[jeffkrol]

Comedy:

NEW YORK (The Borowitz Report)—In what his campaign described today as a bold strategy to insure victory in the Presidential contest, Republican nominee Mitt Romney will undergo a procedure to have his mouth wired shut until Tuesday, November 6th.
The decision reportedly was made in response to the release earlier in the day of rare video footage showing Mr. Romney saying what he really thinks.
In the video, Mr. Romney blasts the American people for being “insanely obsessed with food, clothing, and shelter,” and asserts that many of them are “too lazy to hide their money overseas.”
At another point in the video, Mr. Romney refers to his own hardscrabble childhood: “I was never handed anything in life. If I wanted to cut a gay kid’s hair off, I had to pin him to the ground myself.”
Romney campaign aides were upbeat about the mouth-wiring procedure today, with some saying they wished they had thought of it months ago.

When asked about the procedure at a campaign stop in Ohio, Mr. Romney said, “Mmmnff ffnn mmfff nnnnnff.”

Read more In New Campaign Strategy, Romney to Have Mouth Wired Shut Until November : The New Yorker





One more:

---

Last edited by jeffkrol; 09-18-2012 at 01:52 PM.

[boriscleto]

Romney Apologizes To Nation's 150 Million 'Starving, Filthy Beggars' | The Onion - America's Finest News Source

[jeffkrol]

Insanity squared.. and no it isn't comedy........................

and suggested that many in the 47 percent of Americans who, he had noted, do not pay federal income tax would like to do so.

Mitt Romney Fox Interview: 'I Think People Would Like To Be Paying Taxes'

Let me guess. he is here to fulfill their wishes.............

http://www.americablog.com/2012/09/gop-sen-scott-brown-denounces-romney-as.html
funny...

Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass.) came out in opposition to Mitt Romney's controversial remarks on the "47 percent."

Brown, who has been distancing himself from elements of the Republican Party, joins GOP Senate candidate in Connecticut Linda McMahon in coming out against the statements.

"That’s not the way I view the world. As someone who grew up in tough circumstances, I know that being on public assistance is not a spot that anyone wants to be in. Too many people today who want to work are being forced into public assistance for lack of jobs," he said in an email to The Hill.

Good luck with that, Scott, because it wasn't just Mitt Romney. Your party chairman, the esteemed Reince Priebus, endorsed the comments too. So that means it's the official policy of the Republican party now. So why are you still a member, Scott?

GOP Senate candidate Linda McMahon in Connecticut, not known for her liberal leanings, denounced Romney too. Of course, the problem for McMahon, as HuffPo points out, is that she used the same 47% talking point that she's now dissing Romney for using.
Even GOP House member Allen West is uncomfortable with what Romney said, and Allen West is crazy.
And now even Romney's host at the now-infamous fundraiser, Marc Leder, seems to be distancing himself from the comments (albeit coyly).

Gonna be a bad couple of days for the Romney campaign.

When you think of class warfare, you probably think of inciting anger, resentment and jealousy among the have-nots against the haves. That’s what Mr. Romney has accused Mr. Obama of doing, but those charges have always been false. The truth is that Mr. Romney has been trying to incite the anger of a small slice of the richest Americans who need no government assistance but get it anyway, against the working poor, the elderly, the disabled workers and veterans, and even a significant chunk of middle-class Americans.

That was the message of remarks that Mr. Romney made in May at a private fund-raiser held at a private equity manager’s estate in Florida, a moment when he thought he was safe from annoying reporters and cameramen, and other Americans who are not rich enough to have bought a ticket to the event.

A video made public on Monday by Mother Jones showed a Mitt Romney who felt free to speak candidly about his campaign and how he would conduct a presidency. In that safe zone, Mr. Romney spoke with a bone-chilling cynicism and a revolting smugness. If he is elected, he said, capital will come back and “we’ll see, without actually doing anything, we’ll actually get a boost in the economy.” That’s the state of trickle-down economics in the 21st century.

Gone was the pretense that he will be a president of all Americans. Mr. Romney rather neatly divided the country between the people who matter and the 47 percent he does not care about.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/19/opinion/mitt-romney-class-warrior.html?_r=0

In 2008, when voter turnout rates were at or around record highs, fewer than half (44.9 percent) of adults in households making less than $30,000 per year voted, according to Census Bureau data. And of those who did vote, a substantial chunk voted for John McCain, the Republican candidate: 25 percent of those making under $15,000, and 37 percent of those making $15,000 to $30,000.
What about the rest of households who don’t pay federal income taxes?
This group generally doesn’t pay federal income taxes because of various deductions and credits in the tax code, known as “tax expenditures.”
Older Americans vote in very high numbers. In 2008, 70.2 percent of people over age 65 voted, according to the Census Bureau. And in that election, older voters supported John McCain over President Obama by an 8-percentage-point margin, with 53 percent voting for Mr. McCain. The latest New York Times/CBS News poll, conducted last week, showed likely voters in the same age group supporting Mr. Romney by a 15-point margin – even wider than the gap on Election Day 2008.

It’s probably fair to assume, then, that many of the people who don’t pay federal taxes because they’re benefiting from expenditures aimed at older Americans will vote for Mr. Romney, not Mr. Obama.

Those benefiting from tax provisions for low-income working families with children are, by definition, poor, and as we’ve established, poor people lean strongly Democratic but they don’t vote in very high numbers.

[Na Horuk]

lol I hope nobody posted this already:

Youtu.be

Youtu.be

This is a youtube channel where they make fun of all sorts of celebrities and politicians. It is known to hit the point, but also make huge humorous exaggerations.

[ihasa]

The number stated that receive any portion of their support from from welfare assistance--including food stamps--it is 29,900,000 or roughly 8% of the total population in the United States.

If you add in the people under 65 who are collecting social security benefits (either as disabled, early retirees, or young survivors like Paul Ryan when he was in college) that is another 8% who are probably getting a big chunk of their income from government since disability and survivor benefits are income tested and early retirees are probably pretty strapped to cash in on SS early.

13% more are old foagies collecting social security, maybe getting 50%+ of their income maybe less but still getting a check from the government every month.

Then there is the panoply of other government benefits that the 46-47% enjoy which include medicaid (~50 million), medicare (~50 million), section 8 housing, free cell phones, $10/month discounted broadband internet, higher education grants, and more.

So you, like Mitt, would charactise all (ALL!) the above people as freeloading victims, who a President doesn't need to care about? Strikes me that most of these people either rely on state support for a small portion of their income, or have paid into social security all their lives, and the remainder is a much smaller percentage of the population than the 47% Mitt wants to flush down the toilet.

[jeffkrol]

What Mitt Romney Doesn?t Get About Responsibility - Bloomberg

Still, for my money, the worst of Romney’s comments were these: “My job is not to worry about those people. I’ll never convince them that they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives.”

When he said this, Romney didn’t just write off half the country behind closed doors. He also confirmed the worst suspicions about who he is: an entitled rich guy with no understanding of how people who aren’t rich actually live.

The thing about not having much money is you have to take much more responsibility for your life. You can’t pay people to watch your kids or clean your house or fix your meals. You can’t necessarily afford a car or a washing machine or a home in a good school district. That’s what money buys you: goods and services that make your life easier.

That’s what money has bought Romney, too. He’s a guy who sold his dad’s stock to pay for college, who built an elevator to ensure easier access to his multiple cars and who was able to support his wife’s decision to be a stay-at-home mom. That’s great! That’s the dream.

The problem is that he doesn’t seem to realize how difficult it is to focus on college when you’re also working full time, how much planning it takes to reliably commute to work without a car, or the agonizing choices faced by families in which both parents work and a child falls ill. The working poor haven’t abdicated responsibility for their lives. They’re drowning in it.

[magkelly]

For a guy with his level of education he comes across about as dumb as dirt. I'm not impressed with him or his family at all. They come off as total snobs....

[jeffkrol]

WSJ piles on............. well not really...

but interesting:

A small number of American households that don't pay any federal income tax earn more than $1 million a year, according to the Tax Policy Center, mostly because they deduct investment losses or claim numerous exemptions.
Two-thirds of those who don't pay federal income taxes still pay payroll taxes, leaving just 18% of Americans who don't pay income or payroll taxes. Many of them are elderly Americans who receive Social Security benefits.

Raw Data Support—and Undercut— Romney Take on Who Gets Benefits - WSJ.com

[dankoBanana]

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.

he wasnt. Huntsman would be a far better choice. and a reasonable one. thats why they didnt go with him. the GOP isnt about reason these days

[fisheye freak]

Every politician deserves 2 terms. One in power and one in jail.
Socialism is fine-until you run out of other people's money.

Think humans, think. Welfare is a scourge that if not curbed MUST destroy society. Here in Australia, people are better off on welfare than on low paying jobs. There is an incentive to just chuck it all in and go on the dole. Even middle class folk like myself have entertained the thought. But what happens when 50% of the population are on whole or partial welfare? They will have the political mandate and you can just bet what they will be demanding. Those still working will find themselves working harder and harder for a lower and lower standard of living. You can bet that those still working will very quickly get jack of this and down tools and refuse to work. This will happen very quickly. If no one is working ,producing anything, the economy IS dead. The rest of the world will not just give away food etc to the nation that simply refuses to work. I have seen studies that show this effect does occur.Altruistic spirit sees output return to about 25% of its former glory, but does not fully recover. Look at great empires of the past that have fallen. They NEVER regain their former glory. As for the anarchy that ensues in the revolution as those still working stage the middle class revolt, it inevitably results in an autocratic takeover with a reign of terror.
Alas, the great experiment of Democracy contains the seeds of its own destruction. It is inevitable that politicians "discover" that bribing the poor with "bread and circuses"(as in ancient Rome) gets them power, but selectively breeds laziness and an addiction to welfare.
Here in Australia, around 40 % of the population are wholly or partially dependent on welfare. With the influx of so-called asylum seekers(who largely vote for socialist type parties) and unemployment about to rise sharply, the end is near. For years I have been telling the kids "hopefully I will be gone by the time the s*^&t hits the fan, but you guys WILL be around, and it ain't going to be pretty"- unfortunately, it looks like it will occur well inside my lifetime. Forseeing the events unfortunately will make it worse for those who saw it coming.
If Obama gets back in, it really is the beginning of the end.

[Medium FormatPro]

Then there is the panoply of other government benefits that the 46-47% enjoy which include medicaid (~50 million), medicare (~50 million), section 8 housing, free cell phones, $10/month discounted broadband internet, higher education grants, and more. They don't pay any federal income taxes or payroll taxes (thanks to the payroll tax holiday) so the only federal taxes that they are left paying are the excise taxes which amount to only 3% of the federal government revenues

On those points alone I'd be with Romney.

america needs to seroiusly weight it's social programs; and consider completely revising every part of them.

Cases in point... Pick any grocery store literally in any zip code anywhere in america. All one has to do is just sit back and watch for a short period of time; or better yet - talk to an employee or two of that grocery store. Because each and every day that grocery store is open that there is rather widespread "food stamp program" abuse. People on food stamps that are somehow able to drive high end European cars, wear two hundred plus dollar shoes, add another few hundred to the wardrobe, excessive gold jewelry, etc... -Yet are also on "food stamps".

[jeffkrol]

Rising inequality demonstrates we haven’t learned much | Bill Mitchell – billy blog

But what is now emerging from the data on income and wealth distributions is that the middle class have been hollowed out during the neo-liberal years and this trend accelerated during the crisis and in its aftermath.

Last November, the High Pay Commission in the UK published its final report – Cheques with Balances: Why tackling high pay is in the national interest – which found that:

As Britain enters times of unparalleled austerity, one tiny section of society has been insulated from the downturn. That is the top 0.1% of earners, with company directors in particular continuing to enjoy a huge annual uplift in rewards.

The Report found that:

- In 1979 the top 0.1% took home 1.3% of the national income; by 2007 this had grown to 6.5%.

- In 1979 the top 1% took home 5.93% of the national income; by 2007 this had grown to 14.5%.

- In 1979 the top 10% took home 28.4% of the national income; by 2007 this had grown to 40%.

This “dramatic shift in income distribution” has been part of the wider story where the real wage prospects of workers have been undermined by labour market deregulation, persistently high unemployment, rising underemployment (due to the casualisation of many positions) and a host of anti-union regulations.

Real wages growth in many nations has clearly lagged behind productivity growth with more of the national income being distributed to capital.

From a macroeconomic perspective this meant that real wages growth was insufficient to drive consumption growth and to prevent a realisation crisis, a new source of consumption funding had to be found.

The rise of the financial sector and the concomitant financial engineering, courtesy of the deregulation and lax financial supervision and oversight, spawned the massive credit binge which exploded as the financial crisis emerged.

The High Pay Commission found that:

Previously unpublished figures show that pay at the top has spiralled alarmingly to stratospheric levels in some of our biggest companies. In BP, in 2011 the lead executive earned 63 times the amount of the average employee. In 1979 the multiple was 16.5. In Barclays, top pay is now 75 times that of the average worker. In 1979 it was 14.5. Over that period, the lead executive’s pay in Barclays has risen by 4,899.4% – from £87,323 to a staggering £4,365,636.

The excessive pay at the top of the income distribution identified by the High Pay Commission in the UK was made possible by the massive redistribution of national income that was deliberately engineered by governments pursuing neo-liberal deregulation. The same trends are seen in many advanced nations.

The current policy debate has not considered these trends. But it is clear that rising inequality undermines the capacity of nations to grow in sustainable ways.

Even the IMF (April 8, 2011) – Inequality and Unsustainable Growth: Two Sides of the Same Coin? – concluded that:

… longer growth spells are robustly associated with more equality in the income distribution.

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/topoftheticket/lat-na-tt-cowboys-20120918,0,3473584.story

Investors Unconcerned

Investors have yet to embrace the Republicans’ debt concern. The yield on the 10-year Treasury note, 1.81 percent as of yesterday in New York, is lower than the 2.38 percent investors demanded when Obama took office.

Most of the increase in the government’s annual budget deficits following the financial crisis stemmed from economic weakness rather than new spending, according to a Bloomberg Government study released in August.

The study found that 61 percent of the increase in the deficit in fiscal 2009 through 2011 was caused by falling individual and corporate income tax receipts and automatic spending increases, such as on unemployment compensation. That compared with 24 percent attributed to the stimulus program and an additional 15 percent linked to non-stimulus spending growth on programs including the military.

As the government has borrowed more to support the economy, consumers have gradually whittled down their debt load. Household debt of $13.7 trillion was equal to 97 percent of gross domestic product at the end of 2008. Today’s $12.9 trillion equals 83 percent of total output.

That “deleveraging” may be buoying public sentiment. Consumers are more upbeat today compared with four years ago, according to the University of Michigan Survey of Consumer Confidence, which hit a reading of 79.2 in September compared with 70.3 in September 2008.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-09-19/romney-better-off-for-not-asking-as...ince-2009.html

[Na Horuk]

I think those people you just described, MF Pro, are rather rare, they just stand out more. And nobody is saying that abuse should be left unchecked. The difference is just that left wing says there needs to be more regulation and more effective programs, while the right wing says the programs need to be either completely unplugged or at least very much reduced (or rather, replaced by private business, like churches or small communities having some type of outreach for poor people, for example). Unfortunately, the only way to have better oversight and regulation over who is getting help and whether they are abusing it, is by hiring more people to do this oversight, and this is not allowed by the right wing, since they want a 'smaller government.'

The problem with Romney's statements isn't that he said them in the wrong manner, it is that they show a deep-rooted belief that 'anyone can become rich if they just work hard enough' and that 'poor people choose to be poor.'

[GeneV]

Well, yes, it is partly that Romney has faults as a candidate--the biggest one being that his only purpose in running for President seems to be personal ambition. Nevertheless, the bigger fault here is that the GOP has nothing new or better to offer, and the candidate's frank statements just point that out. Tax cuts for the wealthy and disdain for the middle class and poor are neither popular nor effective.

The focus on welfare is a shiny object as well. Food stamps and similar programs are about 5 per cent of the federal budget. It is a symptom. Most of the anti-fraud measures end up costing more than they save. The best measure is a vibrant economy which is more attractive than assistance.

Ken had the right idea posting the thread about why other countries are considered more competitive. https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/political-religious-discussion/197982-my-...at-answer.html The interesting thing about that article and that thread was that all of the countries ahead of the U.S., with the possible exception of one, were countries that are decent places to live, in line with our culture and are not slave wage states. An intelligent look at competitiveness would look at what those countries are doing and how we could do it better. There are probably things which fit into the mentalities of both parties. However, continuing the same solution as in 1980, with added disdain for working Americans is going no where once the electorate really understands.

[GeneV]

The problem with Romney's statements isn't that he said them in the wrong manner, it is that they show a deep-rooted belief that 'anyone can become rich if they just work hard enough' and that 'poor people choose to be poor.'

And to go one step further, it points out how ridiculous the GOP platform is when the candidate says to a bunch of insanely rich people, many of whom--like the candidate and the host--have never created or produced anything, that another reason the poor are poor is that the mega-rich don't have enough money in their pockets despite the lowest tax rates in modern times.