Agreed, we need to shut that BS down too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Frozented9
Printable View
Agreed, we need to shut that BS down too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Frozented9
Look, this is a big deal, Levi (I didn't think it would quite play this loudly and broadly...); both the right, left and the media are reacting negatively and fiercely to his comments. Maybe we all kind of thought Romney believes this way, but when you get a candidate on tape revealing (with authenticity) a caricature like that, it's pretty rare. It's not that he said some people are dependent (which is really about 8% whom aren't elderly) it's that he said he doesn't worry about them nor will he try to change them. It's despicable. When he calls half the nation 'victims,' and sneers about it, we have every right to call him Thurston Howell, and tell the guy to **** off.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheLeviathan
He also said these people made up 47%! He suggested that all Obama voters (or all non-income tax payers) are dependent on the government which is total crap; and you're letting it slide. Look, David Brooks, David Frum, Peggy Noonan plenty of non-tea party conservatives are condemning his statements (even wingnut Kristol calls Romney arrogant and stupid). Are you just not reading and paying attention to how a broad range of reasonable people are reacting?Quote:
He didn't say "poor people" - he said those dependent on government which, by definition, makes them irresponsible for themselves. What you're doing is not unlike what he did - just from a left-wing slant.
The truth is, I'm not exactly surprised by your reaction here. This reminds me of why the Paul Ryan thread went haywire. I think you kind of agree with Romney on this issue. I think it's good for people who believe this way to see how these beliefs play out in a public sphere, and to see how out of touch and rather baseless such beliefs are.
Levi, I know you're reasonable on lots of issues, but the notion of people depending on the government really offends you, in a sense that seems exaggerated--to the point where you can forgive a 39 point over-estimate from Romney. It just seems so inherently ideological.
I thought the liberals invented these people.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheLeviathanAgreed, we need to shut that BS down too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Frozented9
Rich people taking advantage of the gov't is different than poor people taking advantage of the government.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheLeviathan
Successful in life? Oh this is rich. (See what I did there? :))Quote:
Originally Posted by Reginald Maudling's Shin
Keep American American brother Reg!!
What does this even mean?Quote:
Originally Posted by Fatt Crapps
I am not sure what you are saying here. The implication in the video is that the 47% guaranteed Obama voters are those who are dependent on government. That is completely false. There are a whole bunch of middle class and upper class Obama voters out there, in fact, they are almost equal to Romney voters in numbers.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheLeviathanWe can quibble about 47% until the cows come home, of course the number is invented. Just like the Democrats have invented a "rich" group that is milking the economy. Neither is true, but they play to the bases. All Romney said is what Reg. repeated - there is a group of Americans dependent on the government that are hooked to a party that won't vote for him. Likewise, there is a group of people hooked to the Republicans that won't vote for Obama. If this (or the fact that what he says on and off camera are different) is shocking to you - you are really, really naive.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shane Wahl
He didn't say "poor people" - he said those dependent on government which, by definition, makes them irresponsible for themselves. What you're doing is not unlike what he did - just from a left-wing slant.Quote:
Romney is successful, how? He clearly isn't morally successful if he has such disdain and hatred for poor people and says that they don't take "responsibility for themselves." He sounds like a pretty despicable guy, actually.
And note - this is coming from someone that is most likely going to vote independent.
"He didn't say 'poor people' - he said those dependent on government, which, by definition, makes them irresponsible for themselves."
Read that garbage out loud to yourself, please. Clearly he meant poor people who aren't paying federal income taxes. And clearly, saying "dependent" on government is a gross exaggeration. But what is worst about your endorsement of this view is that you think such people are "irresponsible for themselves." In what way? As human beings? Or as economically successful? There are plenty of people who are fully responsible for themselves, their children, and their community who are not making enough money to pay federal income taxes. One has to be an ass to declare such people "irresponsible."
The rich are milking the economy, by the way. They are the ones who spend millions on lobbyists to save tens or hundreds of million on tax breaks and subsidies. YOU are the naive one.
Although this is a political thread being used as an outlet of passion for the participants' belief system. I am not seeing many stories that link the said ideas to personal experience.
I am a 37 year old man who was a citizen of the inner city internment camp, which some of you might know as being the ghetto. To start this out, I came from parents who were cocaine users and dealers. My father was a man who would beat the **** out of one of his kids like he/she was an adult. My mother was much more compassionate, but was an addict herself, which rendered her useless to being a good parent. My parents divorced and went their separate ways. My dad becoming a crack head, my mother becoming a anti-child management alcoholic.
After the divorce, my grandparents interceded and I went to live with them as a teenager. My much younger sister and brother stayed with my mother. That in turn ended up being a slow disaster of which no one fully realized until I was in my early twenties. As it turns out I find out my little sister has been molested by my mother's long term companion, he was arrested, convicted, given probation and went back to my mother's house to live. I was incensed and searched this man out and beat the living **** out of him. I held back a bit, not wanting to be a perpetrator of murder.
As it turned out, my assault on this molester did no good and I moved out of a place I was sharing with some room mates to be the overseer of my younger siblings. Unfortunately my sister was embittered and too advanced of an age where my efforts were rendered useless, but my brother was very open to influence and with him I had a chance to make a difference.
My sister ended up having a child at the age of 16 and a few years later my brother died in a tragic accident when he was 16. Today my sister is a fighting spirit and works towards success with her 3 children - working her ass off none the less.
My memories are this: Bad Parents, a dad who beat the **** out of me, a mother who in my early youth was compassionate and loving, but turned into a drunken land mark of which low life humans tied their ship to. I have hope hope for my sister - she is an angry young lady that will get the job done. Losing my brother changed my life... ruined my life... after 9 years I am still trying to find my peace with it.
For me: I was beat down by the school kids because I was poor and didn't fit in. I was beaten by my dad who was a violent drug addict sociopath. All of these situations have made me stronger and more forthright in my beliefs.
What I am seeing on this site is a bunch or number crunchers who have never really experienced adversity and want to make it an economical debate or even a religious moral debate, or maybe you are being your true selves in not giving a bleep about your fellow humans because the almighty dollar runs your existence. Of course I am a leftist, could anyone expect any different? I am a Humanist foremost and the fact I do not see any humanism floating around these parts makes me a bit depressed.
[QUOTE=PseudoSABR;54730] It's not that he said some people are dependent (which is really about 8% whom aren't elderly) it's that he said he doesn't worry about them nor will he try to change them. It's despicable. When he calls half the nation 'victims,' and sneers about it, we have every right to call him Thurston Howell, and tell the guy to **** off. [quote]
Is it really that much different than "You didn't build that business yourself?" I would say no. They are both massive gaffes that speak to the inner soul of both parties. You are being more offended by this one than the last because the opposition is the one making the gaffe. As someone looking from the outside of both - this isn't that big of a deal. Much like Obama's offensively stupid remark, this one will just get thrown in the pile.
I'm sorry, did you "let it slide" with Obama's remark? Hell, you rushed to BYTO to down-play it! His number is innaccurate, his framing of the issue is playing to the lowest common denominator of the base, and he picked a terrible time to do it. But just like Obama's stupid remark, there is a point to it that isn't entirely untrue. The two situtations aren't that much different. Why is your schtick on this so different? Or should we just assume your pretended fairness is just that - pretended?Quote:
He suggested that all Obama voters (or all non-income tax payers) are dependent on the government which is total crap; and you're letting it slide.
I agree insofar as there is about 20% of the population he isn't going to change the minds of. Nor is Obama going to change another 20%. Again, reality doesn't have to be fun to swallow, but the truth is the truth. Politically he chose a stupid way to phrase it, but that doesn't make it untrue.Quote:
The truth is, I'm not exactly surprised by your reaction here. This reminds me of why the Paul Ryan thread went haywire. I think you kind of agree with Romney on this issue.
No one is agreeing with his number - it's inflated intentionally. But I don't see you getting hot and bothered by the same game on the other side. It happens all the time in politics - am I the only non-naive person here? It doesn't make it right, but it happens. I don't get hot and bothered by either side doing it - I'd prefer to criticize the deeper issues than these stupid superficial ones.
First - you can't insert your own interpretation of a remark and then lambast someone for it. His decision here was dumb enough without you committing that fallacy. Again, "people dependent on government" ARE, by definition, not responsible for themselves. If they were, they wouldn't be "dependent". Debating the dictionary is not wise.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shane Wahl
As someone who has worked in social services for a long time, I can tell you that many people "dependent" on government services are, indeed, NOT poor. Unfortunately our system has long ago stopped focusing on true need and instead opened blank checks across dozens of programs that are far easier to manipulate and take advantage of than most think.
I can't think of a more offensive moral mantra than the idea that anyone who believes there is a difference between "need" and want" is somehow inconsiderate towards people. Hell, my beliefs are driven by true "need" and how often I see it shunned in favor of this liberal, left-wing driven concoction of what "need" is. Yeah, the rich need to be paying more. Company tax loopholes need to be closed. No disagreement here - now let's see if you're as fair in your thinking when the reality of left-wing social programs is on the table. College loans, welfare, and just about any other federal aid you can think of is saturated with abuse by people claiming "need" who would really just rather milk the system. Or the system itself, as in college loans, actually makes everyone worse off.
So we flush billions down the toilet every year that could go to skills training, better subsidized housing, early education services, etc. That's the reality you're blindly supporting. To me, if someone is making me choose, I'd say defending that under the guise of moral superiority is a far worse crime.
This debate, as do most in the political arena, has gone from functionality to ideals. The functional end of how we work with our elderly and disabled is that currently we throw money at them with minimal oversight. I work for a boss that is livid when someone with $50,000 in the bank is getting any food stamps and has us crush that. That said, if we didn't know that and the consumer didn't reveal it to DSS, they'd be getting plenty of food stamps every single month. That's just one area. I've seen similar with disability benefits, with section 8 housing, and with scores of other programs intended to help those neediest among us, but the design of oversight in those programs is poor, to say the least. Nevermind that those that are being taxed with doing that oversight are not paid anywhere near enough for what they work with on a daily basis. That breeds apathy in a quick hurry and leads to less focus on the job or quick turnover on the job, and every new person on the job has many unwritten things to learn about how people will try to get "free money". A great example was the "Ticket To Work" program for those accessing SSI or SSDI benefits. The program, in its launch, was not easily understood to those who would be doing the exact work and be receiving the least benefit from the program, though the program can be marked for giving the provider an incentive benefit upon advancement in work status for the consumer. However, there was never anyone who really knew the program if someone had questions, and those who were available to do trainings on the program had obviously not had real-life experience in the field, so they spoke completely over the head of those doing the job day to day. Now that program, while still running, has received no promotion and no offered trainings for nearly two full years, and one of the better attempts at both improving the work status of those receiving disability benefits while incentivizing those who spend their time assisting those consumers in their improvements is now dead. I've seen programs like this come and go through multiple presidents of both parties and multiple governors of many different parties, and the main reason they fail is a consistent lack of understanding about the middle - between the political "Do this!" and the social workers that actually have to implement it. We could drastically alter the amount of people who "milk" the system for handouts by structuring better implementation and oversight of the positive programs that could make a difference in the life of someone on disability and help them move to the point of independent living.
Now correcting the tax breaks that those with plenty get, that's not my expertise, and I don't have hands-on experience with it. I do know there are those out there who want to repeal agricultural assistance before dealing with the tax loopholes, yet out of the other side of their mouth, they'll lament "corporate farming". Too many decisions, frankly, are being made by a number of people in Washington who have no direct idea what it's like to be in a certain situation, and rather than do the research to actually find out, they stick to their assumptions along a partisan line that never really helps anyone truly move up.
Romney was using it as a campaign slogan. The KKK used it as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by PseudoSABRWhat does this even mean?Quote:
Originally Posted by Fatt Crapps
No recent administration has ever worked on getting the government to run more efficiently. If the Republicans did, they would lose one of their rallying points. The Democrats seem incapable of it. 20 years ago Al Gore talked about it after the election, but nothing came of it. Perhaps the operation is too unwieldy. To rethink a whole new process is beyond the current crop of politicians.
I had a few reactions to your story that were kicking around in my brain. I hope the reaction don't come out nonsensical.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bark's Lounge
First off, kudos for making it out and generally sounding like a reasonable, intelligent human being.
People out there that have never faced adversity or been out there on the edge of life have no clue what it is like to be there. It makes them lucky individuals. When you get the blank look it is disheartening. Worse yet is a proposed "easy " fix. The complications of life are not that easy. Sometimes I think you get shunned as people think whatever is going on with you will somehow have an effect on them.
The last statement is my problem with the libertarian and conservative people. I start to view government more as an entity that attempts to correct problems. The genesis of legislation is to correct a societal problem. If you get rid of the legislation does the problem go away? Look back on history for that answer.
Looking only in terms of numbers reduces the complexity of things. It reduces the human factors of the game.
So why can't we criticize legislation that is not correcting the problem but is, in many cases, exacerbating it? Part of the problem is we can't have a meaningful discussion about fixing legislation when one side wants it gone altogether and the other wants to demonize anyone who dares suggest there is a problem. You happen to fall into the second group.Quote:
Originally Posted by old nurse
I think you're simplifying the Libertarian viewpoint quite a bit. Some of us aren't against legislation entirely (though we are against stupid legislation and/or legislation that doesn't work). My Libertarianism comes from the core belief that the government is not a good service provider. In most cases, competition breeds efficiency and there is no competing force against the government. The government's role is to legislate private industry and prevent them from strong-arming the population into submission, not to avoid legislating entirely.Quote:
Originally Posted by old nurse
Of course, there are Libertarians who call for much more radical government reform/de-legislation than myself, though after the financial debacle of 2007/2008, I do not understand how they reconcile those beliefs with reality.
If the criticism leads to action and improvement I am all for it. There is no action.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheLeviathanSo why can't we criticize legislation that is not correcting the problem but is, in many cases, exacerbating it? Part of the problem is we can't have a meaningful discussion about fixing legislation when one side wants it gone altogether and the other wants to demonize anyone who dares suggest there is a problem. You happen to fall into the second group.Quote:
Originally Posted by old nurse
Just wanted to say I am not really sure what to say. But this deserved a response.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bark's Lounge
Yikes, The Leviathan, you mentioned "you didn't build that." As though that hasn't been debunked again and again and again. Clearly, he did not say "you didn't build the business." The fact that you are swept away by such propaganda (in this case, the propaganda of selective editing) says a lot and it tells me that there is little point in trying to argue with you about any of this.
Quite frankly, it's hard for we libertarians to get much traction when we're being morally demonized by both sides.Quote:
Originally Posted by old nurse
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKjPI6no5ng - Except, that is precisely what he said. Well, "If you have a business....you didn't build that" is slightly different - if you want to quibble about that let me know and I'll stop taking you seriously. Now I understand his point and I don't completely disagree with him. There is no selective editing here - he went too far with a point and came off insultingly. He took his party mantra too far and it sounds badly. They are very much the same issue.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shane Wahl
I don't think either argument is crippling, but both are indicative of the stupidity that reigns on both sides.