Romney is intent on painting Obama supporters as poor and lazy what he forgot is that liberal households are on average wealthier than conservative households by a whole 6%. The error highlights conservative thinking, conservative voters vote for themselves and those close to them, thus Romney assumes if we are voting to help the poor we must be poor ourselves (and when we vote for gay marriage we must be gay?).
No we aren't voting for Obama because we are poor and lazy but because we are sick of living in a country with the biggest wealth gap in the first world and sick of living in a country with one of the worst economic mobilities in the first world and sick of the fact that the poor in other countries have a much better chance of achieving the American dream there than American citizens do here.
I think it might be you who doesn't understand. All of these people who are sick and tired should put as much effort into changing their circumstances as they do in whining about it. You libs do a lot of whining!
No,it's definitely you who doesn't understand.
The other socialist shows up just in time to be wrong again.
RG, SO TRUE. SOCIALISTS and COMMUNISTS UNITE! Just itching for some type of revolution! This is a capitalistic system and a #$%#! FINE system! Don't like it, well tough!
Tough? Why are they trying to fix it then? Because it works? Duh.
The system is fine huh?
America has the 31st quality of life in the world. http://nationranking.files.wordpress.co … 1-qli2.png
16% of the population cannot regularly afford food and/or housing.
We have the equal lowest economic mobility in the first world.
and your answer is people need to work harder? Do you realize how ridiculous you sound?
The system isn't fine it needs fixing.
Still not getting it? Often it's not their circumstances but those of others. Things need to change on a grand scale to make changing one's circumstances possible for more people.
OK whose circumstances should be changed? Let me guess, the evil business owner who employs them and dares to try and make a profit in a capitalist society?
You misunderstood my statement, what I am saying is the people "whining" are often not the ones in poverty but those like myself who see the poverty around us and don't like it, then travel to Europe etc. and see the difference, see how much easier it is for people to succeed when they are given a hand up. It's about opportunity and the US has comparatively very little opportunity for those born into poverty and that needs to be changed.
Oh, maybe you should give up some cash to those you think are living so poorly and send them to Europe. They would want some walking around money too. Better make that a round trip ticket they will want to come back real soon.
Well quality of life is objectively better there. But I do want to pay more, I give plenty to charity and higher taxes are fine with me. The point is giving people opportunity and the chance to succeed.
In the US but I travel a lot for business. Don't take my word for it though.
http://nationranking.files.wordpress.co … 1-qli2.png
The us sits at 31st in the world in quality of life.
But but the quality of life is better in Europe, why would you live in the U.S.? Don't bother answering I think I know.
If you guessed because my family is here and I like being near them then congratulations you get a gold star. If you further guessed because getting a European citizenship is really difficult 10 points to Griffindor.
Is this supposed to be proving your point? Because it's not.
You living in the U.S. proves the point.
Repairguys thought process.
a) To critisize the country you live in (in your case the US) means you are a whiner, scrounger, communist (and a Liberal) apparently they have the same ideology.
b) if you compare societies (comparative social studies and/or comparative economies) then you are clearly a loser. I mean, hey, why lift your host nation with futile study which, may in fact, lift them out of the doldrums. No way, to compare means you should just go LIVE in the more successful nation which you are comparing.
c) when presenting with data and intelligent analysis, don't think! Try one of several measures
1) present no data of your own and whine like a baby , "that source is biased".
2) Ask a completely irrelevant personal question, then, answer it yourself with language comparative to that of an alien.
3) if both of those measures fail and you are left with egg on your face, try whinging like a baby again by shouting "I don't care"
Josak, *bang* head against brick wall, 'twill make more sense in the long run.
Interesting take on the subject:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-09-1 … state.html
+ A MULTILLION TIMES! HERE GOES THE WHINING AGAIN, WAH, WAH, WAH, WAH.......... RIGHT ON, RG, RIGHT ON!
I guess your comment is tongue in cheek.
I've been dealing with unemployed people for 10 years or so with regard to their eligibility for unemployment compensation, and I don't recall hearing any whining. And I've encountered very few who wouldn't prefer having a job to trying to live on unemployment compensation. There are people who work the system, but they are, in my experience, a small minority.
It seems my analogy of a snooty high school girl is quite apt.
Yep! Maybe you should also tell them who Romney's 47% really are.
What liberals don't understand about being poor: Few wish to remain that way. The only way for them to pick themselves up is with work. The only way for them to work is with jobs. In other words, with no or limited opportunities, the poor remain poor and the middle class become poor, which is exactly what is happening under this Administration. If you truly cared about the poor and the middle class, you'd want to make sure they had the opportunity to not be poor. The government does not create jobs, they simply make the decisions that decide the type of environment that exists. Is it one that is friendly to investment, which boosts businesses, which means higher profits, higher demand, and a need for more workers or do they create one where it does not pay to invest (massive increases in capital gains) which limits investment, limits business growth and therefore, not only does not create a demand for more workers but costs jobs. Neither of these candidates is perfect, but at least one of them understands what makes the money go round. You might not like the wealthy businessmen, but they keep the money moving.
On the contrary it's the countries much further to the left giving people the greater opportunities to succeed, the US has had one of the lowest economic mobilities in the first world for a long time now.
Of course getting out of poverty is about work, but that process relies on having the helping hand in education, health, small business loans etc. etc. to allow and encourage success and that is where the left has succeeded all round the first world and the right has failed.
Education does you no good when there are no jobs when you graduate.
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/jobs-rec … Fkqb1EQfL4
None of the underemployed will have health insurance. They are part -time so no employer is required to provide it, and for the most part they are going to make over that oh so very generous 133% poverty line.
Stop with that bs please.
The US has low relative mobility... yes, it is very hard to get into the top 0.1% of earners or the top 1% by wealth. So what?
The US has high absolute mobility... that means you can have a higher absolute income here than in other places, even though it might not put you in that 'elite' group.
If you only care about social standing, take $10,000 and move to a poor country... you'll be a king.
If you care about living a good life, America is a good place for that.
Yeah, they keep the money circulating, all right. Offshore.
I'm sure you've seen the many articles and studies on why trickle down economics doesn't work.
But it's not just here in the US.
Here's a global perspective on what's been going on:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2012 … tax-havens
While that is such a witty answer by both you and Josak, apparently you missed the entire "investment" part of what I stated. Offshore money is not investment money. Like it or not, if you curb the wealthy the money stops going round, period. They are the ones who invest in business. Especially new businesses.
So what specifically has been "curbing" the wealthy, who are sitting on record amounts of cash, from "investing" in America now?
Well, not literally "sitting on it" since it's all being stashed in offshore accounts.
What specifically needs to happen differently in the US for the wealthy to invest in business here at home?
I have an idea...
Tax breaks for people providing venture capital, as well as increased counter-balances in case of losses.
Secondly, lower the freaking corporate tax rate. We could get rid of it completely without losing nearly as much money as we keep spending trying to stimulate the economy.
Third, territorial tax system... a lot of the money that is 'stored away' in foreign countries, is really just being held there because we punish multinationals when they bring foreign profits to America.
I hope you are prepared, because you may soon be asked to take over as your party's presidential candidate.
Lol, no thank you.
I'm too sensitive, I can't stand when people don't like me...
A lot of people wouldn't like me
I know. Not being a megalomaniac would be a liability for you.
Hmmmm... maybe if I had hundreds of millions of dollars I could do it!
Or not... I would put too much money into trusts to pay out interest to charities...
How about the Jaxson Raine Foundation?
Has a nice ring to it!
The Jaxson Raine Scholarship Fund.
The Jaxson Raine Mortgage Assistance Fund.
Did you know that a $1 billion fund can pay approximately 3,000 $1500 mortgage payments every month, just off of the interest it earns?
You could take the $1 billion and pay 666,666 $1500 mortgage payments, and that's that.
Or, pay 1.8 million mortgage payment over 50 years using interest, and still have the $1 billion.
There's a reason why I love interest-funded charities.
Oh, also, I'm not Republican... I'm embarrassed by Republicans most of the time.
I just vote R more because I consider fiscal policy more important than social policy... in other words I'd rather that gays have jobs and not be able to marry than be able to marry and not have jobs...
That being said, there have been very poor candidates lately, and really no responsible presidents recently.
I was just thinking earlier today that some of my best friends and favorite people locally are Republicans -- many of them work in the Capitol or have done.
Local party very different than national.
I try to look at everyone here on their own merits.
Simple MM. Uncertainty. They are not going to invest if their risk has no chance of paying off for them. i.e. Obama's proposed massive hikes on capital gains, among other things. They will simply sit on their money until such a time as it is more profitable. I know people have this idea of the evil businessman, and you can call it evil if you like, but would you invest your hard earned money, realizing this is a risk at any time, when the return has been downsized so much? They want a return that matches the risk factor. If it isn't there, then they won't invest. The Health Care Law doesn't help either. Those small enough not to have to provide insurance, will simply remain small enough because unless the growth is huge it is eaten up by the cost of having to provide insurance. Same with those who do have to provide insurance or pay the penalty. Some have already come out and said that given their size, the penalty is cheaper than providing the insurance. Once again, that penalty is based on number of employees, so they will not be creating any new jobs.
We're not whining. We're actually happy to share our wealth. But we're gonna start whining pretty soon if the real "takers" among us don't wise up to reality.
The Red State/Blue State Paradox is pretty eye-opening, isn't it?
Substitute "Conservatives" for red and "Liberals" for blue.
Link followed by excerpts.
http://reason.com/archives/2011/07/14/t … ue-paradox
We hear it all the time: Red states are for limited government; blue states are for heavy spending. While this may be true when it comes to broad political preferences, it’s false as measured by patterns of federal spending.
Takers vs. Makers
When you compare the 50 laboratories of democracy after sorting them based on how their citizens voted in November 2008, only 10 Democratic-voting states are net recipients of federal subsidies, as opposed to 22 Republican states.
Only one red state (Texas) is a net payer of federal taxes, as opposed to 16 blue states. One blue state (Rhode Island) pays as much as it gets.
Political scientists have been wrestling with this apparent paradox for years. ...
FACT: Red states, on average, are also lower-income states.
FACT: States with higher incomes pay vastly higher federal taxes.
Why would voters in red states elect lawmakers who promise them small government when they benefit disproportionately from federal handouts?
Why would voters in blue states elect lawmakers who support policies that redistribute their income to red states?
One possible explanation is that the voters are misinformed.
According to this theory, the people who benefit the most from federal spending simply don’t understand how much money they receive; they assume their tax dollars are subsidizing others, when in fact they are the ones being subsidized.
People in rural states might be convinced that liberal urban Northeastern jurisdictions get large subsidies for entitlements, welfare, and industry bailouts, while failing to understand how much their own states benefit from agricultural and welfare spending.
They may mistakenly equate life in a low-density environment with self-sufficiency.
Subsidies and welfare from the federal government help maintain this illusion, enticing them to vote for advocates of smaller government.
By contrast, voters in highly urban areas may assume they are the ones who get the most subsidies. Ultimately, everyone is wrong.
Another explanation holds that voters are simply irrational.
In the words of the George Mason economist Bryan Caplan, “Voters often see themselves as they want to be, not as they really are.
People in red states tend to think that ‘government is the problem,’ so they tell themselves that big government is mostly a problem in blue states.
People in blue states tend to think that ‘government is the solution,’ so they tell themselves that their government takes care of people.”
These hypotheses may explain some voters’ behavior, but they amount to generalized guesses about other people’s thought processes. Two other theories take a closer look at the data.
... Take two equally wealthy people. One lives in a blue state and the other lives in a red state.
The data show that the voter living in the richer blue state is more likely to be a Democrat than the one in the poorer red state, although both are more likely to be Republican than a poor resident of either state.
So while voters in red states are more motivated by their financial interests (or perceived financial interests), issues outside of income are more powerful motivators for blue voters.
This pattern could help explain why some states vote Democratic despite their wealth and some states vote Republican despite their poverty.
The second theory, which is consistent with the first, holds that Republican voters want to reduce federal spending only if it means cutting other people’s handouts.
That would explain why elected Republicans in red states, such as Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa), don’t let their limited-government rhetoric get in the way of voting for farm subsidies.
I moved from a blue state to a red state, and here is what I see. Yes, many red state voters think they are self-sufficient and will say so even while they cash their government check. Maybe it's because they can kill a deer? I don't know.
Yes, many red state voters are ill-informed and under educated. In fact, in the very small community in which I work (I live just outside of it), the movers and shakers in the community are, almost to a person, liberal Democrats. Why? Because the conservatives resist change, are suspicious of new ideas, and believe in preservation of the status quo, even to the point of chasing away companies that want to relocate or build here. If anything "new" gets built, created, envisioned, or implemented, you can bet it's by college-educated progressives who have fought tooth and nail the resistance of the stick-in-the-mud conservatives.
Now, all that said, there are exceptions to every rule.
Whining accurately describes what liberals do.
I love this, not a single fact, not a single reasoned argument from anyone on the right here, just accusations and insults, no wonder you are going to lose this election too.
Why do I need to supply you with facts? Unfortunately for you Romney will win. This will come down to what it always comes down to, the economy
The one that Obama and the dems gave us. Romney wins a close one
It is posts like this one that put the "mighty" in "Mighty Mom!"
Quill, I'm shamelessly emulating your forum strategy. Imitation, sincere flattery and all that. Hope you don't mind.
"If you can't dazzle 'em with bullsh#t, knock 'em upside the head with facts, right?"
This one is even better.
Great point-by-point dismantling.
Charts and maps and reasoning, oh my!
http://www.policymic.com/articles/14926 … n-strategy
Liberals who don't think American wealth is redistributed fairly enough can solve it rather simply--send a part of your pay to someone poor. Just cut a check. I am always surprised that people who so regularly denigrate capitalism are the most ferocious protectors of their own income status. Go figure.
Quatrain, people who advocate a more equal distribution of income often come from affluent backgrounds. They feel subconsciously guilty of their affluence and use their displacement mechanism to defend the poor. Throughout history, those who have socialist and communist philosophies tend to be affluent e.g. Che Guevara, Vladimir Lenin, Fidel Castro, and many others. I know of a coworker whose son espouses communist philosophy- all upper middle income.
The people I know who came from poor backgrounds wanted to be affluent. They did not espouse this socialist and communist crap. They wanted to live affluently e.g. Jay-Z, billionaire who came from the Marcy Projects in Brooklyn, NY; Oprah Winfrey, billionaire mogul, who came from a poor Mississippi background; Wayne W. Dyer, Ph.D., multimillionaire motivotional speaker, who came from a working class background in East Detroit, Michigan; and Mark Wahlberg, millionaire actor/producer/businessman, who came from Dorchester, a poor area in Boston, Massachusetts. These people believed in the American Dream and not in any socialist and communist bullmanure.
In America this is precisely so because socialism and communism have not been part of the mainstream thought in the past, thus generally only the relatively well off have the time or inclination to study and read about different systems or the education where they would have heard of it.
In other countries the reverse is true it's the poor that are near universally anti-capitalist because they have experienced it and know it brings them a better quality of life. That's how it is where I grew up anyhow.
It's not guilt by the way it's this mysterious thing called empathy, you probably haven't heard of it.
I have yet to meet an American who believes in "socialist, communist bullmanure." Where are all these people? Oh, I forgot President Obama is a socialist with communist leanings.
Don't forget he's a Muslim sleeper, Islamist spy, too.
Don't know how visible that is...
Getting myself in hot water here but about 16 percent of Americans are non capitalists apparently.
If you think individuals cutting a check is sufficient to significantly affect poverty... well you have a whole lot of history to prove you wrong.
What Romney Might Have, Should Have Said at the $50,000/head Fund Raiser for Private Equity Operatives at Boca Raton in May
Mitt Romney has been taking a beating for his remarks, taped at a May fundraiser, that 47% of Americans would automatically vote for President Obama because they are "dependent" on government. We could pile on, but instead we can report that we've been leaked pages of draft remarks that Mr. Romney might have delivered on the same subject but curiously didn't.
Maybe he'll deliver them some time before Election Day:
"One tragedy of the Obama Presidency is how many more Americans have become dependent on the government. I know it's not their fault. Most want to be self-sufficient, to provide for their families, but they can't because there aren't enough jobs.
"That's why 46 million Americans are on food stamps now, compared to 30 million in 2008. That's why 10.6 million were on Social Security disability in 2011 compared to 9.3 million three years earlier. That's why 40% of the unemployed have been out of work for six months or more, and the smallest share of the U.S. population is looking for work than at any time since 1981.
"This is a national scandal. Not because those fellow Americans are free-loaders, but because they aren't able to get a good job that pays enough to be self-sufficient and lets them fulfill their human potential.
"I want Americans to be less dependent on government not because it costs too much. We will always help Americans who need our help. I want Americans to be independent so they can realize the pride of accomplishment and the dignity of work and contribute their God-given talents to build a better country.
"I think the success of a Presidency should be measured by how many fewer people need food stamps, how many fewer need disability, not how many more people are added to the rolls. I don't want to take food stamps away from Americans in need. I want fewer Americans to need food stamps.
"Sometimes I wonder if President Obama shares that view. He and his economists keep saying that food stamps and unemployment benefits are a form of 'stimulus.' Well, we've sure had a lot of that kind of stimulus, and all we have to show for it are more people on food stamps and more people on welfare and more people looking for work. I think a real stimulus is a job, and I intend to help Americans create more of them.
"You've probably also heard some people—some even in my own party—divide Americans between 'makers' and 'takers.' As if half the country wants to live off the other half. I've never believed that. That's no different from the kind of divisive politics that the President practices when he pits the wealthy against everyone else.
"We want a society in which one person's success lifts everyone else. The job of government is to create the incentives and opportunity so everyone can become a maker. But too often government wants to take more from Americans so it can make more Americans dependent on government. That's when we lose our way, and too many Americans lose hope that they can work and prosper.
"It's the same with our broken tax policy. You may have heard some people say that about half the American people pay no income tax. That's true. But I know millions of those people do pay Social Security taxes, which are a tax on work. They're making their contribution to our government, and I don't want to—and will not—raise their taxes.
"In fact, I want to reduce the tax on work by repealing ObamaCare, which will force employers to pay a tax if they don't offer health insurance. That means they'll hire fewer workers, as many companies are already doing.
"But I don't want to stop there. I also want to fix our tax code so everyone plays by the same rules, and that includes the richest and most powerful. You know, the President seems to say every day that 'millionaires and billionaires' should pay higher tax rates.
"But what he doesn't say is that if you raise tax rates, those millionaires and billionaires will hire lawyers and lobbyists to avoid those rates, to exploit loopholes and tax shelters, or to get special favors. Like Solyndra did. The government will get less revenue, and that means the middle class will end up paying more. The President won't tell you that either.
"Think about it. Do you have a lobbyist in Washington? Do you have a guy you can call to get you in to see the Treasury Secretary or the Senators in Gucci Gulch? Of course you don't. But the millionaires and billionaires do.
"That's why so many people in both parties support tax reform that lowers tax rates and pays for it by closing loopholes and helping the economy grow faster.
"That's what Ronald Reagan did with Democrats like Bill Bradley and Dick Gephardt in the 1980s. That's what Democrat Alice Rivlin and Republican Pete Domenici have proposed. And that's what the President's own deficit commission—led by Republican Alan Simpson and Democrat Erskine Bowles—proposed.
"I don't agree with all of the details in these plans, but I do know they have the right general idea. We have the most complicated tax code with some of the highest tax rates in the world and yet it doesn't raise the revenue we need to fund the government.
"We need tax reform to spur faster growth and to make American workers more competitive. But we also need reform to make the tax code fairer, and less open to exploitation by the rich and powerful who have friends in Washington."
That's where the speech excerpts end. No doubt there's more, sitting in the PC of some young wordsmith in Boston who's working for Mr. Romney. Somebody should sneak it past Stuart Stevens. Surely a man as smart as the former CEO of Bain Capital can give a better speech on taxes and dependency than he delivered at that fundraiser. If he can't, he'll lose, and he'll deserve to.
http://professional.wsj.com/article/SB1 … reno64-wsj
If he said that, I'd like him a little better. If he meant that, I'd vote for him. But like you mentioned, it seems like it Mr. Romney isn't going to deliver a speech like this. Especially because I think someone as smart as he must be knows it's true, it makes me feel worse to see it after he DIDN'T read it.
Isn't that Romney 9.0 being rolled out right now?
Ha. Don't get me wrong; it's funny, but I'm too tired of presidential politics today to really laugh.
Ha. Don't get me wrong; it's funny, but I'm too tired of presidential politics today to really laugh.
Jaxon, any thoughts on Romney's reverse class warfare Boca Raton speech?
by Susan Reid5 years ago
I can only surmise he's setting us up for a super duper vetting job by the Romney campaign on whoever they're going to announce as his VEEP.But seriously.Why is Dick Cheney getting airtime in 2012 talking about the...
by Credence22 years ago
I have always wondered what makes progressives (liberals if you like) different from conservatives. When both are witness to the same events, yet each group has a different take on what is or what should be done.This is...
by Alternative Prime20 months ago
Can you imagine Doctor Carson up against demonstrably assertive Putin? Or other intimidating dictators? I sure can’t ~ He’s a timid, introverted, and very strange medical man who exhibits bizarre habits and traits ~...
by Eric Newland5 years ago
Myth: The Republican Party is the party of the rich.Fact: Conservative-headed households earn 6% less than liberal-headed households, on average.The flip side: Granted, an average doesn't tell the whole picture of...
by A Thousand Words3 years ago
My mother's currently on the road for work, and I gave her a call this morning to check on her. She starts the conversation out by reminding me of the Christian that I used to be, and this whole conversation becomes...
by Josak4 years ago
The favorite conservative line of the year is to decry the economy and it's slow growth but that is not the reality, since Obama's election we have tripled our GDP growth and corporate profits are at a historic never...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.