2012 US Election -- Round 2

[Gerald McGrew]

He's not concerned about getting their vote.

Which means he's not concerned about them much at all. Remember his previous "I'm not worried about them" comment? It's all part of a very clear pattern.

The poor and the elderly already have social programs to help them, so there isn't a need to have another welfare program to help them. The elderly get Social Security and Medicare, and the poor get Medicaid and food stamps and welfare and Section 8 Housing and the like.

And according to Romney (and many conservatives), the reason they are on SS, disability, and the like is because they aren't "taking personal responsibility for their lives", which dovetails nicely into the larger conservative mindset that they are the "takers" and not the "makers".

I expect to see a Democratic ad soon where Romney's statement is juxtaposed against an elderly woman, a single mother working 2 jobs, and an Iraq War vet, and saying "These are the people who are on some for of gov't assistance. Mitt Romney says they aren't responsible enough and that he's not worried about them."

[Coito ergo sum]

He's not concerned about getting their vote.

Which means he's not concerned about them much at all. Remember his previous "I'm not worried about them" comment? It's all part of a very clear pattern.

You're missing the context. He was referring to the very poor, who already have government assistance.

The poor and the elderly already have social programs to help them, so there isn't a need to have another welfare program to help them. The elderly get Social Security and Medicare, and the poor get Medicaid and food stamps and welfare and Section 8 Housing and the like.

And according to Romney (and many conservatives), the reason they are on SS, disability, and the like is because they aren't "taking personal responsibility for their lives", which dovetails nicely into the larger conservative mindset that they are the "takers" and not the "makers".

That isn't what he or anyone else of note said.

I expect to see a Democratic ad soon where Romney's statement is juxtaposed against an elderly woman, a single mother working 2 jobs, and an Iraq War vet, and saying "These are the people who are on some for of gov't assistance. Mitt Romney says they aren't responsible enough and that he's not worried about them."

Oh, I have no doubt whatsoever that such an ad will be produced.

[Gerald McGrew]

You're missing the context. He was referring to the very poor, who already have government assistance.

LOL! You're actually defending Romney's statements? Wow.

That isn't what he or anyone else of note said.

Oh FFS...yes it is. For someone who's so heavily focused on implied intent when it comes to Obama allegedly apologizing for America, you sure aren't playing by your own rules here.

"There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. My job is is not to worry about those people. I’ll never convince them that they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives."--Mitt Romney

Couple that with his previous statement, "I’m in this race because I care about Americans. I’m not concerned about the very poor." and you have a picture of a candidate that is a good representation of the modern conservative attitude about the poor and gov't assistance. Poor people are poor because they're lazy and irresponsible, and gov't programs merely enable them and make the problem worse.

[Coito ergo sum]

And, of course, you cut him off in mid-sentence. “I’m in this race because I care about Americans. I’m not concerned about the very poor — we have a safety net there,” he said. “If it needs repair, I’ll fix it. I’m not concerned about the very rich — they’re doing just fine. I’m concerned about the very heart of America, the 90-95 percent of Americans who right now are struggling.”

As I said. He was clearly talking about the fact that the very poor have a safety net, which he is not talking about getting rid of.

Fuck -- if the very poor aren't being taken care of NOW, then why the fuck aren't you harping on Obama, Reid and Pelosi for not fucking giving them more benefits? WTF, dude?

[Gerald McGrew]

And, of course, you cut him off in mid-sentence. “I’m in this race because I care about Americans. I’m not concerned about the very poor — we have a safety net there,” he said. “If it needs repair, I’ll fix it. I’m not concerned about the very rich — they’re doing just fine. I’m concerned about the very heart of America, the 90-95 percent of Americans who right now are struggling.”

And that makes it better? Of course we shouldn't be concerned about the rich, because they're....you know...rich. But obviously Romney is lying here, because he is campaigning on giving the rich even more tax breaks.

As I said. He was clearly talking about the fact that the very poor have a safety net, which he is not talking about getting rid of.

Yet couple that with what he said in the video, and you have a picture of a person who isn't worried about poor people because they're just irresponsible people who vote for Obama so they can continue to mooch off the rest of us. Romney's painting a very consistent picture of himself here.

Fuck -- if the very poor aren't being taken care of NOW, then why the fuck aren't you harping on Obama, Reid and Pelosi for not fucking giving them more benefits? WTF, dude?

Except I didn't say that. Nice try at changing the subject though.

[Gerald McGrew]

On the Romney 47% video...

http://www.shakesville.com/2012/09/mitt ... tmare.html

"People will be parsing this shit for days, deconstructing in all the ways in which it underscores how terrible Mitt Romney really is.

I just need to make this observation:

MITT ROMNEY THINKS PEOPLE ARE NOT ENTITLED TO FOOD. MITT ROMNEY THINKS PEOPLE ARE NOT ENTITLED TO FOOD!!! OMFG MITT ROMNEY, CANDIDATE FOR THE PRESIDENCY OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA THINKS HUMAN BEINGS!!! WHO LIVE!!! IN THIS COUNTRY!!! AREN'T ENTITLED TO FOOD!!!

It's unfathomable to me that there are people in this nation who think their fellow citizens (and their own damn selves) aren't entitled to healthcare! And housing! But to assert that BASIC SUSTENANCE isn't a right! That people who are STARVING and seek assistance from their government are ENTITLED ASSHOLES! OH MY GOD!!!

MITT ROMNEY THINKS PEOPLE ARE NOT ENTITLED TO FOOD!!!"

[Coito ergo sum]

So, he's right then. And, there are people who think that there is a government "entitlement" that should provide people with food, clothing, healthcare, shelter, and what? Transportation? Communication (internet/cellphone)? People shouldn't buy their own food?

I mean -- that is what we're talking about. When I need food, I go to the supermarket and buy it. I don't get an entitlement from the government to supply me with food, and I would shudder to think what food would be available if the government was in charge of supplying food entitlements.

We have a safety net. People who are very poor can get food stamps to assist them, and we now have something on the order of 47 million Americans receiving food stamp assistance to provide food -- it's supposed to be assistance to get back one's feet until one can buy one's own food. It's not supposed to be a lifelong supply of whatever you want to eat.

So, your kind of reaction, it seems, illustrates the divide and what we're all fighting over. I don't want food to be something of an "entitlement" -- something the government provides, like in Cuba, a supply of rice and beans to the people because they have an "entitlement" to food. I would prefer that we have a strong, vibrant economy where competent non-disabled adults can work for themselves and support themselves and their family.

Damn right people are not "entitled" to food. They have every right to feed themselves. And, we are a very caring and compassionate nation that provides a "safety net" to those less fortunate, hopefully with the idea that they will get back on their feet at some point, but an "entitlement?" No way.

[Kristie]

So, he's right then. And, there are people who think that there is a government "entitlement" that should provide people with food, clothing, healthcare, shelter, and what? Transportation? Communication (internet/cellphone)? People shouldn't buy their own food?

I mean -- that is what we're talking about. When I need food, I go to the supermarket and buy it. I don't get an entitlement from the government to supply me with food, and I would shudder to think what food would be available if the government was in charge of supplying food entitlements.

We have a safety net. People who are very poor can get food stamps to assist them, and we now have something on the order of 47 million Americans receiving food stamp assistance to provide food -- it's supposed to be assistance to get back one's feet until one can buy one's own food. It's not supposed to be a lifelong supply of whatever you want to eat.

So, your kind of reaction, it seems, illustrates the divide and what we're all fighting over. I don't want food to be something of an "entitlement" -- something the government provides, like in Cuba, a supply of rice and beans to the people because they have an "entitlement" to food. I would prefer that we have a strong, vibrant economy where competent non-disabled adults can work for themselves and support themselves and their family.

Damn right people are not "entitled" to food. They have every right to feed themselves. And, we are a very caring and compassionate nation that provides a "safety net" to those less fortunate, hopefully with the idea that they will get back on their feet at some point, but an "entitlement?" No way.

I think the word 'entitlement' is being taken various ways by people. When I agree that people are entitled to food, it's more in the sense of what you stated in this post. People are entitled to help, but not fr a lifetime. Unless they are disabled, then it would be for a lifetime. I don't think many democrats actually think the government shoud give everyone food for their entire life.

[Ian]

I don't think many democrats actually think the government shoud give everyone food for their entire life.

Hush - you're interfering with a notion that conservatives cherish. That is, that there's some vast class of freeloaders (something like 47%) greedily living off a welfare state provided by those of us who work hard for our money.

[Coito ergo sum]

And, of course, you cut him off in mid-sentence. “I’m in this race because I care about Americans. I’m not concerned about the very poor — we have a safety net there,” he said. “If it needs repair, I’ll fix it. I’m not concerned about the very rich — they’re doing just fine. I’m concerned about the very heart of America, the 90-95 percent of Americans who right now are struggling.”

And that makes it better? Of course we shouldn't be concerned about the rich, because they're....you know...rich. But obviously Romney is lying here, because he is campaigning on giving the rich even more tax breaks.

Actually, he isn't campaigning for that. But, you missed the point about the "we have a safety net there." And, that does, of course, make it better.

As I said. He was clearly talking about the fact that the very poor have a safety net, which he is not talking about getting rid of.

Yet couple that with what he said in the video, and you have a picture of a person who isn't worried about poor people because they're just irresponsible people who vote for Obama so they can continue to mooch off the rest of us. Romney's painting a very consistent picture of himself here.

No, he's pointing out that they're already being given food stamps, welfare, Medicaid and Section 8 Housing, among other things, and that is what he is talking about when he says he is not concerned about them. They already have a safety net. So, unless one is advocating giving them even more, isn't he correct on that point?

Fuck -- if the very poor aren't being taken care of NOW, then why the fuck aren't you harping on Obama, Reid and Pelosi for not fucking giving them more benefits? WTF, dude?

Except I didn't say that. Nice try at changing the subject though.

So, then Romney is right -- they are being taken care of with the safety net.

It's only one or the other, isn't it? Or, if not, explain to me what other alternative there is?

[Coito ergo sum]

I don't think many democrats actually think the government shoud give everyone food for their entire life.

Hush - you're interfering with a notion that conservatives cherish. That is, that there's some vast class of freeloaders (something like 47%) greedily living off a welfare state provided by those of us who work hard for our money.

Well, the recording where he was talking about the 47% of the population who doesn't pay income taxes, he definitely spoke incorrectly. He is right about the income taxes part, but he is not right about 47% of the population being those that don't take responsibility for their own lives. As I said before, he overstates it.

But, McGrew above is very explicit from his perspective about the entitlement to food. Romney is a monster because Romney doesn't think food is an entitlement. Well, if you think that food is something people need to buy themselves, and that there is a safety net for the less fortunate that is intended to be temporary until someone gets back on their feet, then in my view you don't think of food as an entitlement and you agree with Romney ON THAT PARTICULAR POINT. He has stated, per the quote I gave, that he acknowledges the safety net and he has never advocated doing away with the safety net. But, that doesn't make food an entitlement.

Maybe it is a question of definitions -- but if we look past parsing rhetoric and what "entitlement" means -- it seems that Kristie and I agree on this.

[Gerald McGrew]

So, he's right then. And, there are people who think that there is a government "entitlement" that should provide people with food, clothing, healthcare, shelter, and what? Transportation? Communication (internet/cellphone)? People shouldn't buy their own food?

Yes, I know it's shocking to come to grips with the fact that some people actually think that America shouldn't allow its citizens to starve and die on the streets. I mean...what kind of country is that?

I mean -- that is what we're talking about. When I need food, I go to the supermarket and buy it. I don't get an entitlement from the government to supply me with food, and I would shudder to think what food would be available if the government was in charge of supplying food entitlements.

Seriously? You honestly believe that the liberal position is that regular people like you and me who are able to buy our own food, should nevertheless be given some sort of gov't funds to purchase food?

That's what you think the liberal position is?

We have a safety net. People who are very poor can get food stamps to assist them, and we now have something on the order of 47 million Americans receiving food stamp assistance to provide food -- it's supposed to be assistance to get back one's feet until one can buy one's own food. It's not supposed to be a lifelong supply of whatever you want to eat.

Again....that's what you think we're talking about here? Either you're intentionally committing the straw man fallacy, or you're clueless beyond all hope. Take your pick I guess.

So, your kind of reaction, it seems, illustrates the divide and what we're all fighting over. I don't want food to be something of an "entitlement" -- something the government provides, like in Cuba, a supply of rice and beans to the people because they have an "entitlement" to food. I would prefer that we have a strong, vibrant economy where competent non-disabled adults can work for themselves and support themselves and their family.

Damn right people are not "entitled" to food. They have every right to feed themselves. And, we are a very caring and compassionate nation that provides a "safety net" to those less fortunate, hopefully with the idea that they will get back on their feet at some point, but an "entitlement?" No way.

Well...I guess there we have it. You honestly and seriously think the liberal argument is that the gov't should provide food to everyone, all the time, for their entire lives, no matter who they are or what their financial situation is.

Again...is that an intentional straw man on your part, or are you really that fucking brainwashed by Faux News?

[Rum]

I don't think many democrats actually think the government shoud give everyone food for their entire life.

Hush - you're interfering with a notion that conservatives cherish. That is, that there's some vast class of freeloaders (something like 47%) greedily living off a welfare state provided by those of us who work hard for our money.

That includes us (when I was working me too) government employees of course. We got a free ride after all..

[Gerald McGrew]

Actually, he isn't campaigning for that.

*sigh*

Yes he is. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-08-0 ... -rich.html

http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/Tax-V ... r-confirms

But, you missed the point about the "we have a safety net there." And, that does, of course, make it better.

And according to Romney's statement in the video, the safety net is being used by people who don't "take responsibility for their lives".

No, he's pointing out that they're already being given food stamps, welfare, Medicaid and Section 8 Housing, among other things, and that is what he is talking about when he says he is not concerned about them. They already have a safety net. So, unless one is advocating giving them even more, isn't he correct on that point?

Oh, I see what you're trying to do here. My point is that when you put his earlier "I'm not worried about them" statement about the poor together with what he said in the video (people who don't pay federal income taxes and receive gov't assistance see themselves as victims, have a sense of entitlement, and refuse to take responsibility for their lives) it paints a consistent picture of a candidate who has a pretty callous and disconnected sense of reality when it comes to almost half of Americans.

You keep trying to isolate those two statements from each other, and I can see why. Nice try.

[Coito ergo sum]

So, he's right then. And, there are people who think that there is a government "entitlement" that should provide people with food, clothing, healthcare, shelter, and what? Transportation? Communication (internet/cellphone)? People shouldn't buy their own food?

Yes, I know it's shocking to come to grips with the fact that some people actually think that America shouldn't allow its citizens to starve and die on the streets. I mean...what kind of country is that?

Only a complete fucking insular idiot would think that the US allows its citizens to starve and die in the streets. What moron thinks that?

I mean -- that is what we're talking about. When I need food, I go to the supermarket and buy it. I don't get an entitlement from the government to supply me with food, and I would shudder to think what food would be available if the government was in charge of supplying food entitlements.

Seriously? You honestly believe that the liberal position is that regular people like you and me who are able to buy our own food, should nevertheless be given some sort of gov't funds to purchase food?

That's what you think the liberal position is?

Not the "liberal" position, but it is the position of some Leftists. It is also the logical conclusion from someone who says that food is an "entitlement."

Romney isn't for removing the safety net either, but for some reason some folks seem to think that he is.

We have a safety net. People who are very poor can get food stamps to assist them, and we now have something on the order of 47 million Americans receiving food stamp assistance to provide food -- it's supposed to be assistance to get back one's feet until one can buy one's own food. It's not supposed to be a lifelong supply of whatever you want to eat.

Again....that's what you think we're talking about here? Either you're intentionally committing the straw man fallacy, or you're clueless beyond all hope. Take your pick I guess.

It's what you wrote in your post where you excoriated Romney. Look, if food is not an entitlement then people who can afford food have to buy it themselves. Then it's not an entitlement.

Romnney is not suggesting that there not be a safety net for the poor, disabled and infirm.

So, your kind of reaction, it seems, illustrates the divide and what we're all fighting over. I don't want food to be something of an "entitlement" -- something the government provides, like in Cuba, a supply of rice and beans to the people because they have an "entitlement" to food. I would prefer that we have a strong, vibrant economy where competent non-disabled adults can work for themselves and support themselves and their family.

Damn right people are not "entitled" to food. They have every right to feed themselves. And, we are a very caring and compassionate nation that provides a "safety net" to those less fortunate, hopefully with the idea that they will get back on their feet at some point, but an "entitlement?" No way.

Well...I guess there we have it. You honestly and seriously think the liberal argument is that the gov't should provide food to everyone, all the time, for their entire lives, no matter who they are or what their financial situation is.

Again...is that an intentional straw man on your part, or are you really that fucking brainwashed by Faux News?

No, I don't believe the liberal argument is that. I believe the Leftist argument is that.

Do you agree with me, then, that food is not an entitlement?