[jeffkrol]

ahhh. what can you say but that:

Sep. 18, 2012 - Republican Mitt Romney says a video clip in which he called nearly half of Americans "victims" was "not elegantly stated" and was "spoken off the cuff.

[pxpaulx]

Seems his response is an elegantly stated 'yeah...I've got nuthin'.

Until he releases his tax returns, I think it safe to stop simply asking and just outright accusing him of something to hide and being the biggest mooch of the system he abhors.

[jeffkrol]

but why start another thread:

An Obama Who Exists Only in Republican Fantasyland | Swampland | TIME.com

Republican Fantasyland

These are not “very liberal” policies. They used to be Republican policies, especially the health care provision and the intelligent use of force overseas against our al-Qaeda enemies. The notion that Obama is anything beyond a moderate liberal is laughable, especially given the wildly right-wing Romney positions on social issues, foreign policy and the aggrandizement of the plutocracy.

There are more than a few things Obama has done wrong; both the health care and financial-reform laws could be greatly improved with creative impact from an opposition party that wanted to work in the country’s best interests rather than paint the President as a fantasy radical. But it seems clear that Romney, and his adoption of the most extreme Republican positions on a range of issues, is having a tough time selling himself to the American people. It would be good for all of us if the Republicans finally rejected the hateful, radical Fox-Rush siren song and returned to their true traditions of foreign policy realism and domestic conservatism. But I think the party needs to exorcise its demons before it rejoins the American mainstream.

Read more: An Obama Who Exists Only in Republican Fantasyland | Swampland | TIME.com

back to the topic:
http://swampland.time.com/2012/09/18/how-mitt-romneys-luck-ran-out/

But the fact is that Romney’s luck ran out long ago. And his unluckiness has revealed his limitations as a presidential candidate (and those of his campaign team). Romney’s fortunes may turn again. But for now, more than a few Republicans are wondering whether his nomination was their party’s rotten luck.

As Alex Altman reports, Mitt Romney’s bad week just got worse. And the worst of the worse is Romney’s contention that the 47% of the country who support Obama are just looking for handouts. This from a man who pays 14% in taxes–a multi-million dollar handout that Romney receives because he makes his money via a financial scheme that enjoys a major tax break from the government. As Michael Grunwald pointed out last week in his memorable Time cover story, we’re all getting goodies from the government in one way or another. And yes, it might be a good idea to review all these subsidies–sugar? cotton? oil?–but it is sheer…I guess you’d have to call it class warfare to say that only the 47% voting for Obama are on the dole. How embarrassing: Romney keeps on kicking himself in the face.

Read more: http://swampland.time.com/2012/09/17/a-nation-of-moochers/#ixzz26pta1ONt

[dadipentak]

is the race over now?

Yes--Charlie Pierce says so.

What happens next is that the Republican PACs trash all the anti-Obama ads they were going to inflict on us and move their money to the dissemination of misinformation in Senate and House elections.

[Nesster]

Yes, I find Romney managed to insult several groups with one statement including me.

For, as a Democrat and a liberal one to boot, I certainly am in the 47% who will vote for Obama. Yet I like most Dems believe in personal responsibility etc etc. More of the Republican fantasyland view of Dems... But, OK, I'll admit that I'm a freeloading leech on the taxpayers. Being a taxpayer myself I suppose I'm a leech on myself then. And my own victim too.

Then, there are the hard working, personally responsible Republicans who through no fault of their own end up needing assistance at one point or another. These, apparently, are parasites on the backs of good successful Republican job creators.

And also, I recall seeing some statistics about how many Republican voters actually receive government benefits... I suppose Mitt won't be bothering to reach them either. But then he probably isn't alienating them either as I also recall something to the effect that these Republicans don't actually realize they are on the dole. You know, because they have earned it unlike all those other groups...

[larryinlc]

Seems to me a guy who has parked untold millions in offshore bank accounts for the sole purpose of avoiding taxes might be living in a glass house. Dependence on government? Mitt seems dependent too, albeit to foreign governments.

[GeneV]

The real story here (IMHO) is about Mitt's cynical bid for the presidency. He will say whatever his audience wants to hear, for whatever purpose he needs that audience to serve. I don't know if that is really what he thinks, or just what he knows a big house in Boca full of mega-millionaires thinks. It sometimes seems like he treats being elected president as a resume-builder.

[jeffkrol]

Mitt Romney needs to stop talking - ComPost - The Washington Post

It turns out that the reason the generic, non-Obama block of wood would have done so well was that it would not have opened its mouth. That, it turns out, was part of the deal. It certainly would not say the things Romney says, implying that just under half the population are shiftless freeloaders whose votes are predetermined by income bracket.

Let alone the fact that most of these 47 percent of people pay state and local taxes, the mere fact that you do not pay federal income taxes in no way guarantees that you will vote for Obama.

At least not until you’ve seen this video.

Shut up, Mitt.

history 101 FOR FUN:
http://mises.org/daily/1793

The Republicans are expanding the welfare state almost as much as they are increasing the warfare state.

In a recent report from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, chief actuary Richard Foster predicts that the federal government will soon be paying for half the cost of all health care in the United States. A major contributing factor: the Bush administration's new Medicare drug benefit, now estimated to cost almost double its initial $400 billion price tag. And that is just for its first ten years. By 2015, the annual cost is expected to be $100 billion.

But since it is tax time once again, the focus of this article is not on the Republican-sponsored slide toward socialized medicine, it is instead on Republican tax welfare. It is the Republican-controlled Congress that writes the tax laws; specifically, the House Ways and Means Committee.

Funny........

Increasing Welfare as We Know It

Since the celebrated "Republican Revolution" in 1994, the Republicans in Congress have not rolled back the welfare state one inch. And not only do they not intend on doing so, they are expanding the welfare state almost as much as they are increasing the warfare state. The talk radio mouthpieces for the Republican Party who make their living railing against the left, the liberals, and the Democrats, need to look in the mirror.

The Real Issue

Compounding the identification problem is the fact that the members of Congress who come up with these programs, as well as many citizens who benefit from them, have no problem with taking or spending other people's money. A lesson in the basic principles of economics is not what is needed here. The real issue is that the transferring and receiving of the wealth of others is a moral one, and must be approached from the perspective of religion or philosophy, not economics.

[Ratmagiclady]

Did I mention this guy's a dick?

Like a real tie-the-dog-to-the -roof-hold-down-the-gay-dude and give-him-a-haircut for a 'prank'-only-the Boston-Herald-could-love-him *dick?*





The sad part for the GOP is, how many other 'frontrunners' did they try putting forward for the nomination? Eight?

[dadipentak]

The sad part for the GOP is, how many other 'frontrunners' did they try putting forward for the nomination? Eight?

And the really sad part is that Romney really was the best of that lot. The Tea Party purge flushed all Republicans with an ounce of credibility down the loo.

[jeffkrol]

But what Romney just got caught saying on video is that everything is pretty much fine. If it's not fine for you and your family, that's your own whiny fault. Publicly, he blames Obama for monkey-wrenching free enterprise, as if it's the president's fault that the economy is such a mess. Privately -- in front of people who own yachts and humidors -- he blames those who are not doing well for their own struggles.

Given how many are not doing well -- 80 percent of the workforce has seen their wages decline in real terms over the last quarter-century, and the average household has seen 40 percent of its wealth disappear during the Great Recession -- this is politically incendiary stuff. It lumps together people who have never missed a day of work in their lives with the worst stereotypical version of a welfare queen living on the public dole. Goodbye, Mitt. Go and pursue your own opportunities in the private sector.

Peter S. Goodman: Why Romney's Video Comments Have Killed His Candidacy

[les3547]

"The real issue is that the transferring and receiving of the wealth of others is a moral one, and must be approached from the perspective of religion or philosophy, not economics."

It might be a moral issue when it comes to caring for the disabled and others who are unable to care for themselves. But transferring wealth to healthcare, education, and other basic necessities is far more economic (if done correctly) than it is moral. I am always left shaking my head when Obama emphasizes "it's the right thing to do" over economics because if we don't produce citizens who can work and want to work, then our nation will become poor. When people can't get sickness treated, don't have good schools, don't have enough to eat, have to endure gang-infested neighborhoods to get to school and survive . . . they are less likely to be ready to concentrate in school, and less likely to see themselves as capable of succeeding. So transferring funds from the top to the bottom for services that help people learn to care for themselves ensures that they will not end up on welfare because it will give us a competent work force, producers and creators rather than takers, and spenders who will keep funds flowing into the economy.

[jeffkrol]

It might be a moral issue when it comes to caring for the disabled and others who are unable to care for themselves. But transferring wealth to healthcare, education, and other basic necessities is far more economic (if done correctly) than it is moral. I am always left shaking my head when Obama emphasizes "it's the right thing to do" over economics because if we don't produce citizens who can work and want to work, then our nation will become poor. When people can't get sickness treated, don't have good schools, don't have enough to eat, have to endure gang-infested neighborhoods to get to school and survive . . . they are less likely to be ready to concentrate in school, and less likely to see themselves as capable of succeeding. So transferring funds from the top to the bottom for services that help people learn to care for themselves ensures that they will not end up on welfare because it will give us a competent work force, producers and creators rather than takers, and spenders who will keep funds flowing into the economy.

going after "Robin"...............hoodwink

Paul Ryan, in Iowa, says he and Romney want ‘moral authority and mandate’ | Des Moines Register Staff Blogs

Ryan, appearing in Des Moines this afternoon, seemed to touch on the idea that he and Romney need to make the case of why they should be elected, and not just why President Obama should not. He said he and Romney want to earn Iowans’ vote and deserve it, so they have the “moral authority and the mandate” to get the country back to work and control the debt.

And then he delivered the sort of stump speech that we’ve been hearing for months from the Romney campaign. It was heavy on the Obama-bashing, light on specifics of what Romney would do if elected, besides not being Barack Obama

.
.................

[Na Horuk]

But.. do you guys think this will really turn voters away from Mittens? Because they never really wanted to vote for Mitt, they simply want to vote against Obama. At most they will simply lose hope and not vote at all.

[GeneV]

But.. do you guys think this will really turn voters away from Mittens? Because they never really wanted to vote for Mitt, they simply want to vote against Obama. At most they will simply lose hope and not vote at all.

The ones who want to vote against Obama won't vote for him as a result. There is no third party, either, but they might stay home and may not work for him. However, those who aren't full-blown haters of the President may be affected.

Also, polls have the President ahead by 3-7 points, with 4-6% undecided. http://www.politico.com/p/2012-election/polls/president Romney may have more trouble moving those undecided voters enough to make up the difference.