The 47%

You’ve certainly heard about this by now:

During a private fundraiser earlier this year, Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney told a small group of wealthy contributors what he truly thinks of all the voters who support President Barack Obama. He dismissed these Americans as freeloaders who pay no taxes, who don’t assume responsibility for their lives, and who think government should take care of them. Fielding a question from a donor about how he could triumph in November, Romney replied:

There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That that’s an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what…These are people who pay no income tax.

Romney went on: “[M]y job is is not to worry about those people. I’ll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives.”

(MJ released part two of the video where Mitt says a two-state solution is unworkable in Israel because of the Palestinian commitment to violence. I don’t know if this is embarrassing as much as it is true.)

Naturally, the Left is proclaiming that this is the end of the election. Meh. I thought about this a lot last night while sitting on my roof, clinging to my gun and my Torah. And really, gaffes don’t make elections. This may rally the Democrats a little bit. But I seriously doubt there is anyone in America right now who is saying, “You know, I was going to vote for Mitt Romney, but then he said something I didn’t like on a secret video while meeting the fund-raisers. So to heck with that guy.”

Please.

More germaine, I think, is just how wrong Mitt Romney’s comment was. He’s been tripped up by a Republican talking point. 47% of Americans pay no income taxes. But that’s not the entire picture. Ezra Klein:

For what it’s worth, this division of “makers” and “takers” isn’t true. Among the Americans who paid no federal income taxes in 2011, 61 percent paid payroll taxes — which means they have jobs and, when you account for both sides of the payroll tax, they paid 15.3 percent of their income in taxes, which is higher than the 13.9 percent that Romney paid. Another 22 percent were elderly.

When you break it down, only about 7% of the American public is poor, young and pays no income or payroll tax (although they still pay sales tax). Granted, the payroll tax is supposed to pay for people’s own retirement and healthcare. But we all know both are pay-as-you-go. And contra the received wisdom, the poor vote at lower rates than the middle class and wealthy.

Moreover, if you want someone to blame for 47% of Americans not paying income tax, you can blame … wait for it … President Bush. His tax cuts basically eliminated income taxes for millions of Americans — he boasted about it! Klein again:

Part of the reason so many Americans don’t pay federal income taxes is that Republicans have passed a series of very large tax cuts that wiped out the income-tax liability for many Americans. That’s why, when you look at graphs of the percent of Americans who don’t pay income taxes, you see huge jumps after Ronald Reagan’s 1986 tax reform and George W. Bush’s 2001 and 2003 tax cuts. So whenever you hear that half of Americans don’t pay federal income taxes, remember: Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush helped build that.

Here’s where I think Klein and the Democrats are missing a critical point. This creation of an income-tax-free class is why any tax reform has to broad-based. Raising taxes on the rich may satisfy the class warriors out there, but it won’t close the deficit enough. If you want revenue, you’re going to have to expand to tax burden to a larger swath of the American public.

Leaving out the blame and the details, however, is Romney’s general point true? Are we dividing between “moochers” and workers in this country? After all, more than half of Americans get money from the government, right?

Well, yeah, but. If you’re going to defined that as the “moocher” class, you’re throwing in tens of millions of seniors who paid into Medicare/Social Security and are now, quite reasonably, taking benefits out. You’re throwing in the military who are earning their keep (and then some). If we’re talking purely about any anti-poverty public assistance, we’re looking at about 4.4 million on welfare, 40 million on food stamps, 50 million on Medicaid. Those are not separate groups, however, as many draw from more than one program and many of those receiving food stamps/Medicaid are, in fact working. I suspect the number of truly dependent people — excluding military, retirees and working poor — is closer to Ezra Klein’s 7% than to Mitt Romney’s 47%.

Now, it is true that welfare rolls and food stamps have soared in recent years. That tends to happen in a recession and a jobless recovery. But while Obama deserves a lot blame, you can also thank Republicans for that, too. The big expansion in foodstamp eligibility happened in 2002, under Bush and the GOP Congress. The biggest expansion of Medicaid, so far, came under George W. Bush (Obamacare will expand it more, but not until 2014).

But there’s something deeper than that. As Matt Welch points out, the idea of a dependency class is contra everything the Republicans have been saying for the last five decades:

This is economic determinism at its worst, going against the very message the Republican Party was trying to sell to the world during its quadrennial national convention last month. Over and over again, we heard speakers there talk about how their immigrant grandparents came to this country, worked hard, built “that,” never asked for a handout, and as a result their descendants have enjoyed the American Dream of ever-upward mobility. What the 53/47 dividing line says, to the direct contrary, is that income status is a permanent political condition, defrocking all Americans of agency and independent thought.

Most people at some point will be part of the 47 percent (indeed, nearly most already are). When my friends and I were comparatively poor, as people often are in their 20s and early 30s, we (for the most part) didn’t “believe” that we were “victims,” didn’t “believe the government has a responsibility” to care for us, and didn’t vote for Democratic political candidates “no matter what.” We mostly took personal responsibility and care for our lives, and acted according to our idiosyncratic individual values and whims.

I should theoretically be the target audience for this stuff. I never took out a federally guaranteed student loan, never enjoyed the mortgage-interest deduction; I worry all the time about government spending and entitlements, and I am not unfamiliar with the looter/moocher formulation. But this kind of reductionism does not reflect individualism (as David Brooks charges), it rejects individualism, by insisting that income tax is destiny. It judges U.S. residents not as humans but as productive (or unproductive) units. (Though as long as people are thinking that way, is there any category of resident less taker-y than illegal immigrants with fake Social Security cards who file income taxes?) And it prematurely valorizes one class of government-gobbling Americans while prematurely writing off another.

Most of us on this blog have, at some point, been part of that 47%. Most of us went to college and had little income, or did internships or worked or way up through the ranks or were in the military. That 47%, as I have said over and over and over again when Democrats babble about income inequality, is not a static population. People move in and out all the time. The United States has very strong class mobility. I was in that 47% when I was in grad school, even though I was working 60 hours a week and taking home an income. Now I’m in the 53%. I’ve probably put away too much for retirement to go back into the 47% when I get older (assuming I retire), but I could move back there at some point. Probably everyone who reads this blog has gone through similar transitions.

And that’s really the bizarre thing about this tape business: by jumping up and down with squeals of joy about this gaffe, the Left is missing the forest for the trees. They are so eager to label the GOP as uncaring Monty Burns types, they’ve forgotten — AGAIN! — the massive expansion in welfare eligibility, massive increases in spending and massive tax cuts for people who don’t pay taxes that happened under the Republicans. They are — again — criticizing Republicans for the exact opposite of what Republicans actually did. The are — again — missing the point about class mobility.

Final word to Nick Gillespie:

Let’s not mince words: President Barack Obama is one lucky bastard.

Exactly. I know people will bleat about the media, but Romney’s press conference after the remarks came out was hardly any better. There were reports, from Republican sources, of infighting in the campaign last week. The Romney campaign seemingly can’t go for 24 hours without stepping on a rake and smacking themselves in the face.

But, no, MSM, it’s not going to decide the election. You can make all the secret videos you want — this is still going to come down to who people think will get the economy moving (and yes, Part V of my voting post is coming up).

Comments are closed.

  1. Seattle Outcast

    When I hear “payroll tax”, I think “income tax” – I think most people use those terms interchangeably, even if they shouldn’t.

    Second, I think the current income tax structure needs to be ripped out and replaced with something far, far less complicated, and taxes pretty much everyone without regard to how many rugrats you’ve decided to have, or solar panels you installed on your roof etc.

    Unless you truly are “poor”, you need to cough up your “fair share” and stop being a complete leech. Even if his numbers are wrong, Romney is right in the essence that there are some people who are always going to expect more government handouts and will vote for whomever promises to give them without asking they take responsibility for their lives.

    Thumb up 6

  2. Poosh

    THIS IS A VERY BIG DISTRACTION – AND INTENTIONAL

    Please ignore the fact that Obama’s foreign diplomacy has fallen apart in the past few days. Please ignore Afghanistan.

    Thumb up 12

  3. Hal_10000 *

    Also, Obama was caught telling a group of liberals that his healthcare was a way to get to single payer. It was kind of a big deal.

    Thumb up 5

  4. Hal_10000 *

    Second, I think the current income tax structure needs to be ripped out and replaced with something far, far less complicated, and taxes pretty much everyone without regard to how many rugrats you’ve decided to have, or solar panels you installed on your roof etc.

    Unless you truly are “poor”, you need to cough up your “fair share” and stop being a complete leech. Even if his numbers are wrong, Romney is right in the essence that there are some people who are always going to expect more government handouts and will vote for whomever promises to give them without asking they take responsibility for their lives.

    Almost all the tax paid by most people is payroll tax. One big step would be to abolish the illusion of the payroll tax and just roll it all into one tax (flat tax, VAT, etc.). That way, new spending means *everyone’s* taxes go up.

    PS – One thing to add. The narrative developing on the Left that this is the real Romney and he’s a rich asshole is aggravating me. I think he was pandering and got tripped up on a talking point he didn’t understand. His history is that of a good man who does care very much about the little people.

    Thumb up 5

  5. Poosh

    Guns and religion, my friend.

    Wasn’t that 4 years ago?

    Admittedly that was, I believe, recorded by an Obama-Supporter and used by Hilary Clinton first and foremost (ironically). Single Payer comment = gap in knowledge.

    I still don’t see how the gotcha-moments of all gotcha moments, Obama’s Putin off-mike comment was somehow magically buried under all the post. That single incident should have sunk him.

    Why isn’t Romney using it and reminding peeps that Russia has also armed Syria :p

    Thumb up 1

  6. AlexInCT

    The Greeks knew some 3000 years ago that when the masses discovered they could use their democratic vote to buy themselves perks from the treasury, too many would flock to do this, and eventually the whole thing would collapse. We are very close to seeing the same play out now in the modern Western world, and it has got to be a hysterical coincidence that one of the nations leading the pack is Greece.

    Socialism by community allows the community to control who earns the benefits and how, and thus allows that society to keep growing and prospering. Abusers need not apply. Socialism by government is a recipe for disaster. Indubitably the very things that proponents of government largesse tout as making that system fairer and so much more superior to a charitable system that expects its members to adhere to social norms in the end, guarantees that the stupid government run candy store takes a flying leap off the precipice sooner than later. You can not avoid running out of other people’s money.

    How goes that Robert Heinlein quote again?

    Thumb up 4

  7. Poosh

    On a day of Midddle Eastern troubles and two policewomen were murdered (and grenaded) in peaceful gun-free England, our media is finding time to spread this “secret tape” propaganda around.

    It’s amazing. It’s relentless.

    Thumb up 1

  8. CM

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Thumb up 1

  9. CM

    And contra the received wisdom, the poor vote at lower rates than the middle class and wealthy.

    This dispels the myth that the poor just vote themselves more money.
    Your link shows that in 2010 the voter turnout for people earning more than $75K was 60%, while the turnout for those earning under $50K was only 40%. A 20% difference. Significant.

    If the fundamental theory behind the myth that people simply vote according to their own self-interest, it must therefore follow that it’s the rich who keep voting themselves more money. That would certainly explain why things are as they are.

    Romney’s comments also dispel the myth that he believes that people follow ‘The American Dream’ (that low paid work is used as a stepping stone). He believes they don’t bother because they have no personal responsibility and care for their lives.

    Yet again Romney has a press conference to try and limit the damage, and doubles down by confirming he meant what he said.

    Thumb up 2

  10. Hal_10000 *

    Poll after poll says that the vast majority of Palestinians want peace.

    Polls don’t really tell you much. What people say in polls is not often reflective of what they actually do or the people they actually support. The vast majority of Americans say they want smaller govt, yet here we are in an election between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney. I have no doubt most of the Palestinians would like the conflict to end; but I also doubt they want it to end on any terms Israel would accept.

    Thumb up 7

  11. Poosh

    Peace = Sharia Law and Islam

    Peace = Dead Jews

    They’re working from a different set of premises.

    Which is exactly why what is happening in the arab “spring” lands is happening.

    Thumb up 5

  12. CM

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Thumb up 2

  13. CM

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Thumb up 0

  14. Poosh

    This is the most extreme position of any US Presidential candidate on the Israel/Palestine issue.

    We’re really just dealing with garbage now, is there any reason to respond to you? You don’t think most of the right think exactly the same thing? If anything this video gave people confidence that Romney isn’t as stupid as he appears. This “OMG LOOK AT HIS COMMENTS” is hysterical crap and a distraction. He says what most rightwards people are thinking / know as a fact.

    The Palestinians, most of them, do not want peace. Obviously they don’t. If they did they would have taken up any of the numerous chances for peace that were thrown to them, they would stop and certainly not PRAISE the constant death of Jews – they would not educate their children into a death cult, naming roads/schools after terrorists who blew apart innocent Isarelis. You know this is so obvious.. I’m out.

    If Romney is caught denying the Holocaust, then I think that might not be a distraction, or like, if we found out he’d attended a church which taught racial hatred like a certain sitting president, then I’d say that wasn’t a distraction from the chaos in the middle east which is being whitewashed and sidestepped because it direction damages Obama or at least puts a big question mark over him, in fact you bloody know this, so why am I arguing? You’d be a godamn liar to deny this: if Bush was in power instead of Obama, the media would be tearing him apart.

    They took out fucking Harriers ffs.

    Thumb up 5

  15. Poosh

    It’s fascinating isn’t it. The lengths people will go to……

    Astounding stupidity. How is this related to the economy directly? How is this a working solution? This is nothing but a cheap distraction and faux gotcha-moment, that has flooded the airwaves despite being mostly irrelevant – and I think most people know perfectly well it’s to distract away from putting Obama’s so called “smart diplomacy” under the spot light, as well as his conduct of the Afghan war. On a slow news day, fine. but it’s not a slow news day. It’s the least slow-news day in months. It’s a fucking cluster fuck. And the media – and you it seems – are trying your best to make sure this irrelevant thing, Romney saying stuff Republicans and Conservatives say all the time – is somehow an “issue”.

    IT’S FASCINATING ISN’T IT? THE LENGTHS LIBERALS WILL GO TO.

    Honest leftists would be questioning what the hell is going on with Obama’s foreign policy, and how anything he has done has actually secured a liberal beachead for the middle east.

    Thumb up 3

  16. CM

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Thumb up 1

  17. Poosh

    I’m out CM, I don’t make a habit of reading whatever-you-write anyhow, but if you want to take this as “running away” then fine, whatever makes you happy, I must be the one with the problem right?. I mean I could point out to you that Obama asking Putin to lay off him until after the election is clearly not something any sitting president should do, which is why your words are so empty, but you know, why bother? I’ll be running away from the argument now, because clearly I’ve been defeated by your incredible intellect.

    Thumb up 7

  18. CM

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Thumb up 2

  19. Kimpost

    Yes it was a gotcha moment, but it also was very much about economics. More specifically about the 47% who live of the rest, and who vote because they are bought to vote (The actual number likely being 30-40 percentage points lower than that doesn’t really matter, nor does it matter that the “bought vote” either doesn’t really vote democrat, or they don’t vote at all).

    It wasn’t one of Romney’s better moments. EVEN if he believes what he said, he should put up an inclusive front. His PUBLIC persona should reach out to the “47%”. He should at least pretend to be their guy too.

    Thumb up 1

  20. CM

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Thumb up 1

  21. Thrill

    I’m out CM, I don’t make a habit of reading whatever-you-write anyhow,

    He’s good for a quick argument, if I’m in the mood for one. Typically, I find the best way to deal with him is to give him one good response comment and then downvote all of his posts. You can’t waste a lot of time arguing with the blockquote-linkspam-blockquote-linkspam commenters and ever get anywhere. They’ll wear you out with deranged persistence without ever making a single interesting point.

    Thumb up 5

  22. Miguelito

    The Ezra quote:

    For what it’s worth, this division of “makers” and “takers” isn’t true. Among the Americans who paid no federal income taxes in 2011, 61 percent paid payroll taxes — which means they have jobs and, when you account for both sides of the payroll tax, they paid 15.3 percent of their income in taxes, which is higher than the 13.9 percent that Romney paid. Another 22 percent were elderly.

    WTF? So when it’s convenient to the cause, the SS/medicare/etc “non-tax” taxes are not only fair game, but we get to count both sides (which I assume means the employer matched side)? Hell, if we get to do that here, we should do it all the time and then many of us are paying well over 30% (or more) just in Federal “payroll” taxes alone.

    It’s this duplicitous use of things one way at one time and a completely different way at another that tends to really piss people off.

    Yes, Romney fumbled it by not being exact in his quote, but this still drives me nuts.

    Thumb up 4

  23. Section8

    Good point Miguelito, but Klien had to get the number up higher than Romney’s somehow. So why not bullshit it? It’s the left talking here, so therefore it’s perfectly valid.

    Thumb up 3

  24. Ed Kline

    I’m no Romney fan but I interpreted his whole, “my job is not to worry about those people”, as meaning he wasnt going to waste time trying to get their vote, and that he was looking for the crucial 10% of undecideds out there.

    Thumb up 3

  25. CM

    I’m no Romney fan but I interpreted his whole, “my job is not to worry about those people”, as meaning he wasnt going to waste time trying to get their vote, and that he was looking for the crucial 10% of undecideds out there.

    That’s the most obvious explanation. However it’s somewhat undone by the offense of calling 47 percent of Americans moochers, and saying that Obama’s voters were simply voting for more money from the makers. And this horrible, callous, Ayn Rand-ish sentence:

    “[M]y job is is not to worry about those people. I’ll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives.”

    So he didn’t just say “I’ll never convince them they should vote for me.” Instead he accused 47% of the American population of choosing not to “take personal responsibility and care for their lives”.
    He’s saying half the country are parasites, bleeding the productive half dry.

    I’d imagine some independents/moderates/undecideds will be saying “Fuck you” to that. They don’t even need to hear it through the political filter which turned ‘you didn’t build that’ into pure dishonesty. No inconvenient context to ignore here. Mitt’s words speak for themselves. And he seems much more natural than he does speaking normally (which makes sense course, he’s with “his own”, but the eloquence makes it seem even worse – it sounds like this is really what he believes).

    A palpably gloomy and openly frustrated mood has begun to creep into Mr. Romney’s campaign for president. Well practiced in the art of lurching from public relations crisis to public relations crisis, his team seemed to reach its limit as it digested a ubiquitous set of video clips that showed their boss candidly describing nearly half of the country’s population as government-dependent “victims,” and saying that he would “kick the ball down the road” on the biggest foreign policy challenge of the past few decades, the Palestinian-Israeli peace process.

    It may prove a fleeting anxiety: national polls show the race remains close, even though Mr. Romney trails in some key swing states.

    Still, a flustered adviser, describing the mood, said that the campaign was turning into a vulgar, unprintable phrase.

    http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/18/a-mood-of-gloom-afflicts-the-romney-campaign/

    Must be an unpleasant place to work at the moment.

    If this had happened within a few weeks of the election I think it might be the end of his campaign (they’d limp home trying to save as much face as possible). But possibly this far out enough will happen that it will seem like three months ago come election day.

    Thumb up 2

  26. Seattle Outcast

    Instead he accused 47% of the American population of choosing not to “take personal responsibility and care for their lives” He’s saying half the country are parasites, bleeding the productive half dry.

    And he’s more right than wrong. All those people expecting the government to “do more” (67% of democrats) are parasites on the nation. If you were here, we’d include your commie ass as well.

    Thumb up 4

  27. ilovecress

    Honestly, I think the real story here is how badly Romney has been let down by his campaign. He’s making really odd decisions (from a campaign comms point of view) and has been for the last few weeks. It’s as if all his messaging advisors and comms people worked to create a good convention, and have gone on holiday since then. I’m not saying that the circumstances have been great for Romney, but so much of it has been self inflicted – and his campaign staff are squarely to blame. I’m not talking policy here, or who would make the best president – just that from a ‘managing the messaging’ point of view, Romneys comms guys really suck.

    Announcing Ryan – completely failed to take advantage of the energy that Ryan gave him. Since his announcement, Ryan looks almost muted – the Ryan ticket allows the campaign to do 2 things – recapture the Tea party energy from 2 years ago, and to challenge Obama on the specifics of the economy. By resisting specifics, and having Ryan appear as a Romney intern completely wipes out the advantage he might have given you. It’s like picking Rubio, and not letting him speak to minority groups.

    Not mentioning Afghanistan at the convention – you’re telling me that no one on the campaign spotted this and thought it might be a thing? Let the narrative be about what he didn’t talk about?

    Ryan ‘lies’ – One thing that Ryan brings to the ticket is ‘straight talking honesty’ – so you make sure that his speech is water tight. Even an appearance of dishonesty undoes that valuable brand.

    The message – you can say that this election is about the economy all you want – but unless you actually talk about the economy then you’re not going to hurt Obama on it. Tell people what Obama did wrong, and what you’d do right. Even if it is wonky, you’ll get credit for being the one actually talking about solutions, and you’ll force Obama to p*ss off his base.

    Benghazi Attack – firstly, don’t rush. There is absolutely nothing for Romney to gain to act so quickly, so why risk it? Secondly, you missed a chance to be Presidential there. Whatever points you score against President Obama are points not gained in showing people what President Romney would be like. Rush is going to blame Obama, Fox is going to Blame Obama – Romney doesn’t have to deliver that message.

    The 47% – I’ll admit, I have no idea on how to handle this one – but the answer is definitely not to play tit-for-tat with an Obama clip, or to move the narrative to how the campaign is ‘melting down’. Whoever is giving those quotes needs to be fired and quickly and publicly, they’re changing the headlines to Romney losing – even thought the race is still pretty tight.

    Thumb up 3

  28. Seattle Outcast

    Yep, 67%, proving that you only “remember” poll data that you agree with or makes liberals look good.

    Since this data was out just a couple days ago, I thought for sure you’d be all over it, but since it basically shows that your favorite political party in another country is bunch of leeches, you decided to ignore it.

    Thumb up 2

  29. AlexInCT

    Poll after poll says that the vast majority of Palestinians want peace.

    I think their definition, and by definition, since you seem to agree with them, your own definition of “peace” are different from what most sane people believe is peace. When peace comes with such things as “driving the Jews into the sea” and “ridding Israel of Jews”, then what you are advocating is genocide, not peace as most sane people would interpret it.

    BTW I would love to see the questions in these polls you reference here, CM. My guess is that just like the polls that have loaded questions to favor Team Obama, these polls have loaded questions elicited to create the illusion that these death worshippers want “peace”.

    Thumb up 3

  30. richtaylor365

    Red alert!!!

    It looks like that tape was edited

    Now they need to find out what was said during those lapses, might have changed the whole context.

    Thankfully, we come to find out that the “You Did Not Build That” speech was also edited and had major gaps omitted, gasp, but the new unedited version provides some not too all surprising answers:

    “If you have been successful, you didn’t get there on your own.”
    “My big government solutions paved that way for you”

    “It must be because I was just so smart”
    “Trust me folks, nobody is as smart as me”

    “There is a whole bunch of hard working people out there”
    “Of course, I’m not one of them, but you already knew that, didn’t you?”

    “You Didn’t Build That”
    “And by ‘that’ I mean your business, what did you think I was talking about, roads and bridges? Only my apologetic MSM minions would buy that line”

    Good thing we finally now know what he meant.

    Thumb up 5

  31. Jim

    It’s a good thing welfare programs do not breed an entitlement mentality nor create a class of people dependent upon the government.
    Right?
    I’m pretty sure these aren’t the people being referenced as voting for President Obama’s policies no matter what.

    Thumb up 5

  32. CM

    Polls don’t really tell you much. What people say in polls is not often reflective of what they actually do or the people they actually support. The vast majority of Americans say they want smaller govt, yet here we are in an election between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney.

    So if polls on this issue are out, how on earth can people claim they know what the vast majority of Palestinians think? You can’t have it both ways.

    I have no doubt most of the Palestinians would like the conflict to end; but I also doubt they want it to end on any terms Israel would accept.

    Right, there is no way the Likud Party is ever going to stop building illegal settlements (let alone remove any). So immediately we can say “Palestinians don’t want the conflict to end on terms Israel would accept”. Which is then meaningless.
    The point is: Romney has announced his side in the conflict, and what he thinks of the Palestinian people (not the terrorists and martyrs, the people) and nobody needs to dwell under any sort of illusion that any objectiveness will be applied. It’s a green light for settlement building, and it’s a clear sign to the terrorists and martyrs in Palestine that no peace is coming, so they might was well continue (maybe even ramp it up). Awesome. Not.

    Thumb up 0

  33. CM

    Yep, 67%, proving that you only “remember” poll data that you agree with or makes liberals look good.

    Since this data was out just a couple days ago, I thought for sure you’d be all over it, but since it basically shows that your favorite political party in another country is bunch of leeches, you decided to ignore it.

    I finally found what you were on about (busy day).
    http://www.gallup.com/poll/157481/majority-say-government-doing.aspx
    It’s Gallup though, so we can discount it. That’s right isn’t it?
    Anyway, I would have answered “Mixed/Depends”.

    These days it’s hard finding poll data that makes conservatives look good.

    Thumb up 0

  34. Kimpost

    I’d like the government (fed, state and local) to do more in some areas, and less in others, but more importantly what they do should always be as effective and transparent as possible. Would that put me in the mixed column?

    Most likely it would, but on the other hand others who share my beliefs might consider a mixed answer as being too general. “Sure government does too much in some areas, but since I believe that government does too little in some vital areas, I’m going to check the “too little box” rather than the “mixed box”.

    In any which case, why would those people necessarily be “parasites”? Wouldn’t they at least have to be “net takers” to fit that description?

    Thumb up 1

  35. balthazar

    These days it’s hard finding poll data that makes conservatives look good.

    When you are as big a hack-troll tard as you are, I would assume thats the case. Since you couldnt find your objectivity with a search party the size of the US Army.

    Thumb up 3

  36. Kimpost

    Polling isn’t easy. We’ve seen polls that have been way off, from basically all polling institutions. What we can do however is to use their average to see trends. They should for instance be able to register bumps or drops.

    When doing that I’d say that it’s still a tight race. But the polls also indicate that Obama got a small bump from the convention, while Romney didn’t. He sure as hell could still win this, but he needs to start gaining soon. Can’t wait for the debates, which probably are Romney’s last chance. As it stands now, his voters seem to be more anti-Obama, than they are pro-Romney. Judging by most of you, I think it’s true here as well. Like it or not, that’s a problem for Romney. It’s hard to get independents out in droves for someone they don’t really like, just because he might not be as bad as Obama.

    Romney doesn’t have to worry about the base. No-Obama is a strong enough ticket as it is. We’ll probably see a high Republican turnout.

    The House seems to stay Republican, though, and they’ll probably get the Senate as well, even if the race has tightened up there again.

    Thumb up 2

  37. Seattle Outcast

    These days it’s hard finding poll data that makes conservatives look good.

    I thought we had already covered this – you don’t know what the hell you’re talking about and have revisionist history issues, and I’m the expert on statistics.

    Now, go take your meds …

    Thumb up 1

  38. Iconoclast

    So if polls on this issue are out, how on earth can people claim they know what the vast majority of Palestinians think? You can’t have it both ways.

    Who besides you has explicitly made any kind of “vast majority” claim wrt the Palestinians?

    What we do know is that Palestinian leadership routinely rejects peace offers. If Palestinian leadership does, in fact, not represent “what the vast majority of Palestinians” think or want, well, who is to blame for that? Such an apparent disconnect between Palestinian leadership’s actions and “what the vast majority of Palestinians” want suggests many possible inferences, few of which reflect positively on the Palestinians…

    Thumb up 3

  39. Iconoclast

    If this doesnt tell you Obama has NO FUCKING CLUE about the US, then nothing will.

    Apparently, Obama wants to recreate the USA in his own image, which is precisely what some have been saying all along, only to be met with derision by way of response.

    “Despicable” doesn’t even begin to properly address this.

    Thumb up 2

  40. Iconoclast

    It’s the flag being desecrated by being skewed into an eagle with the name as a stripe.

    You cannot be serious. If you think that looks like a US flag that’s been “skewed”, well, words fail. That means ANYTHING that is colored red, white and blue and happens to have white stars on a blue background is a “skewed US flag”.

    Absurd on its face.

    The Obama image is, by contrast, quite clearly a US flag with the star field replaced by Obama’s logo. From that one can easily infer replacing the 50 States with “Obama”. The fifty States are what the 50 stars represent, after all.

    Thumb up 2

  41. Section8

    Kimpost and CM are idiots here to troll and nothing more. We’ve all said that at least once. Just down vote the idiots to clean up the litter. Why even bother responding to them? They offer nothing, they are here to offer nothing.

    Thumb up 2

  42. Kimpost

    Ah, come now, Section8, stop sobbing, it isn’t very becoming… *pat on shoulder*

    If you guys don’t find this flag issue ridiculous, then you are clearly suffering from something. Perhaps campaign fatigue? US politics and campaigns are littered with flags, cut flags, skewed flags, flags with campaign messages written on them, flags with faces of politicians on them etc. It’s been like that forever. This. Is. Nothing.

    The reactions from some of you guys is hilarious, though. Keep it up! ;)

    Thumb up 1

  43. Section8

    If you guys don’t find this flag issue ridiculous, then you are clearly suffering from something

    It’s just your extreme ignorance about us, our beliefs, and our culture. Your ignorance displays itself through an arrogant attitude well beyond just one post. Isn’t that you clowns over there accuse us of doing? Maybe it’s time to look into the mirror. Contrary to Bloom’s post here a few days ago, perhaps many of us don’t go on to foreign blogs simply because we have no interest in mocking the people there.

    Thumb up 2

  44. Kimpost

    You don’t have to believe me of course, but I have zero interest in mocking people.

    But when I see something I find particularly silly, I just might go ahead mocking the silliness. Humor’s sometimes a good way to get your point across. If that fails, then at least I smiled making it.

    I think that I have been around Americans long enough to “get” American culture, whatever that entails (did I just contradict myself, or did I half-heartedly mock the premise?). It’s funny seeing that argument being put forward, especially since the ones doing it claims that Obama doesn’t understand America either. Nor do San Francisco liberals, liberal professors, Democrat members of congress, Hollywood actors (except for Eastwood, Stallone and Schwarzenegger), journalists (except for a select few) or New Yorkers (well, the liberal majority anyway). Makes total sense.

    ;)

    (Did I mock anyone with that smiley?)

    Anyway, IF this flag issue would have been EXTREMELY offending, then I’m pretty sure that an Obama campaign adviser (or two) would have objected to it. They are Americans too, after all, even if they are parasites and socialists. Even if they hate America, they should know about it. The outrage here is as if Obama had been pissing on the flag, which makes one wonder about the response had something like that actually happened.

    I go to foreign blogs to learn, and to interact. I choose US blogs because I’m interested in US politics. I choose conservative blogs because I’m more interested in debate than I am in exchanging high fives. I’m at this particular blog because I come from Moorewatch. This is my old American political home on the Internets (thank you Al Gore).

    Thumb up 3

  45. balthazar

    Holy shit. I’ve NEVER seen anything as disgraceful a that. And how about this disgrace?

    http://store.mittromney.com/apparel/vintage-collection-eagle-icon-heather-gray-tee.html

    It’s the flag being desecrated by being skewed into an eagle with the name as a stripe.

    :(

    You are a fucking idiot Kim, Theres a huge difference, 1 big one being nothing was actually REPLACED and its not even a flag. The Obama flag is just that A FLAG. The romney one is an EAGLE.

    Let me restate, you are a fucking idiot.

    Thumb up 4

  46. balthazar

    If you guys don’t find this flag issue ridiculous, then you are clearly suffering from something. Perhaps campaign fatigue?

    This quote right fucking here proves my EXACT POINT about the fucktard BHO, he might as well be a foreigner, he has a foreigners VIEWS about the USA.

    Thanks for helping me prove my point, however inadvertently.

    Thumb up 2

  47. Kimpost

    How about this?

    1. By placing himself over the flag , Romney clearly suggests that he’s above America. America is his servant, not the other way around.

    2. Why is he hiding the number of stars (states)? I only see 14 of them. What’s his plan for the rest? Civil war?

    3. He has WRITTEN (“2012″) on the flag. What’s up with that? Should you write on the flag at all? And what’s up with 2012? Is that the year he aims to become the king of America (what happened to Elvis)?

    Thumb up 2

  48. balthazar

    So your saying you want to ban flags in a backround? You are a fucking idiot, again.

    1: The Flag is in the backround, he didnt change the Flag at all.

    2: Again the flag is in the backround, nothing is being hidden you fucking idiot.

    3: The 2012 shouldn’t be there, but its a far cry from replacing the star field with iconography that represents YOU.

    4 5 6 and 7: You are a fucking idiot.

    Thumb up 3

  49. AlexInCT

    So if polls on this issue are out, how on earth can people claim they know what the vast majority of Palestinians think? You can’t have it both ways.

    The Palestinains have been for decades CM. When speaking to their own people they constantly talk about exterminating the Jews and taking back the land. When speaking to foreigners, especially the Europeans that finance their clans, they talk about how they want peace, then send some kids in to blow themselves up or fire rockets at civilians.

    Thumb up 6

  50. balthazar

    Can’t believe you actually answered my questions…

    As much as I dont like your views, you arnt CM, a useless pile of hack trollery. Most of the time anyway. Though this last bit of yer was almost CM worthy.

    Thumb up 3

  51. Argive

    2. Why is he hiding the number of stars (states)? I only see 14 of them. What’s his plan for the rest? Civil war?

    He’ll be deep in the cold cold ground before he reckanizes Missourah!

    Thumb up 0

  52. CM

    I thought we had already covered this – you don’t know what the hell you’re talking about and have revisionist history issues, and I’m the expert on statistics.

    You claim to be an expert but you’ve yet to demonstrate it here (when given the chance you decline and opt for more personal abuse….YAWN).
    You seem to hate polls, and then you bring one to the table which, as Kimpost points out, is close to meaningless.

    Who besides you has explicitly made any kind of “vast majority” claim wrt the Palestinians?

    You’ve GOT to be kidding?!
    For a start, I’m not saying “I know”, I specifically referred to what polls indicated.
    Secondly, here are the explicit claims on what a vast majority of Palestinians think (the people who make these comments can only see them as a homogeneous group, possibly because they see them as sub-human on some level):

    Romney said that Palestinians have “no interest whatsoever” in peace. Did you miss this whole thing? He wants to “kick the can down the road”. He doesn’t even realise it’s a live hand grenade, not a can.
    As Erekat points out: “No one stands to gain more from peace than the Palestinians, and no one stands to lose from the absence of peace like the Palestinians”.
    This is consistent with Romney’s ridiculous and insulting comments about ‘culture’ the other month.

    In addition to Romney we have:

    Poosh:

    Peace = Sharia Law and Islam
    Peace = Dead Jews

    The Palestinians, most of them, do not want peace.

    Seattle Outcast

    Yep, right after they kill all the jews…..

    Alex:

    I think their definition, and by definition, since you seem to agree with them, your own definition of “peace” are different from what most sane people believe is peace. When peace comes with such things as “driving the Jews into the sea” and “ridding Israel of Jews”, then what you are advocating is genocide, not peace as most sane people would interpret it.

    Xetrov:

    “Provided there were no jews left on the planet; do you want peace?”

    What we do know is that Palestinian leadership routinely rejects peace offers.

    The Israelis have rejected just as many. So that doesn’t mean anything by itself.

    If Palestinian leadership does, in fact, not represent “what the vast majority of Palestinians” think or want, well, who is to blame for that?

    A large proportion of the Palestinian population is far far more concerned with staying alive. Again polls clearly show that issues relating to their general health and welfare are far more important to them then the relationship with Israel. Hamas is predomninantly a social welfare organisation, providing day to day services on street corners.

    Such an apparent disconnect between Palestinian leadership’s actions and “what the vast majority of Palestinians” want suggests many possible inferences, few of which reflect positively on the Palestinians…

    Nonsense. That’s a pure Likud Party / US right-wing narrative.
    Ronney’s campaign speaks of a ‘two-state solution’ but in private he admits that such a thing, involving giving Palestinians their own state, is “almost impossible to imagine.” So any talk of a two-state solution is just a smokescreen for keeping the Palestinians stateless. He’s admitted that it’s a clear campaign lie.
    But hey, look what Obama did to that flag!!!!

    Thumb up 2

  53. Iconoclast

    You’ve GOT to be kidding?!

    Well, yeah, I keep forgetting that I have to be meticulously explicit to ridiculous extremes…

    I had hoped that my use of the word “explicitly”, along with putting quotes around the phrase “vast majority”, would have conveyed the point that I was seeking where anyone besides you claimed, verbatim, that the “vast majority of Palestinians” believed/desired/wanted/did X, Y or Z. I fully realize that several people made off-the-cuff counter-assertions by way of response to your assertion, but you alone made the explicit claim that “vast majority of Palestinians” did anything, and you used the ever-so-ubiquitous “polls” as your basis. The various responders’ off-the-cuff rejoinders were mere generalizations, and in my ever-so-humble-opinion should be understood to be such, irrespective of the accuracy (or lack thereof) of those claims. After all, they didn’t have “polls” to back them up, whereas your explicit “vast majority” claim did.

    Like I said, the Palestinian leadership routinely rejects peace offers, and you completely miss the point of why I mentioned that. No one here is claiming that “the vast majority of Israelis want peace”, so the alleged fact that they “routinely reject peace offers” is irrelevant. I was highlighting the disconnect between your claim and historical reality, nothing more.

    Hamas is predomninantly a [terrorist organization that also happens to be a] social welfare organisation, providing day to day services on street corners [when they aren’t sending rockets and suicide bombers into Israel].

    Fixed it for you.

    That’s a pure Likud Party / US right-wing narrative.

    Of course. Anything that doesn’t sit well with your sensitivities is a “narrative”. Just because you slap the label “narrative” on it, it doesn’t make it not true.

    Ronney’s campaign speaks of a ‘two-state solution’ but in private he admits that such a thing, involving giving Palestinians their own state, is “almost impossible to imagine.” So any talk of a two-state solution is just a smokescreen for keeping the Palestinians stateless.

    The conclusion doesn’t necessarily follow from the premise. A Palestinian state could be “almost impossible to imagine” for any number of reasons, but you appear to be implicitly assuming that the reasons are due to malevolence on the part of the “Likud Party / US right-wing / whatever-bogeyman-you-want” exclusively. Hell, for all we know, your anti-Likud-party rantings are nothing but a “Left-wing narrative”…

    He’s admitted that it’s a clear campaign lie.

    No, you merely infer as much, since you apparently filter everything he says through that left-wing narrative I just mentioned.

    Thumb up 1

  54. Mississippi Yankee

    I’d like the government (fed, state and local) to do more in some areas, and less in others, but more importantly what they do should always be as effective and transparent as possible. Would that put me in the mixed column?

    Tell me Kim, will you be voting in our upcoming election? Cause it sure sounds that way…

    Thumb up 0

  55. CM

    Well, yeah, I keep forgetting that I have to be meticulously explicit to ridiculous extremes…

    No, just try and be a little accurate. It matters.

    I had hoped that my use of the word “explicitly”, along with putting quotes around the phrase “vast majority”, would have conveyed the point that I was seeking where anyone besides you claimed, verbatim, that the “vast majority of Palestinians” believed/desired/wanted/did X, Y or Z. I fully realize that several people made off-the-cuff counter-assertions by way of response to your assertion, but you alone made the explicit claim that “vast majority of Palestinians” did anything, and you used the ever-so-ubiquitous “polls” as your basis. The various responders’ off-the-cuff rejoinders were mere generalizations, and in my ever-so-humble-opinion should be understood to be such, irrespective of the accuracy (or lack thereof) of those claims. After all, they didn’t have “polls” to back them up, whereas your explicit “vast majority” claim did.

    The “off the cuff” assertions were explicit.

    fully and clearly expressed or demonstrated; leaving nothing merely implied; unequivocal

    http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/explicit

    There was nothing uncertain about those statements, nothing was left as implied, there were no qualifiers. This is what they think of the Palestinian people. And it’s based on weak argument and no evidence.
    Whereas what I said allows for the accuracy/inaccuracy of the relevant polls, and whether the people who answered them answered honestly.

    So yet again someone here is having a go at me because I choose my words carefully. That’s awesome.

    Like I said, the Palestinian leadership routinely rejects peace offers, and you completely miss the point of why I mentioned that. No one here is claiming that “the vast majority of Israelis want peace”, so the alleged fact that they “routinely reject peace offers” is irrelevant. I was highlighting the disconnect between your claim and historical reality, nothing more.

    It would be far more accurate to say that the Palestinian and Israeli leadership fail to get to the point where they can agree terms to peace. To suggest that a realistic peace plan is put together and handed to the Palestinians for signing, but is then rejected, is just fantasy. It’s just another example of the bullshit narrative-wording that surrounds this whole topic.

    You’ve not shown a disconnect. You’ve put up a weak argument which misses the context of the situation in the territories, and the priority issues for the people. If you believe in the right-wing fantasy that Palestinians want to kill all the Jews, then it makes sense that you wouldn’t understand the appearance of a disconnect. But these sorts of ‘disconnects’ happen all the time, for a variety of reasons (which is why despite only 26% of NZers supporting the sale of state assets, a Govt was voted in who campaigned that they’d do exactly that).

    Fixed it for you.

    Gosh, how clever.
    Fine, live in partisan ignorance then.

    Of course. Anything that doesn’t sit well with your sensitivities is a “narrative”. Just because you slap the label “narrative” on it, it doesn’t make it not true.

    Um no, when the evidence and facts don’t support it, but people run with it anyway because it’s consistent with their world view and anything else would be inconvenient, then that’s a narrative. It’s very different from a difference of opinion.
    In this case the right-wing US narrative is the same as the Likud Party narrative, which is shared by pretty much nobody else in the world. Not even the Israeli population are as extreme. Most Jews in the US vote Democrat.

    The conclusion doesn’t necessarily follow from the premise. A Palestinian state could be “almost impossible to imagine” for any number of reasons, but you appear to be implicitly assuming that the reasons are due to malevolence on the part of the “Likud Party / US right-wing / whatever-bogeyman-you-want” exclusively. Hell, for all we know, your anti-Likud-party rantings are nothing but a “Left-wing narrative”…

    Any number of reasons? Um, you need to go back and see what Romney said. He was explicit.
    Palestinians don’t want peace so Romney isn’t even remotely insterested in doing anything to assist the peace-process.

    Jon Stewart nails it yet again – ‘Chaos on Bullshit Mountain’
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/20/jon-stewart-fox-news-romney-47-percent-video_n_1899787.html

    Thumb up 1

  56. Kimpost

    Tell me Kim, will you be voting in our upcoming election? Cause it sure sounds that way…

    No, that won’t stop me from bitching about it on the Internets. ;)

    My statement was general though, and applies to Sweden as well. We have split our government into closer-to-people entities too (country, län, kommun). Granted, we’re not a federation, so we obviously don’t actually call it federal, but I chose that language to keep it understandable here.

    Thumb up 0

  57. richtaylor365

    For what it’s worth, we have already mentioned a few times in posts about country rankings wrt economic freedom, that New Zealand routinely kicks our ass in this area and is in much better financial shape. Now we come to find out that that socialist bastion known as Sweden is lowering their corporate tax rate:

    “This is to improve the conditions for new jobs and investments in Sweden. The significant lowering of corporate tax is expected to strengthen the investor climate and growth in Sweden,” the government said.

    Next thing we will read that the Brits have better teeth then we do, is there no end to these insults?

    Say what you will about our foreign readers, but they come from lands that do America better then we do wrt to economic stability, growth and freedom.

    Thumb up 1

  58. Kimpost

    I’m not against lowering our corporate taxes, however this time I’m skeptical. Our finances are strong, relatively speaking, but this measure is not paid for, which means that we’ll have to pay for it with borrowed money.

    The proposed budget looks much like a sum-of-all-wishes, from the parties of the coalition. Perhaps because the current center-right administration isn’t doing so well in the polls.

    The left opposition attacks it from a fiscal point of view.

    We’ll see what happens. Major tax proposals usually are better dealt with through bipartisan agreements.

    Thumb up 0

  59. richtaylor365

    which means that we’ll have to pay for it with borrowed money.

    OR………………….{drum roll, please} you will find out (like we did here many times) that lowering the tax rate increases the tax base, increases job growth and productivity, allows businesses to grow their business and their profits, increases the number of businesses that want to do business in your country, thus bringing in more net cash as tax revenues. I know, a silly notion that just can’t possible work……………yet it does when it is tried.

    Thumb up 1

  60. Iconoclast

    No, just try and be a little accurate.

    This coming from someone who describes Hamas as a “social welfare organization” while completely omitting their terrorism aspects. Besides, there was nothing “inaccurate” about my question.

    It matters.

    It certainly doesn’t appear that way.

    The “off the cuff” assertions were explicit.

    But none of them mentioned “the vast majority of Palestinians” explicitly. That was my point. They were just off-the-cuff generalizations, and could be dismissed as such. Your assertion did explicitly refer to “the vast majority of Palestinians”, and claimed “polls” as substantiation. So we cannot dismiss it as an off-the-cuff generalization.

    So yet again someone here is having a go at me because I choose my words carefully

    Frankly, it looks to me like you are the one having a go at me. Again, I am merely contrasting what you claim your “polls” indicate against actual history.

    That’s awesome.

    Ain’t it?

    It would be far more accurate to say that the Palestinian and Israeli leadership fail to get to the point where they can agree terms to peace.

    Perhaps, but again, in this thread, the only person making a “vast majority want peace” claim is you. No one is claiming that Israel wants peace in this thread. You are claiming that the Palestinians want it, and cite “polls” as evidence. Others claim the Palestinians don’t want peace, and cite nothing. So I dismiss their claims and focus on yours.

    Hell, we can argue that everybody wants “peace”, but then the question becomes: How do we define “peace”? Some define it as a worldwide Caliphate under Sharia law. Would you personally accept that “peace”? I wouldn’t.

    Many Muslim and Arab nations do, in fact, not recognize Israel’s right to exist. The claim is that Israel occupies “stolen” land that “rightfully” belongs to Arabs/Muslims. If this viewpoint is a deal breaker with regard to “peace” in that region, then what?

    To suggest that a realistic peace plan is put together and handed to the Palestinians for signing, but is then rejected, is just fantasy.

    Prove it. Prove that what you described never happens. Prove that all of the peace plans that were proposed but rejected by Palestinian leadership were “unrealistic”.

    And by “prove it”, I mean provide solid evidence, not left-wing narratives.

    Gosh, how clever.

    Cleverness is irrelevant. You were the one complaining about “accuracy”…

    Fine, live in partisan ignorance then.

    Recognizing that Hamas is a terrorist organization is “liv[ing] in partisan ignorance”???!?!

    Um no, when the evidence and facts don’t support it, but people run with it anyway because it’s consistent with their world view and anything else would be inconvenient, then that’s a narrative.

    What you are attempting to dismiss as “narrative is the following:

    Such an apparent disconnect between Palestinian leadership’s actions and “what the vast majority of Palestinians” want suggests many possible inferences, few of which reflect positively on the Palestinians…

    Again, I am describing how things appear, based on the knowledge I have. There are Muslim and Arab groups which seek the destruction of Israel, and Hamas is one such group. That is a fact of life. If peace in the ME requires Israel’s destruction, then I repeat, what qualifies as a “realistic” plan?

    Any number of reasons?

    Yes, including the one I just discussed.

    Thumb up 0

  61. Kimpost

    OR………………….{drum roll, please} you will find out (like we did here many times) that lowering the tax rate increases the tax base, increases job growth and productivity, allows businesses to grow their business and their profits, increases the number of businesses that want to do business in your country, thus bringing in more net cash as tax revenues. I know, a silly notion that just can’t possible work……………yet it does when it is tried.

    Sometimes it works like that, other times it does not, you know that.And I’m not totally against lowering the corporate tax rate, it’s just that I want to see it properly financed. If it’s supposed increase productivity, show us the numbers.

    (If you’d ask business organisations (usually right leaning guys) in Sweden, they’d rather see lowered payroll tax rates than a lowered corporate tax rate.)

    Thumb up 0

  62. salinger

    you will find out (like we did here many times) that lowering the tax rate increases the tax base, increases job growth and productivity, allows businesses to grow their business and their profits, increases the number of businesses that want to do business in your country, thus bringing in more net cash as tax revenues.

    How come none of these things happened while this was the policy under the last two Republican administrations then?

    I do recall these same administrations spending more than the Democratic ones who preceded them. Why should we expect any different from the right if given another chance? I really don’t think fiscal responsibility from the Republican party is a believable talking point.

    Thumb up 0

  63. Iconoclast

    How about this?

    How about it? It’s just an image of Romnety in front of a flag. Do you need help understanding it?

    1. By placing himself over the flag , Romney clearly suggests that he’s above America. America is his servant, not the other way around.

    Why yes, you obviously do need help…

    Romney isn’t “over” the flag — he’s in front of one. Your attempt to make something of that is simply pathetic.

    2. Why is he hiding the number of stars (states)?

    Being in front of an object has the effect of obscuring part of that object. Simple (simulated) physics. Nothing sinister, unless you are a trolling flaming liberal…

    I only see 14 of them. What’s his plan for the rest? Civil war?

    Do you go to a special school to learn how to be so patently absurd?

    3. He has WRITTEN (“2012?) on the flag. What’s up with that? Should you write on the flag at all? And what’s up with 2012? Is that the year he aims to become the king of America (what happened to Elvis)?

    “2012” happens to refer to an election year. Why is that a problem for you?

    Do you seriously think placing “2012” on one of the stripes equates to Obama putting his personal logo over the entire 50-state star field? Seriously?

    Thumb up 0

  64. Dave D

    Why should we expect any different from the right if given another chance? I really don’t think fiscal responsibility from the Republican party is a believable talking point.

    I know nothing I say can convince the left wing knuckleheads here, but here’s a stab for Sally:

    1) 9/11 increased spending. They got addicted to wars and security spending. Big mistake, but a reason, nonetheless.

    2) bHo has doubled down on Bush’s stupidity. Actdually more than TRIPLED down on the defecit spending. And they predict this for the next 10+ years, iirc.

    3) They also campaigned on reducing the defecit.

    You lefty’s give your side a complete pass on everything, so why do I bother, but that would be my reasons for not voting for the dems if I were a Libtard…….

    If Romney doesn’t reduce the expansion of government and the defecit AND improve the economy, it would be on to a third party for me. I don’t want my kids (and their kids) to pay for more of this insanity.

    Thumb up 0

  65. richtaylor365

    How come none of these things happened while this was the policy under the last two Republican administrations then?

    They did, where were you, living in a cave? Don’t you pay any attention at all? We have had about 3 of these threads in the last 6 months, did you read any of those? Maybe I should book mark all the links I have already shared arguing against the stupid rational that raising taxes raises tax revenue, sorry, but in most cases it does just the opposite. I really don’t want to repost all the links used before because you can’t keep up. I will give you just two for now to chew on;

    The Bush tax cuts increased federal tax receipts:

    But the real jolt for tax-cutting opponents was that the 03 Bush tax cuts also generated a massive increase in federal tax receipts. From 2004 to 2007, federal tax revenues increased by $785 billion, the largest four-year increase in American history. According to the Treasury Department, individual and corporate income tax receipts were up 40 percent in the three years following the Bush tax cuts. And (bonus) the rich paid an even higher percentage of the total tax burden than they had at any time in at least the previous 40 years. This was news to theNew York Times, whose astonished editorial board could only describe the gains as a “surprise windfall.”

    And as far as general health to the economy, lowering taxes will get you there quicker.

    There are plenty of charts and tables to keep you busy for a while.

    I really don’t think fiscal responsibility from the Republican party is a believable talking point

    .

    Tell you what, you get your boy to lower both the individual and corporate rate, then scrap all cap gain and dividend taxes, then when the federal receipts increase, we will give him all the credit, deal?

    Thumb up 0

  66. Poosh

    This coming from someone who describes Hamas as a “social welfare organization” while completely omitting their terrorism aspects.

    Gonna go out on a limb and ask if CM said this…

    Thumb up 0

  67. salinger

    1) 9/11 increased spending. They got addicted to wars and security spending. Big mistake, but a reason, nonetheless.

    There’s always an excuse isn’t there? Fact is – Republicans spend more than the Democrats before them.

    And why do you have to resort to name calling before you even finish your first sentence? Do you really think that is the way to convince someone of something or are you so unsure of your argument that you want to sabotage it from the get go?

    Thumb up 0

  68. Poosh

    Fact is – Republicans spend more than the Democrats before them.

    But a lot of this spending was on welfare that the Democrats gave support for, but wanted even more spending on. Not to excuse the spending … but Bush was a centrist (not a right-winger as a lot of the popular propaganda likes to claim). He was obviously going to spend on welfare for the greater good.

    Can anyone *really* get elected without spending most on welfare? Even the tea-party like their free healthcare for the poor and elderly. It’s an embedded problem.

    Thumb up 0