tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post2449186014134972308..comments2024-03-28T18:55:21.534-07:00Comments on Through These Woods: "Are You Better Off?"Dan Trabuehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14303597141397042669noreply@blogger.comBlogger41125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-39788067567796235082012-09-25T13:06:05.471-07:002012-09-25T13:06:05.471-07:00Okay, I get your point, Dan. Or most of it. Romney...Okay, I get your point, Dan. Or most of it. Romney's number was far too high and included people who are not leeching off of their fellow taxpayers, such as retirees, disabled veterans and so forth. It was bad politics. The real number is much smaller.<br><br>Should he have apologized? Perhaps for some moral point of view. But I think that it would have been bad politics to do so. It's sort of like when Republicans criticize Obama for not admitting to any mistakes or giving himself an "incomplete" grade for the economy. Well, of course he would! This is politics, and admitting to a mistake <b>publicly</b> diminishes one's credibility rather than enhances it.<br><br>(Privately is another matter. See, for example, Lincoln's amazingly humble letter of apology/acknowledgement to General Grant.)<br><br>Romney was being criticized not simply for having a number that was too high, but for the root idea he was espousing: that being dependent on fellow taxpayers is a bad thing.<br><br>It should be shameful and embarrassing to live on the dole. People who live on public assistance should consider their status to be so humiliating that they strive to get off it as soon as possible. <br><br>But the Obama Administration, particularly its Department of Agriculture, has been <a href="http://dailycaller.com/2012/07/03/usda-combats-mountain-pride-self-reliance-to-boost-food-stamp-rolls/" rel="nofollow">aggressively working</a> <a href="http://dailycaller.com/2012/07/13/usda-removes-spanish-food-stamp-soap-operas-from-website/" rel="nofollow">to counter</a> this sense of independence. Romney, as a matter of both political strategy and principle, should have responded with an attack on Obama. He shouldn't get sidetracked from the central issue: Obama's expansion of government dependency.John Farrierhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12071863229591899452noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-26471674057469293252012-09-22T02:07:35.883-07:002012-09-22T02:07:35.883-07:00Honest, well-intentioned individuals usually don&#...Honest, well-intentioned individuals usually don't have disputes with "rhetorical choices" based so often on facts, truth, logic, reason and common sense. But even you don't dispute them so much as attack me personally out of petty hatefulness. That's just your way as it's all you have. I forgive you.Marshall Arthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01054268632726520871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-9769476644575399102012-09-21T11:01:13.920-07:002012-09-21T11:01:13.920-07:00What purpose would it serve to dispute Dan's c...What purpose would it serve to dispute Dan's claims?<br><br>That's a very good question, Alan.Bubbanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-33218735759800467682012-09-21T10:13:05.227-07:002012-09-21T10:13:05.227-07:00"but it stretches credibility with me that a ..."but it stretches credibility with me that a Goldwater-ite would hang around here and not find more of Dan's claims worth disputing."<br><br>Meh. Worth disputing, why, exactly? What purpose would it serve? Why would I bother? And how is it really any of my business?<br><br>But then, you know, it also stretches credibility with me that anyone criticizing "demagoguery" &etc. would not find more of what you call MA's "rhetorical choices" worth disputing. ;)Alanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16274395216929104919noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-29487631206158489692012-09-21T09:53:42.535-07:002012-09-21T09:53:42.535-07:00Dan, consider:"I stand by my poem because, ac...Dan, consider:<br><br>"I stand by my poem because, accounting for hyperbole and poetic license, I think that its very serious charges against Bush and his supporters are right, but those who disagree with me have every reason to object to what I wrote.<br><br>"If my charges against Bush and his supporters are true, they have a lot to answer for, in the next life if not this life. But if they're not true, I'm guilty of slandering them in the worst way.<br><br>"I understand the chance I'm taking, but I'm willing to take that chance."<br><br>I truly think the only proper thing to is to renounce that poem entirely. It's wholly inconsistent with your current, convenient pleas not to treat one's political opponents as evil, and -- more than that -- it's unhinged.<br><br>It's judgmental to a degree that would make the Pharisees blush; not for the only time, you invoke pharisaical insults but miss what Jesus was actually criticizing.<br><br>I cannot imagine your writing something half as hateful toward jihadists who have brutally murdered journalists, filmmakers, ambassadors, and even nuns, and who have deliberately incinerated civilians by the literal thousands. No, you don't expend your rage on actual violent savages, you reserve it for your political opponents.<br><br>You seethe at your political opponents as if we are the very enemies of God.<br><br>This poem is your Two Minutes Hate.<br><br>But if you cannot renounce your hateful poem, the least you could have done was something like what I wrote above.<br><br>You could have stood by your poem on the basis of its accuracy while acknowledging its vicious nature if indeed it's inaccurate.<br><br>That would have been defensible ground. <br><br>But rather than that half-measure, you've decided to make the literally unbelievable claim that your poem was a prayer, and then you write that I couldn't really object to it even if I disagree with it.<br><br>You embarass yourself all over again.<br><br>And I say this because you ought to be publicly denounced, but I have no illusions about the likelihood that someone who doubles down on dishonor might eventually reconsider.Bubbanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-31113605779469964472012-09-21T09:32:32.506-07:002012-09-21T09:32:32.506-07:00Now, Dan:About your vile poem, you now claim, &quo...Now, Dan:<br><br>About your vile poem, you now claim, "My poem is an imprecatory prayer - praying for an end and a damnation of the ways of evil."<br><br>A prayer? Directed to God, or do you not limit your prayers to God?<br><br>(Never mind your apparent earlier admission that you're willing to outwardly join ostensibly interfaith prayers directed to Vishnu.)<br><br>Your poem was a prayer to God?<br><br>"Shame on your god"<br><br>Was that directed to Jehovah?<br><br>"Damn your god!"<br><br>Was that? <br><br>"We had a Good God <br>And you killed him"<br><br>Do you often accuse God of killing a Good God?<br><br>"You religious, <br>You white washed tombs, <br>You serpents, <br>You blind guides, <br>You gnat-straining, camel-swallowing, hellspawn-making <br>Blind Fools"<br><br>Do you often call God such terrible things, in plural? Is the Triune Deity "Blind Fools" in the plural, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost?<br><br>"Shame on you <br>And shame on your god."<br><br>Shouldn't it be, "And shame on your god, Amen"?<br><br>If this prayer is typical, your prayer life is pretty screwed up, Dan.<br><br>--<br><br>"<i>If you agree that those behaviors ARE to be condemned and if you DON'T think that imprecatory psalms are wrong and should be removed from the Bible (I certainly don't), then I can't seriously think you have a problem with my poem. Yes, you may disagree that Bush's policies represented the above, but you should be able to at least agree with the sentiment and we, as fellow citizens, can disagree on whether or not the apply to Bush's invasion.</i>"<br><br>Your poem didn't just condemn specific behaviors -- and you're omitting the worst behaviors, the ones I mentioned: deicide and idolatrous worship of a bloodthirsty false god -- it attributed those behaviors to your political enemies.<br><br>BY YOUR OWN STANDARDS, I can most certainly object to your poem on that ground.<br><br>Romney condemned thoughtlessness, irresponsibility, and voluntary dependency. <b>Do you not agree that those things are to be condemned?</b><br><br>If so, you shouldn't have any problem with Romney's comment -- except, of course, you do, because you have concluded that he attributes those things to people who do not pay federal income tax.<br><br>Your objection to Romney's comment is PRECISELY the same as my objection to your poem.<br><br>- You object to his attributing those negative qualities to those who don't pay federal income taxes; you think such attribution is unfair and therefore demagogic.<br><br>- *I* object to your attributing those behaviors you list to "W and his spawn," and I think such attribution is unfair and therefore demagogic.<br><br>It's quite literal demonization, with that bit about making hellspawn.<br><br>You accused your political enemies of 1) hypocrisy, 2) war mongering, 3) exploiting the poor for the benefit of the rich, 4) distorting Scripture, 5) worshipping a bloodthirsty false deity, and 6) MURDERING GOD.<br><br><b>**MURDERING GOD.**</b><br><br>(You also invoke the free market as if it's an epithet.)<br><br>You would be a fool to do so, but you could defend the attack on the grounds that you actually think it's fair and accurate, but a reasonably sane and intelligent adult would at least concede that those who disagree on whether the charges apply DO INDEED have plenty of reason to object to the poem as vicious demagoguery.<br><br>"I can't seriously think you have a problem with my poem"? Even if I disagree with that attribution?<br><br>Absurd, and there's no good conclusion I can draw about you from the way you're defending that garbage: it's not enough that you so implausibly claim that the poem directed to people you loathe is actually a prayer to God, you defend the indefensible by claiming it's basically inoffensive.Bubbanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-90357951855191808432012-09-21T09:27:26.778-07:002012-09-21T09:27:26.778-07:00This is all very exciting. I mean its amazing to t...This is all very exciting. I mean its amazing to think that conservatives would side with Romney on the "47%" comment and liberals would find his comments distasteful (to say the least). <br><br>Romney is right in that there is a certain percentage of the vote that he has no chance at. The same could be said for Obama. What is left is a few factors in the next six weeks. One is this fight over the truly undecided voter. What does this person think of Romney's comments? Personally, I dont think many even noticed. But, some did. Second is that comments like these motivate liberals to get out and vote. I mean, can you imagine somebody like that in the WH? The horror. To a lesser extent, I think it disenfranchises conservative voters. Finally, with Obama winning key states and up in the poles, Romney needs to cut into this lead. There are about 45 days left until election day. Factor in many voters, myself included, that vote well before the actual "election day", Romney is running out of time. And, he just spent 10 days getting out of the way of himself. 10 days of him trying to explain comments and not talking about the "terrible economy". <br><br>We are slogging it out with only the debates left. Is Romney going to win these? Doubtful, as both sides will claim victory and Obama doesnt seem likely to make a terrible blunder in the next few weeks. The window is closing on Romney.Parklifenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-39184046982392365392012-09-21T09:22:17.720-07:002012-09-21T09:22:17.720-07:00Alan, the Thurston-Howell-Marie-Antoinette bit sug...Alan, the Thurston-Howell-Marie-Antoinette bit suggests to me that you do think his wealth isn't unrelated to his supposed contempt for the poor, but sure, I may have inferred what you didn't imply.<br><br>About you, Dan, and Marshall, I could see a Goldwater-ite (or someone near Goldwater's philosophy) disagreeing with Marshall because of rhetorical choices, matters of mere personality, and details of belief, but it stretches credibility with me that a Goldwater-ite would hang around here and not find more of Dan's claims worth disputing.<br><br>Proof, pudding, etc.Bubbanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-23168556616601286112012-09-21T09:00:45.312-07:002012-09-21T09:00:45.312-07:00"and to insinuate that that contempt is a fun..."and to insinuate that that contempt is a function of his wealth..."<br><br>His wealth has nothing to do with it. There are plenty of wealthy people who are not contemptuous of the poor and have, in fact, given vast sums of money to help people around the world. I just think he's an ass. Or a robot. Or both. :)<br><br>"Very early on, our host claimed to have "communist leanings," and his politics still lean quite definitively to the left, and yet I never noticed any public disagreements between you."<br><br>Yeah, MA has said this sort of thing before as wll. Since he comments so much more frequently, I'm inclined to think he just hasn't been paying attention, but in your case, you probably just missed it. Dan, for example is much more of a pacifist than I am, and we've had conversations here and elsewhere about that. I'm pretty sure I'm for smaller government than he is. His theology leans much more Baptist, while mine is pretty down the middle 5-point Calvinist, etc. <br><br>But as I am less inclined to see someone's disagreement with me as a sign of their total moral decay, I probably don't harp on him as much as some might. So, we have disagreed now and then. But when I do disagree, I don't always feel the need to state my disagreement.<br><br>This:<br>http://xkcd.com/386/<br><br>isn't me. :)Alanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16274395216929104919noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-13328301664548094902012-09-21T08:40:01.957-07:002012-09-21T08:40:01.957-07:00Dan, you seem willing to give Obama a measure of t...Dan, you seem willing to give Obama a measure of the benefit of the doubt that you are not willing to extend to his opponent, going so far as to defend Obama based on what YOU think he COULD say if somebody asked for a clarification.<br><br>But set that aside.<br><br>"<i>The message he offered was we don't achieve ON OUR OWN. No one is an island.<br><br>"It's just an obvious fact that is hard to disagree with. Do you?</i>"<br><br>No, but does anyone else? What's the point of stating the obvious? WHO EXACTLY WAS OBAMA DISPUTING?<br><br>Obama makes explicit who he's disputing: businessmen who, he says, believe that they accomplished everything quite literally on their own.<br><br>"I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something — there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there."<br><br>The direct implication, Dan, is these people are arrogant for attributing their success to their hard work and intelligence.<br><br>Whitewash the tension between that "obvious fact" and the arrogant businessmen who dispute that fact, and there's no longer any reason for Obama to state the obvious.Bubbanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-91127732818733852432012-09-21T08:11:09.376-07:002012-09-21T08:11:09.376-07:00Bubba, you keep bringing up my poem about the immo...Bubba, you keep bringing up my poem about the immoral invasion that Bush did in Iraq - the one that came at a cost of hundreds of thousands of innocent lives and hundreds of billions of dollars. I have a question for you...<br><br>Do you think the Bible compilers were wrong to include the Psalmists' imprecatory prayers?<br><br>You know the prayers - When Israel and/or the psalmist was oppressed and being killed and robbed and harmed... and the psalmist prayed for the destruction of the enemy...<br><br><i>O that Thou wouldst slay the wicked, O God... Do I not loathe those who rise up against Thee?</i><br><br>Do you think those are wrong and shouldn't be in the Bible?<br><br>My poem is an imprecatory prayer - praying for an end and a damnation of the ways of evil. And I continue to think the Iraq Invasion was a moral evil.<br><br>That isn't to say that Bush isn't a Christian, nor that he is evil himself, or that the GOP (and Dems) who, as a group, supported him mostly are evil.<br><br>I was condemning, quite specifically and strongly, this...<br><br><i>Who preaches war <br>That corporate whore <br>That distorts scripture <br>So the rich can get richer <br>On the backs of the poor <br></i><br><br>Do you not agree that those behaviors are to be condemned?<br><br>If you agree that those behaviors ARE to be condemned and if you DON'T think that imprecatory psalms are wrong and should be removed from the Bible (I certainly don't), then I can't seriously think you have a problem with my poem. Yes, you may disagree that Bush's policies represented the above, but you should be able to at least agree with the sentiment and we, as fellow citizens, can disagree on whether or not the apply to Bush's invasion.Dan Trabuehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14303597141397042669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-17459725653255309672012-09-21T08:01:59.018-07:002012-09-21T08:01:59.018-07:00It's just you.Bubba...Shall we apply equally c...It's just you.<br><br>Bubba...<br><br><i>Shall we apply equally carefully scrutiny to an arguably more infamous comment on Obama's part, about what businessmen did and did not build?</i><br><br>The problem with your reasoning here, Bubba, is that you are operating off a clearly mistaken view of what Obama actually said. The quote you offer, in context, was clearly presenting this message: None of us get where we are all on our own. There are a great many things, policies and people who've helped us all achieve anything we've achieved, and gov't is included in that mix.<br><br>The message he offered was we don't achieve ON OUR OWN. No one is an island.<br><br>It's just an obvious fact that is hard to disagree with. Do you?<br><br>Now, IF somebody MISUNDERSTANDS the intent of Obama's words and asks him, "Did you REALLY mean that business people are arrogant leeches...?" He could look surprised and say, "Um, well no. You see, I didn't say that, nor did I intend that. I merely meant that no one achieves on their own..."<br><br>On the other hand, Romney - given the chance to clarify - stood by his words. He apologized for not saying what he meant more elegantly, but he stood by WHAT he said. In other words, he appears to be standing behind the false comment that 47% of the people - all those who don't pay taxes - are not reasonable and that they're leeches.<br><br><i>“I recognize that among those that pay no tax…I’m not likely to be highly successful with the message of lowering taxes,” Mr. Romney said Monday evening. “That’s not as attractive to those who don’t pay income taxes as it is to those who do. And likewise those who are reliant on government are not as attracted to my message of slimming down the size of government.”</i><br><br>Thus, he thinks that those 47%, he won't be able to reach them (those millionaires, veterans, elderly, wounded veterans, disabled, decent poor and middle class folk - all as a class of "the 47%") because they're too beholden to the gov't to vote for him, that they're too intellectually and morally challenged to vote for what's best for the country rather than just for their own greed.<br><br>So you see, in my case, I'm not condemning Romney for the initial stupid and false comments - anybody can make a stupid off the cuff comment. I'm condemning him for STANDING BY the stupid and false comments (and let's not even get started on all the other inflammatory comments released at the same time...).<br><br>Do you see the difference? <br><br>In your case, you are operating under a mistaken understanding of what Obama meant and, if asked, he could clarify what he meant so you wouldn't be mistaken.<br><br>In my case, I'm operating under the assumption that when Romney said that, and then repeated that he stood by what he said, that he meant what he said.<br><br>Are you suggesting that Romney doesn't REALLY think that the 47% - as a class - are too immoral or greedy or unintelligent to be won over by his arguments, if he (Romney) thinks they're good arguments? If so, great. The smart thing for him to do would be to re-clarify what he meant and step AWAY from the argument he made and then repeated. I can't believe he actually thinks what he said and repeated, either.<br><br>Do you have any statement from Romney where he backs away from his words (not just how he said it, but his actual words and intent)? I have not seen it.Dan Trabuehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14303597141397042669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-9053873440038993282012-09-21T06:34:38.127-07:002012-09-21T06:34:38.127-07:00Dan:"The problem comes in saying that half of...Dan:<br><br>"<i>The problem comes in saying that half of Americans aren't going to vote for me BECAUSE they are too greedy, selfish and/or stupid to be won over, and that seems to be the problem most folk have with Romney's comments. It is the problem I have, anyway.</i>"<br><br>In all the time during the 2008 election, between your crowing over Obama's lead in the polls and your praising him, writing that Obama ran "so that all our children could fly," did you ever write a single critical word about Obama's off-the-cuff remark in which he denigrated Midwesterners as xenophobes clinging bitterly to their guns and religion?<br><br>--<br><br>"<i>'I can't convince THEM to take PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY...' - the implication being that the whole of the 47% are deadbeats and immoral leeches...<br><br>"'I'll have to convince the 5-10 percent in the middle... who ARE THOUGHTFUL...' - the direct implication being that the 47% are NOT thoughtful, not reasonable, not rational...</i>"<br><br>Shall we apply equally carefully scrutiny to an arguably more infamous comment on Obama's part, about what businessmen did and did not build?<br><br>"If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet."<br><br>Notice the emphasis on business owners: "If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that."<br><br>Even with the charitable but contextually dubious claim that "that" was a reference to roads and bridges and not the business itself, singling out the businessman leads to the DIRECT implication that they're net consumers of government services: never mind the innumerable taxes he pays, the businessman didn't build the infrastructure, nor presumably did businessmen before him: other taxpayers did.<br><br>Or shall we not so carefully scrutinize every word of the great orator?<br><br>--<br><br>"<i>You don't find it troubling that he would write off 47% of the population currently not paying federal income taxes as brainless, immoral leeches?</i>"<br><br>Do you not find it troubling that the incumbent would write off businessmen as arrogant leeches, arrogant in their attributing their success to their own intelligence and hard work?<br><br>--<br><br>And do you not find it troubling that the incumbent's pastor of twenty years accused the U.S. government of attempted genocide? No, you defend the S.O.B. as a "man of God."<br><br>And do you not find it troubling that a man would write a putrid, vicious poem accusing his political opponents of deicide and worshipping a bloodthirsty idol? No, you wrote that poem, you were proud enough of it to publish it twice, you've never expressed remorse for doing so, and even in this blog post you repeated the basic smears while lamenting political demagoguery.<br><br>Surely there's a good reason for what troubles you and what doesn't, but I can't find one that doesn't entail partisanship and seheer hypocrisy.<br><br>Must be just me.Bubbanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-21166724297107387582012-09-21T05:29:12.880-07:002012-09-21T05:29:12.880-07:00Alan, it may be that both of us jumped to conclusi...Alan, it may be that both of us jumped to conclusions. You wrote, "We're clearly not going to agree that people should have to pay for the right to vote," but I didn't actually assert that that's my position. I only defended it as not unreasonable, but I also pointed out that it probably comes with problems of its own.<br><br>Limiting voters to net contributors of tax revenue does limit the electoral risks of the welfare state, but my preference is to dismantle the welfare state, at least at the federal level, since the state and local governments can more easily lose their tax base if they go too far. (It's not clear what political mechanism YOU believe prevents the welfare state from metastasizing.)<br><br>But, anyway, I did presume too much. When you wrote, "perhaps I could take a broader view of what 'benefits all Americans equally'," I assumed that you do.<br><br>I had no idea that your views remotely resembled Goldwater's. Even when I commented here frequently, I didn't always keep up with your comments, but I've never taken away that impression. Very early on, our host claimed to have <a href="http://paynehollow.blogspot.com/2005/01/and-now-down-to-business.html" rel="nofollow">"communist leanings,"</a> and his politics still lean quite definitively to the left, and yet I never noticed any public disagreements between you.<br><br>Even now, to suggest that it ought to be obvious to everyone that Romney holds the working poor in contempt -- and to insinuate that that contempt is a function of his wealth: "Marie Antoinette Mongomery Burns Thurston Howell Romney III" -- doesn't make me think that you're the kind of guy who would be attracted to Goldwater.Bubbanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-64424316845772502092012-09-21T02:28:07.309-07:002012-09-21T02:28:07.309-07:00"I mean, does it actually surprise anyone tha...<i>"I mean, does it actually surprise anyone that Marie Antoinette Mongomery Burns Thurston Howell Romney III is contemptuous of the working poor?"</i><br><br>It seems to be a great surprise to most people who know him. It is no surprise that someone like you pretends to know with any degree of certainty that he has contempt for the poor.Marshall Arthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01054268632726520871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-66544171691128149992012-09-20T15:22:39.936-07:002012-09-20T15:22:39.936-07:00See, if we only wanted to mock someone for a stupi...See, if we only wanted to mock someone for a stupid gaff, we'd just post stuff like this:<br><br>http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2012/09/20/latest-romney-attempt-to-misquote-obama-into-a-gaffe-results-in-a-romney-flip-flop<br><br><br>Clearly Mittens needs a time out.Alanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16274395216929104919noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-82687314167106571592012-09-20T15:00:25.877-07:002012-09-20T15:00:25.877-07:00The poor articulation argument would be reasonable...The poor articulation argument would be reasonable if he hadn't affirmed and actually doubled-down on what he said in a statement the next day.<br><br>Sorry, MA, but Romney doesn't agree that his words are taken out of context, he's defended them.<br><br>Frankly, the 47% comment is, in my mind, a tiny deal. Who cares, really? I mean, does it actually surprise anyone that Marie Antoinette Mongomery Burns Thurston Howell Romney III is contemptuous of the working poor? How could anyone alive be surprised by that? Didn't everyone already know that?<br><br>So...you know, sure it's a little impolitic of him to say, but it isn't like it really matters, because according to both Bubba and him, those losers weren't going to vote for him anyway.<br><br>A bigger worry, it seems to me, is his clearly stated Middle East policy called "kick it down the road", and the fact that he clearly doesn't have a single idea in his head about what a dirty bomb is.<br><br>And I'd be worried if there were any chance in hell of his getting elected, but given that it is more likely that the Mayan prediction of the end of the world will occur than Romney ever seeing the inside of the Oval Office without a visitor's pass, frankly I think arguing about his distain for hardworking Americans is a little ... boring.<br><br>A more interesting question is whether Rush Limbaugh will ever fulfill his promise to leave the country when Obama is re-elected. Shall we place bets? :)Alanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16274395216929104919noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-2843315854781589412012-09-20T14:03:59.614-07:002012-09-20T14:03:59.614-07:00As to the question put forth by the title of this ...As to the question put forth by the title of this post, I submit that it is a legitimate question to ask.<br><br>I. As I said, it is legitimate. Our government was formed to serve and protect. The question is how it does that. If the actions of government lower the quality of our lives, as this administration has done, we are not better off. The question Kennedy asked is about the country doing for us, not the government. We serve the country in the way we live, not the government, nor are we required to serve the government. It must serve us. <br><br>Politics by fear? Fearmongering suggests stoking fears without justification. But to say, "don't play with fire" is to stoke a legitimate fear of and respect for fire. Reagan, by asking the question, refers to a legitimate situation that would worsen by the reelection of Carter, just as the reelection of Obama would worsen the current situation. Thus, it is a legitimate fear that must be considered by responsible citizens. Nothing cheap about it. It is cheap to accuse the question of being a cheap ploy.<br><br>II. This is not only a question the GOP wants to raise, they have been raising it all along. Ryan especially looks forward to arguing the point. That we must deal with Romney's off the cuff remarks and stories of his dog on the roof show it is the Obama admin that fears discussing the situation.<br><br>more later...gotta goMarshall Arthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01054268632726520871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-39915405217558291432012-09-20T13:48:36.747-07:002012-09-20T13:48:36.747-07:00The problem is that his direct words are being att...The problem is that his direct words are being attacked rather than the spirit behind it. In this I mean that it serves the left to do this while rushing to defend every off the cuff statement by one of their own. One cannot be honest in doing this. Either all politicians must be hung for poor articulation or all must be given slack. The history of this man does not suggest that his words in this small sound bite from a larger context match his history of giving and concern for others less fortunate than he. It shows the desperation of those who have no real defense for the failures of this presidency that something like this is given so much attention.<br><br>What's more, he has clarified his position since this non-issue was made into the issue it is. All the bite truly shows is that he is no more adept at speaking extemporaneously than is Obama, who, quite frankly, shows little skill for it.<br><br>Marshall Arthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01054268632726520871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-19307595948695174942012-09-20T12:54:09.365-07:002012-09-20T12:54:09.365-07:00You don't find it troubling that he would writ...You don't find it troubling that he would write off 47% of the population currently not paying federal income taxes as brainless, immoral leeches? For one thing, don't you think the characterization is simply offensively false? Do you really think that the disabled and elderly who CURRENTLY no longer pay federal income taxes (noting that they may have in the past) are, as a whole group, brainless, leeching and immoral?<br><br>Beyond being offensive, don't you think it's just stupid of Romney to characterize that many people thusly with such a broad brush? What will the tax-paying family and friends of the 47% think of having their loved ones referred to as immoral and thoughtless? Can you really afford to turn so many people off on you, as a candidate?<br><br>I FULLY understand making an off-the-cuff comment in private amongst peers who you may think would appreciate such a stupid mischaracterization, BUT once it becomes public, don't you think the rational thing to do would be to clarify... <br><br>"I'm sorry, I spoke sloppily. I DID NOT MEAN to suggest that the entire group (or even most) of those who aren't currently paying federal income taxes are brainless, immoral leeches who can't be reasoned with. OBVIOUSLY, many of the 47% have contributed greatly to our nation in many great ways and I apologize to the whole for my silly and mistaken stereotype I lumped them into. What I was TRYING to say (and failed terribly) was that there ARE some who don't pay income taxes - and who have gone out of their way to avoid doing just that, when they COULD be contributing to our great Commonwealth. <br><br>Those who have done so out of greed and selfishness, THAT is what I was pointing out as a problem and for whom, my message simply won't reach. Not anywhere like the full 47% of those who aren't currently paying federal income tax. I'm sorry for the poor way I handled that speech..."<br><br>Wouldn't that have been more reasonable? And, for me, his failure was not the initial statement, but in his unwillingness to back down from and apologize for it.Dan Trabuehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14303597141397042669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-80662980783208490642012-09-20T12:52:47.074-07:002012-09-20T12:52:47.074-07:00I'm too busy these days to engage in this deep...I'm too busy these days to engage in this deep of a discussion. I will say there have been some interesting and thoughtful comments lobbed about. Thanks.<br><br>I will try to address what I can, beginning WAY back with John, at comment 1, who said...<br><br><i>I watched the Romney video and didn't see anything scandalous about it. To the contrary, Romney was speaking sensibly. He seemed to understand a major political problem: we have half of Americans voting on tax increases for the other half.</i><br><br>Let me see if I can explain what I find problematic about his comments (problematic, mainly/especially for Romney).<br><br>1. I don't think there's a problem saying, "There are some people out there who I'm not going to win over to vote for me, that's okay..." The problem comes in saying that half of Americans aren't going to vote for me BECAUSE they are too greedy, selfish and/or stupid to be won over, and that seems to be the problem most folk have with Romney's comments. It is the problem I have, anyway.<br><br>2. For one thing, it doesn't really make much sense... He references "the 47%..." those who aren't paying any DIRECT, SPECIFIC federal income taxes. Currently. This group would include MANY people who could very well be won over by Romney's opinions. It would include, I read, about 4,000 millionaires, for instance. <br><br>It would include retirees - folk who've paid in all their lives to taxes and social security and who no longer make enough to pay taxes. These are people Romney could easily win over. <br><br>It would include wounded veterans and others with disabilities who very well may have contributed (some quite dearly) over the years and who may be natural allies of Romney.<br><br>3. I could go on and on, but you get the point, I hope. From what I understand, the VAST majority of "the 47%" are not freeloading "welfare queens..." (and the suggestion seems to be there in Romney's comments to a bunch of his rich colleagues - offensive enough in itself), but people who are rational, moral, respectable, civic-minded and who, for various reasons, currently aren't paying FEDERAL income taxes.<br><br>4. Romney criticizing THESE people as a lump group...<br><br>"I can't convince THEM to take PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY..." - the implication being that the whole of the 47% are deadbeats and immoral leeches...<br><br>"I'll have to convince the 5-10 percent in the middle... who ARE THOUGHTFUL..." - the direct implication being that the 47% are NOT thoughtful, not reasonable, not rational...<br><br>cont'dDan Trabuehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14303597141397042669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-48998899214527851762012-09-20T09:15:46.444-07:002012-09-20T09:15:46.444-07:00Sorry, just too much to read there as my time is p...Sorry, just too much to read there as my time is pretty limited, so I only quickly skimmed, but I did catch this, "You essentially affirm the progressive idea that the provision of non-public goods to specific Americans benefits all Americans. "<br><br>Actually I haven't really come down on any side other than to state that these 3 views, as you have framed them, are not the only views one could have. How you could go from that clear statement to deciding that I have affirmed one of them, when I clearly disagreed with your underlying categorization, is a bit of a mystery. <br><br>In fact, I would say that my approach to government, both on fiscal and social issues, would probably be much closer to being called "Goldwater Republican" (back when such people actually existed in the Republican party) than your view of my view, but, as the kids say these days, "Whatever."<br><br>BTW, I will agree with you that the Venn Diagram of conservatism and Republicanism is not a perfect overlap. Actually, I would argue that there is, these days, nearly no overlap at all, but that's an argument for a different day.<br><br>Finally, we're starting to repeat ourselves, which is the point in a conversation at which I rapidly lose my enthusiasm for the proceedings. We're clearly not going to agree that people should have to pay for the right to vote. So...OK. I think you've made your case clearly, I simply disagree.<br><br>But, at least you've been agreeable in our disagreement. So, thanks for the interesting conversation. Actually pretty surprising and refreshing change here for once.Alanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16274395216929104919noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-17996721078438439992012-09-20T07:07:10.533-07:002012-09-20T07:07:10.533-07:00That last question is no hypothetical. A society ...That last question is no hypothetical. A society with a large middle class approaches a tipping point when politicians begin to aim the welfare state right at them.<br><br>And that observation brings us right to <a href="http://www.barackobama.com/life-of-julia/" rel="nofollow">The Life of Julia</a>.<br><br>The Obama campaign's pitch is aimed squarely at the middle class, NOT to encourage them to support government programs that assist the handicapped homeless through tax increases on the middle class, but to encourage them to feed at the trough themselves.<br><br>Dan writes, "The suggestion that we should vote based on how well we personally are doing financially under a particular president is a politics-by-fear and an appeal to personal greed that should have no place in a healthy republic."<br><br>Well, if Reagan called upon fear and greed by asking if you were better off after four years of Carter, surely we should see Dan's vocal disapproval of a web presentation that can be summarized thus: "Look at all the myriad ways Obama can help you personally, which Romney plans to eliminate."<br><br>But, then, maybe here too I just don't understand Dan when it comes to his criticism of the politics of fear and greed. It's like his affirming that one's political enemies aren't evil while Republicans are war-mongers who don't care about the poor: there's nuance that a simpleton like me would chalk up to partisan hypocrisy.Bubbanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-73069783003037530382012-09-20T06:47:19.228-07:002012-09-20T06:47:19.228-07:00"As I remember it, the slogan was 'no tax..."<i>As I remember it, the slogan was 'no taxation without representation' not 'no representation without taxation' as Romney seems to be arguing. I'm pretty sure that both Madison AND Hamilton would agree with me that the two ideas are diametrically opposed; they are not equivalent.</i><br><br>Never mind what possesses you to think that Madison and Hamilton would agree with you, you're wrong, the two ideas are NOT diametrically opposed. Indeed they are not equivalent, and one doesn't even necessarily lead to the other, but the two <b>CAN</b> be implemented simultaneously.<br><br>The former states, taxpayers MUST have a political voice.<br><br>The latter states, ONLY taxpayers CAN have a political voice.<br><br>There's nothing contradictory about affirming both at once.<br><br>I think the latter position would encourage personal responsibility -- "want to vote? pay your membership dues and become a net contributor to the treasury" -- but that's not the main reason for the policy.<br><br>"BTW, it is an interesting argument to suggest that depriving people of participation in civic life is a method for ... what? Increasing their personal responsibility?"<br><br>It's a method for limiting their corrosive and corrupting effect on the body politic. Your balking at the notion makes me wonder if you make the glib assumption that more voter participation is always and automatically better, but there's a reason that we can (and should) prohibit toddlers and at least incarcerated felons from voting: they're less likely to be responsible voters, and their voting en masse is more likely to result in a less responsible government.<br><br>You essentially affirm the progressive idea that the provision of non-public goods to specific Americans benefits all Americans. Couple that idea with the progressive theory of "root causes," that social maladies like crime result from poverty, and you have an argument for an ever-expanding welfare state.<br><br>Just what is the limiting principle on the size and scope of government? If even the welfare state can be justified by arguments that it benefits all of society, where exactly does your political philosophy draw the line?<br><br>If you accept FDR's assertion that the government ought to guarantee food, housing, health care, a job, a living wage, and retirement benefits, what can government NOT do?<br><br>And what is the political mechanism that would prevent the obvious vicious cycle of those who are dependent on the state supporting politicians who expand the state to encourage even more dependency? I mean, other than bankruptcy and collapse?Bubbanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-63959450650698506352012-09-20T06:16:32.554-07:002012-09-20T06:16:32.554-07:00About those three views of government, what you...About those three views of government, what you're proposing is a government that has the INDIRECT goal of promoting the "general" welfare by the DIRECT means of promoting the "specific" welfare of an individual.<br><br>His writing has other serious but unrelated flaws, but Kevin Williamson touches on something when he <a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/257302/socialism-back-kevin-d-williamson" rel="nofollow">asserts</a> that modern socialism is characterized by central planning and the welfare state -- "the public provision of non-public goods." <br><br>He employs a technical definition from economics to limit public goods to those that are both non-rivalrous and non-excludable: my consumption of unit of the good doesn't result in one less unit for others, and consumption cannot be limited to paying parties. Roads and bridges meet the first definition (tolls CAN limit access), and national defense and law enforcement meet BOTH definitions.<br><br>Williamson writes, "one might argue that there are significant public <i>benefits</i> from things like public schooling, government-subsidized health-care programs, and Amtrak, but those things, whether we enjoy them or not, whether we desire them or not, do not meet the technical definition of a <i>public good</i>."<br><br>That distinction can help us draw a more precise line between those three views.<br><br>1) A Madisonian approach envisions a government providing public goods ONLY through enumerated powers.<br><br>2) A Hamiltonian approach envisions a government providing public goods through any means.<br><br>3) A progressive approach envisions a government providing non-public goods.<br><br>You can see what distinguishes that third view in discussions about hiring more cops. Two very different philosophies are behind the argument that we should increase the police force "to reduce crime" and the argument that we should do so "to provide jobs."<br><br>Either way, the policy would result in more jobs for police officers and presumably lower crime rates, but there's a HUGE difference between seeing the jobs as the means to the goal of less crime, and seeing less crime as the side effect of the goal of more jobs.<br><br>One can pick at the edges of any definition to argue that it's insufficiently precise, but I'm really not interested in anyone who does so to suggest that there aren't obvious differences between law enforcement and welfare -- between the Bill of Rights and FDR's proposed Second Bill of Rights. The New Deal was new, after all.Bubbanoreply@blogger.com