Jason Moyer on 18/9/2012 at 11:38
Accusing the poor of not paying income taxes...coming from him...hilarious.
It's awesome that we're a month and a half away from the election, and I still don't have any idea of what he stands for. All he's done is insult people and attack Obama, at some point it would be cool if he actually took the time to talk about what he's going to do that's positive. Even if it's something ridiculous like "I'M GOING TO LOWER THE MARGINAL TAX RATE FURTHER AND TAKE A STAND AGAINST CIVIL RIGHTS" at least say something with content to it.
demagogue on 18/9/2012 at 12:36
I'll change my answer because I think this is a little too obviously an off-script blunder. I think what he *meant* to say in his mind, when he started his rant, is that the 47% making up Obama's core are on board with government being for freeloaders and a victimology culture, but his mouth ran faster than his mind and he talked himself into saying the 47% are all themselves freeloaders, which obviously can't be right.
I think people sympathetic to him will take the punchline he was going for (it's an ancient Republican line anyway), and I think people that are trying to hang him with this are overstating the case -- that he really thinks half of America doesn't pay taxes.
I'd rather people focus on whether Democratic policies really are contributing to a culture of freeloading & victimology, the core of what he was going after, than a *gotcha* blunder.
DDL on 18/9/2012 at 14:03
He does apparently think that $200-250,000 a year is a 'middle-income', though...so believing that 47% of the US is freeloading might not be entirely outside his capabilities.
But yeah, the 47% figure is indeed the percentage that don't pay income tax. It's just that "does not pay income tax" is far from equivalent to "is a freeloading welfare victim". The US has lots of different taxes, only one of which is "income tax".
And as far as that 47% being firmly in Obama's court, that really just highlights the US political polarisation*: about 45% of the population will vote Red, and 45% will vote Blue, pretty much no matter what.
Obama would probably have to rape a kitten on national TV to drive that 45% down, and even then it'd probably only go down a little.
"Yeah, I'm not really keen on the whole kittenrape thing, but seriously: it's that or....Romney? Screw that."
So they're basically fighting over the middle 10% or so.
*NB: this is in no way unique to the US, of course
Jason Moyer on 18/9/2012 at 16:23
Quote Posted by DDL
about 45% of the population will vote Red, and 45% will vote Blue, pretty much no matter what.
45% of those who vote comes out to about 25% of those who are eligible to vote.
Pyrian on 18/9/2012 at 19:55
Does Romney even <i>want</i> to win? :erg: This election should be his to throw away, but throwing it away seems to be the plan. Actually "pleasing the base as much as possible without admitting it to a wider audience" seems to be the plan, but they're falling down hard on the "admitting it" part.
Medlar on 19/9/2012 at 01:24
Dear wife and I have been travelling through Colorado, New Mexico and Texas this year. We have been amazed at the way this election is panning out, being used to the way elections evolve in the UK it really has been an eye opener. In Texas Romney will romp home all I heard from the good ol' Texas boys was "Get Obama out pronto!. New Mexico was pro Obama as far as I could make out. Colorado is a hung State and the TV promotion for both camps in this State is incredible.
The money going into the process would pay a huge amount toward the national debt. That is the main difference I think, the UK politicians have limited, capped funds. Here the are no limits in fact it seems to be a competition as to which party can put in the most funding!
TV channels are out and out supporters for their own flavour, don't think I've seen a truly independent news report the whole 6 months we have been here.
None of my business really but I think Obama would be better for the world, I for one would feel safer with him in the White House than Romney. The man worries me with the lack of tact and diplomacy he has demonstrated recently. I know he is under pressure but I think not as much pressure as if he were to be elected.
Getting into "another fine mess" as a candidate is amusing but a fine mess as President.....Not good.
CCCToad on 19/9/2012 at 01:48
Quote Posted by Medlar
.. Colorado is a hung State and the TV promotion for both camps in this State is incredible.
Here in Colorado, the impression I get is that most people hate both candidates.
demagogue on 19/9/2012 at 02:56
I hear this rhetoric about wanting Obama out ASAP, or people being very ambivalent about him, but to be honest I can't think of any major blunder from his first term, and more than a few coups.
When he started his term we were still in a semi-free fall recession and we've eased out of that. He made life easier for the big-auto states. The health care bill was a *big* coup -- People had been trying to pass something like it since the 1940s! And even the critics of it aren't giving enough credit to how much of it were rather uncontroversial. Ok he didn't close Guantanamo like he promised but I think that would have been hard for any president (and the Reps aren't the ones criticizing that).
The only things I can think about coming out of GW Bush's first term were the wars in Afghanistan (widely supported) & Iraq (already backfiring), "No Child Left Behind" which was an abysmal program (the message I got from my teacher friends), and tax cuts that even Alan Greenspan, the disciple of Ayn Rand, was against.
But if the best case Romney has is Obama blundered his whole term, I'm not seeing it. They'd have to sell it on ideology alone, which I gather is just what they're doing. And otherwise, like someone else said, I don't even know what Romney stands for. The one thing I really respected him for historically was that he passed health care mandates for Mass, which at the time I thought was very admirable. Obviously that's not the part of him they're playing up now.
CCCToad on 19/9/2012 at 03:26
It isn't really about blunders.....well, for the Right (Right? I mean Republicans. There's a big difference) its really just partisan. Nevermind the fact that Obama's foreign, fiscal, and other policies have been fairly right-wing.
Also....you might be interested to know that Romney was for the mandate, then when campaigning for the nomination he was against it, now he's for obamacare again.
For anyone who is actually thinking critically, there is not much to differentiate the candidate other than mannerisms.
Patriot Act, infinite detention of Americans and NDAA? Both candidates are in favor of those bills.
Tax Cuts for the wealthy? Both candidates are for them (Romney openly, Obama claims to be against but was a driving force in continuing the Bush Cuts).
Foreign Policy? Both want a war with Iran,believe the President can start wars without congressional approval, think we should stay in Afghanistan (Obama signed an agreement keeping us there until 2024. Romney would have done the same) and favor aggressive US intervention in the Middle East and Africa.
The healthcare law? Both candidates support it.
Government secrecy? Again, both candidates favor as much as possible.
Bailouts? Again both candidates supported taxpayer funded bailouts for corporations.
Obama's stimulus bill? Romney supported it.
Gun control? Again, both candidates are pro gun control (Romney by record, not rhetoric). Israel? Again....unconditional support from both candidates.
Civil Liberties? Romney and Obama both support warrantless surveillance and wiretapping, high levels of government secrecy, rendition, the ability to infinitely detain or kill American citizens suspected of terrorism(ie, are against habeus corpus), are in favor (or have worked for) legal protection of Bush's "torturers".
Where you will find significant differences is in their stated positions on social issues.....things like homosexual marriage, abortion, and similar issues. I consider these positions unimportant for two reasons. First off, the current trend for these battles (most notably gay marriage) is for them to be decided by state legislatures, not federal. Second, even when they are federal jurisdiction the president typically shows no interest in changing the status quo once elected. In other words....vague social issues make for fantastic empty promises when trying to fire up the base...........and some people (especially rednecks) believe it every time.
edit: All that said, HOW things are said can make a pretty big difference. There's absolutely no question that Obama makes for a better diplomat than Romney or Bush. It's why Obama has been able to get away with foreign policy decisions that would have gotten Bush crucified on the world stage.
