ot; romney’s 47% statement

[scaredyclassic]

true… people who make money tend to think it’s always gonna be easy to make money.

i remember having a hard time making a living before beoming a lawyer.

hell i had a college degree and still kinda had a hard time finding work, or work i could stand.

the only reason i went to law school was because i really really wanted to support myself every year, decently.

i still remember being broke and between jobs, and thinking, man, this sucks!!!

i have sympathy for people who haven’t quite found a way to make it…

[enron_by_the_sea]

[quote=ocrenter]http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-september-20-2012/moment-of-zen—mitt-romney-s-boyhood-dreams[/quote]

Homer votes …

SNL skit …

http://www.politico.com/blogs/click/2012/09/snl-spoofs-romneys-percent-136278.html?hp=r16

[ocrenter]

[quote=enron_by_the_sea][quote=ocrenter]http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-september-20-2012/moment-of-zen—mitt-romney-s-boyhood-dreams[/quote]

Homer votes …

SNL skit …

http://www.politico.com/blogs/click/2012/09/snl-spoofs-romneys-percent-136278.html?hp=r16%5B/quote%5D

you know, these jokes really do just write themselves…

that suicide net thing was hilarious!

[Diego Mamani]

[quote=utcsox]http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/robert-j-samuelson-romney-and-the-welfare-state/2012/09/19/14324ce2-0281-11e2-91e7-2962c74e7738_story.html?hpid=z3

“Actually, the share of people who receive federal benefits exceeds Romney’s 47 percent. Based on its Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP), the Census Bureau estimates that in mid-2011 — the latest available figures — the number of people with benefits came to 149.8 million, or 49 percent of the population. But this figure is too low, because SIPP doesn’t include several major programs (farm subsidies and college loans and grants). With these, the total probably exceeds 50 percent.”[/quote]
The problem is not so much the figure he gave, namely the 47%. The problem is that he said that the 47% have a victim mentality, believe are entitled to handouts, and take no personal responsibility.

[Veritas]

[Anonymous]

[quote=Aecetia]Fact-checking Romney’s 47% claim
How many Americans really pay no federal income taxes?

http://money.cnn.com/video/news/2012/09/18/n-romney-tax-claim.cnnmoney%5B/quote%5D

So basically, Romney was right.

[Anonymous]

[quote=utcsox]http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/robert-j-samuelson-romney-and-the-welfare-state/2012/09/19/14324ce2-0281-11e2-91e7-2962c74e7738_story.html?hpid=z3

“Actually, the share of people who receive federal benefits exceeds Romney’s 47 percent. Based on its Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP), the Census Bureau estimates that in mid-2011 — the latest available figures — the number of people with benefits came to 149.8 million, or 49 percent of the population. But this figure is too low, because SIPP doesn’t include several major programs (farm subsidies and college loans and grants). With these, the total probably exceeds 50 percent.”

See, Mitt is actually a nice guy. Unlike Mr. Samuelson, at least Mitt doesn’t consider folks have to take on college loans and grants “mouchers”.[/quote]

When it comes to money and the economy, who do you want running the country: Someone who knows how to make money or someone who knows only how to “redistribute” money others have earned?

[Anonymous]

[quote=Diego Mamani][quote=utcsox]http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/robert-j-samuelson-romney-and-the-welfare-state/2012/09/19/14324ce2-0281-11e2-91e7-2962c74e7738_story.html?hpid=z3

“Actually, the share of people who receive federal benefits exceeds Romney’s 47 percent. Based on its Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP), the Census Bureau estimates that in mid-2011 — the latest available figures — the number of people with benefits came to 149.8 million, or 49 percent of the population. But this figure is too low, because SIPP doesn’t include several major programs (farm subsidies and college loans and grants). With these, the total probably exceeds 50 percent.”[/quote]
The problem is not so much the figure he gave, namely the 47%. The problem is that he said that the 47% have a victim mentality, believe are entitled to handouts, and take no personal responsibility.[/quote]

There are relatively few poor people in America that bear no responsibility for their situation. The ghetto/trailer-park mentality has only gotten more pervasive, a fact that can be confirmed by watching a few of the most popular TV shows: Toddlers and Tiaras, Jersey Shore, Big Brother, 2 1/2 Idiots, Survivor, or anything on MSNBC. The movie “Idiocracy” is not just funny, it’s prophetic, although by that particular time in the future, no one will remember what the word “prophetic” means.

Yes, many Americans are ignorant (especially when it comes to $$$), and the most ignorant are generally the poorest.

Unless they can get their own reality show, eh, Snooki? Are you listening Octo-mom?

[ocrenter]

[quote=Brutus]
When it comes to money and the economy, who do you want running the country: Someone who knows how to make money or someone who knows only how to “redistribute” money others have earned?[/quote]

Here’s the actual quote from Obama circa 1998:

“I think there have to be technical issues that have to be dealt with as opposed to just political issues, how do we structure government systems that pool resources and hence facilitate some redistribution, because I actually believe in redistribution, at least at a certain level to make sure that everybody’s got a shot. How do we pool resources at the same time as we decentralize delivery systems in ways that both foster competition, can work in the marketplace, and can foster innovation at the local level and can be tailored to particular communities.”

The guy wasn’t even talking about redistribution of wealth. but instead how to remanage government resources and redistribute via decentralized delivery systems.

This one is almost as bad as the “you didn’t built it” misquote.

This is getting really sad when the campaign is purely built on truncated opposition quotes.

[ocrenter]

[quote=Brutus]

Yes, many Americans are ignorant (especially when it comes to $$$), and the most ignorant are generally the poorest.

[/quote]

agree, that’s why someone can run a whole campaign based on truncated quotes and misinformation and probably still get close to 50% of the vote.

[zk]

[quote=Brutus]

There are relatively few poor people in America that bear no responsibility for their situation.[/quote]

A bit of tricky word play, there, Brutus. Bear “no” responsibility? If you put it like that, sure, most poor people could get an additional job if they wanted. Or they could overpower their lack of decent schools, overcome the culture that frequently pervades the areas they live in, borrow money from the government to go to college, get a degree, and rise above their poverty. But most people aren’t strong enough to do that on their own. As I’ve said in a previous post, I advocate educating them about how to rise above their poverty and giving them better schools. Maybe I advocate that position because I have basic human decency. But for those without basic human decency, I say that if you spend some money now to change the culture that perpetuates poverty and dependency, you will be rewarded in the future by not having to support those people any more. What do you suggest we do about poverty and dependency, Brutus?

[quote=Brutus]The ghetto/trailer-park mentality has only gotten more pervasive, a fact that can be confirmed by watching a few of the most popular TV shows: Toddlers and Tiaras, Jersey Shore, Big Brother, 2 1/2 Idiots, Survivor, or anything on MSNBC. The movie “Idiocracy” is not just funny, it’s prophetic, although by that particular time in the future, no one will remember what the word “prophetic” means.[/quote]

Watching anything on MSNBC confirms that the ghetto/trailer-park mentality has gotten more pervasive? Please explain that.

Also, I believe I’m missing your larger point. I’m not sure what any of those shows have to do with a ghetto/trailer-park mentality or what they have to do with Romney’s comment.

[quote=Brutus]
Yes, many Americans are ignorant (especially when it comes to $$$), and the most ignorant are generally the poorest.[/quote]

How do you think they got this way? And what do you propose we do about it?

[quote=Brutus]
Unless they can get their own reality show, eh, Snooki? Are you listening Octo-mom?[/quote]

I assume that this is an attempt at humor and not what you would propose they do about it.

[zk]

[quote=Brutus][quote=Aecetia]Fact-checking Romney’s 47% claim
How many Americans really pay no federal income taxes?

http://money.cnn.com/video/news/2012/09/18/n-romney-tax-claim.cnnmoney%5B/quote%5D

So basically, Romney was right.[/quote]

Technically, maybe, depending on how you define “federal income tax.” Social security tax is federal, based on income, and a tax. And more than 53% of Americans pay it. So maybe he was not right.

But obviously the point isn’t whether his number is correct. The point is that he said 47% of Americans consider themselves entitled victims and that these 47% can’t be convinced to take personal responsibility and care for their lives.

The point is that, if he actually believes that, he’s profoundly ignorant and completely out of touch with how 47% of Americans go about their lives.

[SK in CV]

[quote=zk]
[quote=Brutus]
Unless they can get their own reality show, eh, Snooki? Are you listening Octo-mom?[/quote]

I assume that this is an attempt at humor and not what you would propose they do about it.[/quote]

This is really what this election is all about. What to do about it. Irrespective of the false framing included in that 47% number, do we blame those that don’t pay taxes for all of our fiscal problems, and eliminate every program that provide aid to those people (including Social Security and Medicare) or do we provide solutions.

There was an incredibly insightful opinion column a couple days ago, written by Michal Gerson. Gerson is a neo-conservative and an evangelical. He was a speech writer and senior advisor to President Bush. If it had been written by a liberal, I think most ideological conservatives would dismiss it as just more liberal talking points. It shouldn’t be. His words are those from an insider conservative. He has spent most of the last 20 years as a creator of conservative policy. He wrote:

This crisis has a number of causes, including the collapse of working-class families, the flight of blue-collar jobs and the decay of working-class neighborhoods, which used to offer stronger networks of mentors outside the home. Perverse incentives in some government programs may have contributed to these changes, but this does not mean that shifting incentives can easily undo the damage. Removing a knife from a patient does not automatically return him to health. Whatever the economic and cultural causes, the current problem is dysfunctional institutions, which routinely betray children and young adults. Restoring a semblance of equal opportunity — promoting family commitment, educational attainment and economic advancement — will take tremendous effort and creative policy.

Yet a Republican ideology pitting the “makers” against the “takers” offers nothing. No sympathy for our fellow citizens. No insight into our social challenge. No hope of change. This approach involves a relentless reductionism. Human worth is reduced to economic production. Social problems are reduced to personal vices. Politics is reduced to class warfare on behalf of the upper class.

I think Gerson believes Romney’s problem in this election is a messaging problem rather than a policy problem. I’m not so sure. I think his messaging has been a crystal clear presentation of his proposed policies.

The entire column is worth a read.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/michael-gerson-a-republican-mind-set-without-promise/2012/09/20/798901f8-0344-11e2-91e7-2962c74e7738_story.html

[zk]

“Restoring a semblance of equal opportunity — promoting family commitment, educational attainment and economic advancement — will take tremendous effort and creative policy.”

I totally agree with what he’s saying. In fact, that’s what I’ve been saying. Above and in this earlier post on another thread:

[quote=zk]… let’s be realistic about teaching them to make their own way in life. It’s going to be complicated.

Would you be in favor of:

Equally funded schools, regardless of the affluence of the students.
Free (federally paid) parenting classes.
Free life skills classes.
Federally funded information/education campaign to encourage the poor to attend the classes, emphasize education, and generally make their own way.

These are just a few that occur to me off the top of my head. It would take more than just these things, and I’m no expert on it. But obviously you can’t just say, “no more money for you” and expect them to figure it out on their own. They’re poor for a reason. Sure, in some cases it’s laziness or lack of personal initiative. But, in my opinion, more often it’s that they’re stuck in a culture that encourages behavior that results in them being supported by the government, whether it’s via prison, welfare, or other programs. Sure, some of that culture is a result of us giving them money. We fucked up. I think we agree on that.

So let’s fix it. But let’s be realistic about how it can be fixed. It can’t be fixed by just not giving them any more money. Anything that has a shot at working is going to be expensive. It’s going to be controversial (how dare you tell us our culture isn’t as good as yours). It’s going to take a long time. But in the long run, everybody is better off.[/quote]

I’m glad to see that this opinion is being expressed elsewhere.

I’d like to hear other viewpoints on this matter. As I said, I’m no expert on this. But the discussion has to start somewhere.

[Coronita]

delete

[Author]

Posts