jump to last post 1-9 of 9 discussions (66 posts)

Well I'm a common person and I get it

  1. Mighty Mom profile image91
    Mighty Momposted 4 years ago

    Just had to share this. It's not often I get the 1% this up close and personal in my inbox!
    What about you. Do you get it??

    roll

    Reporters talked to a few people waiting to get into the Mitt Romney fundraiser at the Koch estate in the Hamptons over the weekend. Here's what one of them had to say:

    "A New York City donor a few cars back, who also would not give her name, said Romney needed to do a better job connecting. 'I don't think the common person is getting it,' she said from the passenger seat of a Range Rover stamped with East Hampton beach permits. ...

    'We've got the message,' she added. 'But my college kid, the baby sitters, the nails ladies -- everybody who's got the right to vote -- they don't understand what's going on. I just think if you're lower income -- one, you're not as educated, two, they don't understand how it works, they don't understand how the systems work, they don't understand the impact."'

    1. Cagsil profile image60
      Cagsilposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Interesting. I am common person also.

      And, trust me, I get how it works and I see how it doesn't work well. wink

    2. Cagsil profile image60
      Cagsilposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      "A New York City donor a few cars back, who also would not give her name, said Romney needed to do a better job connecting. She would be right. But, unfortunately since he isn't for equality on the economic front and doesn't give a damn about equal rights, he isn't likely to connect.

      'I don't think the common person is getting it,' she said from the passenger seat of a Range Rover stamped with East Hampton beach permits. I know this person doesn't get it. It is obvious in the next paragraph.

      'We've got the message,' she added. 'But my college kid, the baby sitters, the nails ladies -- everybody who's got the right to vote -- they don't understand what's going on. Actually, in the conscious world we know today, people as individuals are growing in awareness and starting to pay attention to things which in the past they have missed. They understand exactly what's going on. But, watch as this next election plays out and watch what happens with the votes

      I just think if you're lower income -- one, you're not as educated, two, they don't understand how it works, they don't understand how the systems work, they don't understand the impact."' Actually, I don't like this statement. Associating low income with one's education is completely ignorant. People may not understand the U.S. Constitution in it's entirety, but enough people understand what it means to vote. And, as to the impact of voting? That's something I would suspect is just more BS.

    3. undermyhat profile image60
      undermyhatposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      She is not saying that less educated, less prosperous people should not vote or not be allowed to vote.  You are reading too much into it.  She also, did not use the word "common" which implieas a relationship that, in America, does not exist - as in there are no nobility and commoners here (if you ask European elitists, all Americans are rather common.) She is saying that some people do not connect with or understand Romney and, therefore, Republicans.  The implication is that Republicans would benefit poorer, less educated people more than would Democrats. Given unemployment rates, food stamp participation, discouraged workers, decline in the total number participating in the job market, the poor quality of public schools and the long term, hard core dependency of people on government hand outs - she has a point.

      What does Obama offer, more hand outs at the public trough and a guaranteed cot in the corner of the federal preserve.  What does Romney offer, an active and productive economy where one can dine at one's own table and sleep in one's own bed.  A food stamp society versus a grocery store economy.  Rationing versus plenty.  Standing in line for your potato and vodka ration or a job that lets you go out to dinner.  It is the contrast between continued privation for the poor or the opportunity to not be poor.

      I get it, she gets it...you?

      1. Josak profile image59
        Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        I love this comment, there is nothing in the Romney campaign that will fix any of this, we saw what conservative policies do to job growth during the last presidency, the reason we have to give food stamps is simply because there are not enough jobs, nowhere near enough of them austerity measures have increased job loss or decreased job growth in every single country that has used them in this recession without exception so I really don't see where Romney is going to fix the jobs problem.

        1. undermyhat profile image60
          undermyhatposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          What was the average unemployment rate while GWB was president?  One is entitled to one's own opinion but not one's own facts.  Unemployment while the Republicans ran Congress and GWB was President was lower than at anytime in Obama's administration.  One can blame GWB but at the same point in his Presidency Ronald Reagan already had a growing economy and a lower undemployment and he started in a deeper hole than did Obama.

          What austerity measures???? Obama has spent more in 3 1/2 years than did GWB in 8.  Obama administration policies were supposed to have reduced unemployment to 5.6% by now, according to the projections surrounding the first big "stimulus."  If anything Obama policies have killed the Animal Spirits.  Government does not fix jobs situations it destroys jobs by transfering dollars from prodcutive to nonproductive endeavors.  Obama has constantly attacked business - how does that help job creation?


          Perhaps a little reading would help: http://www.mittromney.com/news/press/20 … nd-economy

          1. Josak profile image59
            Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            George Bush's average employment is irrelevant for the simple reason that it was based on massive pool of non existent money due to the bubble, what counts is if that (very small) job growth was sustainable and as we saw it was not by the way unemployment soared when that bubble burst.

            According to market watch research spending under Obama policies has only increased 1.4% annually which is the lowest growth in spending for decades which is remarkable considering the recession occurring at the same time.

            As for unemployment in economics we call it trend reversal, that is when Obama took power unemployment was soaring, since his policies have been implemented unemployment has stopped growing and begun a gradual decline, one that is not built on a bubble as the former one was. As for Reagan it should be remembered that he increased nominal spending three times as much as Obama has to achieve those results also Regan was not coming off a massive bubble collapse so the circumstances are rather different.

            1. undermyhat profile image60
              undermyhatposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              http://the-american-journal.com/chart-b … -deficits/

              http://www.city-data.com/forum/politics … -bush.html

              http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162- … nder-bush/

              http://rationalactors.com/2011/08/25/bu … onal-debt/


              http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6878633_f248.jpg

              If anything, the image suggests that the LBJ-Great Society-Welfare State has been a problem, except when there is a pragmatic Democrat - Clinton as President and a Hard Core like Newt as Speaker.   Perhaps a return to the budget policies of the Clinton/Newt years would be best.

            2. undermyhat profile image60
              undermyhatposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              By the way, Obama has been part of the problem in Washington since he was elected to the Senate and voted for the very policies he decriesd, unless you contend he was a do nothing Senator.  One need only look at the train wrieck of Illinois to understand what he and his party did to Illinois economy - unless you contend he was a do nothing legislator.

      2. Mighty Mom profile image91
        Mighty Momposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Excuse me, but she quite clearly refers to the "common person" and there is no other way to interpret that extremely classist statement.
        She might just as well have said "peasants."

        What? Are there no workhouses for us common people?

        1. undermyhat profile image60
          undermyhatposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          There are no work houses for "common" people but there is unemployment, disabilitiy, food stamps - the gevernment preserve.  So either the "common" people come to understand what governemt should not do for them or they will find out what government will do to them.  That would be my point and I have never had the money or desire to drive a Range Rover or  a Hummer.

    4. profile image0
      SassySue1963posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      "the common person doesn't get it....MY COLLEGE KID....hardly insulting the poor. It is true that lower income equates to less formal education, just because of costs, in the majority of cases. She isn't saying they shouldn't vote, they are stupid or anything of the kind....merely that the full impact of the current Administrations policies are not understood.

      The Democrats have created the class warfare, not the Republicans. President Obama and his "1%" blah blah blah. The 1% of this country pays 70% of it's taxes already. How far do you expect them to carry your butt?

      I am a common person but I understand the price we will pay if we allow the government to "give" us everything. They're already trying to do it. Decide what we buy, what we can eat, etc etc. Just take a look at European countries and their economic mess to understand that we simply can't afford to increase entitlements. Wake up.

      1. undermyhat profile image60
        undermyhatposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        The less than 1% that has had the most devistating impact on the economy and liberty it that which populates elective office, at every level.  Congress failed to appropriately regulate the Federal Reserve, Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac resulting in the giant market bubble that is crushing the world economy - way to go <1% ers.  They are the ones who should be feared and controlled - no other institution in the history of the world has been more dangerous than government.

        1. Reality Bytes profile image93
          Reality Bytesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          The student loan bubble is being ferociously inflated.  Although not being discussed, it exists.

          1. undermyhat profile image60
            undermyhatposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            The mortgage bubble still exists and it too is being ignored.  FM&FM are still insolvent require taxpayer support for the bad loans they cointinue to make.

            1. Cagsil profile image60
              Cagsilposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              The fact that government hasn't made those two companies to stop is absurd and if they are continuing operations with the same practices as before the bubble in the market 2008(or before if you want to go that far) is and should be portrayed as an atrocity.

              Now wonder why the Economy is almost dead in it's growth. Government continues to take Federal Reserve Banking dollars and throw it away. Ridiculous to say the least.

              1. rhamson profile image77
                rhamsonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                The attitude the Government has in this "kick the can down the road" is supported by the rapists in the private financial sectors. Jaimie Dimon even after losing 2 billion and purportedly maybe another 2 or 3 billion maintains that there should be a lessening of the regulations that would throw up a blockade to such things happening.  He is like a gambler that wants another chance at getting it all back and then some, but has someone else foot the bill.  The 2008 meltdown has not been curbed because the financial district is making tons of money from the current situation.  The mortgages are in a fire sale mode and this is where anybody with some money makes a killing.

                1. undermyhat profile image60
                  undermyhatposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Risk and erward - maybe we ahousl all get used to living with the trickle of potatoes that will come from the regulated state that removes all risk and consequently all real reward.  $2 billion is chump change compared to the TRILLIONS the government has borrowed, taxed away or printed.  it isn't business that requires more regulation it is government.

                  We are over $16 trillion in debt - every dollar spent by the federal government, alone, is 40% debt.  But liberals continue to cry about the risk and reward in business.  Investors who do not understand risk and reward are idiots.

                  1. rhamson profile image77
                    rhamsonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Absolutely the government risks and loses trillions of dollars at the taxpayers expense but does that tit for tat argument allow for private business to cash in on surety guaranteed by the government.  We bailed thier butts out and they crashed the world but I guess its okay to allow them to risk it all for the possible gain that we could benefit from.  And when they fail we pick up the tab while they lose nothing.  It it a funny way of implementing free market theory with socialistic accountability.

                    We are 16 trillion in debt because of poor policy ramrodded through by special interest and stupid wars brought on by greedy politicians.  You place the blame on government but I place the blame on us the taxpayer for allowing them the lattitude they have had for too many years.

                    I don't want to control business but it seems that business wants to control me.

                    I do like the antagonistic throwing around the liberal slant on things but in this case it doesn't wash.

        2. rhamson profile image77
          rhamsonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          "no other institution in the history of the world has been more dangerous than government." Should read. "no other institution in the history of the world has been more dangerous than the special interest coercion of government".  Remember corporations are people too!

          1. undermyhat profile image60
            undermyhatposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            What corporation slaughtered the Jews?  What corporation starved the Kulaks?  What corporationslaughtered nearly a hundred million Chinese?

            What corporation transported teh Cherokee to Oklahoma?  What corporation kept blacks in slavery?  What corporation controls ttrillions of dollars?  How many division does GE have?

            I work for a corporation - every where I look are people - I love anti-corporate snobbery.  People should reflect on what corporations do for them everyday.  The corporation has made the world a better place. Now figure that out - oh yes, let me help get the juices flowing - I like Sarha Palin.

            1. rhamson profile image77
              rhamsonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Every instance you cite was money driven.  Who had the money and who was getting it.  I don't know why you can't see that business drives the money machine that corrupts government.

              1. undermyhat profile image60
                undermyhatposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Government can wreck an enitre sector of an economy and it is still business that controls government.  Business has to constantly genuflect to the opower of the state but it is government that is controlled by business...just the investigation of Microsoft smashed its value, popped the internet bubble and drove even profitable and wuality businesses in the dumper and it is business that runs government.

                If the massive power of the state was rationally employed business would not attempt to control government -it is only because of intrusion that business interacts with government in the first place.

                The average person had no contact with the federal government a hundred years ago - except with the letter carrier.  The same is true of business, virtually all business proceeded without interference from the government.  Today try to have any kind of business and not have to jump through multiple government hoops.

                The sole reason for the existence of the United States is the conflict between distant and avaricious government and proximate and individualistic American colonists and their desire to operate free of intrusive government.  Governemtn has an unlitmed ability to control who does or does not prosper and yet some see business as the problem.

                1. rhamson profile image77
                  rhamsonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  You have said yourself that business exists to profit.  What if it is ill gotten through extraneous methods of either obstruction, bought favor or missinformation.  How is the public protected from such means?  Is it the profit margin that determines the success because the marketplace profits should be the determining factor alone.  The will of the marketplace is the litmus test? Unbridled capitalism is to be the answer to all that is good or survivable? Government intervention is there to weigh the difference between just and fair all the while the means determine the direction.  Citing Microsoft is a poor example as they did employ many questionable free market practices which were in some cases controling the market through sureptitious means.

                  I wish I could see some common ground with you as you seem to wish to go one way towards totally banning any governmental intervention believing unrestrained capitalism is the only way.  I don't purport to think that government has all the answers, far from it, but I do believe it has to be in the mix of things to mediate some commonality.

                  1. undermyhat profile image60
                    undermyhatposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    At last.

                    ps. do you mean the Microsoft slap on the wrist because the feds could not proove their case?

    5. TIMETRAVELER2 profile image92
      TIMETRAVELER2posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Did anybody happen to notice the accounting report that just came out?  Billions were spent on the Iraq war and nobody knows what happened to a good deal of the money that was spent?  Cheney claimed at the beginning that "there was plenty of money available to pay for the war"...and all the time he knew that every penny for the war was being borrowed!  Somebody ought to check into his personal financial statements and they might find out where a lot of it went.

      1. undermyhat profile image60
        undermyhatposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Darth Cheney and the vast Haliburton conspiracy, again.  Wow that story never loses its charm.

  2. Ladybird33 profile image74
    Ladybird33posted 4 years ago

    I get it and don't get it....from one common person to another smile

    1. Mighty Mom profile image91
      Mighty Momposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Hey! Ladybird! Weren't you just a pair of red spike heels about 5 minutes ago?

  3. Mighty Mom profile image91
    Mighty Momposted 4 years ago

    Am I reading too much into this?
    Is she saying (without saying) that common people really shouldn't have the right to vote because they're too dumb and poor to understand?

    1. profile image0
      Motown2Chitownposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      That's how I read it too, MM.
      sad

    2. Jonathan Janco profile image82
      Jonathan Jancoposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      The upper classes have been saying that about the lower classes since the days of Thomas Jefferson and before. In fact, the rich have been fighting a bitter class war since the invention of money.

      1. Mighty Mom profile image91
        Mighty Momposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        What!??
        You mean I've had it wrong all this time, including during the Occupy movement?
        It's not us common folk (and Obama) who are waging the class war?
        It really is the rich folk?

        My worldview is completely shattered now!
        lol

        1. Jonathan Janco profile image82
          Jonathan Jancoposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Well, they have the money therefore they think they have something to defend. They only think we're waging the class war because of their guilty conscience from getting us to do all of the work, pay all of the taxes and elect people to office who stubbornly protect old money.

          1. Mighty Mom profile image91
            Mighty Momposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Back in my day old money wouldn't be caught dead in a Range Rover (unless they were legitimately on a savannah in Africa).
            That's almost as nouveau riche as a Hummer.
            lol

        2. Josak profile image59
          Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          I don't understand why people get all riled up about the idea of class struggle, the first republic in the world (The Roman Republic) specifically had politicians from the patrician class and tribunes from the plebeian class who had a right to veto etc. and represent the "lower" class, class struggle is universal and everywhere, from unions to workers rights etc.

          Also I find a Romney supporter calling Obama supporters uneducated hilarious since liberals are almost twice as likely to have a college education than conservatives. big_smile tongue

          1. profile image69
            logic,commonsenseposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            They are also more likely to be unemployed than conservatives.

            1. Josak profile image59
              Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              care to provide any evidence? I am almost certain that is not true being that liberals have a higher average income but a fairer distribution of it amongst them. the maths would indicate then that more liberals are employed than conservatives.

              1. undermyhat profile image60
                undermyhatposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Both seem to be unfounded assumptions.  one can say that, on average, liberal voters tend to have higher incomes.  Beyond that, opinion alone rests.

    3. profile image69
      logic,commonsenseposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      That's what Thomas Jefferson thought at one time.

  4. profile image0
    JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago

    I don't get it. I'm fairly certain there is much more that goes on that I can't possibly find out about.

    But yeah, some poor people don't like rich people. Some rich people don't like poor people.

    In fact, some X people don't like some Y people...

  5. mega1 profile image80
    mega1posted 4 years ago

    That's politics for ya!  anyone who doesn't vote for and agree with my candidate is definitely lower class, whether they have money or not . . . and if they are super-rich they're definitely not getting it!  I will find something wrong (lack of education doesn't happen only with poor people, btw) with everybody who doesn't agree with my choice of candidate for any office.  That's why I'm so human, really.  But I refuse to make them into my enemies just because they don't vote my way - unlike the opposition who have made me into the enemy without knowing anything about me!  (like that dumb lady in the car at Romney's fundraiser!)

    1. Dr Billy Kidd profile image89
      Dr Billy Kiddposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Right, you do not have to consider the rich lady as your ememy just because she might consider you her enemy. What bothers me most is the poor people--"the nail ladies"--who side with the rich lady and think I'm the enemy because I think healtcare should be available to nail ladies!

      It all reminds me of the seminar I was at in Indiana. The woman was so glad it was over so she could get to New York and get her nails done. I mean like there just wasn't anyone qualified near the University of Indiana at Bloomington.

  6. Mighty Mom profile image91
    Mighty Momposted 4 years ago

    Speaking of connecting, this chick manages to switch person/subject mid argument. She states:
    I just think if you're lower income:
    1. "You're" not as educated
    2.  "they" don't understand how the system works
    3. "they" don't understand the impact

    Educated?
    roll

  7. IzzyM profile image86
    IzzyMposted 4 years ago

    In modern day politics, there are two aspects at work. One is intelligence, the other is 'common sense'. The vast majority of the public have neither, and it really sickens me to see savvy politicians tapping into both.

    1. Cagsil profile image60
      Cagsilposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Hmmm....interesting statement Izzy.

      I run across a lot of people who have common sense and intellect. I do run into many that don't, but I wouldn't say that a majority of people don't have either one.

      It would be more likely that they would possess at least one of them, if not both, than neither.

      Example: You have common sense and intellect, however you're not a U.S. citizen. Mighty Mom however is also a person who has common sense and a bit of intellect to boot, and she is a U.S. citizen.

      So far I found two people with both traits. And I didn't have to go far to find two people on two different continents, with two distinct different upbringings in two distinctive cultures...and managed to find two.

      1. Mighty Mom profile image91
        Mighty Momposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        You're not spending enough time in the Hamptons, obviously!
        lol
        But thanks for the compliment.
        I may not drive (or ride in) a Range Rover (which, I believe supports my COMMON SENSE!) but I did at one time, for a brief four-year period, have inklings of intellect.
        Long ago. Far away in Massachusetts... Ahhhh.
        smile

        1. Cagsil profile image60
          Cagsilposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          lol lol

        2. profile image0
          JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Hmmm... the only reason I don't drive a Range Rover(my wife wants an Evoque. I protest, but secretly I love it maybe more) is cause I don't have the money. I'd give up most of my common sense for that kind of money!

      2. profile image0
        JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        And one person with neither big_smile

        <-------------------------------------

        1. Cagsil profile image60
          Cagsilposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          So you're telling me that you have no common sense and no intellect? Oh okay. I'll remember that for future communications/conversations. Don't be surprised if you're not taken seriously.

          1. profile image0
            JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Hehe, that's what I'm saying.

            I don't worry too much about being taken seriously. People either do or don't, what I say doesn't change either way though.

            Cheers big_smile

            1. Cagsil profile image60
              Cagsilposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Interesting approach.

    2. TIMETRAVELER2 profile image92
      TIMETRAVELER2posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      AMEN!!!

  8. Lifes 2nd Chances profile image61
    Lifes 2nd Chancesposted 4 years ago

    Unfortunately, it really makes little difference who wins the election. Any of the higher elected officials are well above average in income brackets, and are untouched by the social issues they use as weapons to battle with each other. Both parties have had ample chance to be in power, and I do not see much difference in the outcome for the majority of the masses. It is all a mess, it was before this presidential term, and it will be in the next. The gross amount of money spent on feather fluffing, ego stroking, and bottom kissing during the election process in this country is outragous!! The national debt could have been eliminated had it been applied there instead of campaigning.

    1. rhamson profile image77
      rhamsonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I agee that the differences as outlined by the two campaigns are a smokescreen to divide and confuse the electorate into believing that their cause is the answer.  Obama promised that there would be change all the while appointing old Clinton staff and Goldman/Sachs cronies to run things the way Clinton did and the way Clinton still espouses as the correct way to come out of this recession. Unfortunately we did not have the same economy that he did coming out of the the first Bush presidency.  On the other hand we have Romney who will be the nomination of his party nobody wanted.  His plan is to go back to Bush 2's policies that will reduce taxes, escalate military spending and deregulate the laws repressing growth.  It is a shame that our leaders seem to believe that in order to move ahead they need to lead from the past.

  9. ftclick profile image60
    ftclickposted 4 years ago

    Sounds like more illusionist rubbish from republicans (as always).

    When they blame the costs of the clean up crew of toxic waste committed by the offender.

    No party affiliation as either one will persist in failure.

    -  A 99-percenter

 
working