Romney's ridiculous comments on 47% of Americans

[Rob's House]

 

 

Pretty sure I've made my views fairly clearly on here on wanting more government spending on jobs programs, infrastructure, education, and putting teachers/state/local workers back to work.

 

Tough proposition to get through Congress, but I do think some of it can be done.

 

I know we obviously disagree on this, but it would be my plan, at least a starting point.

No offense but most of what you just said amounts to saying "invest in job creation" which is like saying "grow the economy from the middle class out". It sounds good in the abstract but no one can explain how it works.

 

Also, you're essentially saying at a time where we're running record deficits we should spend substantially more and that will help the economy, but how does that work?

 

 

Bro we don't need a modern infrastructure or more educated work force to dominate next century and teachers/local workers are not real jobs. Green energy is a hoax too btw...just Obama hitting up his donors. We simply need the free market, uninhibited by taxes of any kind. Pick up a book.

I'm not biting. I'm wise to your underhanded tactics.

[dayman]

 

Also, you're essentially saying at a time where we're running record deficits we should spend substantially more and that will help the economy, but how does that work?

 

Everyone knows you wait until interest rates go back up before you address some infrastructure issues that will come either way. This guy is a fool

[Rob's House]

 

 

Everyone knows you wait until interest rates go back up before you address some infrastructure issues that will come either way. This guy is a fool

You guys always latch on to infrastructure, which is fundamentally different from most of what y'all advocate; and most of the "infrastructure" is garbage like high speed rails. Expanding clogged corridors that slow the gears of commerce & cost people productive time is useful; it's also not particularly left-wing. And putting "local workers back to work" doesn't mean anything. d

Edited September 18, 2012 by Rob's House

[fjl2nd]

No offense but most of what you just said amounts to saying "invest in job creation" which is like saying "grow the economy from the middle class out". It sounds good in the abstract but no one can explain how it works.

 

Also, you're essentially saying at a time where we're running record deficits we should spend substantially more and that will help the economy, but how does that work?

 

The deficits are more of a product of lowered tax revenue than actual government spending. We are taking in less than 16% of GDP in taxes. That's not really sustainable which makes are #1 goal to get more people back to work and paying taxes. Borrowing and spending money at record low rates (we're basically getting paid to borrow) can help put teachers/police/firefighters back to work. Not only do tax collections go back up, but consumption will go up.

 

A 3-4% inflation rate would also help Americans with a lot of their built up debt they prevents them from taking risks and/or consuming. The savings rate has been higher in recent years, so the government should be picking up the slack. The more inaction by the government, the worse long term growth becomes.

 

The problem between us is that we have a fundamental difference of opinion of government action during times of high unemployment or weak growth.

[Rob's House]

 

 

The deficits are more of a product of lowered tax revenue than actual government spending. We are taking in less than 16% of GDP in taxes. That's not really sustainable which makes are #1 goal to get more people back to work and paying taxes. Borrowing and spending money at record low rates (we're basically getting paid to borrow) can help put teachers/police/firefighters back to work. Not only do tax collections go back up, but consumption will go up.

 

A 3-4% inflation rate would also help Americans with a lot of their built up debt they prevents them from taking risks and/or consuming. The savings rate has been higher in recent years, so the government should be picking up the slack. The more inaction by the government, the worse long term growth becomes.

 

The problem between us is that we have a fundamental difference of opinion of government action during times of high unemployment or weak growth.

So you're advocating government spending to increase demand for the sake of increasing demand?

 

And you keep mentioning this difference of opinion we have on intervention as though it's the cause of our differing opinion. I don't disagree because I'm inherently opposed to government action. I'm opposed to it b/c I have yet to hear a rationale for how & why any proposals will work other than because those proposing them think and hope they'll work.

Edited September 18, 2012 by Rob's House

[dayman]

You guys always latch on to infrastructure, which is fundamentally different from most of what y'all advocate; and most of the "infrastructure" is garbage like high speed rails. Expanding clogged corridors that slow the gears of commerce & cost people productive time is useful; it's also not particularly left-wing. And putting "local workers back to work" doesn't mean anything. d

 

High speed rail is long term, but it is not garbage. An infrastructure (at least when I use it in conversation) includes things like domestic energy innovation and a smart grid to make it work, health IT, retrofits (which should be a bipartisan no-brainer b/c it basically costs nothing)...things that will put us in a better spot for the next few decades that we can start right now.

 

So you're advocating government spending to increase demand for the sake of increasing demand?

 

And you keep mentioning this difference of opinion we have on intervention as though it's the cause of our differing opinion. I don't disagree because I'm inherently opposed to government action. I'm opposed to it b/c I have yet to hear a rationale for how & why any proposals will work other than because those proposing them think and hope they'll work.

 

Do you look at history and just cringe?

[fjl2nd]

So you're advocating government spending to increase demand for the sake of increasing demand?

 

And you keep mentioning this difference of opinion we have on intervention as though it's the cause of our differing opinion. I don't disagree because I'm inherently opposed to government action. I'm opposed to it b/c I have yet to hear a rationale for how & why any proposals will work other than because those proposing them think and hope they'll work.

 

Yes, increasing demand is what is needed IMO. Short run injection by the government can increase demand because the private sector can do that on it's own. Interest rates are at record lows and it's still not working. Sure, the stock markets looks good but the real economy is still hurting.

 

What would you like see done to alleviate unemployment? What would you propose?

Edited September 18, 2012 by fjl2nd

[Rob's House]

 

 

High speed rail is long term, but it is not garbage. An infrastructure (at least when I use it in conversation) includes things like domestic energy innovation and a smart grid to make it work, health IT, retrofits (which should be a bipartisan no-brainer b/c it basically costs nothing)...things that will put us in a better spot for the next few decades that we can start right now.

some of this I agree with, but I'm sure we differ on the specifics.

 

 

Do you look at history and just cringe?

Explain

[dayman]

some of this I agree with, but I'm sure we differ on the specifics.

 

 

Explain

 

Let's focus on the parts you agree on since this is rare. What sounds good in there to you?

[Rob's House]

 

 

Yes, increasing demand is what is needed IMO. Short run injection by the government can increase demand because the private sector can do that on it's own. Interest rates are at record lows and it's still not working. Sure, the stock markets looks good but the real economy is still hurting.

 

What would you like see done to alleviate unemployment? What would you propose?

Demand for the sake of demand is silly. I'll try to get back to you on this. I'm tired & this would take a while to answer fully.

[fjl2nd]

Demand for the sake of demand is silly. I'll try to get back to you on this. I'm tired & this would take a while to answer fully.

 

It's cool. No hurry. Haha.

 

I just like to point out that the lack of demand and in turn, the low tax collections, high unemployment, and low economic growth not only hurts short term, but really affects us long term.

[Rob's House]

 

 

Let's focus on the parts you agree on since this is rare. What sounds good in there to you?

I agree there's value in a lot of what you mentioned; we'll differ on government's role & the type of innovation. I'll get back to you on specifics, I'm tired & I've got a big day tomorrow. Driving on a stretch of 95 that needs to be widened to go to DC for a seminar at CATO.

[B-Man]

Speaking of "writing off" voters, remember this golden oldie from The New York Times?

 

 

Obama campaign abandons white working-class voters

 

President Barack Obama's 2012 re-election campaign will be the first in modern political history to abandon white working-class voters, strategists claim.

For decades, Democrats have been losing more and more blue collar whites. Their alienation helped lead to the massive Republican wave in 2010, when the GOP wooed 30 percent more of them than the Democrats could. Democratic strategists say President Obama is focusing his attention, instead, on poor black and Hispanic voters and educated white professionals...

 

'All pretense of trying to win a majority of the white working class has been effectively jettisoned in favor of cementing a center-left coalition made up, on the one hand, of voters who have gotten ahead on the basis of educational attainment... and a second, substantial constituency of lower-income voters who are disproportionately African-American and Hispanic,' longtime political reporter Thomas B. Edsall wrote in an opinion piece in the New York Times... 'The 2012 approach treats white voters without college degrees as an unattainable cohort,' he writes later.

 

this will have the same devastating effect that candidate Obama's "bitterly clinging to their guns and religion" comment had in 2008.

 

Which is to say: none.

 

Like all of the media-manufactured kerfuffles, it will be all but forgotten within one week or until Iran detonates its first nuke, whichever comes first.

 

.

[truth on hold]

Romney speech recorded with him saying 47% of Americans don't pay taxes and are dependent on government. They are Obama supporters and think they are victims. What bull ****!

 

Not only did he say this, Reince Preibus doubles down on the comments like a retard and reiterates the myth of giant government under Obama.

 

http://www.buzzfeed....was-on-me#HTWF2

 

And then this comment:

 

 

 

And finally, let's point out where the 47% actually are. Mostly red states: http://www.usatoday....mark/57797246/1

I have no problem with this, just pointed voter market analysis. He might have softened the language had he known it was going public (maybe not how he's been acting up lately), but no matter the substance is fair.

[dayman]

I have no problem with this, just pointed voter market analysis. He might have softened the language had he known it was going public (maybe not how he's been acting up lately), but no matter the substance is fair.

 

The substance that he will never convince the people who don't pay income tax to the fed to take responsibility for their own lives? Those who pay payroll tax, state/local tax, sales tax...often amounting to a total % of their income greater than or equal to what Romney himself pays? The elderly factor those numbers there etc...I don't know what topic it was in but I just had this discussion maybe a week or two ago on this very board...It is the most over stated GOP meme there is.. it's what his fundraisers/donor class want to hear so it's fair that he said it there and it is no secret to those who follow politics and understand the GOP's primary mission...not debt or spending but taxes...not a cent more for the donor class and 4% increase over 250K is communist.

 

But anyway...I digress from my liberal propaganda...it's just not presidential to have this go public and the reason it isn't presidential is b/c it's a stupid thing to go around saying. Wealth inequality, opportunity inequality (which btw exists here more than most modern countries)...it's a problem we have. We don't need leadership that just looks at 47% of the population as people that won't take responsibility for themselves. It's ridiculous to say this is fair. There are, without a doubt, problems with the what we are doing (and have been doing for decades) to address these issues...but the sentiment he's selling to donors here isn't it.

 

Anyway, I also actually think it's fair b/c he's hobnobbing with some fat cats for money which is what happens by anyone raising money. And of course he'll adjust his tone to the audience (unless it's the NAACP hehe)...but the bottom line is this isn't a great thing for a presidential candidate to say. And the fact that now (as with everything Romney does) a huge portion of the country must get behind it and defend/champion it...that's bad for the country.

[BiggieScooby]

9-17-2012: Romney's Waterloo.

[truth on hold]

@TNB, the point hes making is about target marketing: rather than try and convince 47% with a decided bias against his philosophy, they need to commit their resources to the remaining 53%. Obviously these are top level figures with plenty of nuance left out, but when you're sizing up a market and how to attack it, thats where you start.

Edited September 18, 2012 by Joe_the_6_pack

[dayman]

9-17-2012: Romney's Waterloo.

 

Don't be retarded. Romney won't go down until the election itself (unless somehow he bombs the first debate terribly which would probably do it). For as much people as will vote Obama as he says, similar amounts will vote for him. etc...etc..etc...close election...etc...

 

@TNB, the point hes making is about target marketing: rather than try and convince 47% with a decided bias against his philosophy, they need to commit their resources to the remaining 53%. Obviously these are top level figures with plenty of nuance left out, but when you're sizing up a market and how to attack it, thats where you start.

 

You think that nobody in that 47% is going to vote Romney? You think there is no market there for him? Karl Rove doesn't think that. B/c Karl Rove is good at his job.

Edited September 18, 2012 by TheNewBills

[truth on hold]

 

 

You think that nobody in that 47% is going to vote Romney? You think there is no market there for him? Karl Rove doesn't think that. B/c Karl Rove is good at his job.

I think you missed my point about it being a top level comment w/ plenty of nuance left out.

 

But to the substance, it's a really a surprise to you he looks at this way? Really? The conservative economic philosophy is that government shouldnt "care"about people because it can't. People can care about people (themselves & others) and do so privately. Key then is not to morph government into a "caring" state, it only undermines the agenda by shifting resources away from individuals. You may disagree, but that's it in a nutshell. The electorate may freak over the video, I dont know. Im only speaking for myself. I find it refreshing to hear what candidates really think and want to hear them speak candidly. I could see Reagan saying something similar and getting away with it because a) people respected his candid comments and b) he was a genius at communicating the conservative economic philosophy.

[dayman]

If I'm asked that question I don't say 47% are off the table. Plain and simple. Even to raise money. I don't see how that really helps raise money anyway. Say they're tough and not the focus, don't say what he said. And if you do, don't let it come out publicly.