- This topic has 14 replies, 10 voices, and was last updated 12 years, 2 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
Governor Romney said he won’t get 47 % of the electorate vote because these people are supported by the government and don’t want to give up their aid. Why are all the libs going crazy over this?? Romney is right. He’s just stating facts, unlike the current president who is one of the greatest liars out there.
The Libs are trying to make sure it becomes a fact.
Yeah that 47% includes Kollelnicks who are supported by the government.
Adar, your point is?
1. The Republicans have been complaining for a long time that just under 50% of the country pays no income tax, and sees the government as a rich uncle to be ripped off. Observe many frum Democrats who are addicted to all sorts of “benefits” that they don’t have to pay for.
2. The Democrats are arguing that it is a good thing for half the country to be dependent of welfare.
3.Conservatives will reply that it’s no accident that the classic book critical of this philosophy was entitled “The road to serfdom”, arguing that welfare dependence strips individuals of their freedom, leaving them as well fed slaves.
He’s not right. For starters, he’ll do quite well with senior citizens who make a huge amount of the 47%, and get trounced among urban college graduates, who don’t. Whether or not you choose to read into why he’d be so wrong about something like this is up to you, but he certainly was very wrong.
Akuperma,
In order, the first thing you wrote is self-refuting (Yes lots of frum people are on public benefits, but somehow, lots of them still manage to vote Republican judging from this website). Your second argument is actually a Republican caricature of the Democratic position. No Democrat has ever said anything remotely like that, because there’s literally no one who believes having more people on welfare rather than less is a good thing. And your reply to that imaginary argument seems to amount to “Hayek’s book title matched the argument of his book.” Why wouldn’t that be the case?
Even if the stats are off, he’s right. People will vote the guy in who will keep their personal status quo. For them Obama is a known quantity. Sad, but true.
Liberals are liberals. They’ll always be slimy, manipulating liars. Even the smart ones are at best intelligent fools.
Is anyone here willing to offer their opinion/prediction on
1- which candidate will the bulk of the frum Lakewood power brokers encourage voters to vote for, and what issues/reasons will they offer as reason for their support
and
2- what percentage of the frum Lakewood community will actually vote for Obama, being aware of his stand on Israel.
Actually, because his stats are off he is wrong. In general, areas that vote Republican tend to pay less in income taxes than areas that vote Democratic. People vote against their economic self-interest all the time. Really you’re left with two choices here:
1. Romney made an honest mistake, and either was completely unaware that say Oklahoma (where a family of 4 making the state median income would qualify for the Earned Income Tax Credit) hasn’t voted for a Democratic presidential nominee since LBJ, or thinks Oklahomans are on average a lot richer than they are.
2. When speaking to an audience full of rich people, Romney accused the poorer 47% of the country of having victimization and entitlement complexes, by citing a stat he knew was meaningless because he needed his audience to give him cash.
I don’t think either of these options should disqualify Romney, but it’s just silly to pretend the issue here has anything to do with Romney’s statement reflecting a truth.
mosheemes2: “by citing a stat he knew was meaningless because he needed his audience to give him cash.”
His audience paid a boat load of cash to get into the private dinner. With their money in his hands he can say whatever he likes.
I read an interesting article in Globes theorizing that the Romney campaign deliberately released that video. A couple of points to ponder- How many politicians think that saying things in a private dinner will stay private and not get leaked, in an age of smartphones with cameras and mics everywhere? Why is the audio sound so clear and crisp, when the clip was video’d on a phone from a considerably far distance? If the person who videoed the clip was against Romney, why wait until now to release something that came out in May?
What part of the clip shows Romney in a bad light? It seems like every time Romney opens his mouth, the Lame Stream Media somehow gets offended and start screaming SCANDAL!!1! This most noticeably happened on 9/11 when Oblamo’s appointed administration forgot to put US security in a muslim war zone, had an ambassador and others killed, and the LSM still (somehow) got offended about Romney’s comments about the obama administrations apologizing to the muslims.
The truth is that most Americans aren’t as dumb as the LSM assume. They will see past the propaganda that the LSM churn out, and will be more aware of the 47% that are sucking up this country.
That is also why Romney is leading 51.8 to 43.9 in an average of the latest unskewed polls. People like Romney a lot more IRL than what the LSM wants you to think.
As far as what you said to me, yes, they’d already given him money, but most of them probably had a couple of extra bucks to spare, which Romney could also use.
To answer the rest of your questions:
“How many politicians think that saying things in a private dinner will stay private and not get leaked, in an age of smartphones with cameras and mics everywhere?”
All of them. No one pays to attend a dinner with a candidate where he gives the same canned speech you could hear for free anywhere. They were there because he was offering them private access. Besides, the odds that anyone was paying to get into the dinner so they could secretly record and embarrass Romney were roughly zero. It’s a risk, but it’s one every politician takes, almost daily.
“Why is the audio sound so clear and crisp, when the clip was video’d on a phone from a considerably far distance? “
A fair question but not one that really suggests a more likely answer. It was definitely shot from a strange location that suggests whoever put it there wanted it to look like it was being done by a hidden camera. Isn’t the most likely explanation that the camera was actually hidden?
“If the person who videoed the clip was against Romney, why wait until now to release something that came out in May?”
Because the sort of people who would be offended by this and whose votes are up for grabs (roughly poorer working whites and hispanics) are traditionally assumed to not be paying much attention to the election until after Labor Day. Releasing this video roughly a week after the conventions end (with a couple of news cycles also taken up by 9/11 and the attacks in Libya) is basically exactly when you’d expect it to be released.
“What part of the clip shows Romney in a bad light?”
I really don’t get what’s so hard about this. It’s a video of Romney coming out and saying that lots of people who he needs to vote for him are in fact too entitled to do so. That’s just not something that’s going to get them to run out and vote for him.
Romney is confused. He says 47% are on the dole. He comes to this conclusion by saying 47% don’t pay income tax.
Our income tax system has become a witches’ cauldron of social and economic programs. If you count all the things in the tax code that really are entitlements, virtually all taxpayers are on the dole in some sense. For instance, the child credit, the mortgage interest deduction, the charitable contribution deduction, the college tuition credit, etc.
If you’re self-employed and making a moderate income, there’s a good chance that you’ll be paying no income tax because of what you’re paying for medical insurance and self-employment tax. You’re still paying lots of money to Uncle Sam in the form of self-employment tax, and you’re no more on the dole than Romney himself, who I’m sure itemizes his deductions.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.