Romney Fundraiser - Secret Taping

[The Pearl]

Wrong. They see family, church, charity, and "mutual aid societies" as the proper sources for alleviation...not government.

Not everybody has a family, charity, or church to fall back on. Realize also, that most government programs are not pure entitlement programs and require some form of contribution.

 

[One Brow]

What level of income mobility do you consider the perfect target?

How can you have a target if there is not even a universal measure? Are you saying that there is such as thing as too much potential for mobility?

Edit to add: I meant "is" as in something that actually exists, or at least seems close to existing, not some extreme hypothetical.

 

[franklin]

How can you have a target if there is not even a universal measure?

Aren't you indicating that greater mobility than we currently experience is a goal to work toward? What do you base this on & when do we go too far the other way?

Are you saying that there is such as thing as too much potential for mobility?

We theoretically already have perfect potential for mobility. There aren't rules keeping you from going from the absolute bottom to the absolute top. Reality is different.

 

[One Brow]

Aren't you indicating that greater mobility than we currently experience is a goal to work toward? What do you base this on & when do we go too far the other way?

I base that on the idea that prosperity shoulde be based on merit, not inheritance. We'd be going too far the other way when mobility was so random that merit was no longer a factor, but I consider that too improbably. In fact, I consider even getting to the point of basing prosperity on merit alone wildly improbable. The wealthy will always be able to send their kids to better schools, give them better connections, be able to provide resources to work around the system, etc., and I would not expect them to do anything else. So, I don't see going too far the other way as a realisitic possibility.

Do you think countries like Canada and Sweden have gone too far? Has any country, ever, besides during/after a revolution?

We theoretically already have perfect potential for mobility. There aren't rules keeping you from going from the absolute bottom to the absolute top. Reality is different.

The lack of rules is quite different from the existence of potential.

 

[franklin]

I base that on the idea that prosperity shoulde be based on merit, not inheritance. We'd be going too far the other way when mobility was so random that merit was no longer a factor, but I consider that too improbably. In fact, I consider even getting to the point of basing prosperity on merit alone wildly improbable. The wealthy will always be able to send their kids to better schools, give them better connections, be able to provide resources to work around the system, etc., and I would not expect them to do anything else. So, I don't see going too far the other way as a realisitic possibility.

You don't suppose implementing a system that lowers barriers to mobility while also creating moral hazard can go too far? No middle ground here?

Do you think countries like Canada and Sweden have gone too far? Has any country, ever, besides during/after a revolution?

I've never looked at the reasons behind mobility in either country.

The lack of rules is quite different from the existence of potential.

So you agree we already have achieved perfect potential or saying something else? I think you're concerned with realization of potential & policy that lowers hurdles.

 

[One Brow]

You don't suppose implementing a system that lowers barriers to mobility while also creating moral hazard can go too far? No middle ground here?

What's a realistic possibility that goes too far, in your mind? I'm willing to be educated, but so far you're just playing devil's advocate. What would a system that goes too far look like, and has one ever been implemented?

For example, an estate tax of 100% would probably be going to far, but seems unrealistic, as well.

I've never looked at the reasons behind mobility in either country.

It's certainly possible they have unique circumstancdes behind their mobility, not applicable here.

So you agree we already have achieved perfect potential or saying something else? I think you're concerned with realization of potential & policy that lowers hurdles.

We have not achieved perfect potential. It seems to me we are not even close to optimal potential for mobility.

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

This is the part where the left wingers--regardless of their economic drain on our country--will pretend that they are the hard-working, artificially oppressed, no-we-built-its, and that anyone and everyone who has disagreements with them about how to grow and maintain a healthy society is a greedy pig trying to keep them from ever increasing their stage in life.

Just because you listened to every Al Gore speech doesn't make you environmentally conscious, it just makes you forever dumberer.

That would be a nice sentiment except for the reality that those who are the biggest economic drains on the economy live disproportionately in Red states and vote Republican.

So really, you, or others, don't have a problem with Romney saying that 47% of the population "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?" Not only is this an incredibly demeaning claim, essentially saying that 47% of a nation of over 300 million are deadbeat losers (who for this reason won't vote for him), but it's also factually inaccurate. Regardless of anything Obama has said or done in the past (which is irrelevant--we can talk about those separately), you really have no problem with this claim and what it implies? Really?

Speaking only for me, YES, I do think that people in the richest country in the history of the world ARE entitled to basic needs of life, including food (who would really argue that), shelter (I mean, who really thinks that it's ok for people to be homeless), healthcare (yes, I really do think this, so does every other developed country in the world--the US is the outlier in this case, not the norm). It's a wonder Romney didn't add education to this list. Damned deadbeat entitlement losers, what with all the government subsidized education.

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

I find it interesting that this is just coming out now. Right when there are people killing our ambassador and consulate workers in foreign countries. There are reports that the government was told that something might go down soon but they ignored them. They need something else to talk about to keep the heat off Obama and voila, out pops this video exposing Romney as a heartless ******* who hates poor people. Well played.

Oh so that's the newest conspiracy theory coming out of the right wing blogosphere, that Obama knew what was going down but chose to ignore it? File that one away with 911 as inside job, bigfoot, loch ness monster, and 47% of Americans deadbeat losers dependent on the government dole.

 

[NAOS]

110% if able.
I think an implied contract of bettering ourselves & getting off the dole is a good enough promise.

A couple of things:
You speak of "dole" here as if you are imagining a population of people excepting something without the marking of an official debt to be repaid later. Free stuff. Not only is thinking about exchange a limited way of thinking about things, but the lion's share of the poor population didn't just take a deuce on what was otherwise a dandy situation for them (there are deep structural problems with our society) AND it's not as if they don't pay taxes when they are able to find work. It also seems like your message is authored from a utopian space where capitalism finally realizes a full employment, fully cared-for population. Well, that's utopian because it's never happened and it never will happen. Lastly, they are working 110% toward what end? Where are we going? Do they have a voice in deciding this, or do they get to show a voter ID card and then pick between Obama and Romney? Do you realize that the wage scale is so poor that for many at the bottom of the debt chain hard work just means debt peonage? That's the day and age. They may be able to make enough for bare existence (i.e. marginal to bad food, with pretty bad health coverage, and no dental coverage, etc.), but nothing goes toward the communalism and sharing that is really the basis of what it means to be human and have a quality life -- they'd have to go in debt for that (and for their medical/dental), and most don't have access to anything except for the world's worst rates of interest in human history.... so what's the point?

^ this isn't the message of a liberal bleeding heart. It just seems like you are responding to badly formed questions

I grew up poor as **** and worked harder during the summer than many grown ups, so you'll have to excuse me for saying boo freaking hoo.

One summer I mowed 10 lawns once a week with a push mower plus my parents twice--many were 1/2 acre. I also had a paper route that took about 1.5 hours every single day, worked in a local orchard for $2/hour, and spent many Saturdays cutting wood to keep warm in the winter. The cars broke down a lot & my father needed help fixing them. We worked a lot.

I don't look back on that and wish I had it any other way. Sure, it would have been nice to value education higher than I did but the value my family placed on hard work has payed off just as much if not more so.

I was born to a single mother (aged 20) and we scraped by until she married a fairly successful second-generation salesman whose official spoken doctrine was hard work, no excuses and think positively but strategically (i.e. always calculate). Punishment would be doled out upon deviation from this plan. I had to save money to buy my own bicycles, video game systems, etc. by mowing laws, shoveling driveways in the winter, and, like you, working for a local nursery/orchard for $2/hr. This message of hard work has helped me in some ways, but I was never taught the value of WHY WE WORK AS WE DO. That caused all kinds of confusion when I got old enough to see that my step-dad was, despite the official mottos, pretty depressed and getting **** on by his fading industry (no hard work or positive thinking could get him out of that). Basically, this is just my way of asking the same question as above: Why should we work? What is "work"?

 

[PearlWatson]

Not everybody has a family, charity, or church to fall back on. Realize also, that most government programs are not pure entitlement programs and require some form of contribution.

I forgot friends, but no one is out of the reach of one of the things I mentioned, unless they are a complete hermit who wouldn't want/need help anyway.

Government pyramid schemes are another story.

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

I didn't hear anything on that recording that is incorrect.

Then you're not paying attention: https://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57515033-503544/fact-checking-romneys-47-percent-comment/

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/18/fact-check-mitt-romney-47-percent_n_1893537.html

To name just a few. Not only is it factually inaccurate, it's implications are condescending and offensive in the extreme. For those LDS on the board, please consider a statement of similar scope, stereotype, and offensiveness: "Mormons are all brain dead auto bots who can't think for themselves and there's nothing anyone can to do get them to think critically." (Statements like this are common in the anti-Mormon blogosphere)

If something like this bothers you, then what Romney said should bother you too.

Really, 47% of all Americans deadbeats dependent on Government dole and there's nothing that can be done to give them any ambition? Really?

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

Would you have respected her for the other choice?

Hey Pearl, why the sock puppet? Just continue posting as Babe. Everyone knows it's you anyway.