How did Romney get away with saying:

[AuroraHawk]

I think it's odd that Romney still refuses to criticize Trump for his birtherism against Obama. You see that again in the big CNN interview Romney did with Gloria Borger. He was given multiple chances, and Borger pressed him hard about it certainly being offensive to President Obama, and Romney demurred and acted like Trump's birtherism was an innocent sideshow. I don't get how Romney does multiple interviews where he tees off on Trump for his reprehensible statements, yet refuses to criticize him for the birtherism which is where the path to the Racist Right began.

I know exactly what he said, and exactly what he meant, in context. And it bears no resemblance whatever to the point Romney was trying to make (which I don't necessarily agree with.)

Nobody would deny that a successful business depends upon things other than the work and intelligence of one person. That's a classic Obama straw man. And for God's sake, the "personal fire department" crap has been too old for anybody to use for decades.

What Obama was doing was denigrating personal achievement, and it wasn't by accident. If nobody earns anything more than anybody else, then nobody deserves to have anything more than anybody else. He was saying that a person with the same education LC received, and the same benefits, who achieved more in his chosen career than LC, didn't deserve to enjoy more success than LC. Which LC knows is total bullshit, but it's Obama's view of the world. It's how he justifies government as the great distributor of assets and services and luxuries.

If Obama was actually saying what his apologists claim he was saying, he could have done so very, very, VERY easily. Instead of saying "you didn't built that," he would have said "you didn't build that alone." Instead of saying "somebody else made that happen," he would have said "somebody helped you make that happen."

But he didn't say that because he didn't MEAN that. What he meant was "You didn't built that, so you aren't entitled to keep it."

It took Malcolm Gladwell an entire book to try to illustrate the same point. And, while not as good as The Tipping Point, it was very well-written and spot on.

However, it's a moot point. The "Obama wants to create a Socialist Utopia" paranoia pervades a wide swath of the US population and will exist until he is out of office. And, when he is out of office, the mantra of those folks will shift only slightly to "Obama wanted to create a Socialist Utopia."

In all due candor, I can't - in my own mind - figure out what is worse: that so many people are buying what Mr. Reality Show/PT Barnum is selling or that so many people are buying the snake oil that Mr. Televangelist is peddling.

 

[The Tradition]

You are on a roll with the dumb comments. You can't even get to work without taxes. Maybe you need a vacation.


Unless you take one in your basement, you'll need taxes for that as well.

This idea that roads and infrastructure means business owners should "pay more" is about as intellectually empty as arguing that since business owners provide the fuel for economic growth and therefore they should pay nothing.

We're all taxpayers (or should be). We should ALL pay our fair share. Currently, nearly half of us pay nothing in income tax. Some actually make money by filing a return. This is wrong. It's unconscionable. It is THE main reason for many of our country's problems. If everybody had some skin in the game, attitudes in this country would be much different.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

This idea that roads and infrastructure means business owners should "pay more" is about as intellectually empty as arguing that since business owners provide the fuel for economic growth and therefore they should pay nothing.

We're all taxpayers (or should be). We should ALL pay our fair share. Currently, nearly half of us pay nothing in income tax. Some actually make money by filing a return. This is wrong. It's unconscionable. It is THE main reason for many of our country's problems. If everybody had some skin in the game, attitudes in this country would be much different.

Sooooo...taxes do "help" people? And you just don't like the way they're distributed? It's really hard to keep up when you're incoherent.

 

[stout1]

Currently, nearly half of us pay nothing in income tax.

Seems like a good argument for promoting strategies that lead to wage growth.

Maybe we could create a chart that shows when wage growth was the highest for all and when it was lowest for all and then emulate the tax and business climate of the good times.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

The GOP supports people utilizing whatever assets that are available to them to become successful and happy.

So why did Romney make Trump's inheritance an issue? Sounds like they support certain "people utilizing whatever assets that are available to them" but deride others. Interesting.

 

[joelbc1]

Sorry, even in context, Obama is a pompous ass and his comment was an insult to anyone who has put everything on the line to start and grow a business.

"a pompous ass" as compared to who or what Trad? You got assholes all over the place and even in Washington DC. Some real power usurpers working the aisles of Congress right now.

 

[The Tradition]

Seems like a good argument for promoting strategies that lead to wage growth.

Maybe we could create a chart that shows when wage growth was the highest for all and when it was lowest for all and then emulate the tax and business climate of the good times.

Wage growth isn't something the government can "make happen." Wage growth is caused by great demand for labor, or insufficient supply.

You're not going to create wage growth through fiat (minimum wage), or taxes. If you want to create wage growth, get the bureaucracy out of the way, cut taxes, and then stand back and watch the economy take off.

 

[gusto79]

I know exactly what he said, and exactly what he meant, in context. And it bears no resemblance whatever to the point Romney was trying to make (which I don't necessarily agree with.)

Nobody would deny that a successful business depends upon things other than the work and intelligence of one person. That's a classic Obama straw man. And for God's sake, the "personal fire department" crap has been too old for anybody to use for decades.

What Obama was doing was denigrating personal achievement, and it wasn't by accident. If nobody earns anything more than anybody else, then nobody deserves to have anything more than anybody else. He was saying that a person with the same education LC received, and the same benefits, who achieved more in his chosen career than LC, didn't deserve to enjoy more success than LC. Which LC knows is total bullshit, but it's Obama's view of the world. It's how he justifies government as the great distributor of assets and services and luxuries.

If Obama was actually saying what his apologists claim he was saying, he could have done so very, very, VERY easily. Instead of saying "you didn't built that," he would have said "you didn't build that alone." Instead of saying "somebody else made that happen," he would have said "somebody helped you make that happen."

But he didn't say that because he didn't MEAN that. What he meant was "You didn't built that, so you aren't entitled to keep it."

You may have a point if you think Obama was referring to the business when he said you didn't build that. It's obvious he was referring to the aforementioned roads and bridges.

 

[stout1]

Wage growth isn't something the government can "make happen." Wage growth is caused by great demand for labor, or insufficient supply.

You're not going to create wage growth through fiat (minimum wage), or taxes. If you want to create wage growth, get the bureaucracy out of the way, cut taxes, and then stand back and watch the economy take off.

Except that is not when the highest wage growth happened in the last 75-100 years in the US.

In fact, effective taxes are at some of the lowest rates ever right now and we essentially have huge swaths of the population who are experiencing negative wage growth.

Now I will agree that bureaucracy is high in certain aspects, but I am not sure I want to go back to a time when we were dumping untreated industrial waste in to streams or believed child labor in dangerous factories was cool.

 

[unIowa]

“He inherited his businesses; he didn’t create it”?

How is that different from saying “You didn’t build that”? Why isn't the GOP ripping Romney?

It's funny bc the R establishment has picked up both the "He didn't build that" and playing the race card...lol, they are a complete mess.

 

[naturalmwa]

I know exactly what he said, and exactly what he meant, in context. And it bears no resemblance whatever to the point Romney was trying to make (which I don't necessarily agree with.)

Nobody would deny that a successful business depends upon things other than the work and intelligence of one person. That's a classic Obama straw man. And for God's sake, the "personal fire department" crap has been too old for anybody to use for decades.

What Obama was doing was denigrating personal achievement, and it wasn't by accident. If nobody earns anything more than anybody else, then nobody deserves to have anything more than anybody else. He was saying that a person with the same education LC received, and the same benefits, who achieved more in his chosen career than LC, didn't deserve to enjoy more success than LC. Which LC knows is total bullshit, but it's Obama's view of the world. It's how he justifies government as the great distributor of assets and services and luxuries.

If Obama was actually saying what his apologists claim he was saying, he could have done so very, very, VERY easily. Instead of saying "you didn't built that," he would have said "you didn't build that alone." Instead of saying "somebody else made that happen," he would have said "somebody helped you make that happen."

But he didn't say that because he didn't MEAN that. What he meant was "You didn't built that, so you aren't entitled to keep it."

Conservatives are super sensitive PC crybabies seeing microaggressions everywhere. Maybe we could bond over that commonality.

 

[The Tradition]

Except that is not when the highest wage growth happened in the last 75-100 years in the US.

Yeah, wage growth was highest in the 1950s. Wanna know why?

It's wasn't because of high taxes (remember, you could deduct all interest (not just mortgage interest), so the actual tax rates aren't comparable). It was because women weren't eligible for most jobs, and a lot of our young men were killed or disabled in the wars and unavailable for work.

So, we were in a post-war period where consumers were starved for new products after years of sacrifice, and we had a shortage of workers.

It all comes back to supply and demand, regardless how much you central planners wish it wasn't.

 

[stout1]

It's wasn't because of high taxes (remember, you could deduct all interest (not just mortgage interest), so the actual tax rates aren't comparable).

Hence my use of "effective tax rates".

It all comes back to supply and demand,

Interestingly enough, I heard an in-depth discussion of this the other day when the labor report came out. Multiple analysts stated that the candidate market was very tight, but that the employers having the hardest time finding workers were the ones that refused to raise wages. They were getting by requiring increased work loads on salaried employees since that didn't cost them OT dollars or increased labor costs. Seems to be an area where we could follow the lead of other countries to develop business practices to avoid that.

regardless how much you central planners wish it wasn't.

You clearly have me confused with some else. I am no central planner, but I do believe that common sense policy is needed on multiple levels to encourage a properly functioning economy and country. Unfettered capitalism and nearly non-existent taxes aren't what I considered to be common sense policy. Others can disagree with me without me getting my panties twisted.

 

[ottumwan in tx]

I think it's odd that Romney still refuses to criticize Trump for his birtherism against Obama. You see that again in the big CNN interview Romney did with Gloria Borger. He was given multiple chances, and Borger pressed him hard about it certainly being offensive to President Obama, and Romney demurred and acted like Trump's birtherism was an innocent sideshow. I don't get how Romney does multiple interviews where he tees off on Trump for his reprehensible statements, yet refuses to criticize him for the birtherism which is where the path to the Racist Right began.

becuase A: hills started it, B: Mormons aren't too keen on black folks, and C: Obama marched out a big ol' fake birth certificate, and C: Romney is CIA and he knows it was a sideshow to distract and trump was in on it

 

[Lone Clone]

See? You DID get what he was saying.

Then you go off on the rail of what you WANTED him to say to fit your agenda. You should avoid doing that. Makes you sound like an idiot.

And you, as is your wont, try to divert attention from the point.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

And you, as is your wont, try to divert attention from the point.

Seriously? You take a comment out of context and then assign a meaning to it just because you want to and you accuse anyone of diverting attention?

So the point REMAINS...why isn't the right as incensed about Romney belittling Trump for inheriting anything as they were when Obama correctly pointed out that their business depended on public infrastructure for success? You have yet to address it. Curious, eh?

 

[Lone Clone]

Seriously? You take a comment out of context and then assign a meaning to it just because you want to and you accuse anyone of diverting attention?

So the point REMAINS...why isn't the right as incensed about Romney belittling Trump for inheriting anything as they were when Obama correctly pointed out that their business depended on public infrastructure for success? You have yet to address it. Curious, eh?

Doesn't work, Tar. You keep trying to change the subject. I'm not falling for it. You know, a lot of times you say good stuff. You clearly aren't stupid. That's the only reason I don't have you on "ignore" because your schtick gets awfully, awfully old when you get caught out in an error. Like in this case.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

Doesn't work, Tar. You keep trying to change the subject. I'm not falling for it. You know, a lot of times you say good stuff. You clearly aren't stupid. That's the only reason I don't have you on "ignore" because your schtick gets awfully, awfully old when you get caught out in an error. Like in this case.

Here's the schtick...you saying it's so doesn't make it so. But you do keep avoiding addressing the point...I guess that's instructive.

Feel free to claim the comments aren't the same...you want to pretend that what Obama said means he thought the businessman didn't build his business? That's exactly what Romney said and no amount of artful dodging on your part changes that. Trump's father has been dead a long time and The Donald was running things long before his father died. He's still in business.

Or are you going to claim now that anyone who inherited a family business and has run it for decades "didn't build that"? You're starting to sound like your fantasy of Obama...better watch out.

Give Romney a pass, LC...I expected nothing less. And feel free to put me on ignore.

 

[ottumwan in tx]

how did Obama get away with being fake president? same people who installed him, rolled Romney out there. boom.

 

[Lone Clone]

Here's the schtick...you saying it's so doesn't make it so. But you do keep avoiding addressing the point...I guess that's instructive.

Feel free to claim the comments aren't the same...you want to pretend that what Obama said means he thought the businessman didn't build his business? That's exactly what Romney said and no amount of artful dodging on your part changes that. Trump's father has been dead a long time and The Donald was running things long before his father died. He's still in business.

Or are you going to claim now that anyone who inherited a family business and has run it for decades "didn't build that"? You're starting to sound like your fantasy of Obama...better watch out.

Give Romney a pass, LC...I expected nothing less. And feel free to put me on ignore.

Grow. Up.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

Grow. Up.

LOL. Still can't respond. Got it.

 

[Lone Clone]

I give up. Bye.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

I give up. Bye.

Best idea you've had yet.

 

[Hawk in SEC Country]

So...kinda like Romney being sent to an exclusive boy's school, given all the advantages of being the son of a Detroit auto exec, etc. If there's no shame in what Trump did...why did Romney mention it like it was an issue? Does the GOP now oppose inherited wealth and privilege?

Dude.......you're a smart guy...and you can't see that Romney is the panic button for the GOP?

Trump came in and at first everyone was saying he wasn't going to last. The GOP certainly didn't and they didn't want him in the race at the beginning. The Media helped to blow him up by covering every single thing he said and did........then the beast grew. Not he's in full on Godzilla mode....and Romney is the biggest gun they have to try to take him down.......and the entire country is looking at Romney and rolling their eyes. And the GOP can't take him down. Trump is doing this all on his own....which should make the convention a riot to watch.

Don't think for a second that the GOP is in opposition to inherited wealth and privilege. The Democrats aren't against it either. They just like to talk like they are, to get votes from people they don't give a shit about.

 

[ottumwan in tx]

Dude.......you're a smart guy...and you can't see that Romney is the panic button for the GOP?

Trump came in and at first everyone was saying he wasn't going to last. The GOP certainly didn't and they didn't want him in the race at the beginning. The Media helped to blow him up by covering every single thing he said and did........then the beast grew. Not he's in full on Godzilla mode....and Romney is the biggest gun they have to try to take him down.......and the entire country is looking at Romney and rolling their eyes. And the GOP can't take him down. Trump is doing this all on his own....which should make the convention a riot to watch.

Don't think for a second that the GOP is in opposition to inherited wealth and privilege. The Democrats aren't against it either. They just like to talk like they are, to get votes from people they don't give a shit about.

tarheel usually has trouble seeing anything that isn't a fake narrative about wall st or climate change or michelle Obama's feet don't stink or hills is the monarch queen of America, anything like this he agrees with and can understand, R's playing politics and having money and power: nope. does not compute for some reason

 

[tarheelbybirth]

Dude.......you're a smart guy...and you can't see that Romney is the panic button for the GOP?

Oh, I get that absolutely. Probably why he shot his mouth off about that inheritance thing. He didn't have time to think his statement through.

Trump came in and at first everyone was saying he wasn't going to last. The GOP certainly didn't and they didn't want him in the race at the beginning. The Media helped to blow him up by covering every single thing he said and did........then the beast grew. Not he's in full on Godzilla mode....and Romney is the biggest gun they have to try to take him down.......and the entire country is looking at Romney and rolling their eyes. And the GOP can't take him down. Trump is doing this all on his own....which should make the convention a riot to watch.

Don't think for a second that the GOP is in opposition to inherited wealth and privilege. The Democrats aren't against it either. They just like to talk like they are, to get votes from people they don't give a shit about.

Well, the Dems would not be abolishing the inheritance tax...so there's that.

But the convention will be hilarious. The big fear is that someone will use the opportunity to exercise their Second Amendment rights. I can absolutely see violence breaking out at this thing.

 

[Hawk in SEC Country]

Oh, I get that absolutely. Probably why he shot his mouth off about that inheritance thing. He didn't have time to think his statement through.




Well, the Dems would not be abolishing the inheritance tax...so there's that.

But the convention will be hilarious. The big fear is that someone will use the opportunity to exercise their Second Amendment rights. I can absolutely see violence breaking out at this thing.

It will be just like Chicago in 68. The security will be incredible. I don't see anyone getting a weapon inside.

 

[naturalmwa]

It will be just like Chicago in 68. The security will be incredible. I don't see anyone getting a weapon inside.

That should lead to revolution! The GOP is trying to ban our guns! Burn Cleavland.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

It will be just like Chicago in 68. The security will be incredible. I don't see anyone getting a weapon inside.

How can the party of open carry ban guns? The open-carry of firearms by those who legally possess the firearm is a legal activity in Ohio with or without a license.

 

[Hawk in SEC Country]

How can the party of open carry ban guns? The open-carry of firearms by those who legally possess the firearm is a legal activity in Ohio with or without a license.

I thought you wanted a serious discussion. But instead....you're choosing to act like an idiot.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

I thought you wanted a serious discussion. But instead....you're choosing to act like an idiot.

I'm dead f'n serious. Explain how they are going to put "No firearms" signs up at every entrance as required by Ohio law without looking like the hypocrites they obviously are. If you can't, just call me an idiot again. I'll understand. Completely.

 

[Hawk in SEC Country]

I'm dead f'n serious. Explain how they are going to put "No firearms" signs up at every entrance as required by Ohio law without looking like the hypocrites they obviously are. If you can't, just call me an idiot again. I'll understand. Completely.

You're dead serious about being obtuse on this.

How do they look like hypocrites, when it's clearly a public safety issue. They aren't banning or taking anyone's guns. Name a single event in the country where you can just walk in with a gun? Even where there are C&C and open cary laws?

 

[tarheelbybirth]

You're dead serious about being obtuse on this.

How do they look like hypocrites, when it's clearly a public safety issue. They aren't banning or taking anyone's guns. Name a single event in the country where you can just walk in with a gun? Even where there are C&C and open cary laws?

Obtuse? From the public safety standpoint the only thing stopping a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun...right? So they should want EVERYBODY there carrying. Or have we been lied to? Every time there's a shooting, the wing-nut mantra is, "Guess that place shouldn't have been no-carry." I'll bet we can find examples right here on HROT...how much you wanna bet?