Slog
News & ArtsFriday, May 11, 2012
2012 Mitt Romney Displays Human Emotions
Posted by Paul Constant on Fri, May 11, 2012 at 12:48 PM
Mitt Romney today told a crowd at a rally the story of his niece, whose husband was called up to the National Guard, leaving her with a new home, a deaf daughter, and not very much money. He got choked up at the end:
If you can't watch video where you are, this is the important part:
But she now had to live on a much lower income. National Guard salaries aren't as high as they were in his law firm. Now she's in this home and the outside of her is a whole dirt yard. No grass or anything yet, just stones and dirt. And under the neighborhood association where they have this home, you got a year from the time you buy your home till the landscaping’s supposed to be in.
Well, she's a little bit concerned cause that time period is coming up. She doesn't have the money to do the landscaping, to pay for it. She's got a little girl that is getting various tutoring classes and speaking therapy. She wonders what's going to happen. She's concerned.
One morning, she comes outside and there are her neighbors all picking up the rocks out of her yard, raking the dirt. They put in a sprinkler system. They laid down sod. They even build a swing set for her daughter. This is the America that I love. [Here's where he got teary and paused for a second.]
This is a great people. We can do anything. We can achieve anything.
Now, look. I'm not going to dispute Romney's emotions. It seemed like a sincere moment, and I'm sure it's a true story. But I hate when conservatives use these sorts of stories of communities coming together as an excuse for entirely ripping up the social safety net. While communities should come together to help those who are in trouble, there are sometimes entire communities in trouble. Sometimes, nobody can help. Sometimes, nobody wants to help. Everybody needs help at some point in their lives, and sometimes, these tearful happy endings just don't materialize. That's where a civilized government steps in.
1
What his niece doesn't know is that her rich uncle paid for those people to come in and do her landscaping.
Hope she can keep up with the mortgage payments!
Hope she can keep up with the mortgage payments!
2
This is the best he can do?
"Oh I understand how people struggle. Why my poor niece had to get her neighbours to help her landscape her home and install her sprinkler system so the neighbourhood association wouldn't write her a stern letter!"
Next week he'll tell us how they all pitched in to throw her a good old fashioned backyard pool raising.
"Oh I understand how people struggle. Why my poor niece had to get her neighbours to help her landscape her home and install her sprinkler system so the neighbourhood association wouldn't write her a stern letter!"
Next week he'll tell us how they all pitched in to throw her a good old fashioned backyard pool raising.
3
It's all very Ayn Rand: We are great when we get together to do great things as a corporation or as a few friends or neighbors. We are evil when we get together on a larger scale, i.e. at the scale of government, unless it's for law enforcement or the military. No rationale is ever given for this.
5
"One time, my niece was poor, or at least was in danger of slipping from the upper middle class into the depraved depths of the merely middle class. I didn't help her, but it made me sad."
Good job, Mitt.
Good job, Mitt.
7
Well, all he had to do was send her a check with 20% of what he makes in any given day, and she would have had the nicest yard in town, and the bills paid for several months.
But hey, why not let the poorer folks pay for it, right Mitt?
But hey, why not let the poorer folks pay for it, right Mitt?
9
And that one anecdote proves why we have to slash Social Security and privatize Medicare.
Don't worry, your neighbors will chip in to pay for your chemotherapy.
Don't worry, your neighbors will chip in to pay for your chemotherapy.
10
Why not just buy a bag of grass seed, toss handfulls on the ground and spray a hose on it? That little girl may not be able to hear, but she can surely use a hose. Srsly, a sprinkler system?
11
I grew up poor. Our neighborhood didn't have an association, let alone rules about landscaping. I have no pity for anyone in this story except for the guy in the NG who had to go to war.
12
@5
Ditto. Where was his poor niece's uncle while this was happening?
And a sprinkler system? A SPRINKLER SYSTEM?!?
"She doesn't have the money to do the landscaping, to pay for it."
This is your idea of people who are suffering? People without adequate LANDSCAPING?
Ditto. Where was his poor niece's uncle while this was happening?
And a sprinkler system? A SPRINKLER SYSTEM?!?
"She doesn't have the money to do the landscaping, to pay for it."
This is your idea of people who are suffering? People without adequate LANDSCAPING?
13
A dirt yard? How did she ever survive? Granted, her husband is gainfully employed (although for the moment at lower pay), and she gets to live in an (ostensibly) nice house in a nice neighborhood, but a dirt yard? What a story of American hardship! What a trooper she must be, no wonder he teared up.
14
Wait, isn't that what government and government programs are? A group of neighbors coming together to help those who are struggling?
Fancy that. Mitt just made the liberal argument.
Fancy that. Mitt just made the liberal argument.
17
I had no idea how much the families of attorneys were suffering in this country. Thanks for that perspective, Mitt.
18
Sure, he cares about the fates of his friends and family, but who doesn't? A true leader cares about the fates of people he's not related for friends with.
19
Aren't neighborhood associations typically run by the neighbors themselves? So all the neighbors pitched in to give that family landscaping rather than just give them an extension of the one-year deadline? Obviously a very moving story.
20
Arguably the social safety net is an example of the community coming together to help those who are in a tight spot out. Seems one of the main things Republicans don't like about this kind of coming together is that the recipients of government aid are not learning the important lesson that they must be eternally slavishly grateful to their benefactors given that there is no immediate connection between tax payer and beneficiary.
23
The neighbors probably did it so their property values wouldn't go down and potential buyers wouldn't be disappointed.
25
Your analysis ignores the Truth that the informal safety net worked just fine in the past, and everyone was content with it. We didn't get our barely-{First World}-level welfare state until Alien Masons landed and imposed it on us, we all helpless and unaware.
(They probably used the mind-control ray-guns hidden in their extra-large noses, chortling in their guttural language as they did so.)
(They probably used the mind-control ray-guns hidden in their extra-large noses, chortling in their guttural language as they did so.)
26
@23:
Also, husband's a lawyer (read: will sue our asses off if we try to enforce the HOA covenant while he's on-deployment).
AND you think those neighbors DON'T KNOW who this woman's uncle is? Looks real classy to fine the relative of the goram Republican presidential candidate for violation of the HOAC, while you've got his yard signs sticking up out of your own manicured-to-within-an-inch-of-its-life suburban cul-de-sac yard, yes?
Also, husband's a lawyer (read: will sue our asses off if we try to enforce the HOA covenant while he's on-deployment).
AND you think those neighbors DON'T KNOW who this woman's uncle is? Looks real classy to fine the relative of the goram Republican presidential candidate for violation of the HOAC, while you've got his yard signs sticking up out of your own manicured-to-within-an-inch-of-its-life suburban cul-de-sac yard, yes?
27
I bet the story is a big fat lie. This mutt lies his ass off every time he opens his trap. I guess when you are that rich you are only familiar with lackeys who "believe" whatever you say....
28
And still this is all the left has on Mr. Romney. He's well off and you're not. And you're really really mad at him for it!
You're going to have to do a bit better to convince Americans whose current president just got our national debt to over 14 trillion with very little to show for it and who just declared war on marriage and family, that they're better off with your messiah than with Mitt Romney.
But hey, keep up the shrill whining, the libel, the silly accusations. It can only help Republicans in November.
You're going to have to do a bit better to convince Americans whose current president just got our national debt to over 14 trillion with very little to show for it and who just declared war on marriage and family, that they're better off with your messiah than with Mitt Romney.
But hey, keep up the shrill whining, the libel, the silly accusations. It can only help Republicans in November.
30
Republicans don't want the harsh truth of the unemployed and sick people losing their homes and dying of disease, unless it's portrayed as their own damn fault.
What they want are feel-good fictional stories of an America that never really existed, a regurgitation of Hallmark TV from Little House on the Prairie to Leave it to Beaver (but without those M*A*S*H commies).
What they want are feel-good fictional stories of an America that never really existed, a regurgitation of Hallmark TV from Little House on the Prairie to Leave it to Beaver (but without those M*A*S*H commies).
31
@28
You'd better kiss any hope of marrying someone of the opposite gender and having a family goodbye, because married gay people are coming here to be all married and gay and stuff, and you know that will queer your chances (see what I did there?) forever.
You'd better kiss any hope of marrying someone of the opposite gender and having a family goodbye, because married gay people are coming here to be all married and gay and stuff, and you know that will queer your chances (see what I did there?) forever.
32
@29
Not scared about that, but for the future of my country. We really can't afford another 4 years of Nanny State Obama. We can't afford a 20 or more trillion dollar debt, which he surely would get us to. We can't afford his inability to lead. We can't afford a leader who blames that inability on the opposition for- wait for it- opposing him.
So really, if this is all you got, you folks are in real trouble come November. I mean, so far as I can tell no substantive issues or policy based arguments for voting for Obama have been apparent. Just 47 year old accusations of youthful stupidity (which the late suppposed victims family rejects,) a general sense of hatred for anyone who makes more than $50,000 a year, and a lot of other bs that holds water about as well as my collander.
Good luck in November. You'll definitely need it.
Not scared about that, but for the future of my country. We really can't afford another 4 years of Nanny State Obama. We can't afford a 20 or more trillion dollar debt, which he surely would get us to. We can't afford his inability to lead. We can't afford a leader who blames that inability on the opposition for- wait for it- opposing him.
So really, if this is all you got, you folks are in real trouble come November. I mean, so far as I can tell no substantive issues or policy based arguments for voting for Obama have been apparent. Just 47 year old accusations of youthful stupidity (which the late suppposed victims family rejects,) a general sense of hatred for anyone who makes more than $50,000 a year, and a lot of other bs that holds water about as well as my collander.
Good luck in November. You'll definitely need it.
33
No one has declared war on marriage and family, Seattleblues. And until you can answer #27 in What Will Obama Say Today in Seattle About Our States Gay Marriage Fight?, or #44 in Guess Where Mitt Romney Stands on Gay Marriage?, or #53 or #54 in Africa Is Not a Great Place to be a Mother, the last word on your argument that anyone HAS has been made by your opposition. I realize that anti-evolutionists and Holocaust deniers have muddied this issue, but when an argument has been effectively discredited, you can't simply move to another venue (or, more lazily, to another post on the same site) and continue to use the same argument.
34
@ 32, you're absolutely right. Might as well just sit on your heels, because the MittMan is gonna be president!
I can't wait to serve this one back to you, just like when same sex marriage passed in the state senate.
I can't wait to serve this one back to you, just like when same sex marriage passed in the state senate.
35
@ 33, speaking as someone whom SB once deigned to debate with, you've reached the point where you trapped him with his circular logic and completely unsupported claims. He will not engage with you any more, because there's no way out of that corner.
36
At some point trading contentions that you won't accept as true from me, or I from you, isn't productive. You think that the social system is a clinical lab whose rules can be reduced to utility. My understanding of history suggests otherwise. I don't see where continueing to argue from that stalemate is worth my time or yours.
But to see what happens when you tinker with social systems, look to the odious FDR. Prior to his presidency, a person would assume that the ills and issues of your family (father and mother, brothers and sisters and so on) are yours, and yours are theirs. So we had a system in which family was strengthened in time of trouble, as family drew together to solve problems. Then FDR declared that no problem anyone had was ever under any circumstances their fault or their responsbility to solve. Not surprisingly, this is kind of a popular thing to say to people in trouble. So our understanding of what government is and does fundamentally altered to a nanny state socialism, rather than what the Constitution established. It took about 30 years for the divorce rate to shoot through the roof as the family structure was weakened, but it happened and it hasn't recovered. LBJ carried the torch of rampant irresponsibility farther and accordingly weakened the social structure more. Now another odious anti American president wants to make war on marriage for the benefit of a few self selected citizens. Words like bigot and homophobe are used to shame those who consider that a step too far, but they really don't mean anything, other than a liberal expressing hatred of a different view than theirs.
So yes, other than being a disastrously bad president fiscally Obama is warring on family. And the polls just released suggest that he made an error in so doing, with Romney topping 50% and Obama in the 40's now. See, Americans understand what's at stake whether you do or not.
More...
But to see what happens when you tinker with social systems, look to the odious FDR. Prior to his presidency, a person would assume that the ills and issues of your family (father and mother, brothers and sisters and so on) are yours, and yours are theirs. So we had a system in which family was strengthened in time of trouble, as family drew together to solve problems. Then FDR declared that no problem anyone had was ever under any circumstances their fault or their responsbility to solve. Not surprisingly, this is kind of a popular thing to say to people in trouble. So our understanding of what government is and does fundamentally altered to a nanny state socialism, rather than what the Constitution established. It took about 30 years for the divorce rate to shoot through the roof as the family structure was weakened, but it happened and it hasn't recovered. LBJ carried the torch of rampant irresponsibility farther and accordingly weakened the social structure more. Now another odious anti American president wants to make war on marriage for the benefit of a few self selected citizens. Words like bigot and homophobe are used to shame those who consider that a step too far, but they really don't mean anything, other than a liberal expressing hatred of a different view than theirs.
So yes, other than being a disastrously bad president fiscally Obama is warring on family. And the polls just released suggest that he made an error in so doing, with Romney topping 50% and Obama in the 40's now. See, Americans understand what's at stake whether you do or not.
38
@36
"At some point trading contentions that you won't accept as true from me, or I from you, isn't productive."
Then don't do that.
State what, exactly, will happen if Obama is elected for another 4 years.
Will the country go bankrupt?
Will we be unable to pay our military?
Will we be invaded by another country and have to fight to re-take a state?
Which state?
What flag will fly over that state's capital?
Be specific and show them that you know what you're talking about.
Or don't. Because you believe that one cent of Romney's money is worth more than the lives of 10 dead soldiers. It's okay to believe that. It's irrational. But it is still okay to believe that. But you cannot complain that others will not accept your irrational beliefs as true when they are simply your irrational beliefs.
Facts! Put up some FACTS!
"At some point trading contentions that you won't accept as true from me, or I from you, isn't productive."
Then don't do that.
State what, exactly, will happen if Obama is elected for another 4 years.
Will the country go bankrupt?
Will we be unable to pay our military?
Will we be invaded by another country and have to fight to re-take a state?
Which state?
What flag will fly over that state's capital?
Be specific and show them that you know what you're talking about.
Or don't. Because you believe that one cent of Romney's money is worth more than the lives of 10 dead soldiers. It's okay to believe that. It's irrational. But it is still okay to believe that. But you cannot complain that others will not accept your irrational beliefs as true when they are simply your irrational beliefs.
Facts! Put up some FACTS!
39
#36 - "I don't see where continueing (sic) to argue from that stalemate is worth my time or yours."
So shut the fuck up then! You've established that the argument's not worth anyone's time, and then you prattle on about FDR and your deep, deep understanding of history.
....and once again I've gotten sucked into replying to this shithead. Jesus christ, he's a troll, but he's a good 'un!
So shut the fuck up then! You've established that the argument's not worth anyone's time, and then you prattle on about FDR and your deep, deep understanding of history.
....and once again I've gotten sucked into replying to this shithead. Jesus christ, he's a troll, but he's a good 'un!
41
@36
Families were not strengthened during the great depression.
But to see what happens when you tinker with social systems, look to the odious FDR. Prior to his presidency, a person would assume that the ills and issues of your family (father and mother, brothers and sisters and so on) are yours, and yours are theirs. So we had a system in which family was strengthened in time of trouble, as family drew together to solve problems.Not really. Many families became dirt poor. Fathers were unemployed and struggling to get what little help they could from the government (the only entity left that was offering any help), many of them simply abandoned their families altogether. Kids were being kicked out of the home to find jobs on their own. People took in boarders to help pay their bills - pushing the kids out of their own rooms.
Families were not strengthened during the great depression.
42
@41
"Families were not strengthened during the great depression."
Obviously you did not get the Disneyfied version of "things were better in the old days" that various Republicans have been running on for years.
I remember the good old days of attending Klan church picnics during the Great Depression and complaining about Chicago gangsters and corrupt cops because of Prohibition.
I don't think Seattleblues has any idea how the average family lived back in the "good old days".
"Families were not strengthened during the great depression."
Obviously you did not get the Disneyfied version of "things were better in the old days" that various Republicans have been running on for years.
I remember the good old days of attending Klan church picnics during the Great Depression and complaining about Chicago gangsters and corrupt cops because of Prohibition.
I don't think Seattleblues has any idea how the average family lived back in the "good old days".
43
@32
"We really can't afford another 4 years of Nanny State Obama. We can't afford a 20 or more trillion dollar debt, which he surely would get us to.
So in 3.5 years our national debt has risen about $4 trillion while recovering from the Great Recession, but in the next four years of recovery we'd add $5 trillion in additional debt? How? CBO says different--what is it that you know that they don't?
"We can't afford his inability to lead. We can't afford a leader who blames that inability on the opposition for- wait for it- opposing him."
Count the cloture votes.
"So really, if this is all you got, you folks are in real trouble come November. I mean, so far as I can tell no substantive issues or policy based arguments for voting for Obama have been apparent."
How about "avoid a return to failed Republican policies?" Sounds compelling to me. Let's go forward, not backward.
"Just 47 year old accusations of youthful stupidity (which the late supposed victim's family rejects,)"
You must mean the story that Romney's friends all say is true and which Romney does not deny.
"...a general sense of hatred for anyone who makes more than $50,000 a year,"
Assertion + nothing = nothing.
"Good luck in November. You'll definitely need it."
RealClearpolitics as of today shows Obama +1.3 (46.7% to 45.4%)) in national polls, Obama 253 to Romney 170 in the Electoral College, and Intrade Odds at Obama 59.4 to Romney 36.1. Yeah, it should be a reasonably good November.
"We really can't afford another 4 years of Nanny State Obama. We can't afford a 20 or more trillion dollar debt, which he surely would get us to.
So in 3.5 years our national debt has risen about $4 trillion while recovering from the Great Recession, but in the next four years of recovery we'd add $5 trillion in additional debt? How? CBO says different--what is it that you know that they don't?
"We can't afford his inability to lead. We can't afford a leader who blames that inability on the opposition for- wait for it- opposing him."
Count the cloture votes.
"So really, if this is all you got, you folks are in real trouble come November. I mean, so far as I can tell no substantive issues or policy based arguments for voting for Obama have been apparent."
How about "avoid a return to failed Republican policies?" Sounds compelling to me. Let's go forward, not backward.
"Just 47 year old accusations of youthful stupidity (which the late supposed victim's family rejects,)"
You must mean the story that Romney's friends all say is true and which Romney does not deny.
"...a general sense of hatred for anyone who makes more than $50,000 a year,"
Assertion + nothing = nothing.
"Good luck in November. You'll definitely need it."
RealClearpolitics as of today shows Obama +1.3 (46.7% to 45.4%)) in national polls, Obama 253 to Romney 170 in the Electoral College, and Intrade Odds at Obama 59.4 to Romney 36.1. Yeah, it should be a reasonably good November.
45
All social systems are clinical labs, but not all clinical labs can reduce their rules to utility; if they did, we wouldn't have religion (which might please some about here; I am not one of them), art(s), philosophy, or even familial bonding, all of which, while beholden to utility in some key way, all can and do function beyond the bounds thereof.
Your ramble on FDR is a posit without an argument. I might be able to help you make an argument, though; here are some questions to get you started, taken from your own text:
-In what way was it suggested by FDR, or is it suggested by present-day liberals, that one's problems were/are not one's own to solve?
-What particular change in family structure strikes you as a "weakening," and how did it affect the divorce rate? Please be specific.
-In what sense does offering the state marital contract to same-sex couples constitute a war on marriage; how, indeed, does it impact marriage at all? You've been making the claim for years now, and have yet to answer this awfully simple question. Yeah, yeah, I know; you're not the one advocating for change. But given that the majority of Americans polled appear to support same-sex marriage, and many states are tipping in that direction, sometimes standing still is moving away. So just to humor us, and prepare for a few of humanity's many possible futures, you might want to prepare an answer. And until you do, you might recognize that making assertions without supporting arguments amounts to rhetorical flatulence.
Your ramble on FDR is a posit without an argument. I might be able to help you make an argument, though; here are some questions to get you started, taken from your own text:
-In what way was it suggested by FDR, or is it suggested by present-day liberals, that one's problems were/are not one's own to solve?
-What particular change in family structure strikes you as a "weakening," and how did it affect the divorce rate? Please be specific.
-In what sense does offering the state marital contract to same-sex couples constitute a war on marriage; how, indeed, does it impact marriage at all? You've been making the claim for years now, and have yet to answer this awfully simple question. Yeah, yeah, I know; you're not the one advocating for change. But given that the majority of Americans polled appear to support same-sex marriage, and many states are tipping in that direction, sometimes standing still is moving away. So just to humor us, and prepare for a few of humanity's many possible futures, you might want to prepare an answer. And until you do, you might recognize that making assertions without supporting arguments amounts to rhetorical flatulence.
So yes, other than being a disastrously bad president fiscally Obama is warring on family.Again, please demonstrate why, and be specific.
46
@36
FDR and Social Security? Really?
I have never understood why Republicans pine for a time when elderly poverty was well over 50%.
"In 1935, more than 50% of the elderly population lived in poverty. Today [in 2010] that poverty rate stands officially at 9.4%."
On this page, Politifact examines that first number and decides that "the best estimates show that the elderly poverty rate in 1935 was probably somewhere in the range of 70 to 90 percent."
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/…
"...in 1997, nearly half of all elderly people — 47.6 percent — had incomes below the poverty line before receipt of Social Security benefits. After receiving Social Security benefits, only 11.9 percent remained poor."
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=vie…
"Between 1960 and 1995, the official poverty rate of those aged 65 and above fell from 35 percent to 10 percent... the increase in benefits can explain all of the 17 percentage point decline in poverty that occurred during this period. The authors also find that higher benefits lead some elderly to live independently rather than with family members, and conclude that the effect of Social Security on poverty would have been even more dramatic in the absence of these changes in living arrangements."
http://www.nber.org/aginghealth/summer04…
FDR and Social Security? Really?
I have never understood why Republicans pine for a time when elderly poverty was well over 50%.
"In 1935, more than 50% of the elderly population lived in poverty. Today [in 2010] that poverty rate stands officially at 9.4%."
On this page, Politifact examines that first number and decides that "the best estimates show that the elderly poverty rate in 1935 was probably somewhere in the range of 70 to 90 percent."
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/…
"...in 1997, nearly half of all elderly people — 47.6 percent — had incomes below the poverty line before receipt of Social Security benefits. After receiving Social Security benefits, only 11.9 percent remained poor."
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=vie…
"Between 1960 and 1995, the official poverty rate of those aged 65 and above fell from 35 percent to 10 percent... the increase in benefits can explain all of the 17 percentage point decline in poverty that occurred during this period. The authors also find that higher benefits lead some elderly to live independently rather than with family members, and conclude that the effect of Social Security on poverty would have been even more dramatic in the absence of these changes in living arrangements."
http://www.nber.org/aginghealth/summer04…
47
Did they finally get the emotion chip for the Romneybot 2000? I'd heard that was problematic: Beta versions caused the unit to to open fire on miscellaneous people before bursting into flames.
49
Hey Seattle Blues is here. What a treat!
Just turned up to inform us that no he is not actually all about taking us back to the 50's, really he wants to take us back to that golden era of lynchings and child labor.
I'm wondering if you were shrieking about the debt quite so much when Dumbya was doubling it. You seriously expect us to believe Romney means to put things in order? Which Republican in recent memory can you point to that has demonstrated any fiscal responsibility?
Just turned up to inform us that no he is not actually all about taking us back to the 50's, really he wants to take us back to that golden era of lynchings and child labor.
I'm wondering if you were shrieking about the debt quite so much when Dumbya was doubling it. You seriously expect us to believe Romney means to put things in order? Which Republican in recent memory can you point to that has demonstrated any fiscal responsibility?
50
Very well said, Paul.
Yes, it would be lovely if an Amish sort of ethic pervaded all across the land regarding helping your neighbor in need, that would be wonderful. When it happens, we should celebrate it and try to make it happen more often.
But when it doesn't happen, the standard conservo-Repug response is 'Oh well, too bad, next time try working a little harder to meet your needs yourself.'
Compassion my Aunt Fanny.........
Yes, it would be lovely if an Amish sort of ethic pervaded all across the land regarding helping your neighbor in need, that would be wonderful. When it happens, we should celebrate it and try to make it happen more often.
But when it doesn't happen, the standard conservo-Repug response is 'Oh well, too bad, next time try working a little harder to meet your needs yourself.'
Compassion my Aunt Fanny.........
51
I'm sure that if Romney's niece asked for some help, a loan, or whatever, Ann and Mitt would have graciously obliged. Do we forget people have pride?
52
You guys!
SB is trapped in the 70's, and he's actually Archie Bunker!!
PROOF: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V_FrB-hki…
SB is trapped in the 70's, and he's actually Archie Bunker!!
PROOF: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V_FrB-hki…
54
mainstream press, please observe our candidate display human emotions and what liberals call "empathy".
56
@51,
Romney suggested that if people need assistance, they should ask their family for help. But you're suggesting that comes with the caveat that they also have to feel shameful when they ask for help?
Is that the America you love?
Romney suggested that if people need assistance, they should ask their family for help. But you're suggesting that comes with the caveat that they also have to feel shameful when they ask for help?
Is that the America you love?
57
@56: There's absolutly no shame in asking for help. How in the world did you extrapolate that? And it's also gracious to offer help.
What I am saying is that poorer relatives don't ask their rich family members for help because of pide in their own self-sufficency. I never asked my millionaire uncle for help when I was unemployed for a long time and needed money. What part of that do you not understand?
Speaking of rich politicicans and poorer relatives, how about Barack's brother living in an hut in Kenya?
What I am saying is that poorer relatives don't ask their rich family members for help because of pide in their own self-sufficency. I never asked my millionaire uncle for help when I was unemployed for a long time and needed money. What part of that do you not understand?
Speaking of rich politicicans and poorer relatives, how about Barack's brother living in an hut in Kenya?
58
@57 I wonder how the poorer relative feels about their diminished financial circumstances and subsequent reliance on neighbors being discussed worldwide. While it may be gauche to ask richer family members for help, it seems to me more tactless for Romney to be describing their hardship to obtain political advantage. How many metaphorical dogs is he willing to toss on the roof of the car?
59
@57,
Have you considered that pride in one's self-sufficiency is a vice rather than a virtue? Perhaps the people in this country would be better off if everyone - rich, poor, average - stopped worrying about everybody's fragile pride and instead admitted that we need to help each other without having to ask or be asked?
Social safety nets are put in place by the government because of the danger of people's pride.
Oh, and the President's brother? What about him? Is there some point you're trying to make?
it's also gracious to offer helpI guess Uncle Mitt's not a gracious person.
Have you considered that pride in one's self-sufficiency is a vice rather than a virtue? Perhaps the people in this country would be better off if everyone - rich, poor, average - stopped worrying about everybody's fragile pride and instead admitted that we need to help each other without having to ask or be asked?
Social safety nets are put in place by the government because of the danger of people's pride.
Oh, and the President's brother? What about him? Is there some point you're trying to make?
61
@59: Yes, people should not be intimidated about using the safety net. In regard to the president's bother, never mind - disregard.
@60: I agree!
@60: I agree!
62
The social safety net IS the community coming together. It pisses me off no end that the discussion of this topic ignores that very simple point. We pool our resources to help our citizens. It's like there's a big bake sale going on all the time, but it's called taxes.
63
@15 Wow, I had no idea that was happening. I guess that President Obama has only been forcing folks in your neck of the woods to buy "exploding battery cars". I've yet to have anyone from the government force me to buy a car of any kind. I guess that is because down here in FL, they've been too busy killing all of the grandparents. /sarcasm
@Gay Dude for Romney: Why? I guess that you're looking forward to having any hopes of civil equality squished like a cockroach. Good luck with that.
@Gay Dude for Romney: Why? I guess that you're looking forward to having any hopes of civil equality squished like a cockroach. Good luck with that.
65
If I had 200 million dollars, no niece of mine would be going wanting, I can tell you that right now.
66
@65 - This. Especially if that niece had her husband serving our nation, but that just adds to the reasons why. Im the "richest" person in my family, pull in five digits a year, and still help my family members monthly because the social safety net is barebones and it's the right thing to do.
Then again, I'm not someone who would both argue for the draft and then get a deferment to go live in a palace in France.
Then again, I'm not someone who would both argue for the draft and then get a deferment to go live in a palace in France.
67
@61,
They stump on "personal responsibility" and tell anecdotes about rags-to-riches stories and suggest people pull themselves up by their own bootstraps and use elbow grease and so on and so on.
And then their less educated followers interpret that message as: "You have to do everything yourself. You're responsible for your own success or failure. People who don't do things themselves are leeching off of others... They're lazy. They're selfish."
Do conservatives then go back and correct those assumptions and tell their followers not to make people feel intimidated about accepting assistance? No, they do not.
Instead, they use that language to write legislation to dismantle public assistance (people helping others) and instead give more rewards and tax reductions to already-successful corporations (i.e., reward the "winners," punish the "losers").
How do you square yourself with that? How can you say that people should not be intimidated to use social safety nets, while simultaneously supporting candidates who endorse the opposite?
Yes, people should not be intimidated about using the safety net.And yet, that's exactly what conservatives like Mitt try to do.
They stump on "personal responsibility" and tell anecdotes about rags-to-riches stories and suggest people pull themselves up by their own bootstraps and use elbow grease and so on and so on.
And then their less educated followers interpret that message as: "You have to do everything yourself. You're responsible for your own success or failure. People who don't do things themselves are leeching off of others... They're lazy. They're selfish."
Do conservatives then go back and correct those assumptions and tell their followers not to make people feel intimidated about accepting assistance? No, they do not.
Instead, they use that language to write legislation to dismantle public assistance (people helping others) and instead give more rewards and tax reductions to already-successful corporations (i.e., reward the "winners," punish the "losers").
How do you square yourself with that? How can you say that people should not be intimidated to use social safety nets, while simultaneously supporting candidates who endorse the opposite?
68
@62,
Exactly!
Taxes represent charity - by all, for all - they are a way to help those who need help, without requiring the recipient to prostrate themselves before their donor. That's why conservative hate taxes used to help the needy. It doesn't let them rub their recipient's noses in their own percieved superiority. No, they prefer private charity, where it's clear they can flaunt their "superiority" over the recipients of their "generosity."
With conservatives, "charity" is all about what they themselves can get out of it. It's always got strings attached. It's always got conditions applied.
Exactly!
Taxes represent charity - by all, for all - they are a way to help those who need help, without requiring the recipient to prostrate themselves before their donor. That's why conservative hate taxes used to help the needy. It doesn't let them rub their recipient's noses in their own percieved superiority. No, they prefer private charity, where it's clear they can flaunt their "superiority" over the recipients of their "generosity."
With conservatives, "charity" is all about what they themselves can get out of it. It's always got strings attached. It's always got conditions applied.
69
@68
I think Stephen King also made that same point recently.
If you're rich then you can "donate" to your personal causes.
And if those causes are structured correctly then you can take those "donations" off of your taxes.
Kind of like how Romney donates to his church ... which then pays for ads ... and preaches correct voting behavior and such.
But those donations are NOT the same as taxes.
Taxes go to things that people need and for which YOU may not receive credit or support from.
And it is not just moral superiority.
It is also about control.
If the poor have to go to the church for alms then the poor will probably support expanding the church and oppose reducing it.
The same can be said about the government.
But since we don't live in a Theocracy there is a critical difference.
The government can pass different laws that affect jobs and taxes and EVERYTHING.
And the government can do that without the incentive for you to change your religious beliefs.
I think Stephen King also made that same point recently.
If you're rich then you can "donate" to your personal causes.
And if those causes are structured correctly then you can take those "donations" off of your taxes.
Kind of like how Romney donates to his church ... which then pays for ads ... and preaches correct voting behavior and such.
But those donations are NOT the same as taxes.
Taxes go to things that people need and for which YOU may not receive credit or support from.
And it is not just moral superiority.
It is also about control.
If the poor have to go to the church for alms then the poor will probably support expanding the church and oppose reducing it.
The same can be said about the government.
But since we don't live in a Theocracy there is a critical difference.
The government can pass different laws that affect jobs and taxes and EVERYTHING.
And the government can do that without the incentive for you to change your religious beliefs.
70
@68
Exactly. But not only that, taxes don't choose who's considered to be worthy of support, something that is conveniently forgotten by conservatives who believe that support should be based primarily on personal charity.
That's why conservative hate taxes used to help the needy. It doesn't let them rub their recipient's noses in their own percieved superiority.
Exactly. But not only that, taxes don't choose who's considered to be worthy of support, something that is conveniently forgotten by conservatives who believe that support should be based primarily on personal charity.
71
@62
That simply isn't true. Even if it were a legitimate exercise of government authority to steal from one taxpayer for the sole benefit of another, what you write isn't true.
Around half of the taxpayers aren't. That is, they pay no taxes so can't really be called taxpayers. Nearly 80% of taxes are paid by 20% of the citizens. And no they don't make 80% of the income, more like 65% by recent IRS numbers. That is, most 'taxpayers' don't even begin to carry their share of the burden of legitimate government, never mind the nanny state bullshit. So spare me the 'community coming together,' will ya? The IRS collection data doesn't indicate a community, unless you mean the 20% or so paying for most of our government.
I have a PERSONAL duty to help those less fortunate. This may surprise you but mugging someone else, stealing their money and giving it to the beggar on the corner isn't you being charitable. It isn't fulfilling your charitable duties. It's you being immoral.
That simply isn't true. Even if it were a legitimate exercise of government authority to steal from one taxpayer for the sole benefit of another, what you write isn't true.
Around half of the taxpayers aren't. That is, they pay no taxes so can't really be called taxpayers. Nearly 80% of taxes are paid by 20% of the citizens. And no they don't make 80% of the income, more like 65% by recent IRS numbers. That is, most 'taxpayers' don't even begin to carry their share of the burden of legitimate government, never mind the nanny state bullshit. So spare me the 'community coming together,' will ya? The IRS collection data doesn't indicate a community, unless you mean the 20% or so paying for most of our government.
I have a PERSONAL duty to help those less fortunate. This may surprise you but mugging someone else, stealing their money and giving it to the beggar on the corner isn't you being charitable. It isn't fulfilling your charitable duties. It's you being immoral.
72
@71,
No, what YOU wrote isn't true.
Don't start with that "80% don't pay any taxes" bullshit. They pay sales tax. They pay property tax. Are you suggesting 80% of the population doesn't buy anything? They don't own any property?
Sales tax is harshly regressive. The poorest pay the largest percentage of what they own compared to the wealthy when it comes to sales and property taxes.
No, what YOU wrote isn't true.
Don't start with that "80% don't pay any taxes" bullshit. They pay sales tax. They pay property tax. Are you suggesting 80% of the population doesn't buy anything? They don't own any property?
Sales tax is harshly regressive. The poorest pay the largest percentage of what they own compared to the wealthy when it comes to sales and property taxes.
73
@71: What's this? "Around half of the taxpayers" don't pay any taxes? That's untrue and you know it. And the top 20% making 65% but paying a whopping 80%? How does that change when you factor in capital gains, hm?
74
@71. Dude, my grandma doesn't pay federal income tax (which is what you're talking about). But she and her husband (RIP) did for 50 years, at a much higher rate than your whiny ass. 40 percent of Americans can't and shouldnt pay taxes due to either being old and already paying into the system, or being kids.
Please re-do your math to account for this fact.
Please re-do your math to account for this fact.
75
@71 furthermore Seattleblues, I - and I believe you as well - run a business. Well, I only hire people with an education in BioChem. It's pretty unrealistic for me to start a school in addition to running a business. Everytime, we (the company) pays taxes, a chunk of that goes back into educating future employees, building roads to move our product across the state and making sure we have a great environment to do business in.
That said, as one business owner to another, how do you plan on growing your business when you only think of yourself and not the greater world around you?
That said, as one business owner to another, how do you plan on growing your business when you only think of yourself and not the greater world around you?
76
@75
Congratulations on starting and running a business.
Presumably you know then that a lot of effort and time and worry went into the 3-5 years before you began to make money, if you're like the vast majority of small to medium business owners out there. Even now your employees get a check whether the client pays or not, whether you have a good month or a bad one. The owner doesn't, if those bad months drag on too long. He or she will have a failed business on their hands, a decade or two or three of wasted effort building that now defunct brainchild of theirs, and a hard time finding a new job as a failed businessman.
Presumably you also know that your employees chose safety and predictable income over the risk of being a business owner. No shame in it. For most it's a wise decision. I can gaurantee you they want no share in my risks, or in the occasional losses on one project or another. They want no share in the long, long hours and risk of my home and savings and investors money to build that business. And that's fine, still. But when they, you or anyone else makes the claim that they have some right to a share in my profits? Yeah, that argument carries no water with me.
Yes, the infrastructure that in part made my lifestyle possible was paid for with taxes. And anyone else could have done as I or you or your grandparents did. The freeway that takes me to my office isn't the Seattleblues Memorial Freeway. The school system that gave a basic grounding in as little as they could while still brainwashing kids to be good little liberals wasn't built for me, but for everyone. That some choose not to take advantage of the opportunities these things provide isn't my fault and it isn't my problem, and it sure as hell doesn't entitle them to any of my money.
More...
Congratulations on starting and running a business.
Presumably you know then that a lot of effort and time and worry went into the 3-5 years before you began to make money, if you're like the vast majority of small to medium business owners out there. Even now your employees get a check whether the client pays or not, whether you have a good month or a bad one. The owner doesn't, if those bad months drag on too long. He or she will have a failed business on their hands, a decade or two or three of wasted effort building that now defunct brainchild of theirs, and a hard time finding a new job as a failed businessman.
Presumably you also know that your employees chose safety and predictable income over the risk of being a business owner. No shame in it. For most it's a wise decision. I can gaurantee you they want no share in my risks, or in the occasional losses on one project or another. They want no share in the long, long hours and risk of my home and savings and investors money to build that business. And that's fine, still. But when they, you or anyone else makes the claim that they have some right to a share in my profits? Yeah, that argument carries no water with me.
Yes, the infrastructure that in part made my lifestyle possible was paid for with taxes. And anyone else could have done as I or you or your grandparents did. The freeway that takes me to my office isn't the Seattleblues Memorial Freeway. The school system that gave a basic grounding in as little as they could while still brainwashing kids to be good little liberals wasn't built for me, but for everyone. That some choose not to take advantage of the opportunities these things provide isn't my fault and it isn't my problem, and it sure as hell doesn't entitle them to any of my money.
77
@76 what field are you in? I run a brewery, based on your posts regarding the government, I wouldn't suggest getting into it. I have to interact with the city, the state and the TTB. It's annoying but to be honest cleaning mash tuns and repairing shells is just as annoying. We do have the blessing that in the state of Washington all product must be paid for at the time of delivery so we have that cushion. I have some buddies who do graphic design and seem to spend a lot of time hounding clients.
Now as far as my leadership style goes: beer is messy and hard work. I like to treat my employees as a team. The better we do, the better everyone's end of year bonus is. It's a good way to motivate everyone to put in their all and gives everyone a sense of pride and ownership. I asked what kind of industry you're in becuase gain-share or end of year bonuses might be a really good way of avoiding folks who are just there for the check. Of course I'm still the boss hence why the crew is off enjoying Seattle Beer Week and I'm down at the shop, brewing.
Now as far as my leadership style goes: beer is messy and hard work. I like to treat my employees as a team. The better we do, the better everyone's end of year bonus is. It's a good way to motivate everyone to put in their all and gives everyone a sense of pride and ownership. I asked what kind of industry you're in becuase gain-share or end of year bonuses might be a really good way of avoiding folks who are just there for the check. Of course I'm still the boss hence why the crew is off enjoying Seattle Beer Week and I'm down at the shop, brewing.
78
@76: Please provide evidence to support your assertion that public schools brainwash students into liberalism. Still butthurt about Creationism being pulled from curricula?
Oops, I just asked him to provide supporting evidence. Must be that consarned liberal brainwashing making me care about the facts again.
Oops, I just asked him to provide supporting evidence. Must be that consarned liberal brainwashing making me care about the facts again.
79
@76
"But when they, you or anyone else makes the claim that they have some right to a share in my profits? Yeah, that argument carries no water with me."
What, exactly, are you talking about?
Is it taxes? Are you opposed to taxes on your "profits"?
Because if that is the issue then there are a few places in the world where you won't be taxed.
Somehow I don't see you doing too well in Somalia, though.
Weren't you the one that said that Romney should not pay a single penny more in taxes for national defense because a single penny to Romney was worth more than the lives of 10 dead soldiers?
Yes, it was, wasn't it?
"But when they, you or anyone else makes the claim that they have some right to a share in my profits? Yeah, that argument carries no water with me."
What, exactly, are you talking about?
Is it taxes? Are you opposed to taxes on your "profits"?
Because if that is the issue then there are a few places in the world where you won't be taxed.
Somehow I don't see you doing too well in Somalia, though.
Weren't you the one that said that Romney should not pay a single penny more in taxes for national defense because a single penny to Romney was worth more than the lives of 10 dead soldiers?
Yes, it was, wasn't it?
80
@ 79, this is simply the true SB you're seeing - the antisocial, avaricious pig. He once implied that he was the sole reason for his business' success - that his employees had nothing to do with it. What kind of man is that? One who believes he's better than everyone, and who doesn't view anyone else who isn't "$uccessful" as really human, or deserving of any empathy or consideration. He probably thinks he COULD do well in Somalia (if language and cultural barriers didn't exist) because he's a big dog in his own mind.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
All You Motherfuckers Complaining That aPodments Are Too Small at 200 Square Feet by Dominic Holden
-
SL Letter of the Day: Did You Think I Was Going To Tell You Not To Come Out? (PLUS: Help Free Kate!) by Dan Savage
-
Rightwing Anti-Gay French Activist Commits Suicide at Notre Dame Cathedral by Dan Savage
-
It's Spring! Who's Ready for Street Harassment? by Cienna Madrid
-
Spoiled Rotten: Star Trek Into Darkness by Paul Constant
-
America's Epidemic of Toddler-on-Toddler Gun Violence Continues by Goldy
-
Slog Overnight by Dan Savage
-
Saint Genet Re-Creates "Shoot" by Brendan Kiley
-
Dutch Artist Turns Dead Cat into Remote-Controlled Helicopter by Bethany Jean Clement
-
New Gun Enthusiast... by Dan Savage
Stranger Personals
The Stranger
RSSSeattle Art & Performance Quarterly
A complete guide to Seattle's current art, film, dance, and theater season.
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (80) RSS