In 2009, my first full year working as an attorney, I was supporting a family of four on a single income. Because of the child tax credit, the mortgage and student loan deductions, and various other credits and deductions for which Becky and I qualified, I ultimately did not pay any federal income tax that year. I received a refund of my entire federal income-tax withholding, and then some. This means I was part of “the 47%” of non-taxpayers.
According to Mitt Romney, it also means I have an “entitlement” mentality; I believe I am a “victim”; I believe the “government has a responsibility to care for me”; and he’ll never be able to convince me that I should “take personal responsibility and care for my life.” Mitt Romney literally said that about the 47% of adults who don’t pay federal income taxes.
“The 47%” is a concept that’s been widely discussed in online conservative circles, a shorthand to refer to the Randian fear that an increasingly large percentage of the population has no “skin in the game” and are basically a bunch of moochers and parasites. In reality, however, the 47% of non-taxpayers is a diverse group that’s made up partly of people like me in 2009 (middle-class working folks who qualify for lots of credits and deductions); partly of elderly people who worked their entire lives and now depend on Social Security; and partly of poor people, both working and non-working — some of whom, yes, receive various forms of government assistance. It also includes various other groups who don’t pay federal income taxes for specific reasons, such as active duty combat troops (!). Mitt Romney thinks the 47% are all a bunch of welfare queens and food-stamp recipients, he thinks this group shares a lifestyle that he can reasonably denounce as lacking personal responsibility and betraying an entitlement mentality, but he’s just categorically wrong. This is a matter of fact, not opinion. The 47% is a vastly different group than he apparently imagines it to be.
Although I am a Democrat, I have defended Romney when he’s been criticized for previous “gaffes” that were really harmless statements taken out of context, like “corporations are people too,” “I like being able to fire people,” and “I’m not concerned about the very poor.” Those were poorly worded statements, but — much like Obama’s “you didn’t build that” — the actual context was clear, and relatively inoffensive. This, though, is different. Romney said precisely what he meant, and it’s completely indefensible in every respect. The context makes it worse, not better.
(The only remotely equivalent comment that Obama has ever made, to my knowledge, is his infamous “bitter clingers” remark in 2008. That was pretty bad — I think @polarscribe is right that it wasn’t quite as bad as this, but it was genuinely bad, and I criticized him for it at the time. To this day, I think he’s lucky it wasn’t fatal to his campaign, largely due to good timing: it happened late enough that it couldn’t meaningfully help Hillary Clinton, who was already hopelessly behind, but early enough that Hillary used it extensively and made it “old news” long before the general election, so McCain couldn’t get as much mileage out of it as he could’ve if it had emerged in, oh I dunno, let’s say mid-September. Romney may not be so lucky.)
Romney wasn’t going to get my vote anyway; my decision is between President Obama and Gary Johnson. But this outrageous statement by Romney really cements my disdain for him. A man so ignorant of the basic nature of our tax code, so callously indifferent to the needless divisiveness of his own words, and so willing to engage in sweeping generalizations about other people’s “beliefs” — thereby insulting the character of millions of his fellow Americans based solely on their tax status — is unfit to be President of the United States.
UPDATE: I thought I’d put my feelings in photo form, a la those 1% / 99% photos that were all the rage last year:
David Brooks’s column today on this issue is a must-read:
In 1960, government transfers to individuals totaled $24 billion. By 2010, that total was 100 times as large. Even after adjusting for inflation, entitlement transfers to individuals have grown by more than 700 percent over the last 50 years. This spending surge…has increased faster under Republican administrations than Democratic ones.
There are sensible conclusions to be drawn from these facts. You could say that the entitlement state is growing at an unsustainable rate and will bankrupt the country. You could also say that America is spending way too much on health care for the elderly and way too little on young families and investments in the future.
But these are not the sensible arguments that Mitt Romney made at a fund-raiser earlier this year. Romney, who criticizes President Obama for dividing the nation, divided the nation into two groups: the makers and the moochers. Forty-seven percent of the country, he said, are people “who are dependent upon government, who believe they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to take care of them, who believe they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you name it.”
This comment suggests a few things. First, it suggests that he really doesn’t know much about the country he inhabits. Who are these freeloaders? Is it the Iraq war veteran who goes to the V.A.? Is it the student getting a loan to go to college? Is it the retiree on Social Security or Medicare?
It suggests that Romney doesn’t know much about the culture of America. Yes, the entitlement state has expanded, but America remains one of the hardest-working nations on earth. Americans work longer hours than just about anyone else. Americans believe in work more than almost any other people. Ninety-two percent say that hard work is the key to success, according to a 2009 Pew Research Survey.
It says that Romney doesn’t know much about the political culture. Americans haven’t become childlike worshipers of big government. On the contrary, trust in government has declined. The number of people who think government spending promotes social mobility has fallen.
The people who receive the disproportionate share of government spending are not big-government lovers. They are Republicans. They are senior citizens. They are white men with high school degrees. As Bill Galston of the Brookings Institution has noted, the people who have benefited from the entitlements explosion are middle-class workers, more so than the dependent poor. …
Sure, there are some government programs that cultivate patterns of dependency in some people. I’d put federal disability payments and unemployment insurance in this category. But, as a description of America today, Romney’s comment is a country-club fantasy. It’s what self-satisfied millionaires say to each other. It reinforces every negative view people have about Romney.
Personally, I think he’s a kind, decent man who says stupid things because he is pretending to be something he is not — some sort of cartoonish government-hater. But it scarcely matters. He’s running a depressingly inept presidential campaign. Mr. Romney, your entitlement reform ideas are essential, but when will the incompetence stop?
It won’t. Republicans are (probably, barring some unexpected sea change) going to lose this highly winnable election because they chose the worst major-party nominee since either Dukakis or Mondale. Yes, despite the obvious parallels, he’s even worse than Kerry, I now believe. He’s unbelievably bad.
But back to Romney’s statement. The words he used, in the context he created, are completely indefensible. Folks who claim his statement was “accurate” because of some unjustifiably narrow reading of what he said (the 47% is an accurate number, so he was right, and let’s ignore all the ‘beliefs’ and character traits he universally ascribed to the 47%), or supposedly “meant” to say (he wasn’t referring to hard-working people, he meant the true “dependents”…and we’ll ignore that they’re a small minority of the 47%, thus completely contradicting his entire damn point), are blindly partisan apologists — period. No properly informed, intellectually honest person can defend the substance of these comments. Only the ignorant and the dishonest can or would.
“Unfit to be president” is, admittedly, on reflection, probably a bit overwrought. But what Romney said was wrong, offensive, and factually indefensible, and he needs to apologize fully and completely. But of course he can’t and won’t, because doing so would require admitting that, as Brooks says, he fundamentally doesn’t understand the nation he is asking voters to let him govern.
Our ambassador murdered and dragged through the streets, the Middle East erupting, gas at $4 a gallon, $16 trillion in debt, an annual deficit over a trillion dollars, persistent unemployment over 8%, the lowest workforce participation rate in decades, more people going on disability than finding jobs, rampant political corruption in the Justice Department and in your opinion an off the cuff statement in a private gathering is the only thing worth posting about, and renders a candidate unsupportable.
The kicker at the end — “unfit to be President of the United States” — is, on reflection, admittedly a bit overwrought. If Obama said something equally offensive, which he never has (quite) but imaginably could, I would be unlikely to suddenly decide I absolutely can’t vote for him based on the statement alone.
Having said that, the rest of your criticism is nonsense. If you haven’t noticed, I barely ever blog here anymore about anything, political or otherwise. Most of my political commentary now takes place on Twitter. And I’ve tweeted extensively about all of the things you reference, sometimes quite critically of Obama, sometimes not, depending on the topic and my honest opinion of who’s to blame. The only reason I blogged this, rather than merely tweeting it, is that my response required some fairly extensive background information that can’t be conveyed in 140 character bursts.
Also, I don’t feel as compelled to blog about, say, the situation in Libya, because I don’t have anything to add that others more knowledgeable than me haven’t already said. Here, I had something to add because Romney’s statement is directly applicable to me (in 2009), but many of his supporters don’t realize that. They honestly think it’s reasonable to conflate “the 47%” (non-taxpayers) with “folks dependent on government” (a much, much smaller group). They are completely wrong, and I am a very specific, personal example of why they are wrong. So I wanted to elucidate that in full, rather than merely tweeting about it.
Lest we forget, Romney is the 47% as well… Makes this all the more amusing.
Brendan, your “offense” at what Romney said as applied to you is ridiculous. How can you seriously compare your brief stint as a “47%-er” to the Peggy Josephs of the world?
Your situation was a temporary one. You knew that while you weren’t paying taxes in 2009, you would pay some in 2010, more in 2011, more in 2012, and so on. You aren’t a permanent resident of that “class”. Peggy Joseph is. The unemployed 24 year-old single mother of 3 (with a 4th on the way!), all with different fathers, none of which are in the picture that lives on my block, is. Here’s a news flash-pretty much all of us at one point were in that same position as you were in 2009. The difference between the “47%” and the rest of us (and by “us”, I mean you, and I, and every other taxpayer out there today) is that we made an effort not to stay in that position. We worked. Sometimes more than one job. We scrimped and saved, paid the bills, put in the time, and got ahead. We did what’s expected of adults in America. We pulled our weight.
Believe it or not, there are people out there who are more than happy to work the system to get “free” money from the Government to avoid working. Those are the people Romney is speaking of.
Not you, not others who are trying their hardest to earn a living, support a family, and get ahead. That you somehow are lumping yourself into the ranks of the permanent Government-dependant because you spent a single year among their ranks is ridiculous.
To suggest Romney sees no difference between you and Peggy Joseph is incredibly unbelievable.
You’re better than that, Brendan
The Peggy Josephs of this country are a tiny minority. People like her are NOWHERE NEAR forty-seven percent of the country. The facts are clear. Most “47 percenters” are old (already paid lots of taxes), young (will pay lots of taxes eventually), temporarily unemployed (have paid taxes before & will again), or fall into other specific subgroups that don’t pay federal taxes for situation-specific reasons that have nothing to do with entitlement, victimhood or a lack of personal responsibility. Yet Mitt Romney ignorantly lumped all of these people into a single group, said they constitute 47% of the country, and described them all as entitled, self-styled victims with no sense of personal responsibility. I didn’t make Mitt Romney say that; he chose to say it. I agree it’s “incredibly unbelievable” that Romney would lump me in with Peggy Joseph, but that’s PRECISELY what he did.
You talk about it like I constitute 2% and the Peggy Josephs constitute 45%, and if that were true, you’d be right, I’d be quibbling here. But it’s closer to the other way around. As I put it on Facebook:
“Here’s a news flash-pretty much all of us at one point were in that same position as you were in 2009.”
Here’s a news flash – you just proved my point. Romney is lumping “pretty much all of us” in with the tiny minority of Peggy Josephs. Young people, old people, temporarily unemployed people, hard-working low-income people who qualify for various Republican-passed tax credits and deductions — these groups make up the bulk of the “47%” that Romney wrote off as entitled, government-dependent losers.
Don’t blame me for the fact that your nominee is bleepin’ idiot who thinks that welfare queens somehow make up 47% of the country.
Simple question: In your opinion, what percentage of people not paying taxes (regardless of their reason for not paying taxes in the first place) would vote for a candidate that would enact policies that might cause them to pay taxes in the future?
Sorry, but I’m not going to answer a question, even a “simple” one, that’s based on a fundamentally false premise (i.e., that there is a large, permanent underclass of government-dependent mooches who reliably and monolithically vote Democratic, and who make up the bulk of the so-called “47%”).
Admit the truth of the facts I’ve laid out above, regarding the actual identity and nature of “the 47%” — facts which expose the complete untruthfulness of Romney’s comment — and I’ll consider engaging in hypothetical discussions about the putative motivations of the vastly smaller group of people who fit into the dependency rubric I just described. But so long as you maintain that what Romney said is remotely defensible, we are living on different planets (my planet is the one based on facts), and further productive discussion of this issue is impossible. I’m simply not going to waste any more time beating my head against the wall trying to convince people of very simple facts. You’re entitled to your opinions, but this isn’t a matter of opinion, it’s a matter of fact, and you’re not entitled to your own facts. Admit the facts about “the 47%” and then we can talk about our respective opinions regarding entitlements, voting patterns and so forth. Until then, good day. I need to get back to my job
mooching off the governmentworking to support my family.My question mentioned nothing on political affiliation, just on who does or doesn’t pay taxes. My same question could be rephrased along the lines of “what percentage of smokers would vote for a complete ban on smoking”, or “what percentage of overweight people would vote for a penalty on obesity”.
You refuse to answer my question, because it proves Romney’s point-people that don’t pay taxes will always support the candidate that will continue to allow them to remain tax-free. People will never vote against their own self-interests.
Romney’s comment reflects the Democrat platform (I know you remember “Julia”).
We may be living on different planets, yet until you can conclusive prove (you lawyers operate on “proof”, right?) exactly what was spinning in Romney’s head at the time he made his statements, both of us live on planets based on opinion, right?
I can see why Democrats are so offended. How dare Mitt Romney say they’re dependent on the government? Only Democrats get to say they’re dependent on the government!
Has everybody already forgotten “Julia”?
If you haven’t seen the whole “Life of Julia” slideshow on Obama’s campaign site, or if you need a refresher, check it out. The entire premise is that you’re dependent on the government from cradle to grave, and The Evil Mitt Romney is going to take it all away from you and make you fend for yourself.
That’s Obama’s reelection message: “Vote for me or Romney will take away all the free goodies you’ve got coming to you! By the way, can you believe he called you a mooch?” The Democrats based their whole convention around the premise that you need Obama just to survive. (Well, that and killing Bin Laden. Which they suddenly don’t feel like talking about anymore, for some odd reason…)
The economy is collapsing. Our embassies are being overrun. Our diplomats are being murdered, and our own government is blaming it on the First Amendment. And Obama doesn’t know what to do about any of it, except for his usual plan of lying his ass off. So he and his enablers in the media hope you’ll be distracted by Romney’s “gaffe” of criticizing the Democrats’ strategy. They hope you’ll be offended that Romney pointed out what the Dems have been telling you your whole life: You need the government to provide for you, and you can’t go a single day without a handout. They hope you’re as credulous as the people who voted for them last time.
http://dailycaller.com/2012/09/18/democrats-think-romney-just-self-destructed-by-pointing-out-um-their-entire-strategy/
damn..didn’t close my italics!
“until you can conclusively prove…exactly what was spinning in Romney’s head at the time he made his statements, both of us live on planets based on opinion, right?”
No. Falling back on “you can’t read minds” is the last refuge of those who defend the indefensible. I’m not trying to read Mitt Romney’s mind. I don’t need to. I just need to read his words.
Romney said certain words, which have certain specific meanings. To wit, incontrovertibly, Romney’s words described the 47% of Americans who do not pay federal income taxes in a certain way, ascribing to them certain universal character traits and beliefs. I won’t repeat the list of traits and beliefs; you can re-read his statement if you’ve forgotten.
Just as incontrovertibly, the 47% of Americans who do not pay federal income taxes is largely made up of a combination of the following groups:
* Retirees who used to pay taxes, but no longer work
* Young people who don’t yet make enough money to pay taxes
* The temporarily unemployed
* The legitimately disabled
* The working poor who don’t make enough money to pay taxes because of various bipartisan-supported tax credits and deductions that Romney does not propose to eliminate
* A variety of other subgroups, such as certain farmers, active-duty combat troops, etc., who cannot reasonably be described as government-dependent, entitlement-minded, self-styled “victims.”
Incontrovertibly, the subgroup that CAN arguably be described as government-dependent, entitlement-minded, self-styled “victims” — the non-working poor who choose to remain that way, the “Peggy Joseph” group — is much, much smaller than 47% of American adults. Not just slightly smaller. Drastically smaller.
Therefore, incontrovertibly, as a matter of fact, not opinion, Mitt Romney’s statement is categorically wrong.
Until you can admit those incontrovertible facts (not opinions–facts), we have nothing to discuss.
(Alternatively, you can try to present evidence contradicting those facts. You’ll fail, though.)
Gahrie, that’s all very interesting, but unless and until someone can explain to me how what Romney said is remotely true, despite what I’ve outlined above, I’m not particularly interested in how Democrats are supposedly using it as a distraction or whatever. I’m going to stick with the question of whether what Mitt Romney said is true. In point of fact, it’s false, as I’ve explained extensively and no one has rebutted. And it seems to me that Democrats using Mitt Romney’s false statements against Mitt Romney is fair game.
Oh, now I understand. So when the guy at the bar said “Damn, I’m gonna kill Payton Manning!” after he threw his third interception last night should be arrested, because certain words have specific meanings. Incontrovertibly.
Thanks for clearing that up! I used to think that two people could hear the same thing, but interpret it somewhat differently. Clearly, I was wrong.
Brendan:
The specifics of Romney’s statement may be inaccurate, but the general point he was making is true:
The Democratic Party is the party of dependency and government aid; and the Republican Party is the party of self-reliance and private charity.
There about 45% of voters who are going to vote Democratic, and 45% who are going to vote Republican, no matter what the issues or who the candidates are. It is a waste of time, money and effort for the other party to target these people.
WAMK, the guy at the bar was obviously using hyperbole, and it would be absurd to claim otherwise (regardless of what the TSA might say about similar statements at an airport). Obviously there are times when words are not meant literally; I am not promoting hyperliteralism. Nor, however, am I relying on mind-reading. If you can specifically point out what aspect of Mitt Romney’s statement you believe I’m misinterpreting, and propose a reasonable alternative interpretation, I’m all ears.
(I suspect you haven’t thus far because you can’t. My reading is the obvious, and correct, one.)
Gahrie:
Thanks for saying it so much better than I could.
“Fake but accurate,” then, gahrie?
Your partisan characterizations of the respective parties, and what they supposedly stand for, are all well and good. I won’t try hopelessly to dissuade you from your oversimplified worldview. But “Dems=dependency, GOP=self-reliance” is not all Romney said. It’s not even the bulk of what Romney said. The bulk of what he said was to specifically ascribe various negative character traits and beliefs to a broad swath of society, based solely on their tax status. He did so based on an entirely, provably false premise regarding the makeup of the 47% of adults who don’t pay federal income taxes. He was wrong in all meaningful respects. The entire point he made, with the words he used, within the context he created, is entirely false. It is not defensible or redeemable in any way, with any spin. It is just wrong.
This entire discussion sort of makes me want to quit the Internet and maybe go live in a cabin in the woods. What the Hell is wrong with this country nowadays that otherwise smart people actually believe this utter bullshit? Everything I’m saying is head-smackingly obvious and undeniable and cannot possibly be factually refuted, and yet the usual partisan suspects crop up to defend their man anyway. Jesus H. Christ on a pogo stick. We are #DOOMED.
Brendan:
I don’t know, he looked pretty pissed, and said he lost a lot of money because of the interceptions. How can you be so sure it was “obviously” hyperbole? Is it “obvious” hyperbole when a US outpost is warned of an impending attack 72 hours before the anniversary of the most horrific terrorist attack on US soil?
I’m not asking to be snarky, but to try and gain a better understanding of when you think words “matter”, and when they can be downplayed.
Gahrie put it very well in comment #15. You believe your position to be “more” correct, because it represents your worldview.
Maybe you could clarify what Romney should have said (in your opinion, of course), that would have been non-offensive to you, yet still conveyed that Republicans don’t believe that a culture of Government dependence is the best way forward for our Country.
What would that comment/statement look like?
I have nothing more to say until you:
1) Respond to my factual points regarding the fundamental untruth of Romney’s statement (including advancing a specific alternative interpretation of his words that you believe is more reasonable than mine); or
2) Admit my factual points are correct, at which time we can discuss opinions based our shared understanding of the facts.
Again, I simply will not get into a debate over opinions without first establishing a shared understanding of facts that I believe to be incontrovertible — and you have not demonstrated otherwise.
Again, I simply will not get into a debate over opinions without first establishing a shared understanding of facts that I believe to be incontrovertible
As I have been saying on this site for years, this is simply no longer possible. The Left and Right in this country no longer share the same reality.
Gahrie, finally something everyone can agree on. Brendan is stating the facts and “the right” doesn’t want to include that in their argument. If “the right” argues facts they lose every time, that’s why Obama is blamed for unrest in the mideast or the economy. The economy is 1000 times better today than it was when he took office. The dow jones was at 6000 and today it is double that. 800,000 jobs were being lost per month when he took office, now 100,000 are being added per month. Gas went up 300% when Bush was in office, throughout his presidency is when gas was the most expensive, it’s cheaper today, but gas prices are largely out of the president’s control.
Facts > Republicans
“As I have been saying on this site for years, this is simply no longer possible. The Left and Right in this country no longer share the same reality.”
Oh Gahrie, they share the same reality–they’re just too busy shrieking at each other to acknowledge the other side has a point. See the utterly reasonable question our host is pulling a “I’m not listening to you until I get what _I_ want…”-on. Which is his right as a host–also doesn’t mean he’s not part of the problem.
Brendan–Fine, Romney’s wrong, you’re right–now answer WAMK2006’s question. What’s that? You’re too busy being self-righteous? Or perhaps I didn’t pay proper obeisance to you in acknowledging that Candidate Romney may have been factually incorrect but thematically hit the nail on the head?
That’s okay. Wars on Math usually go about as well as invading Russia in late September. So when hard choices are foisted upon us (and believe me, at our recent demographics + current spending rate nevermind the budgets the incumbent has tried to pass that will be very, very soon) I hope your intellectual superiority keeps you warm at night, as there’s not going to be a whole lot else that will be able to.
I personally don’t care about people’s party affiliation. The Republic is in too dire of straits for what petty labels one wants to attach to themselves to matter. Just simply answer me this question, since you’re a fan of facts: In what universe does 8%+ (closer to 11% with the same workforce participation in place in 2008), embassies being stormed at will, intelligence being ignored and a Chief Executive who has ignored multiple commissions’ recommendations = incumbent reelections? If you can answer, with a straight, non-partisan face that it is _this_ one, then you, Sir, need to really ask yourselves what kind of country you are leaving behind for your children and delete _any_ posts criticizing a president, senator or member of congress serving after 1945 unless they’re guilty of criminal activity. To be blunt, I’m not saying you have to vote for anyone currently holding office on November 6, but you sure as hell better not claim to love your children if you’re voting for _ANY_ incumbent whether they’re Republican, Democrat, Libertarian or Communist. “But _my_ guy will make everything better…” “RIght, just like they have for the last 2, 4, or 6 years…”. But of course, only one side is being obstructionist in Loy-land.
Sandy–Um, gas went up 300% when Bush was in office? Really? According to Triple A gas was $1.51-$1.53 in 2000. It _briefly_ averaged $4.50 after _one of the worst hurricanes in American history_. It sure as hell didn’t _average_ $4.50 for 8 freakin’ years.
But hey Sandy, you’re that’s _totally_ President Bush’s fault but the current rise in food prices isn’t President Obama’s because he’s _your guy_. The economy is “1000 times better”? Really? You say that and have the audacity to comment on “facts”>political party? Did you go to the doctor for tonsillitis and they insert a bypass from your colon to your esophagus? Earth to Mongo–you and your ilk are part of the reason this country’s becoming ungovernable. I hope you’re happy with the result when we’re shooting at one another, because it’s looking like the 1850s as of late. No, scratch that, I truly hope that when the inevitable social disruption that is coming because we have an entitlement + demographic + lack of political will problem occurs you and your partisan mirror images are subject to fully enjoying the fruits of your labor because it will likely be _epic_ and not in a good way.
P.S. Oh, and the fact you got all huffy about something possibly applying to you sorta proves the point about the “entitlement” attitude. Yeah, you may not like it, but what you’re really proving with this little snit fit is that when you say politicians should level with people what you’re really saying is “tell me the truth and I’ll do my d*mndest to tell everyone not to vote for you because you hurt my feelings.” Because no, I’m pretty sure _none_ of us should be getting tax credits given our dire straits…but watch what happens to the first politician to suggest that unless the Treasury is literally on fire from the printing presses catching.
James, I was in college during Clinton’s presidency and gas was 99 cents a gallon in los angeles throughout most of it, it was 79 cents in arizona. During Bush the price broke records hitting almost 5 bucks. Not briefly, I can’t remember it being less than 3 dollars a gallon at any point. I know the stats say it was 1.50 at the end of his presidency, not at any gas station I ever went to, and I have a chevron card and the business receipts to prove the price.
PS, it had nothing to do with the Hurricane.
Regarding the economy, “1000 times better” shouldn’t be taken literally, but -800,000 jobs per month +100,000 jobs per month = 900,000 jobs per month difference between when Obama took office and today. 900,000 is a pretty good turn around. Maybe not 1000 times better, but a lot better, if that makes it easier for you to take.
http://bit.ly/RrTLxD
Sandy–where were you in the country in 2008 (just generally, not specific)? I drive 67 miles one way (don’t ask, it’s a long story) to work every day, so believe me when I say I’m very aware of gas prices. I don’t remember it being $5 for very long–but I’m in the Midwest. So, yes, I actually _saw_ $1.50 gas with my own eyes–but that’s because if you make farmers pay out the nose things get really dicey, really quick. I also don’t remember gas getting that low during Clinton’s terms–but then again, I was in NY, WA or without a car for most of that time so my view is probably skewed.
It had a lot to do with the hurricane. It should _not_ have, but unfortunately we can’t figure out how to A. tame the speculator markets without doing stuff that’s a cure worse than disease and B. build refineries in this country (which is a national security issue).
The Department of Labor’s own statistics show that underemployed + unemployed at 2008 levels is around 17%. It was less than that in 2008 (~15%) and that’s on this side of a trillion dollar stimulus. Also those numbers do not support that we’ve been adding 100,000 jobs a month steadily since the President took office. I’m not saying _you_ are lying–I’m just saying if you get into the DoL’s statistics there are some…inconsistencies. Which, btw, are probably based on different departments massaging statistics different ways.
wamk2006 did say something that is true, people that don’t pay taxes will work quite hard to keep from paying them in the future… Just like Mr. Romney has. Simple logic, as you said. If it costs 10 million dollars to save 50 you seriously believe a person with 100 million wont go for it. The difference between programs for the poor and welfare for rich people is simply that the rich take theirs off the top before it hits the balance sheet and before anyone even knows it’s missing.
James, I’ve been in Los Angeles forever, and next to Hawaii, we have the most expensive gas prices in America. So when we were paying 5 bucks a gallon, you were probably at 3.80 or 4. But the price of oil, before Bush took office, was 25-30 dollars per barrel, it went up to160 dollars per barrel, and of course that affects the price of gas. The tension and war with Iraq drove up the price as well, and that was 2002 throughout Bush’s presidency.
Obama hasn’t been adding 100,000 jobs per month since he took office. The economy collapsed. If we were losing 800,000 jobs the month Obama was sworn in, how could any reasonable person expect that the following month could be rosy and the streets flowing with gold and treasure? The economy has been growing the past 2 years, and Obama has added jobs the past 30 months of his presidency, so what his policies are in fact working. Things aren’t good, but they’re markedly better than when he took office.
I wanted to point out that Romney is disparaging half of the country in his speech, but Brendan already broke down the groups of people that make up that 47%, and they aren’t dead-beats, whom Romney says, “I don’t care about those people”. Clearly he cares mostly about the billionaires he represents, including himself. He has stated that he’s going to raise taxes on the middle class, but the Republican middle class apparently is too glib to catch on since Fox News doesn’t point it out. He said he’s going to close “loop-holes in the tax code”– write-offs. That means your marriage tax credit– gone, Mortgage write-off– gone, interest from student loans– gone, child credit– gone, etc. Those write-offs are a big reason that HALF of the 47% he’s talking about pay no income tax. Meanwhile Mitt Romney and his class pay 10% income tax on 20 million dollars made from investments without doing one day’s work for it. That’s not right.
So you had me until Gary Johnson. The guy who wants to immediately destroy medicare, medicaid, and social security, have only a consumption tax and otherwise run the federal government like a company store? I fail to see how it’s based on anything different from the same fantastical idea lurking in Romney’s remarks that the wealthy in our society are somehow “overtaxed”, despite the evidence that income taxes would need to be double what they are now to be at a level that would actually discourage economic activity. And the idea, which I find particularly galling, that social security and medicare are in some sense discretionary charity/welfare payments despite the fact that our parents paid regressive taxes all their working lives to fund them, and can very reasonably be said to be entitled to those benefits.
Brendan is not voting for Gary Johnson.
Joe Mama – if my candidate and my party had brought the US economy and international reputation to its current parlous state, I might be just as defensive as Brendan right now … it can be quite hard to admit that one was fooled (and cooperated in being fooled) quite so completely and wholeheartedly …
It is fascinating to observe so many otherwise-intelligent folk hyperventilating in the certainty over what Mitt Romney was thinking and meant when he spoke to supporters at that private fund-raiser … me, I’m not that arrogant …
When I compare the two electable candidates, *my* thoughts are approximately as follows …
Democrats seem to prefer to wield the weapon of redistribution to cut up the currently existing pieces into more even pieces …
Republicans seem to prefer to wield the lever of liberty to increase the amounts of pieces available to everyone so that everyone can get even more pieces …
Personally, I prefer everyone to have even more pieces rather than more even pieces …
The rest, as they say, is commentary …
I used to think that Rush Limbaugh, and intelligent entertainers like him would say things with no basis in reality because there were people that would believe it and he and his ilk were secretly laughing it up off the air, because they know they’re just letting a bunch of BS fly.
“If my candidate brought the US economy and international reputation to its current parlous state, I might be defensive right now”. Uhhhh, “your candidate” did. The stock market crashed, the housing market crashed, the economy crashed, we were at war with two countries in the middle east during Bush’s final year as president, the result of his decisions from his prior 7 years.
The economy has improved since Obama became president. The Dow was 7500 when he took office, it’s 13,553 right now. That means everyone’s 401K, IRA, retirement which was totally down the toilet at the end of Bush’s presidency, has been saved by Obama. The foreclosures in housing were at a record level when Bush left office, they aren’t now. The US was losing 800,000 jobs per month when Bush left office, we’re gaining 100,000 jobs per month for the past 30 months. So you’re wrong about being ashamed of the president’s economic numbers, you should be ashamed of Bush’s presidency.
Regarding the Middle East, we suffered the worst terror attack in American history when Saudi Arabian terrorists attacked us on 9/11 after Bush gutted counter-terror programs put in place by Bill Clinton, and after Dick Cheney served as the head of counter-terror for the previous 9 months. We then started 2 wars with Countries that had nothing to do with the attacks, and those wars went on throughout the remainder of Bush’s two terms. That’s embarrassing.
Obama saw through to end the Iraq war, stayed out of getting into a war with Libya and saw the result– the death of Kadhaffi, the removal of the Egyptian scumbag ally of Republicans, and the death of Bin Laden and hundreds of top Al Queda operatives throughout Obama’s first term, without invading a country to do it.
No wonder nobody on the right wants to talk about facts/live in a separate reality.
Sandy – it is embarrassing that, after all thye discussion that there has been on here and other places about who started the war with Saddam Hussein, you *still* haven’t got it …
So – I’ll try this once more …
The Gulf War was started by Iraq under Saddam Hussein when he invaded and tried to annex a sovereign nation – Kuwait – on August 2, 1990 … Bush I responded by working to organise a coalition of many nations with UN backing and ejected Saddam – and, for various reasons, on February 28, 1991, there was a Cease-Fire, agreed to by both sides …
After repeated breakings of the Cease-Fire by Iraq were pretty much ignored throughout the Clinton years, Bush II decided that enough was enough, and got UN support to finish what had bee started at the beginning of the 1990s …
DO try to keep up, Sandy …
I think you’re the one that can’t keep up, because the United Nations did not support the second war with Iraq, and were not involved in it, and in fact Gulf War II was declared Illegal by the United Nations. The weapons inspector, Hans Blix said he could not validate the belief that Saddam had nuclear weapons or any WMD or pose any threat to anyone and that further inspections should continue. Long story short– we blew up the country and found out that Hans Blix was right, a trillion dollars later. But that wasn’t a waste of money of course.
“United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441 is a United Nations Security Council resolution adopted unanimously by the United Nations Security Council on 8 November 2002, offering Iraq under Saddam Hussein “a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations” that had been set out in several previous resolutions (Resolution 660, Resolution 661, Resolution 678, Resolution 686, Resolution 687, Resolution 688, Resolution 707, Resolution 715, Resolution 986, and Resolution 1284). ”
“On 8 November 2002, the Security Council passed Resolution 1441 by a unanimous 15–0 vote; Russia, China, France, and Arab countries such as Syria voted in favor, giving Resolution 1441 wider support than even the 1990 Gulf War resolution.”
“On 12 September 2002, U.S. President George W. Bush addressed the General Assembly and outlined a catalogue of complaints against the Iraqi government.[1] These included:
“In violation of Security Council Resolution 1373, Iraq supports terrorist organizations that direct violence against Iran, Israel, and Western governments….And al-Qaida terrorists escaped from Afghanistan are known to be in Iraq.”
The United Nations Commission on Human Rights in 2001 found “extremely grave” human rights violations
Iraqi production and use of weapons of mass destruction (biological weapons, chemical weapons, and long-range missiles), all in violation of U.N. resolutions.
Iraq used proceeds from the “oil for food” U.N. program to purchase weapons rather than food for its people.
Iraq flagrantly violated the terms of the weapons inspection program before discontinuing it altogether.”
The third paragraph is to head off any more of the “It’s all about WMDs and none were found” whine …
Bottom line …
Iraq started the war …
Iraq *lost* the war …
Iraq’s leaders agreed to a cease-fire and then kept breaking its terms …
Iraq’s leaders were removed …
I am curious … where is your citation/corroboration for the UN declaring Gulf War II illegal ?
Current Wikipedia says “The UN Security Council, as outlined in Article 39 of the UN Charter, has the ability to rule on the legality of the war, but has yet not been asked by any UN member nation to do so.”
September16, 2004– “The United Nations secretary general, Kofi Annan, declared explicitly for the first time last night that the US-led war on Iraq was illegal.”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/sep/16/iraq.iraq
The US would not allow a vote among the UN Security Council Members to go back to war with Iraq because virtually no country, worldwide, favored that. There were only 4 votes (to 9 against) to go to war. The votes “for war” were from US, UK, Bulgaria, and Spain, hardly a coalition of superpowers. The UN specifically said they did not want the US to attack Iraq, and the United States violated the wishes of the UN and attacked Iraq anyway.
Yes, everyone knows about the resolutions. Violating resolutions was not to result in a 10 year war over-throwing the government of Iraq and pain-stakingly implementing a new government.
I love how you quote George Bush from 2002 and then list a bunch of things that were proven later to be untrue after the war was started. You are a true republican.
April 7, 2005– “Intelligence chiefs have admitted for the first time that claims they made about Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction were wrong and have not been substantiated.”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2005/apr/08/uk.iraq
Hans Blix UN weapons inspection team had full access to everything they wanted to see, and even destroyed thousands of munitions that they believed to be in violation and Hussein did not protest. Bush told the inspectors to leave Iraq because the US was going to begin bombing.
To be clear, there were no WMD in Iraq, and the US government admits this.I enjoyed debating this topic 10 years ago, I’m amazed that after all the facts have come forward that there are still people who think 1) Hussein was responsible for 9/11, 2) Hussein was working with Al Queda, and that 3) Iraq had nuclear and other WMD. None of those things are true, and the Bush Administration has published countless reports that say those things are not true. The power of AM Radio.
(SIGH)
1) I was waiting for that response … Kofi Annan can ‘declare explicitly’ that the Moon is made of Havarti and that don’t make it so ! That is why I put the last paragraph in my response to which Sandy sadly predictably replied … so far, the UN has *NOT* declared Gulf War II to be illegal in an legal form …
2) Sandy, Sandy, Sandy ! (shaking head) You are quoting the Grauniad, again … I do not know of a *less*-accurate organ of the major media on this planet … they even make typos of their *own* name ! Even the LA Times has yet to sink *quite* that low …
3) Rather than quoting a site whose claim to fame is INaccuracies, take a look at an arms control site which lists why so many people and countries were convinced that all was not kosher under Saddam Hussein in the middle and late 1990s … or take a look at this bastion of pro-Bush propaganda (aka the Washington Post) …
Sandy – you may believe that Saddam Hussein was reponsible for 9/11 – those of us who are rational don’t believe that …
You also seem to believe that Iraq never had chemical WMDs – their existence and use happens to be well-documented … take a look here for some details …
So – back to current days …
I find the DOW Jones rating to be interesting, yet nowhere near as significant as the fact that the percentage of the US population actually gainfully employed has gone down significantly since our First Golfer took office …
I find it more significant that North Dakota is producing more oil than Alaska, which happened during the administration of The Pres’ent ,,, (back earlier this year, ND overtook AK)
I find it more significant that part of the rise in the Dow is directly attributable to the Fed opening up the printing presses with QE1, QE2, etc … the devaluing effect on the dollar is effectively a tax on *everyone*, making everything (pretty much) cost more …
“If you’re more offended by Romney saying “47%” than Obama saying our murdered ambassador is a “bump in the road,” #YouMightBeALiberal.”
@ 39 Alasdair — Don’t forget that the majority of adults under age 35 are now negative net worth. As such, they benefit from any QE type pro-inflationary policy. In a neoclassical world with frictions, the median American still benefits too.
Romney’s entire campaign has foundered by failing to preserve the central illusion (or to true believers, premise) of modern conservatism: that the labor class (really 99.9%+ of America) benefits from unabashedly pro-capital, pro-globalist, anti-union policies. The policies are really no more extreme today than they were in 2000. The salesmanship is just worse and less credible today than it ever has been.
Casey #41 … on what do you base your assertion that “the majority of adults under age 35 are now negative net worth.” ???
My inner computer geek senses a stirring in the boundary conditions … (or mayhap, thee channeleth thy inner krugman) …
Romney on ’47 percent’: I was ‘completely wrong’
Good for him:
Contrary to liberal dogma, a sizable segment of the population clearly does have an entitlement mentality, but that segment does not completely overlap with the segment that pays no federal income taxes. Hell, there’s plenty of people who do pay income tax and have an entitlement mentality (see Fluke, Sandra).
I agree Romney’s comment was inappropriate. What bothers – even angers – me is seeing outrage directed at him for a single comment while Obama runs a campaign based almost entirely on class warfare. Where is your criticism of that, Brendan?
Just yesterday, Joe Biden said, “We’re going to ask the wealthy to pay more,” and then added sarcastically, “My heart breaks.” If class warfare really bothers you, you are attacking the wrong candidate.