Romney: 'I'm not concerned about the very poor'

[Averroës Nix]

The right-hand side of this addresses to Politico's argument pretty directly:





Also, in response to Romney's claim that the poor aren't hurting:

[Sbane]

Tax cuts don't lower revenue, they increase them!!!! Oh, and the tooth fairy is real.

[TheGlobalizer]

You're not helping your case.

I'm explaining my position further, in response to ad hominem attacks.  F*** my "case", it's my point of view.  You have yours, I don't go around calling you a "commie thief who supports the denigration of American culture" or somesuch, or treating your views as illegitimate, or disrespecting you personally.

I know my expectations are too high here, but I get really tired of the douchebag peanut gallery who exists on this board for no other reason than to engage in lame personal attacks of people they philosophically disagree with.

And I don't understand what I said that warranted this. Your first post pissed a lot of us off because we felt it was repugnant and your second post, while helpful in clarifying what you meant, didn't really make it better. As oakvale (who as you might see is on economic issues quite middle of the road) pointed out, it's an issue of acceptable level of public discourse. Sorry.

If you in fact think I am a commie thief, I suppose it's only fair that after this little dust-up I should say I won't complain if you say so in the future. I don't understand how on Earth I support the denigration of American culture, though, considering that I spend most of my free time producing American culture.

Sorry - I was responding to all through your brief response.  It was not directed at you, it was directed at the pile of ad hominems.  My use of "you" was directed at the abstract "you".

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

You're not helping your case.

I'm explaining my position further, in response to ad hominem attacks.  F*** my "case", it's my point of view.  You have yours, I don't go around calling you a "commie thief who supports the denigration of American culture" or somesuch, or treating your views as illegitimate, or disrespecting you personally.

I know my expectations are too high here, but I get really tired of the douchebag peanut gallery who exists on this board for no other reason than to engage in lame personal attacks of people they philosophically disagree with.

And I don't understand what I said that warranted this. Your first post pissed a lot of us off because we felt it was repugnant and your second post, while helpful in clarifying what you meant, didn't really make it better. As oakvale (who as you might see is on economic issues quite middle of the road) pointed out, it's an issue of acceptable level of public discourse. Sorry.

If you in fact think I am a commie thief, I suppose it's only fair that after this little dust-up I should say I won't complain if you say so in the future. I don't understand how on Earth I support the denigration of American culture, though, considering that I spend most of my free time producing American culture.

Sorry - I was responding to all through your brief response.  It was not directed at you, it was directed at the pile of ad hominems.  My use of "you" was directed at the abstract "you".

It's fine.

[opebo]

I'm not concerned about the very poor, and neither are most Americans.  They give money to charities, in the hope that it helps the few who have encountered tragedy in their lives.  The rest?  Largely responsible for their own situation.

Americans are for lifting up the deserving and helping those who face difficulties.  People who suck at life?  They can drown.

There's a word for people like you. First syllable of 'country', in case you'd not guessed. I think in your case we can extend it somewhat; perhaps by adding 'obnoxious' in front of it. Perhaps things could be done with words like 'scum' and 'reprobate', and I suppose a case exists for the use of 'depraved'.

I'd use a word like "sociopath" as well.

Al, Lief, you are giving a bad name to we scum, sociopaths, and depraved reprobates.  What makes people like Globalizer so pitiable is he believes an absurd construct about 'how society works'.  He believes that one can be 'good' or 'bad' at life, that one's individual efforts and 'hardness' of work matter.  In other words he is a dupe of larger forces, and obnoxiously proud of it as well, due to classic group-mentality - 'there are more of us/my side is winning, so f-you'.

We amorals don't actually care about the poor, or sympathize much (though we are very capable of fearing that we will be poor), but we are quite capable of recognizing the reality of capitalist exploitation and the rational that exists or the vast majority to guillotine the rich. 

[pbrower2a]

There are a lot of bleeding hearts on here. I suspect age has a lot to do with it. As a wise man once put it:

If you're not a liberal at 20, you have no heart.
If you're not a conservative at 30, you have no brain.

I wouldn't exactly call Guizot wise, myself.

Conservatism has validity only if it offers something worth preserving. Such virtues as rationality and sobriety merit preservation where they exist. Greed, superstition, cruelty, selfishness, bigotry, recklessness, and inequity are all suspect no matter how old. Old vices are not somehow better than new ones.

[TheGlobalizer]

opebo - It always amazes me how you can take a conversation and reroute it in direction almost perfectly perpedicular to its original course.  I tip my hat to you, sir.

FWIW, my definition of being good or bad at life is related to the person's subjective goals - one could judge their success in life entirely in relation to a goal of bedding Thai hookers, for instance.  However, maintaining a minimal existence is generally part of that goal, and failure at that subtask is not "my problem" nor should it be.  Conversely, if you are not a burden to unwilling others and wish to spend your excess cash on the prurient, I salute you.

As for the usual discussion re: being a willing dupe, I'll just note that should I be such a person, the harm I face as a result is at de minimis levels, whereas the benefits I realize are significant.  Accordingly, I have profited from the arrangement.  If I can be a dupe, happy, and win in the aggregate, I'll take it.

I think, however, that the true dupes are those who struggle to succeed, yet all they realize from their attempts serves as the basis for "progressive taxation", "civil society", "social justice", and other drek, for which they willingly vote themselves and race toward a constructive poverty.  I won't begrudge them that, but no salute, as I'm their collateral damage.

[milhouse24]

Romney should be concerned about people becoming "The New Poor" - because if what he says is true about the very poor, then every struggling middle class person will rush to get welfare and medicaid benefits.

[Politico]

I think, however, that the true dupes are those who struggle to succeed, yet all they realize from their attempts serves as the basis for "progressive taxation", "civil society", "social justice", and other drek, for which they willingly vote themselves and race toward a constructive poverty.  I won't begrudge them that, but no salute, as I'm their collateral damage.

Bravo!

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I think, however, that the true dupes are those who struggle to succeed, yet all they realize from their attempts serves as the basis for "progressive taxation", "civil society", "social justice", and other drek, for which they willingly vote themselves and race toward a constructive poverty.  I won't begrudge them that, but no salute, as I'm their collateral damage.

Thing is, they owe society precisely for their success, big time. I can't off the top of my head think of any sort of person who would rather fail than succeed just because if they succeeded they'd be something short of worshiped as a Prometheus for it.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

This thread has a very interesting relationship with reality... and I mean, interesting.

Reality as interpreted by the terminally unselfaware, perhaps.

[Free Palestine]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-e0BV6ftXEk

[Politico]

I think, however, that the true dupes are those who struggle to succeed, yet all they realize from their attempts serves as the basis for "progressive taxation", "civil society", "social justice", and other drek, for which they willingly vote themselves and race toward a constructive poverty.  I won't begrudge them that, but no salute, as I'm their collateral damage.

Thing is, they owe society precisely for their success, big time.

"I think we've been through a period where too many people have been given to understand that if they have a problem, it's the government's job to cope with it. 'I have a problem, I'll get a grant.' 'I'm homeless, the government must house me.' They're casting their problem on society. And, you know, there is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women, and there are families. And no government can do anything except through people, and people must look to themselves first. It's our duty to look after ourselves and then, also to look after our neighbour. People have got the entitlements too much in mind, without the obligations. There's no such thing as entitlement, unless someone has first met an obligation."

- Margaret Thatcher

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I think, however, that the true dupes are those who struggle to succeed, yet all they realize from their attempts serves as the basis for "progressive taxation", "civil society", "social justice", and other drek, for which they willingly vote themselves and race toward a constructive poverty.  I won't begrudge them that, but no salute, as I'm their collateral damage.

Thing is, they owe society precisely for their success, big time.

"I think we've been through a period where too many people have been given to understand that if they have a problem, it's the government's job to cope with it. 'I have a problem, I'll get a grant.' 'I'm homeless, the government must house me.' They're casting their problem on society. And, you know, there is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women, and there are families. And no government can do anything except through people, and people must look to themselves first. It's our duty to look after ourselves and then, also to look after our neighbour. People have got the entitlements too much in mind, without the obligations. There's no such thing as entitlement, unless someone has first met an obligation."

- Margaret Thatcher

This quote is and has always been absolute bullsh**t and the attitude reflected in it destroyed the British middle class and industrial base. 'It's our duty to look after ourselves and then, also to look after our neighbour' is also, incidentally, just one of the many, shall we say, morally questionable utterances that lead one to think that she was completely insincere and hypocritical as a Christian.

[Keystone Phil]

Romney lost tonight atleast. The New York Giants won the super bowl and his patriots lost.

Mitt Romney honestly probably doesn't even know what Football is.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

This quote is and has always been absolute bullsh**t and the attitude reflected in it destroyed the British middle class and industrial base. 'It's our duty to look after ourselves and then, also to look after our neighbour' is also, incidentally, just one of the many, shall we say, morally questionable utterances that lead one to think that she was completely insincere and hypocritical as a Christian.

Oh Americans and their special use of language

Anyway.

I've used this example before and I shall use it again. In the 1970s County Durham was occasionally cited by academics as an example of an area with a remarkable lack of social problems for somewhere as utterly working class and as comparatively remote as it was. By the early 1990s it was occasionally cited by academics as an example of an area with unusually serious social problems for somewhere in a Western country.

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

This quote drove me to right a letter to the editor on Romney. It wasn't very good but I had to get my anger out somehow.

[TheGlobalizer]

I think, however, that the true dupes are those who struggle to succeed, yet all they realize from their attempts serves as the basis for "progressive taxation", "civil society", "social justice", and other drek, for which they willingly vote themselves and race toward a constructive poverty.  I won't begrudge them that, but no salute, as I'm their collateral damage.

Thing is, they owe society precisely for their success, big time. I can't off the top of my head think of any sort of person who would rather fail than succeed just because if they succeeded they'd be something short of worshiped as a Prometheus for it.

I'm not quite sure of the connection between what you quoted and your comments, but I'll concede that "society" is the basis for most "success" - however, it is important to define "society".  The mere fact of an orderly system of laws, enforcement of those laws (rule of law), and distribution of labor is a huge aggregate factor in creating wealth.  Most of the "innovations" of the past few hundred years have done little to further success, and often stand in its way.  Those industries that have innovated most, that have been most impacted by technology, they are the ones that create the most wealth have the most "successful" people.

I think there's a reasonable conversation to be had as to what a society wants - the opportunity for competitive success vs. guaranteed, distributed success.  I just think that most people in the US want the former.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I think, however, that the true dupes are those who struggle to succeed, yet all they realize from their attempts serves as the basis for "progressive taxation", "civil society", "social justice", and other drek, for which they willingly vote themselves and race toward a constructive poverty.  I won't begrudge them that, but no salute, as I'm their collateral damage.

Thing is, they owe society precisely for their success, big time.

"I think we've been through a period where too many people have been given to understand that if they have a problem, it's the government's job to cope with it. 'I have a problem, I'll get a grant.' 'I'm homeless, the government must house me.' They're casting their problem on society. And, you know, there is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women, and there are families. And no government can do anything except through people, and people must look to themselves first. It's our duty to look after ourselves and then, also to look after our neighbour. People have got the entitlements too much in mind, without the obligations. There's no such thing as entitlement, unless someone has first met an obligation."

- Margaret Thatcher

This quote is the perfect quintessence of human stupidity.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I think, however, that the true dupes are those who struggle to succeed, yet all they realize from their attempts serves as the basis for "progressive taxation", "civil society", "social justice", and other drek, for which they willingly vote themselves and race toward a constructive poverty.  I won't begrudge them that, but no salute, as I'm their collateral damage.

Thing is, they owe society precisely for their success, big time. I can't off the top of my head think of any sort of person who would rather fail than succeed just because if they succeeded they'd be something short of worshiped as a Prometheus for it.

I'm not quite sure of the connection between what you quoted and your comments, but I'll concede that "society" is the basis for most "success" - however, it is important to define "society".  The mere fact of an orderly system of laws, enforcement of those laws (rule of law), and distribution of labor is a huge aggregate factor in creating wealth.  Most of the "innovations" of the past few hundred years have done little to further success, and often stand in its way.  Those industries that have innovated most, that have been most impacted by technology, they are the ones that create the most wealth have the most "successful" people.

I'm sorry, I'm probably misreading this, but it looks like your last two sentences in this paragraph contradict each other?

The connection between what I quoted and my comments was your seemingly-disparaging use of the term 'civil society', a term which (in addition to the other terms, but more so than them) I have a certain fondness for.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This is fair enough, and you may be right about what most people in the country want, but I find it ethically questionable, myself.

[King]

Politico and Globalizer are a dangerous tag-team duo.

[Insula Dei]

Quoting Margaret Tatcher does turn out not to be a magical debate-winner. Who knew?

[Tetro Kornbluth]

If the Romney is to be the first poststructuralist president, Is this the first poststructuralist thread to commemorate this fact? The signs and the signifiers don't seem to be getting along much here.

[TheGlobalizer]

I think, however, that the true dupes are those who struggle to succeed, yet all they realize from their attempts serves as the basis for "progressive taxation", "civil society", "social justice", and other drek, for which they willingly vote themselves and race toward a constructive poverty.  I won't begrudge them that, but no salute, as I'm their collateral damage.

Thing is, they owe society precisely for their success, big time. I can't off the top of my head think of any sort of person who would rather fail than succeed just because if they succeeded they'd be something short of worshiped as a Prometheus for it.

I'm not quite sure of the connection between what you quoted and your comments, but I'll concede that "society" is the basis for most "success" - however, it is important to define "society".  The mere fact of an orderly system of laws, enforcement of those laws (rule of law), and distribution of labor is a huge aggregate factor in creating wealth.  Most of the "innovations" of the past few hundred years have done little to further success, and often stand in its way.  Those industries that have innovated most, that have been most impacted by technology, they are the ones that create the most wealth have the most "successful" people.

I'm sorry, I'm probably misreading this, but it looks like your last two sentences in this paragraph contradict each other?

The connection between what I quoted and my comments was your seemingly-disparaging use of the term 'civil society', a term which (in addition to the other terms, but more so than them) I have a certain fondness for.

Good call, my language was unclear - I meant that "innovations" (suspicious quotes intended) in government did little to increase opportunity for success.

As for the term civil society, I chose it intentionally - it's one of those words that people use in vastly different ways.  I consider civil society to be neighbors respecting one another and each others' property; others see it as a communal, shared responsibility for everyones' well-being.  I obvious choose the former.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This is fair enough, and you may be right about what most people in the country want, but I find it ethically questionable, myself.

Understood.  I think there are things we can do to ensure that people are not needlessly trampled by "cowboy capitalism" but I draw the line at creating positive rights and using redistributive economics to achieve those ends.  I consider myself a soft anarcho-capitalist but I also understand that I live in a society that includes people other than like myself, with views appropriate to their circumstances and goals.

In truth, I don't know many people who share precisely the same worldview, and those who do are usually wingnuts (at all ends of the political spectrum), parroting their idols' words.

[TheGlobalizer]

FWIW, while I generally respect Thatcher, I'm not a big fan of the implication that one should receive benefits commensurate with their contribution to society.  Trickle-down is a sham to benefit only the wealthy, and frankly, one of the most transparently self-serving economic "theories" ever devised.  (I agree that capital creates capital, but government giving capital to anyone merely distorts the system - it doesn't facilitate a damned thing.)

I prefer to reduce government to provide only those services that can meaningfully be delivered in a recipient neutral format (e.g., roads, mail delivery, justice, etc.)  Once we're there, then we can argue appropriately about "how much government we want".