Romney on the 47% (his 3 interpretations)

Turin · Oct 7, 2012

In private Romney attacked half of our citizens (the lower 47%) ... those include veterans, teachers, seniors ...just about anyone earning less than 64,000 are in that 47%.

His private comments were heard by all as he enjoyed fine dining with people in the upper .5 % and discussed his hundreds of millions tucked away tax free and how he would pass it to children or grandchildren. He sneered about the 47% Was this the real Romney?

Next when the video was revealed he said that he was inelegant in his assessment of the the 47% and yet made no address or discussion. Was this the real Romney?

Five months post the private scorn of the 47% and less than a month before election day he now says he was wrong to say that. Was this the real Romney?

The concerning aspect is his policies reflect that approach and that disdain because his entire economic philosophy is geared toward the very wealthy and negatively impact the middle class.

TurtleDude · Oct 7, 2012

1) how many threads do we need on this

2) there appears to be much envy behind this thread

Turin · Oct 7, 2012

TurtleDude said:
1) how many threads do we need on this

2) there appears to be much envy behind this thread

Romney keeps changing his stance and so as he flip flops I thought it would be an interesting poll with his latest take on it.

Envy? Sorry ... That was weak Turtledude.

I love my work and my life and while not wealthy I do quite well supporting myself and my family. I am not part of the 47% he sneered at privately yet those are the electricians, the cooks, the service industry, the blue collar worker, the teacher, the senior citizen, the daycare worker, the small business owner ...

obvious Child · Oct 7, 2012

Dion said:
In private Romney attacked half of our citizens (the lower 47%) ... those include veterans, teachers, seniors ...just about anyone earning less than 64,000 are in that 47%.

His private comments were heard by all as he enjoyed fine dining with people in the upper .5 % and discussed his hundreds of millions tucked away tax free and how he would pass it to children or grandchildren. He sneered about the 47% Was this the real Romney?

Next when the video was revealed he said that he was inelegant in his assessment of the the 47% and yet made no address or discussion. Was this the real Romney?

Five months post the private scorn of the 47% and less than a month before election day he now says he was wrong to say that. Was this the real Romney?

The concerning aspect is his policies reflect that approach and that disdain because his entire economic philosophy is geared toward the very wealthy and negatively impact the middle class.

None of the above.

I, like everyone else not named Willard Romney have no idea what Romney actually believes.

obvious Child · Oct 7, 2012

TurtleDude said:
1) how many threads do we need on this

2) there appears to be much envy behind this thread

I don't see why we need any threads on this. It is perfectly clear that Romney will say and do anything to get a few votes. No one except Romney knows what he believes. Therefore this question is moot.

TurtleDude · Oct 7, 2012

Dion said:
Romney keeps changing his stance and so as he flip flops I thought it would be an interesting poll with his latest take on it.

Envy? Sorry ... That was weak Turtledude.

I love my work and my life and while not wealthy I do quite well supporting myself and my family. I am not part of the 47% he sneered at privately yet those are the electricians, the cooks, the service industry, the blue collar worker, the teacher, the senior citizen, the daycare worker, the small business owner ...

He was wrong on the numbers-he was right that about half the country won't vote for him no matter what and its a waste of time trying to convince them other wise. Your claim that he sneered at them is partisan hackery. are you saying teachers aren't paying FIT, Small business owners etc?

TurtleDude · Oct 7, 2012

obvious Child said:
I don't see why we need any threads on this. It is perfectly clear that Romney will say and do anything to get a few votes. No one except Romney knows what he believes. Therefore this question is moot.

we do know that Romney is not hostile towards those who are successful despite government. that's Obunny's province.

obvious Child · Oct 7, 2012

TurtleDude said:
we do know that Romney is not hostile towards those who are successful despite government. that's Obunny's province.

Which is amusing considering the bailouts that Romney needed. How he used the bailout money on Bain is hysterical. I don't agree with how he did it, but from a finance position, it's hilarious what he did to both the banks and government who bailed out Bain. Masterful and Epic trolling there.

TurtleDude · Oct 7, 2012

obvious Child said:
Which is amusing considering the bailouts that Romney needed. How he used the bailout money on Bain is hysterical. I don't agree with how he did it, but from a finance position, it's hilarious what he did to both the banks and government who bailed out Bain. Masterful and Epic trolling there.

so are your trying to refute my point that Romney is not hostile towards success

he also has proven competent in several areas.

obvious Child · Oct 7, 2012

TurtleDude said:
so are your trying to refute my point that Romney is not hostile towards success

He's not hostile to success. But he has had his own share of government assistance.

he also has proven competent in several areas.

I guess so but a CEO is not necessarily the best President. Hoover, Carter and Bush Jr ran firms. We got debacles with all three.

My reasons against Romney are this:
1) Ryan
2) No idea what Romney actually believes politically or economically
3) Potential all GOP government.

TurtleDude · Oct 7, 2012

obvious Child said:
He's not hostile to success. But he has had his own share of government assistance.

I guess so but a CEO is not necessarily the best President. Hoover, Carter and Bush Jr ran firms. We got debacles with all three.

\NOthing Obama did prior to being elected demonstrated any promise of competence and he has confirmed that for the last 3.5 years

obvious Child · Oct 7, 2012

TurtleDude said:
Nothing Obama did prior to being elected demonstrated any promise of competence and he has confirmed that for the last 3.5 years

Well, that's your opinion. I do agree that prior to his presidency I didn't think he was ready. I voted Barr in 2008. That said, we did avoid a massive aggregate demand drop. That did save the economy from a serious depression. I do think that Obama over promised and undelivered. But given how previous financial recessions have gone in the past 50 years, it really wouldn't have mattered who won. We'd still be in this problem. And it is unlikely that McCain's Communist mortgage plan would have actually been enacted to fix the housing crisis. Given the situations, I'd argue that Obama did fairly decent, especially with an opposition party who flat up admitted they were going to block everything. There is no fast way for a first world nation that isn't heavily reliant upon exports to get out of a financial recession quickly. It has never happened. Developing nations have ways around this, but for a domestic, consumer centric economy likes ours? Short of direct government wholesale lending, we really have no options. Tax cuts didn't work TWICE to materially boost activity and government direct spending can only do so much. Supply side and Kenysian have never been able to properly slay a financial recession.

TurtleDude · Oct 7, 2012

obvious Child said:
Well, that's your opinion. I do agree that prior to his presidency I didn't think he was ready. I voted Barr in 2008. That said, we did avoid a massive aggregate demand drop. That did save the economy from a serious depression. I do think that Obama over promised and undelivered. But given how previous financial recessions have gone in the past 50 years, it really wouldn't have mattered who won. We'd still be in this problem. And it is unlikely that McCain's Communist mortgage plan would have actually been enacted to fix the housing crisis. Given the situations, I'd argue that Obama did fairly decent, especially with an opposition party who flat up admitted they were going to block everything. There is no fast way for a first world nation that isn't heavily reliant upon exports to get out of a financial recession quickly. It has never happened. Developing nations have ways around this, but for a domestic, consumer centric economy likes ours? Short of direct government wholesale lending, we really have no options. Tax cuts didn't work TWICE to materially boost activity and government direct spending can only do so much. Supply side and Kenysian have never been able to properly slay a financial recession.

a sound point but Obama's scheme to raise taxes on a small minority is designed to buy votes and will do nothing positive while telling teh middle class that they don't need to pay more to get rid of the deficit

Objective Voice · Oct 7, 2012

TurtleDude,

Why does it have to be envy? In your opinion, why is it that people can't question Romney's honesty on this issue without there being an ulterior motive? After all, he did speak very candidly without realizing that a camera was secretly trained on him. And mind you, the question that was asked had nothing to do with campaign strategy contrary to how his supporters have attempted to defend him after the fact. Moreover, Dion is right. Even after his comments were made public the only excuse he gave at the time was "he didn't speak elequently enough" as if using more polite words would change the fact that he basically wrote off nearly half the country. Now post-first presidential debate he issues an apology for giving what many believe was his honest, unfiltered opinion.

My vote is that was the real Mitt Romney speaking. No false pretenses! No script! No campaign advisors telling him what to say. What we all heard IMO was a snipet of what the man believes.

Now, if Romney had prefaced his remarks somewhere along the lines that our government has for years fostered an entitlement mentality by favoring our tax code toward the rich or by implementing laws, such as the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), that don't provide for rapid, short-term financial gains for the middle-class, maybe he could have segwayed into his entitlement rant and his argument would have made more sense where answering the question that was placed before him concerning individual responsibility. But he didn't, and IMO his answer was very telling as to what he believes, the kind of man he really is and what he thinks about people at lower income levels.

You can continue to defend him if you wish - that is your choice - but that video was the defining moment for me. There's just no way I can vote for a presidential candidate who for all practical purposes has written off half the country.

obvious Child · Oct 7, 2012

TurtleDude said:
a sound point but Obama's scheme to raise taxes on a small minority is designed to buy votes and will do nothing positive while telling teh middle class that they don't need to pay more to get rid of the deficit

To a degree yeah. Mathematically unless you hike taxes on those making over $100k to 90%, you can't reduce the deficit. There isn't enough money there. And the impact to consumer spending would be suicidal. The Middle class and even the poor will eventually have to pay more just like the rich to get this deficit and debt down. We have to cut spending and raise taxes on everyone. The trick however, is to hurt everyone enough to make a dent in the deficit but not enough so they seriously change their spending habits. I have yet to hear anyone but Virgil and Johnson admit this. Both Obama and Romney are lying their asses off about taxes and spending.

TurtleDude · Oct 7, 2012

Objective Voice said:
TurtleDude,

Why does it have to be envy? In your opinion, why is it that people can't question Romney's honesty on this issue without there being an ulterior motive? After all, he did speak very candidly without realizing that a camera was secretly trained on him. And mind you, the question that was asked had nothing to do with campaign strategy contrary to how his supporters have attempted to defend him after the fact. Moreover, Dion is right. Even after his comments were made public the only excuse he gave at the time was "he didn't speak elequently enough" as if using more polite words would change the fact that he basically wrote off nearly half the country. Now post-first presidential debate he issues an apology for giving what many believe was his honest, unfiltered opinion.

My vote is that was the real Mitt Romney speaking. No false pretenses! No script! No campaign advisors telling him what to say. What we all heard IMO was a snipet of what the man believes.

Now, if Romney had prefaced his remarks somewhere along the lines that our government has for years fostered an entitlement mentality by favoring our tax code toward the rich or by implementing laws, such as the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), that don't provide for rapid, short-term financial gains for the middle-class, maybe he could have segwayed into his entitlement rant and his argument would have made more sense where answering the question that was placed before him concerning individual responsibility. But he didn't, and IMO his answer was very telling as to what he believes, the kind of man he really is and what he thinks about people at lower income levels.

You can continue to defend him if you wish - that is your choice - but that video was the defining moment for me. There's just no way I can vote for a presidential candidate who for all practical purposes has written off half the country.

IF envy was not such a major issue then Obunny would not be running ads about how much MOney Romney made and Obunny's surrogates like the AFSCME scum would not be lying by saying that Romney pays a lower tax rate than "nurses" etc. A complete like unless nurses are making say 200K or more.

ROmney was speaking to a group of true believers. I guess in this gotcha day of politics no one is upset that some asshole illegally taped him. I would be half my wealth that Obunny says similar stuff to his most avid supporters.

and guess what, that doesn't bother me at all. I know how the game is played.

why should he apologize for trying to convince his faithful to give him more money

the guy who taped that should be history IMHO though or at least someone's prison bitch

Objective Voice · Oct 7, 2012

obvious Child said:
Well, that's your opinion. I do agree that prior to his presidency I didn't think he was ready. I voted Barr in 2008. That said, we did avoid a massive aggregate demand drop. That did save the economy from a serious depression. I do think that Obama over promised and undelivered. But given how previous financial recessions have gone in the past 50 years, it really wouldn't have mattered who won. We'd still be in this problem. And it is unlikely that McCain's Communist mortgage plan would have actually been enacted to fix the housing crisis. Given the situations, I'd argue that Obama did fairly decent, especially with an opposition party who flat up admitted they were going to block everything. There is no fast way for a first world nation that isn't heavily reliant upon exports to get out of a financial recession quickly. It has never happened. Developing nations have ways around this, but for a domestic, consumer centric economy likes ours? Short of direct government wholesale lending, we really have no options. Tax cuts didn't work TWICE to materially boost activity and government direct spending can only do so much. Supply side and Kenysian have never been able to properly slay a financial recession.

But atleast Kenysian economics have proven to stabalize faultering economies during hard economic times. I've never been an advocate of implementing such a financial strategy except during a recession or depression where the private sector could not fix itself because too much wealth within financial markets has been lost. But once the economy stabalizes (and the best economic indicator of that is an unemployment rate between 3.5 - 6%), then you can switch gears and return to balanced budget practices that combine spending reductions, program elimination, some revenue raisers and targetted tax cuts, if necessary. But I digress...

IMO, the real Mitt Romney spoke his mind in May 2012 when he thought no cameras were recording his every word.

TurtleDude · Oct 7, 2012

Objective Voice said:
But atleast Kenysian economics have proven to stabalize faultering economies during hard economic times. I've never been an advocate of implementing such a financial strategy except during a recession or depression where the private sector could not fix itself because too much wealth within financial markets has been lost. But once the economy stabalizes (and the best economic indicator of that is an unemployment rate between 3.5 - 6%), then you can switch gears and return to balanced budget practices that combine spending reductions, program elimination, some revenue raisers and targetted tax cuts, if necessary. But I digress...

IMO, the real Mitt Romney spoke his mind in May 2012 when he thought no cameras were recording his every word.

and even if you are correct what real relevance does that to this election?

TurtleDude · Oct 7, 2012

obvious Child said:
To a degree yeah. Mathematically unless you hike taxes on those making over $100k to 90%, you can't reduce the deficit. There isn't enough money there. And the impact to consumer spending would be suicidal. The Middle class and even the poor will eventually have to pay more just like the rich to get this deficit and debt down. We have to cut spending and raise taxes on everyone. The trick however, is to hurt everyone enough to make a dent in the deficit but not enough so they seriously change their spending habits. I have yet to hear anyone but Virgil and Johnson admit this. Both Obama and Romney are lying their asses off about taxes and spending.

correct, but the main thing we have to do is to make more spending distasteful to politicians. And right now many of them derive benefits from spending a lot because people vote for them for doing that. Those people vote for them because they want spending and they don't get taxed when spending is increased. raising taxes merely on the rich will not change the spending habits of politicians nor the desire for spending by the voters.

Objective Voice · Oct 7, 2012

TurtleDude said:
IF envy was not such a major issue then Obunny would not be running ads about how much MOney Romney made and Obunny's surrogates like the AFSCME scum would not be lying by saying that Romney pays a lower tax rate than "nurses" etc. A complete like unless nurses are making say 200K or more.

ROmney was speaking to a group of true believers. I guess in this gotcha day of politics no one is upset that some asshole illegally taped him. I would be half my wealth that Obunny says similar stuff to his most avid supporters.

and guess what, that doesn't bother me at all. I know how the game is played.

why should he apologize for trying to convince his faithful to give him more money

the guy who taped that should be history IMHO though or at least someone's prison bitch

Don't blow a gasket, man! Seek therapy instead; it's better for your health in the long run....lowers the blood pressure...

(Now, rub your ear lobes and say, "Whooosaaaahhhh!"....Ahhh! Don't you feel better?)

obvious Child · Oct 7, 2012

Objective Voice said:
But atleast Kenysian economics have proven to stabalize faultering economies during hard economic times.

That is true. But a Kenysian policy cannot fix the underlying problem of a weak financial sector. When your financing arm of your economy is having huge problems, more government spending won't alleviate it unless the spending is beyond what the financing sector was providing in financing and alleviate the losses from the financial crisis. There is no way we could mount a multi-trillion dollar stimulus program that on a rough guess I'd venture would need to be at least $3 trillion. And at that point you really do risk inflation which makes the crisis even worse. Kenysian is good at alleviating demand drops. It's terrible at fixing a liquidity crunch. The American economy is based on financing. We fall like a house of cards when that happens. Even with the massive stimulus, GDP dropped painfully as the damage from the financial sector spread through the economy.

I've never been an advocate of implementing such a financial strategy except during a recession or depression where the private sector could not fix itself because too much wealth within financial markets has been lost. But once the economy stabalizes (and the best economic indicator of that is an unemployment rate between 3.5 - 6%), then you can switch gears and return to balanced budget practices that combine spending reductions, program elimination, some revenue raisers and targetted tax cuts, if necessary. But I digress

That's how it is suppose to be. It only runs during bad recessions. Part of our deficits and debt relates to the ugly fact that Bush ran Kenysian policies for 7 straight years. It was never meant to do that.

IMO, the real Mitt Romney spoke his mind in May 2012 when he thought no cameras were recording his every word.

Then again he could have been pandering to get donations. Mitt has flipped so many times that I cannot reasonably but any faith in any words he says. Mitt will say anything to anyone if he thinks it will further his presidency ambitions. I can't say if Mitt actually believed his 47% comments or if he's just saying that because the big wig donors want to hear it.

obvious Child · Oct 7, 2012

TurtleDude said:
correct, but the main thing we have to do is to make more spending distasteful to politicians.

Not sure how you do that. There's a Tea Party House Republican right now who's fighting for his seat because of the cuts he voted for killed thousands of jobs in his district. People realized what they were getting and now there's a good chance he'll lose the seat despite handily winning in a mere 2 years ago.

And right now many of them derive benefits from spending a lot because people vote for them for doing that. Those people vote for them because they want spending and they don't get taxed when spending is increased.

Welcome to America. We want our jobs, spending and low taxes. All the same time.

TurtleDude · Oct 7, 2012

obvious Child said:
Not sure how you do that. There's a Tea Party House Republican right now who's fighting for his seat because of the cuts he voted for killed thousands of jobs in his district. People realized what they were getting and now there's a good chance he'll lose the seat despite handily winning in a mere 2 years ago.

Welcome to America. We want our jobs, spending and low taxes. All the same time.

well when deciding whose taxes should be raised, we should start with those who pay less of the income tax burden than their share of the income, not those who pay more of the income tax burden than their share of the income

Objective Voice · Oct 7, 2012

TurtleDude said:
correct, but the main thing we have to do is to make more spending distasteful to politicians. And right now many of them derive benefits from spending a lot because people vote for them for doing that. Those people vote for them because they want spending and they don't get taxed when spending is increased. raising taxes merely on the rich will not change the spending habits of politicians nor the desire for spending by the voters.

I'd disagree with you somewhat here.

I'm a firm believer that if the People really want this nation's deficit to be handled in a responsible way, they'd only vote for politicians who will adhere to the Constitution. By that I mean they'd hold members of Congress accountable for:

a) only appropriating funds based on receipts from the Treasury;

b) applying no less than 1/4 to 1/3 of gross revenue toward the deficit.

That's the purely simplistic way of looking at things, but IMO those two actions alone will put a serious dent in the debt and deficit over time.

wolfman24 · Oct 7, 2012

I believe Romney said what he meant with all of his bodies. If he had not been secretly taped he probably would not be backpeddling.

Romney on the 47% (his 3 interpretations)

Which of his 3 comments do you believe Romney holds in his heart and mind?

His private comment of 47% to his uber wealthy comrads.

His reaction when it was released where he said it was an inelegant comment.

His comment this week as voting begins that he now is wrong about the 47%

warrior of the wetlands

Equal Opportunity Hater

Equal Opportunity Hater

warrior of the wetlands

warrior of the wetlands

Equal Opportunity Hater

warrior of the wetlands

Equal Opportunity Hater

warrior of the wetlands

Equal Opportunity Hater

warrior of the wetlands

Equal Opportunity Hater

warrior of the wetlands

warrior of the wetlands

warrior of the wetlands

Equal Opportunity Hater

Equal Opportunity Hater

warrior of the wetlands

Demented Lycanthropist