't understand what they are talking about.
I would like Obama or someone to explain how relying on 50% of income earners to cover the Federal income tax for the other 50% is sustainable.
Perhaps we do need a VAT to start spreading that ever increasing income tax burden a bit more equitably.
Andy R. said...
Curious, since Romney made a clear call for Mother Jones to release the whole tape, I haven't heard anything about that from the media. Are they pursuing it?
What are you talking about? The whole video has been released.
According to Ann, David Corn is releasing it piecemeal.
If you know different, how 'bout a link, sweet cheeks?
I think Rush has a point. I have my doubts whether or not Romney can rise to the occasion.
Sadly, Paul Ryan, I think is up for it, but he's just the VP nominee.
I thought Romney made it clear in his press conference that he did want to help these people, which is why his polciies are going market centered towards creating 12 million new jobs. Paul Ryan also did a nice job of addressing the issue today.
I love Rush, but a lot of the conservative commentators do not listen to what Romney is actually saying. Instead, they listen to what the media says Romney is saying. Since the media is not for Romney, they don't repeat the things that Romney says that conservatives like. Then you hear the conservative commentators grumble about how Romney isn't saying enough things that they like.
I have listen to the news on the radio all day long and they cut out all the good things that Romney said in his press conference - things conservatives would like. That is why it is so frustrating.
Now maybe this is a good thing that commentators listen to the media. Becasue the average person hears the media too. But the problem is the media filter and not necessarily what Romney is saying or isn't saying.
Listen, I'm not saying Romney isn't preferable to Obama.
He is.
But, he's not a conservative.
He is a businessman who knows how to meet a payroll. That's what I like about him.
Romney is going to be a great president.
I didn't say Rush is right, and obviously lots of old people are collecting govt benefits. And that's another reason why Romney's statement about the 47% is bad. He does well with those older voters, even though they are takers.
(It's also bad because he assumes the people in the 47% can't receive the arguments about how it's in their interest to do things his way. At least Obama, when he talked about the bitter clingers, was working on how to appeal to these people, how to craft his message.)
At this point I don't care if Romney is a RINO (and neither do the independent, swing voting, fence sitters). The statements in question are conservative statements, not "RINO" statements. Romney needs to address them, not make excuses for them. If conservatism has to be "excused" rather than discussed, we've already lost.
mccullough said (@9/18/12 2:24 PM)
"I agree that since Romney's not conservative, he's not really up to the task of articulating this. I still have no idea why he wants to be President"
Crack Emcee has the answer to your question.
Crack, want to have a go?
campy said...
Except Romney isn't a conservative.
Sure he is. Just not your type of conservative? I'm fiscally conservative in my government views and accept Romney along those lines. So I don't really know what you mean there.
I think Rush has a point. I have my doubts whether or not Romney can rise to the occasion.
Again, if you listen to Romney's actual comments and speeches he talks a lot about reducing government spending, about the debt about reducing dependency. None of these things are reported by the media. That is why people like Rush say Romney is not saying these things, because Rush gets his news also from the media.
The figure gonig around about 4 years ago is that 47% of wage earners pay no income tax.
Andy R.,
All those retirees and students all know they've worked for the takers or will be soon enough.
You need to think more about the people you supposedly care about.
Ann Althouse said...
I didn't say Rush is right, and obviously lots of old people are collecting govt benefits. And that's another reason why Romney's statement about the 47% is bad. He does well with those older voters, even though they are takers.
Old people don't consider SS taking. They consider it getting their investment back [they're wrong, but whatever]. Medicare? Don't know how they rationalize that, except, "Don't touch my Medicare." Luckily, the youngsters are too stupid to figure out how they are getting ripped off, otherwise they'd go all Muslim on us.
Retirees don't just define themselves by being retired.
Students don't just define themselves as students.
MattRomney only wants the conservative vote. He is running a 'conservatives only' campaign. He doesn't care to reach out to this so called 47% which is made up of students, elderly, disabled and unemployed but apparently no conservatives. What will Romney do for you? Absolutely nothing. But he wants your vote so he can make sure he does nothing for you.
Matt, I would say Romney does have a valid track record. One of helping people and business. The Romney way will make the nation stronger and more self reliant. The Obama way will make a welfare state. Not everyone on welfare wants to be there. Not every able bodied person on welfare has lost their self respect completely yer and still can see some hope for change in the future.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/09/watch-full-secret-video-private-romney-fundraiser
I love the idea that the conservatives can maintain some conspiracy theory about how the liberal media is releasing only edited misleading portions of the video after the whole thing was released.
Romney came out and actually called on the Fed NOT to print money, and stated that he would fire Bernanke. Where has that been reported. Why aren't any of the conservative commentators talking about that. How much more conservative and opposite of Obama do you want Romney to be?
Again, conservative commentators are not reporting it because they are lazy. They rely on the big media too for their news.
All of this is a tempest in a teapot. People will vote for or against the incumbent, as they always do in elections where an incumbent is running. And they will vote based on the economy. And the economy sucks.
Romney is going to win.
I can see that this one is going to go over 200 comments.
edutcher and Chuck66,
I think they released the whole vid this afternoon.
Not that the media prodded them to.
Rush is Right
Oddly, on FB, I'm having a discussion about rent control in NYC, and its effects on the rental market.
The NYC rental market is hopelessly distorted by generations of addiction to rent control. How do you undo that?
I think this is more of the problem that Romney faces in making Limbaugh's argument.
The entitlement system has been entrenched for decades, and the assumption has been that it will always grow. Now that it's dragging us toward bankruptcy, something's gotta change, but we're all addicted to the distortion the entitlement system created.
It's a self-perpetuating loop.
Romney is going to win.
I hope you're right.
If you are, then we are witnessing a meltdown of the press of unprecedented proportions.
They will have lost all credibility.
It doesn't matter whether the whole video was released or not. You can put your mind at ease, Andy, and stop clamoring about it. Probably you should clamor about gay people, and how you believe that everybody hates gay people, as that is the focal point of your identity.
Also, how is that Occupy! camping going? Still out there, dude?
I love the idea that the conservatives can maintain some conspiracy theory about how the liberal media is releasing only edited misleading portions of the video after the whole thing was released.
Yes. That was it. A conspiracy theory. That, or I haven't read Mother Jones since I was 19 and hadn't heard of the release.
In other words, as we wind down toward bankruptcy, all the entitlement holders are looking at each other and saying...
You be the first to give up your free stuff!
Andy reads every word of Mother Jones during his breaks while he is Occupying!
You may rest assured that he will keep us updated. Also, he is gay and he is certain that you care and that you hate him for it.
Romney only wants the conservative vote. He is running a 'conservatives only' campaign. He doesn't care to reach out to this so called 47% which is made up of students, elderly, disabled and unemployed but apparently no conservatives. What will Romney do for you? Absolutely nothing. But he wants your vote so he can make sure he does nothing for you.
Funny, I recall the NY Times reporting last year that Obama had given up going after the white working class vote.
The silence that followed was deafening.
Romney only wants the conservative vote.
This would only work in 1980, 1984, 1988, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2002, 2004, and 2010.
Never in 2012. Not with this roaring economy, baby.
I want to see what Romney can do, getting on top of this media beating...
As I was reading that I had a flash of Boris Yeltsin climbing on top of a tank while Gorbachev was "incommunicado" reading pieces of paper that were handed for him to read.
Will the real Romney please stand up.
Old people don't consider SS taking. They consider it getting their investment back [they're wrong, but whatever]. Medicare? Don't know how they rationalize that, except, "Don't touch my Medicare."
They paid taxes their whole lives. That's how they rationalize it. Romney's comment does not irk them in the least. They get it.
All of this is a tempest in a teapot. People will vote for or against the incumbent, as they always do in elections where an incumbent is running. And they will vote based on the economy. And the economy sucks.
This is correct. IN fact this issue with Romney's comments only serves to remind people how bad the economy and dependecy on the government is.
Democrats would have been better off with a controversial statement about contraception - anything to distract from Obama's dismal failure with the economy.
There is a BIG difference between winning the House and Senate and winning a general election for President. Big difference. The primary one is that as a House member - so long as you are ensconced in a conservative or liberal area - you can completely go off to the right or left and still win. But a general election you cannot.
Even Bush played soft compassionate conservative well - and he signed bills like the Medicare prescription bill. And Reagan - while touted as a major conservative - actually came across as fairly moderate.
Romney MAY be saying what needs to be said [if you are a conservative] but a national election does not work if you go hard to the right or the left. You have to play the middle. Obama and the media will make sure Romney is seen as a right wing conservative. If Romney wants to play into that game then that's fine. But he won't win by doing it.
Let's see what he says in the debates. I'm guessing he will walk back his views on this.
-- He does well with those older voters, even though they are takers.----
A lot of those older voters know things need to change for their grandkids.
Will the real Romney please stand up.
You can't expect such an event to be reported by our mainstream press.
You be the first to give up your free stuff!
This.
(It's also bad because he assumes the people in the 47% can't receive the arguments about how it's in their interest to do things his way. At least Obama, when he talked about the bitter clingers, was working on how to appeal to these people, how to craft his message.)
Couldn't that be because Romney was not asked how to appeal to such people? We haven't heard the question.
Via Powerline:
Harvard University’s graduates are earning less than those from the South Dakota School of Mines & Technology after a decade-long commodity bull market created shortages of workers as well as minerals.
Those leaving the college of 2,300 students this year got paid a median salary of $56,700, according to PayScale Inc., which tracks employee compensation data from surveys. At Harvard, where tuition fees are almost four times higher, they got $54,100. Those scheduled to leave the campus in Rapid City, S.D., in May are already getting offers, at a time when about one in 10 recent U.S. college graduates is out of work
"Ann Althouse said...
I didn't say Rush is right, and obviously lots of old people are collecting govt benefits. And that's another reason why Romney's statement about the 47% is bad. He does well with those older voters, even though they are takers."
After a lifetime of working, and bring forced to pay into SS and Medicare, receiving the benefits at retirement does not make one a "taker."
Perhaps we do need a VAT to start spreading that ever increasing income tax burden a bit more equitably.
Taxing consumption makes a lot more sense than taxing income, but I favor this FairTax plan a bit more than just adding a VAT to the mix.
Even Bush played soft compassionate conservative well - and he signed bills like the Medicare prescription bill. And Reagan - while touted as a major conservative - actually came across as fairly moderate.
Right, dude. Sure. I'm sure you were right there in 1980-88 and 2000-08 touting the "moderate" bona fides of Reagan and Bush. I remember all the leftists and the mainstream press talking up the moderate politics of Reagan and Bush.
Gosh, dude. Those were the days.
Tool.
Let's see what he says in the debates. I'm guessing he will walk back his views on this.
For God's sake, I'm hoping he'll simply talk like a human being. His presentation really sucks.
Reagan - while touted as a major conservative - actually came across as fairly moderate
Not quite. He's portrayed as "moderate" today, by those who believe the modern GOP is extreme. But then? Liberals and the media loathed him for eight years.
Curious George notes: After a lifetime of working, and bring forced to pay into SS and Medicare, receiving the benefits at retirement does not make one a 'taker.'
Voters are also smart enough to distinguish FICA taxes from Federal Income taxes.
Perhaps we do need a VAT to start spreading that ever increasing income tax burden a bit more equitably.
Actually the income tax burden is lower than it has been in many years.
Romney MAY be saying what needs to be said [if you are a conservative] but a national election does not work if you go hard to the right or the left.
I agree with this. The waning months of a campaign is not the time to introduce such concepts as the 47% to voters. It may not pay off with this election, but it will in the long run. Those stats are not good for the Left.
CJ -- Matt is 12.
Apparently some people on our side want Romney to get a transfusion of this.
He does well with those older voters, even though they are takers.
Are you seriously calling retired people "takers"?
Actually the income tax burden is lower than it has been in many years.
Speak for yourself. I always chuckle at the people who wish to go back to 1950's tax rates when there was no 47%
Limbaugh is right about how Romney should close the loop on his argument.
"Old people don't consider SS taking. They consider it getting their investment back [they're wrong, but whatever]. Medicare? Don't know how they rationalize that, except, "Don't touch my Medicare.""
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.
It's become clear to me after reading several months' worth of Andy's comments that nobody hates Andy for being gay more than Andy.
Surely I'm not the only one that's noticed that?
Are you seriously calling retired people "takers"?
Sacre bleu!
According to Penguin's theory, old people are now entitled to kill the person who said this.
Medicare? Don't know how they rationalize that, except, "Don't touch my Medicare."
You do realize that Medicare has its own dedicated tax just like SS. Look at your paycheck some time.
The most delicious part of this mess that Romney found himself in is that he is there because of all the shrill crazy unhinged conservatives, like many of the people that comment here.
You turned your party over to Malkin and Hannity and Rush and Coulter and it required Romney to dabble in the feverswamps in order for him to be taken seriously. His plan was to try to do that using codewords and when he thought no one was listening, and now word is out.
Mittens just wanted to be a Massachusetts moderate but the modern Republican Party won't allow that and now he's tanking because of it.
There are now a slew of writers at National Review and the Weekly Standard attacking Romney for his remarks: Conservatives Agree: Romney's Wrong
And yet the people here don't realize what you've done. You got the Romney you asked for and he's suffering because of it and you still can't see how wrong you are. It's crazy how myopic you all are. Do you ever talk to any Americans that aren't crazy rightwing nutjobs?
Yes, Freder, but there never was an alleged "trust fund" or "lock box" that it into.
"After a lifetime of working, and bring forced to pay into SS and Medicare, receiving the benefits at retirement does not make one a "taker.""
If you exclude the elderly and people who pay into SS and Medicare from your definition of "taker" -- which I agree with -- the 47% number shrinks to 8%.
I don't get a paycheck. I work for myself.
But Romney was talking to his donors, leveraging their distaste for the takers, which doesn't extend to these people.
And do you lump junior enlisted personnel in the military as takers. I bet a good number of them pay no income tax.
Romney should therefore not have portrayed them that way.
But he did. And now it's part of the dialogue, and he must own it in a way that gets 270 electoral votes.
Further, don't worry. Americans do not like welfare and vote consistently against welfare. It's rhetorical gold to be against welfare.
Andy, we conservatives did not ask for any kind of Romney. He is the thing we asked not to get.
Of course they are takers. Because if you compare what they get to what they paid in, the rate of return is astronomical. They have acquiesced in selling their freedom for monetary gain.
Do you ever talk to any Americans that aren't crazy rightwing nutjobs?
Only self-hating gay ones who spend their lives Occupying! And that's only because they harp incessantly.
Actually the income tax burden is lower than it has been in many years.
But spread out among a shrinking base.
The goal should be a lower tax rate with a much broader tax base.
If we are going to continue spending at even 2008 levels, the government is going to need more than 50% contributing to Federal revenue.
"Actually the income tax burden is lower than it has been in many years."
Yes, because under President Affirmative Action, the mass erosion of wealth and income has shrunk the tax base, NOT because President Affirmative Action appreciably cut anyone's taxes.
Do you ever talk to any Americans that aren't crazy rightwing nutjobs?
Jesus, but you're a moron, Andy.
You haven't been noticing that I live in Manhattan and Woodstock, NY?
When Obama talked similarly to his would be donors, we were told that Obama was just doing what he had to do to win.
Seeing Romney copy that is unsettling.
I work for myself.
Well then assuming you actually pay taxes, you pay the self-employment tax that includes SS and Medicare.
Andy R. parroted Andy S.: The most delicious part of this mess that Romney found himself in is that he is there because of all the shrill crazy unhinged conservatives, like many of the people that comment here.
Thank you for saving me a mouseclick to Sullivan's site.
Why Social Security is welfare
Robert J. Samuelson
Excerpt:
People didn't complain when benefits rose, but possible cuts now trigger howls that a "contract" is being broken. Not so. In a 1960 decision ( Flemming v. Nestor ), the Supreme Court expressly rejected the argument that people have a contractual right to Social Security. It cited the 1935 Social Security Act: "The right to alter, amend, or repeal any provision of this Act is hereby reserved to Congress." Congress can change the program whenever it wants.
All this makes Social Security "welfare." Benefits shift; they're not strictly proportionate to wages but are skewed to favor low-wage earners - a value judgment reflecting who most deserves help; and they aren't paid from workers' own "contributions." But we ignored these realities and encouraged people to think they "earned" benefits and that Social Security is distinct from the larger budget. Politicians, pundits, think-tank experts and journalists engaged in this charade to spare Social Security's 54 million recipients the discomfort of understanding they're on welfare.
A relatively small elderly population sustained these fictions. Now, this is no longer possible. Contrary to the Obama administration's posture, Social Security does affect our larger budget problem. Annual benefits already exceed payroll taxes. The gap will grow. The trust fund holds Treasury bonds; when these are redeemed, the needed cash can be raised only by borrowing, taxing or cutting other programs. The connection between Social Security and the rest of the budget is brutally direct. The arcane accounting of the trust fund obscures what's happening. Just as important, how we treat Social Security will affect how we treat Medicare and, to a lesser extent, Medicaid.
I'm not sure what the rationale is for why this hurts Romney. His message all along has been to the middle-class taxpayer - the people that carry the country - and not to the loads. He knows that they are going to vote for more dependence and if the video stresses that, so what. He would lose more votes than he could ever gain whoring to the loads.
The media has once again provided several days free campaign ads for Romney. If the Obama campaign were well run, or truly understood the situation, they'd be putting all the pressure they could on the media to downplay or bury ANY and ALL contrasts between the middle class taxpayer and the entitlement set.
And to those commneters who think pointing out that seniors on SS can be included in the crew Romney speaks of, that those seniors think Romney was speaking to them, that that those seniors can't distinguish the loads from the people lie themselves who have ALREADY carried their end...well, whatever comforts you.
And do you lump junior enlisted personnel in the military as takers. I bet a good number of them pay no income tax.
Personally I don't care if what their job is, everyone collecting a paycheck should have a minimum Federal income tax obligation.
Problem for Rush and the diehard pure true-believing born again litmus test Grover Norquist worshipping conservatives is they are 10% of the population.
Many of the things they believe are total anathema to younger women, others.
Demographic shifts, workers sense they have been betrayed by free trade, wages stagnant since 1980, tax cuts for the jobs creators creating no jobs....more and more states since 1980-1984 have been taken out of play. (Yes they gained a couple Fundie goober states in the Deep South, but lost California, New England, Pennsylvania, and other areas where "Traitor RINO Republicanism" was a force - to Democrats.)
Republicans are a Party with a message full of ideas and beliefs that more and more deviate not just from liberals, but from mainstream Americans.
A lot has changed from the "Gimme that Good Old Reagan Religion!!" era of the long ago 1980s.
As dated as Dems in the late 60s running on FDR's hallowed ideas. (With similar passage of time)
You turned your party over to Malkin and Hannity and Rush and Coulter and it required Romney to dabble in the feverswamps in order for him to be taken seriously.
Try to find all the errors in this statement. It would take me a page to do it.
Freder Frederson said...
Medicare? Don't know how they rationalize that, except, "Don't touch my Medicare."
You do realize that Medicare has its own dedicated tax just like SS. Look at your paycheck some time.
No, Medicare and Social Security both come out of FICA (if Freder has a paycheck, he ought to look at it).
It doesn't matter, though, it's all gone in the general fund since it was used to pay for The Great Society.
Andy R. said...
The most delicious part of this mess that Romney found himself in is that he is there because of all the shrill crazy unhinged conservatives, like many of the people that comment here.
You turned your party over to Malkin and Hannity and Rush and Coulter and it required Romney to dabble in the feverswamps in order for him to be taken seriously. His plan was to try to do that using codewords and when he thought no one was listening, and now word is out.
Oooh, codewords. Next Hatman will call him rrraaaacccciissstt.
Mittens just wanted to be a Massachusetts moderate but the modern Republican Party won't allow that and now he's tanking because of it.
Funny, Ras has him 3 ahead and Gallup's closed the gap to 1.
There are now a slew of writers at National Review and the Weekly Standard attacking Romney for his remarks: Conservatives Agree: Romney's Wrong
Who says Kristol and Frantic Freddy Barnes are Conservatives?
And yet the people here don't realize what you've done. You got the Romney you asked for and he's suffering because of it and you still can't see how wrong you are. It's crazy how myopic you all are. Do you ever talk to any Americans that aren't crazy rightwing nutjobs?
We have any number of crazy leftwing nutjobs inflicted on us every day.
I, for one, welcome our Mainstream Media Overlords, for they portend a President Christie in 2016.
As I stated in another thread. Not all of the 47% who don't pay taxes are on the welfare roles. There are many working lower income earners who, through the magic of IRS rules and deductions, do not pay income taxes.
This doesn't mean that they are leeches. Most of them represent the best of America. Hard working men and women who try to get the best for their families and who want to succeed. Even if they did qualify for assistance, most are too proud to take a hand out. In fact, many of them resent the welfare leeches. To lump the hard working poor into the same bucket as the slugs is an insult to them.
Romney needs to make it clear that he is not giving up on that segment of the 47% or on the seniors who also may not be paying income taxes.
There is nothing wrong with those people, the fault is with a system that allows many to not pay anything while a small minority is paying the freight for everyone else.
"That's my point. They're in the 47% and obviously not unreachable. Romney should therefore not have portrayed them that way."
Chances are, most of the cohort of the 47% that are on Medicare, that worked their entire lives and paid taxes, will not think themselves part of the "47%," or buy any argument that Romney meant them too.
The breakdown will fall generally along party lines: Reps collecting Medicare in the 47% will know Romney didn't mean them; the Dems in the 47% won't be able to do the math; the swing/independent voters will ask their neighbors what they think.
Do you ever talk to any Americans that aren't crazy rightwing nutjobs?
Yes. We are talking to you. A crazy leftwing nutjob.
I'm pretty sure within three weeks this will be forgotten just like You Didn't Build That.
betrayed by free trade
Indeed. What kind of America is it when we allow people to buy and sell things freely to improve their lives?
And don't forget the Jews, Cedarford. Don't forget their dastardly evils.
Hilarious.
The most delicious part of this mess
How to tell if you've written something wafer-thin:
1. Did you use the word "delicious."
2. Are you a food critic?
If you answered "Yes" then "No" you were just a bit too pretentious.
I'm not sure I buy Limbaugh's analysis of what would be the correct tactic for Romney.
Althouse is correct. The media beating will not cease.
Anybody got any ideas of how you surmount this and get your message to the voters?
I'm do media for a living, and I have to admit I'm flummoxed by this one.
god knows Willard needs some rational advice and Althouse fat furry lover boy is always there to help in any way lol.
Hell, what does Romney have to lose since he's already lost this election.
btw, when I mentioned last night "eagerly awaiting another Limbaugh/Drudge thread" didn't expect it so soon. ok, that's a lie.
Indeed as Rush will lead you all to the promised land or a reasonable facsimile thereof.
And again, Willard already went w/99% negativity back in the spring so no reason to stop now.
That's the ticket!
According to Penguin's theory, old people are now entitled to kill the person who said this.
Never stated nor implied such a theory.
The fact that you feel the need to lie about what I have said, instead of addressing what was actually stated, tells me that you know that what was actually said by me is strong and true.
~~~~
the fault is with a system that allows many to not pay anything while a small minority is paying the freight for everyone else.
Exactly. The current system is set-up so that the rich and the poor can avoid paying taxes, which is why we need to go to tax consumption rather than income.
But nothing will change as long as most people continue to vote for the same ol' same ol'...
Telling the truth has all the left riled-up. I love it!
Andy mistakes disagreement for weakness... when the opposite is true.
Where Andy sees "shrill crazy unhinged conservatives" I see a diversity of opinion and thought not in lockstep in a cult of personality.
Republicans are a Party with a message full of ideas and beliefs that more and more deviate not just from liberals, but from mainstream Americans.
That's only true to the extent that Americans are growing more comfortable with government dependence. Every society needs a political party to say "No, we can't afford that." We may have passed the point as a nation where enough citizens are able to hear that.
My feeling is that all this preliminary sparring is of no consequence, except to folks who love to argue about politics (which is not as many people as you think).
I think Romney's got to get his message across in the debates.
He's got to come across as somebody who doesn't have a board up his ass. Unfortunately, he does often come across as a stiff ass Richie Rich.
How does he overcome that?
Gallup:
Romney 46%
Obama 47%
Rasmussen
Romney 47%
Obama 45%
Penguin -- It is obviously your intent at this point to upset me. Therefore, under your theory, it is my right to kill you and/or have you silenced by people with guns.
"I'm do media for a living, and I have to admit I'm flummoxed by this one."
The debates, where Romney's answers will be unfiltered.
Sure, the moderators will give public blow jobs to Soetoro mid-question, and spin Romney's answers in follow up questions, but smarter (not smart, just smarter) voters should be able to recognize one man is a miserable failure, promoted far beyond his abilities because of soft hearts and dim minds, and that the other man is, if given the chance, likely to prove a vast upgrade over the failure in office.
Romney said something stupid.
The best thing he can do is go about his business and hope Obama or Biden will say or do something even stupider. It should not be long.
Of course they are takers. Because if you compare what they get to what they paid in, the rate of return is astronomical. They have acquiesced in selling their freedom for monetary gain.
Bullshit.
The amount of money taken from my wages AND my employer's contributions if invested in even a simple bank CD would return FAR FAR more than I will ever get back from Uncle Sugar. Factor in the real value of current dollars, the diminished purchasing power of these current dollars, compared to the purchasing power of the earlier confiscated dollars and you can see that we are getting an even worse deal.
Then factor in that if I die early my lifetime of contributions is confiscated again and my heirs get nothing.
If we had been allowed to invest into private savings/personal social security accounts and had gotten a decent return, which anyone with two brain cells to rub together could have done, my personal monthly pay out would be at least 2 to 2.5 times what I am getting now. I figure the government owes me at least 450K to 550K. If you give it to me, I promise to not collect any more social security. Thank you.
So tell me about taking. The government has taken my money and given it away to all those who are faking disability and to people who never paid a dime into the system.
So...Jack Wayne....you can go fuck yourself.
Start explaining liberty to people and what it means, and explain that they don't have to be in that 47%.
Interesting how "liberty" apparently means raising their taxes.
If cons message is so great why are Reps trying so hard to suppress the vote? Rhetorical.
Congrats to Willard as he's managed to piss off everyone except billionaires and conservative bloggers. Hey, but that's still a good 5% of the electorate. :)
He's got to come across as somebody who doesn't have a board up his ass.
I hear what you're saying, but I don't necessarily think the bar is that high. I'm being quite serious. I think coming across as credible, even if he's not relatable, is enough. If he can clear it, and my experience in MA says he can, he can have the whole Grand Bois du Nord up his ass and Obama will lose.
If cons message is so great why are Reps trying so hard to suppress the vote? Rhetorical.
Because illegal aliens and dead people aren't entitled to vote.
Not rhetorical at all.
The Romster just on Cavuto, using the current nonsense to make his case that he's trying to draw a line between the redistributionists and those who want freedom.
The video should be on Fox's (or FBN) website soon, if it isn't there now. One point he made was to note that food stamp recipients have gone up 50% since Choom took office and he made the case that he's appealing to that 50%, while realizing that the ones on previously probably like where they are just fine.
Therefore, under your theory, it is my right to kill you and/or have you silenced by people with guns.
Never stated nor implied such a theory.
The fact that you feel the need to lie about what I have said, instead of addressing what was actually stated, tells me that you know that what was actually said by me is strong and true.
"I think Romney's got to get his message across in the debates.
He's got to come across as somebody who doesn't have a board up his ass. Unfortunately, he does often come across as a stiff ass Richie Rich.
How does he overcome that?
Gallup:
Romney 46%
Obama 47%
Rasmussen
Romney 47%
Obama 45%"
Across the stage from Obama, who is as peevish as an old maid, it shouldn't be that difficult.
Otherwise, the polling date you post is the most critical reason why Obama will very likely lose: When an incumbent, like Obama, cannot ever cross the 50% threshold (he's been under 50% for about 18 months now), he simply cannot win. History shows almost all incumbents in this scenario lose. Two things happen: undecideds swing to the challenger; disheartened voters for the incumbent stay home.
There will lots of disheartened Obama voters.
There's no reason to vote for him: the Obama shit sandwich one eats today isn't going to change over the next four years; there's no reason to expect it to.
Those who vote for Obama in '12 will do so not because they think he'll do better next time around; they'll do so because the hate Republicans, or fear Romney will turn off the spigot of government freebies.
Oh....and by the way....I do pay income taxes now and will for many years to come. And am I collecting SS.....damned right I am.
As long as 40% of the country who didn't do jack squat to earn any money and who spend their entire lives trying to figure out how to scam more freebies from the taxpaying citizens (me) I would be a fool not to collect back what had been taken from me all these decades.
Don't even get me started on Medicare, which is NOT a free program either.
The only voters who matter are the 5-10% who Romney mentioned in the video.
The rest of the people on one side of the aisle or the other are already spoken for. It doesn't matter what these voters think of the statements.
Personally, I don't think it was a big deal. He at least sounded a million times better than he normally does. He actually sounded like he believed in these convictions.
Also....tits.
This is why I supported Newt in the early primaries - he knows how to take the paint off of the media.
Granted that, had Newt made it to the convention and emerged as nominee, he'd be trying to climb a 10-12 point mountain, where Romney is a draw or maybe a point up right now. But you just have to wish they could transplant the media beat-down skills from Newt - it would be a beautiful thing.
How are retirees who are living on Social Security supposed to start paying taxes?
Wet behind the ears hatboy doesn't even know that Social Security IS taxable income and he's lecturing us on...well, I guess on the helplessness of all those impoverished retirees out there, most of whom have more coping skills in their pinkies than hatboy has in his whole pouty body.
Hey Titus, where have you been?
SUTA!
shiloh said...
If cons message is so great why are Reps trying so hard to suppress the vote? Rhetorical.
Stupid.
As Shout says, dead people and cartoon characters aren't covered in the XIV Amendment.
PS I see the little animal has finally slinked back after hiding out for 3 hours.
Care to give us that link to the WaPo poll now?
How 'bout just the skew?
I have never gotten and government freebies.
How do you get them?
It is hard?
What is the process?
It would not be enough to sustain my fab life though...so I work and I pay taxes.
tits.
Phantom was amazing this summer Rocketeer. Third place-the color guard was beautiful in all red and then stripped down to white see through dresses-totaly titty erections all over the football field.
Reason magazine has an article that sums up Romney's problem. The "47%" remark by Romney was unfortunate because it is not true but in and of itself doesn't seem the type of gaffe that would cost him the election. The MSM will of course flog it to death but fast moving events in the Islamic world and other news will limit its effect. To sum up: not helpful but not fatal.
http://tinyurl.com/8n8hufx
Shiloh: it is not "billionaires". It is "millionairesandbillionaires" which defines those making more than USD$250,000 per annum.
It would not be enough to sustain my fab life though...so I work and I pay taxes.
So, who you voting for, Titus?
Wet behind the ears hatboy doesn't even know that Social Security IS taxable income
What are you talking about? Generally, if Social Security benefits were your only income for 2010, your benefits are not taxable and you probably do not need to file a federal income tax return.
This is exactly the point I was making. The only way social security retirees end up paying taxes is if they get a job or some other source of income.
Is that what you want? Is that what Romney wants? That people should work until death so they make sure they never stop paying taxes?
It's become clear to me after reading several months' worth of Andy's comments that nobody hates Andy for being gay more than Andy.
Surely I'm not the only one that's noticed that?
It's been apparent all along. With the exception of a handful of comments since he's been around - and those I think intentionally provocative rather than indicting any bias against gays - I doubt anyone here gives a shit what his sexual orientation is or holds it against him.
Andy's shrillness here doesn't come from his embrace of his own victim status. It comes from his frustration that no one here considers him a victim of anything but ignorance. He's been enabled all his life by people who have told him how wicked smart he is. He shows up expecting that we will all agree and submit to schooling. Instead his logic, his links, his conclusions...in short his self-image of being smarter than any conservative...is ridiculed as bush league sophomoric tripe.
That is why Andy is so shrill. The real world doesn't suffer fools well. Has to hurt.
John Althouse Cohen -- Freedom does not entail getting free stuff from the government with no responsibility to the commonweal. That's serfdom you are thinking of. Do make a note of it.
How did the apple fall so far from the tree? It's stunning.
Wow. How refreshing it is to read a thread about Romney that intelligently (well, mostly) discusses *policy* rather than some Crack-pot sideshow about his religious beliefs. Could have something to do with someone being absent from this discussion, no?
Is that what you want? Is that what Romney wants? That people should work until death so they make sure they never stop paying taxes?
I've already answered this, Andy.
I'll be 63 in a few months. I don't want to retire. Working until death is a pretty damned good goal. My mother made it to 83, God bless her. It's what kept her mind sharp and alive.
Most of my elderly friends agree. The last thing they want to do is to sit on their asses and live on the dole.
The "safety net" is desirable only when disability makes it impossible to continue to work and thrive.
PP: The current system is set-up so that the rich and the poor can avoid paying taxes, which is why we need to go to tax consumption rather than income.
...which would be terribly regressive toward the lower-income brackets.
Share of Tax Liabilities Increases with Income
Because average federal tax rates rise with income, the share of federal taxes paid by higher-income households exceeded their share of before-tax income, and the opposite was true for lower-income households.
2009 shares of total before-tax income by quintile:
Lowest quintile: 5.1 percent
Middle quintile: 14.7 percent
Highest quintile: 50.8 percent
2009 shares of federal taxes paid by quintile:
Lowest quintile: 0.3 percent
Middle quintile: 9.4 percent
Highest quintile: 67.9 percent
///
Romney said something stupid
Telling the truth during a campaign is definitely dumb.
Generally, if Social Security benefits were your only income for 2010, your benefits are not taxable and you probably do not need to file a federal income tax return.
Andy, dude, moron, this is because such people are by definition living in poverty and people living in poverty pay no taxes under the current regime.
Your ignorance of the basic facts of the world is truly amazing. Are you able to achieve breakfast? Pissing?
So, when is the news media going to make Obama defend his statement that " he believes in" wealth redistribution?
OT: I was wondering if someone could explain a couple of the pet nicknames people have been using for various political figures, where they came from?
For example: I know why people refer to Obama as "Zero", but WTF is "Choom"?
Also why does shiloh refer to Romney as "Willard"? Is there an imaginative reason for that?
Andy, almost all the elderly people I know wish they had a full-time or part-time job, so that they would have a reason to get up in the morning and go somewhere.
Why is Anne pretending that Romney was talking about citizens that have worked for 65 years... And are collecting programs they actually contributed on every pay check, like Medicare and SS
And the argument of red states :
First, the population of blacks in red stes are sometimes in the high 30's.
Second a didn't know the republicans received 100% of red states votes,
Third, Romney also made it clear that it wasn't only not paying federal taxes, it was that he can't reach those voters who mostly don't pay federal taxes but also belive, the government provide then healthcare, housing, free eduction., his argument of lower taxes and smaller government, doesn't reach them because they don't pay any federal taxes so they don't care if someone else does while feeling entited that the government provide for a cradle to grave support.
That he has to reach the 5 % to 10% who voted Obama but don't have a craddle to grave mentality..
--Is that what you want? Is that what Romney wants? That people should work until death so they make sure they never stop paying taxes?--
Where do you think this is going?
For every $1 taken in, $3 goes out.
Ahh, for the days of Ross Perot and his chart?
Why do you think the elderly aren't retiring?
And now our savings is being guaranteed by our bonds, this is great.
Via Insty:
A SMALL AMOUNT OF MEDIA ATTENTION for the Obama-Bernanke war on seniors. “Along with keeping rates low, governments are using a variety of tactics to encourage captive audiences, like pension funds and banks, to buy their debt. Consumers, in other words, are subtly subsidizing governments without even knowing it. Economists have compared this phenomenon to a hidden tax on people’s wealth.”
Note the stories of senior citizens having to go back to work because of low interest rates. That’s been the topic of some of my recent writing.
It’s interesting to me that we’re not hearing more from the AARP on this subject. There’s this from a couple of years ago, but you’d expect them to be shouting to the rooftops this close to an election. Well, you’d expect that unless you’d been paying attention, I guess.
And wait until they let the investment companies free up our IRA cash - use the bonds instead...
What could go wrong?
I mostly enjoy reading Andy's comments here. He has a viewpoint and does his best to support it. Shiloh on the other hand is just annoyingly juvenile.
Just the viewpoint of a (most of the time) sidelines observer.
Andy R. said...
Wet behind the ears hatboy doesn't even know that Social Security IS taxable income
What are you talking about? Generally, if Social Security benefits were your only income for 2010, your benefits are not taxable and you probably do not need to file a federal income tax return.
This is exactly the point I was making. The only way social security retirees end up paying taxes is if they get a job or some other source of income.
Is that what you want? Is that what Romney wants? That people should work until death so they make sure they never stop paying taxes?
Nobody in his right mind wants to live off Social Security alone. If you don't work (or even if you do), you still want some kind of annuity or other income that Social Security supplements.
I'd rather pay taxes than live on the edge of poverty.
Is that what you want? Is that what Romney wants? That people should work until death so they make sure they never stop paying taxes?
Look, shithead, there HAS to be someone you know who can explain the video to you. SOMEONE who hasn't lost patience with you and who can integrate adult concepts. Go talk to them and quit wasting our time with your godawful shallow and ignorant histrionics.
Jesus, reading your comments is like trying to understand a neanderthal.
AndyR: That people should work until death so they make sure they never stop paying taxes?
Newsflash for AndyR: people have to pay taxes even after they die.
But you just have to wish they could transplant the media beat-down skills from Newt - it would be a beautiful thing.
Here here.
There's still time! Meet me in the abandoned warehouse, and bring chloroform. Hurry!
it's amazing how shiloh's wet dreams come true...
Telling the truth during a campaign is definitely dumb.
So lumping retirees, disabled veterans, mentally handicapped people in with the moochers is smart?
Interesting how "liberty" apparently means raising their taxes.
Oh, you mean taxes are not voluntarily donated?
So lumping retirees, disabled veterans, mentally handicapped people in with the moochers is smart?
Very few retirees and disabled veterans will feel that he lumped them in with moochers. That's absurd. We're talking real people, not pundits.
Tom Maguire got it right. Just as the majority of Americans seemingly did not react unfavorably to Obama's "You didn't build that " meme (because they didn't own small businesses), no one will associate with the 47% who didn't pay taxes.
"[S]o when Mitt lays into freeloaders, even people who pay no income tax think he’s talking about someone else."
Very few retirees and disabled veterans will feel that he lumped them in with moochers. That's absurd. We're talking real people, not pundits.
Doesn't matter. The Obama ads have already been written.
* cue retiree, disabled veteran*
*looks into camera*
Mitt Romney - I am not a moocher.
FYI...
Millions of American voters have learned for the first time that 47% of their fellow citizens pay no federal income tax.
I don't know what that will ultimately mean, but it will mean something.
Alex is typically a troll, and a shortsighted one at that, but I am confident that Romney will somehow recover from his egregious attack on welfare queens.
When has an attack on welfare queens ever failed?
Andy R: I intend to work until I drop. Why? Because I have noted that the money I make is specified as money that you personally will not make. You did know, did you not, that the rich can designate the very people whose money they are taking? Well we can and do. And I have chosen yours.
Alex -- The Obama campaign is not stupid enough to believe that making the election about welfare is the thing to do.
Only you are.
Seven Machos - if he only attacked welfare queens it would be one thing. But he lumped in everyone who doesn't pay an income tax, forgetting they pay other taxes. Romney just lost Florida.
Doesn't matter. The Obama ads have already been written.
Meh. Why pay for an ad when they just run a cut from NBC News?
But it won't sway anyone who was likely to vote for Romney.
Seven Machos: Never is when. Let them put these remarks on the news night and day and heads will be nodding in agreement all over America. This is one of those moments when the Dems are wrong footing themselves.
Curious, since Romney made a clear call for Mother Jones to release the whole tape, I haven't heard anything about that from the media. Are they pursuing it?
...like a Republican is warranted context. That is only for Democrats.
Face it, Romney only wants the conservative vote. He is running a 'conservatives only' campaign. He doesn't care to reach out to this so called 47% which is made up of students, elderly, disabled and unemployed but apparently no conservatives. What will Romney do for you? Absolutely nothing. But he wants your vote so he can make sure he does nothing for you.
A member of the 47% self-identifies.
SM - you are so fucking dumb. Dumber then a bag of hammers. It's not so much that Romney just wrote off his chances with the working poor, but many swing voters in the 53% feel that the working poor are simply unfortunate and do not deserve to be called names. Romney just lost THOSE people too. Romney is excellent at alienating voters.
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.
"If cons message is so great why are Reps trying so hard to suppress the vote? Rhetorical."
Strawman special. Literal.
The only party engaging in vote 'supression' is the democrat party.
1. They claim their 'people' are too poor and/or stupid to have or get ID. The ONLY REASON for this is so they can cheat. Only reason.
2. They have the vast majority of dead voters on their rolls, which happens to be the REAL source of voter suppression. For every dead democrat that votes, it nullifies a living republican vote.
Note:
Repubs only want to suppress the dem 'deceased' vote. Dead people don't need ID. Live people do - deal with it.
Alex -- You are suggesting that Obama make the campaign about who pay taxes and who collects free benefits. This would be disastrous for Obama. It would lead to a 300 electoral vote rout for Romney.
The fact that you can't understand this obvious fact betrays a deep, juvenile ignorance about the world.
Alex,
Seniors are old, they're not brain dead. They know the difference between someone who paid taxes their whole lives (them) and those who did not.
Any senior was likely to vote for Romney will not switch their vote because they concluded he thinks they're moochers (He's running around saying Obama is raiding Medicare for goodness sakes.)
You people are delusional if you think most Americans hate people who collect government benefits. Most people have at least someone in the family who collects benefits.
Oh, and the people that Romney notes are not watching the news. They are watching sports or the Kardashians
Seniors are old, they're not brain dead.
Uh yes they are as much as the average "swing voter".
SM - you are delusional if you think that trashing the 47% is smart electoral politics.
You people are delusional if you think most Americans hate people who collect government benefits. Most people have at least someone in the family who collects benefits.
I'm delusional? You're swinging a bat at a strawman you just made. That don't seem right no how.
Alex -- I'll be waiting for those ads that espouse how great it is to get free stuff and how Americans who work should work even harder so people can have free stuff.
You let us know when you see one. Keep yourself glued to a television, though. Don't be here. Wouldn't want to miss the trill of seeing Obama's ads glorifying welfare that will seal his reelection.
I'll be waiting. See you then. And, I hope, only then.
This video was similar to Obama's statement, at a fund raiser, about certain people clinging to guns and religion. It only becomes damaging if Romney doubles down on it and takes a hard right view that people who need or receive federal retirement benefits, student loans or any federal funding are no good schlubs.
I have no doubts that given the choice between Romney [and Ryan] attempting to have a long serious [conservative] conversation about the future of gov't benefits or Romney backtracking and taking the easy [moderate] way out that he will take the easy way out. Face it. Whether you are dealing with conservatives or liberals or independents the greater number of voters do not want a serious conversation. It's too complex. They want a simple message. Bush understood that. Obama understands that.
SM - Obama will not run ads about how great welfare is. He will run ads showing seniors and disabled veterans telling the camera that they are not moochers.
The optics of this are so horrifically horrible that Republicans all over are distancing themselves from Romney. He is toxic now.
I'm proud to be a 53-percenter.
Alex - step away from the bottle.
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.
This election is a referendum on Obama and utter incompetence.
The wingnuttery on display here is mindblowing.
which would be terribly regressive toward the lower-income brackets
Just a basic sales tax could be looked at that way, but the FairTax addresses this concern:
"Every household receives a rebate that is equal to the FairTax paid on essential goods and services, and wage earners are no longer subject to the most regressive and burdensome tax of all, the payroll tax.
You people are delusional if you think most Americans hate people who collect government benefits.
Not true. Most people have sympathy for those who have temporarily fallen on hard times and need a supporting hand, charity and a bit of help to get back on their feet. However most Americans do hate and despise the lazy, leeches who are sucking the lifeblood from the country. Those who will NOT work and whine that they aren't given more more more. Ungrateful, entitled and basically useless. If I had a magic wand or had the power....I would wish them all into the cornfield and NO ONE WOULD MISS THEM. In fact all of our lives would be much better.
Most people have at least someone in the family who collects benefits.
Maybe. And most of them wish that their useless brother in law, lazy ass son, would just move out of the basement.
Seriously. If you are in need of assistance we should be ready to help. If you think you are going to live the rest of your life demanding assistance....then you can just die.
"He is running a 'conservatives only' campaign."
According to 2004/2008 exit polls, cons comprised ((( 34% ))) of the electorate.
Willard's a frickin' genius!
Don't Tread 2012
For the record, give me a breakdown of the 47%. Or what and who you think the 47% is. [Hint: Romney's math is wrong].
Post a Comment