WASHINGTON — Already scrambling to steady a struggling campaign, Republican Mitt Romney confronted a new headache today after a video surfaced showing him telling wealthy donors that almost half of all Americans "believe they are victims" entitled to extensive government support. He added that as a candidate for the White House, "my job is not to worry about those people."
President Barack Obama's campaign quickly seized on the video, obtained by the magazine Mother Jones and made public on a day that Romney's campaign conceded it needed a change in campaign strategy to gain momentum in the presidential race.
"There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what," Romney is shown saying in a video posted online by the magazine. "There are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe that government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you name it."
"Forty-seven percent of Americans pay no income tax," Romney said.
Romney said his role "is not to worry about those people. I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives."
Romney's campaign did not dispute the authenticity of the video, instead releasing a statement seeking to clarify his remarks. "Mitt Romney wants to help all Americans struggling in the Obama economy," spokeswoman Gail Gitcho said. "He is concerned about the growing number of people who are dependent on the federal government."
What's important is that he painted everybody who does not vote for him with the broadest brush possible and declares half of the US-American population as hopeless cases relying on the government. He actually said every democrat voter isn't capable of fending for himself.
That is so broad a generalization that it shouldn't come from a possible US president, I'm sure you'll agree.
Witzkatz wrote: What's important is that he painted everybody who does not vote for him with the broadest brush possible and declares half of the US-American population as hopeless cases relying on the government. He actually said every democrat voter isn't capable of fending for himself.
That is so broad a generalization that it shouldn't come from a possible US president, I'm sure you'll agree.
That wasn't what he said.
He said the 47% of the country that pays no income tax will vote for Obama no matter what because they're dependent on the government.
That's not true, of course, as it implies that 47% of the country is on welfare - not paying income tax does not mean you're on welfare, it just means you don't earn enough to qualify for income tax.
After posting for the last few months that I thought it would be neck and neck to November, and that it's impossible to call who'd win: At this point I no longer think Mitt Romney has a real chance of winning the election*. He really is a truly awful candidate; doing a truly awful job campaigning.
Witzkatz wrote: What's important is that he painted everybody who does not vote for him with the broadest brush possible and declares half of the US-American population as hopeless cases relying on the government. He actually said every democrat voter isn't capable of fending for himself.
That is so broad a generalization that it shouldn't come from a possible US president, I'm sure you'll agree.
That wasn't what he said.
He said the 47% of the country that pays no income tax will vote for Obama no matter what because they're dependent on the government.
That's not true, of course, as it implies that 47% of the country is on welfare - not paying income tax does not mean you're on welfare, it just means you don't earn enough to qualify for income tax.
Which considering how little I make, and that I pay income taxes, is pretty goddamn pathetic/scary.
For those interested in what, exactly, Romney was talking about with reference to that 47%, here's an explanation:
Mother Jones has published a video of Mitt Romney at a private fund-raiser making incendiary remarks about Obama voters – and, well, about half of the electorate.
“There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what,” Mr. Romney said. “There are 47 percent who are with him, 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, to you-name-it, that that’s an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what.”
“These are people who pay no income tax,” he added.
I’ll address just that last part in this post.
Mr. Romney is absolutely correct that about half of American households do not pay federal income tax. (He is also tapping into a now long-running vein of conservative anger at those households.) But he is missing some crucial context on why they do not pay federal income tax.
The nonpartisan and highly respected Tax Policy Center derived the 47 percent number – it is actually 46 percent, as of 2011 – and published an excellent analysis of it last summer.
It found that about half of the households that do not pay federal income tax do not pay it because they are simply too poor. The Tax Policy Center gives as an example a couple with two children earning less than $26,400 a year: The household would pay no federal income tax because its standard deduction and other exemptions would simply erase its liability.
The other half, the Tax Policy Center found, consists of households taking advantage of tax credits and other provisions, mostly support for senior citizens and low-income working families.
Put bluntly, these are not households shirking their tax liabilities. The pool consists mostly of the poor, of relatively low-income working families and of old people. The tax code is specifically designed to reduce the burden on them.
Indeed, the recession and its aftermath have left tens of millions of workers out of a job or underemployed, removing more households from payment of federal income taxes. Moreover, the Bush tax cuts – the signature Republican economic policy of the 2000s, which doubled the child tax credit, increased a number of other deductions and exemptions, and lowered marginal tax rates – erased millions of families’ federal income tax liabilities.
It is also worth noting that though tens of millions of families do not pay federal income taxes, there are virtually no families that do not pay any taxes – between payroll taxes, sales taxes, state and local taxes, and on and on.
For much more detail on the 46 (or 47) percent, read my colleague David Leonhardt’s 2010 column or my 2011 piece for Slate.
At worst, it's similar to Obama's "bitter clinger" remark.
He's not saying he doesn't care about them as citizens and human beings, just that he won't devote any attention to trying to cull some of their votes.
Automatically Appended Next Post: The tl;dr: rich guy who gets millions in tax breaks calls half of America parasites.
Automatically Appended Next Post: hahaha check this news story about a party previously held at a house owned by the fundraiser who hosted this event.
It was as if the Playboy Mansion met the East End at a wild party at private-equity titan Marc Leder's Bridgehampton estate, where guests cavorted nude in the pool and performed sex acts, scantily dressed Russians danced on platforms and men twirled lit torches to a booming techno beat.
i despair of this Obama is the fething big problem, who should not be re-electable.
Most who want the Presidency prefer to stand at the end of a second term of an incumbent president, so they are not facing incumbency but this was a year for a good candidate rather than a filler candidate.
That's not true, of course, as it implies that 47% of the country is on welfare - not paying income tax does not mean you're on welfare, it just means you don't earn enough to qualify for income tax.
It also implies that all welfare recipients will vote for Obama.
If the Romney campaign really believes that (And they probably don't.), then the issue is theirs.
"There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what," Romney is shown saying in a video posted online by the magazine. "There are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe that government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you name it."
WASHINGTON — Already scrambling to steady a struggling campaign, Republican Mitt Romney confronted a new headache today after a video surfaced showing him telling wealthy donors that almost half of all Americans "believe they are victims" entitled to extensive government support. He added that as a candidate for the White House, "my job is not to worry about those people."
President Barack Obama's campaign quickly seized on the video, obtained by the magazine Mother Jones and made public on a day that Romney's campaign conceded it needed a change in campaign strategy to gain momentum in the presidential race.
"There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what," Romney is shown saying in a video posted online by the magazine. "There are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe that government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you name it."
"Forty-seven percent of Americans pay no income tax," Romney said.
Romney said his role "is not to worry about those people. I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives."
Romney's campaign did not dispute the authenticity of the video, instead releasing a statement seeking to clarify his remarks. "Mitt Romney wants to help all Americans struggling in the Obama economy," spokeswoman Gail Gitcho said. "He is concerned about the growing number of people who are dependent on the federal government."
Does he even try anymore...?
He's right. Half the US doesn't pay income taxes. We've become like Europe, expecting someone else to help us, to pay for it, to tell us what to do. Just look at the threads on this section. Everyone's whining about how someone else is evil for the decisions they made, and they should get "help."
Witzkatz wrote: What's important is that he painted everybody who does not vote for him with the broadest brush possible and declares half of the US-American population as hopeless cases relying on the government. He actually said every democrat voter isn't capable of fending for himself.
That is so broad a generalization that it shouldn't come from a possible US president, I'm sure you'll agree.
I don't like Romney and it really sucks when he's right.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ouze wrote: After posting for the last few months that I thought it would be neck and neck to November, and that it's impossible to call who'd win: At this point I no longer think Mitt Romney has a real chance of winning the election*. He really is a truly awful candidate; doing a truly awful job campaigning.
*barring an unknown unknown.
This is true. I am conforted that Obama's incompetence likely won't get us all killed, and that divided government will increase as the Republicans take more seats in the Senate.
Automatically Appended Next Post: The tl;dr: rich guy who gets millions in tax breaks calls half of America parasites.
Automatically Appended Next Post: hahaha check this news story about a party previously held at a house owned by the fundraiser who hosted this event.
It was as if the Playboy Mansion met the East End at a wild party at private-equity titan Marc Leder's Bridgehampton estate, where guests cavorted nude in the pool and performed sex acts, scantily dressed Russians danced on platforms and men twirled lit torches to a booming techno beat.
Oh Noes the NYT won't support Romney? Oh wait, you just said the NYT. You thought Pravda would?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: This was a year that should have handed the presidency to the Republican party on a silver platter.
They managed to knock that silver platter from the table kicking and screaming.
In current US plitics, its extremely difficult to push out an incumbent, well at any level actually. I think the heavy hitters are waiting until its an even playing field.
He's right. Half the US doesn't pay income taxes. We've become like Europe, expecting someone else to help us, to pay for it, to tell us what to do.
Do you have anything to substantiate your claim that us Europeans "expect someone else to help us, to pay for it, to tell us what to do" or are you just spouting meaningless nonsense again?
Frazzled wrote: We've become like Europe, expecting someone else to help us, to pay for it, to tell us what to do. Just look at the threads on this section. Everyone's whining about how someone else is evil for the decisions they made, and they should get "help."
You actually haven't, you wished you had become like Europe. You are worse than most European countries in ever measurable way of determining quality of life...
He's right. Half the US doesn't pay income taxes. We've become like Europe, expecting someone else to help us, to pay for it, to tell us what to do.
Do you have anything to substantiate your claim that us Europeans "expect someone else to help us, to pay for it, to tell us what to do" or are you just spouting meaningless nonsense again?
He's right. Half the US doesn't pay income taxes. We've become like Europe, expecting someone else to help us, to pay for it, to tell us what to do.
Do you have anything to substantiate your claim that us Europeans "expect someone else to help us, to pay for it, to tell us what to do" or are you just spouting meaningless nonsense again?
He's right. Half the US doesn't pay income taxes. We've become like Europe, expecting someone else to help us, to pay for it, to tell us what to do.
Do you have anything to substantiate your claim that us Europeans "expect someone else to help us, to pay for it, to tell us what to do" or are you just spouting meaningless nonsense again?
Greece. Spain. Italy. France.
You do realise that your countrymen are worse off than the citizens of all of those countries, right? And you really should replace France with Portugal, France isn't facing economic hardship, we are.
He's right. Half the US doesn't pay income taxes. We've become like Europe, expecting someone else to help us, to pay for it, to tell us what to do.
Do you have anything to substantiate your claim that us Europeans "expect someone else to help us, to pay for it, to tell us what to do" or are you just spouting meaningless nonsense again?
Greece. Spain. Italy. France.
That's 4 - What about the other 23?
Do we really want to go there? Outside of the UK, Germany (and the Scandinavian countries comprising ~4 people each) are carrying the rest of Europe.
If this latest bailout scheme doesn't work, you might see a different Germany next year. One that can say NO.
He's right. Half the US doesn't pay income taxes. We've become like Europe, expecting someone else to help us, to pay for it, to tell us what to do.
Do you have anything to substantiate your claim that us Europeans "expect someone else to help us, to pay for it, to tell us what to do" or are you just spouting meaningless nonsense again?
Greece. Spain. Italy. France.
You do realise that your countrymen are worse off than the citizens of all of those countries, right? And you really should replace France with Portugal, France isn't facing economic hardship, we are.
France has epic levels of riot and what a 12 hour work week now?
Frazzled wrote: We've become like Europe, expecting someone else to help us, to pay for it, to tell us what to do. Just look at the threads on this section. Everyone's whining about how someone else is evil for the decisions they made, and they should get "help."
You actually haven't, you wished you had become like Europe. You are worse than most European countries in ever measurable way of determining quality of life...
WASHINGTON — Already scrambling to steady a struggling campaign, Republican Mitt Romney confronted a new headache today after a video surfaced showing him telling wealthy donors that almost half of all Americans "believe they are victims" entitled to extensive government support. He added that as a candidate for the White House, "my job is not to worry about those people."
President Barack Obama's campaign quickly seized on the video, obtained by the magazine Mother Jones and made public on a day that Romney's campaign conceded it needed a change in campaign strategy to gain momentum in the presidential race.
"There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what," Romney is shown saying in a video posted online by the magazine. "There are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe that government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you name it."
"Forty-seven percent of Americans pay no income tax," Romney said.
Romney said his role "is not to worry about those people. I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives."
Romney's campaign did not dispute the authenticity of the video, instead releasing a statement seeking to clarify his remarks. "Mitt Romney wants to help all Americans struggling in the Obama economy," spokeswoman Gail Gitcho said. "He is concerned about the growing number of people who are dependent on the federal government."
Does he even try anymore...?
He's right. Half the US doesn't pay income taxes.
Your standard of "he's right" is focusing on ONE sentence out of a bunch of sentences, and pretending that the rest of the untrue things he said were true? Are you kidding, or trolling?
Much as Mitt or other selfish or self-deluded donkey-caves might like to pretend otherwise, the Republican party is not composed exclusively of supermen and small business owners who pay all the taxes in this country. Many of its members and supporters are poor and in the same dire financial straits as the poorest Dem supporters. Mitt trying to flatter the egos of ignorant and arrogant morons by pretending that only Democrats are poor, or that all poor people support Democrats and are chronically dependent on the government, indicates that he's either a complete idiot or a bottom-feeding deceitful jackass.
Most of those 47% of people are hardworking poor families. If you or he think it's going to fix the economy to impose an income tax burden on the folks who already have challenges getting their children enough food, that's not just silly and patently inaccurate, it's pretty offensive and sad, too. I understand the previous point you've raised that you want everyone to have skin in the game, and I can respect it to a certain extent. But even that idea still falls prey to the erroneous assumption that folks who don't pay Federal income taxes aren't paying a lot of other taxes (like state income, sales tax, gas and services taxes, etc.). Which they are. Writing off everyone who doesn't pay Federal income taxes as parasites and freeloaders, charity cases and "poor me" whiners is a steaming pile of bad reasoning, victim-blaming, and general foolishness.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote: In current US plitics, its extremely difficult to push out an incumbent, well at any level actually. I think the heavy hitters are waiting until its an even playing field.
Really? This from the guy who confidently told us for months how Obama's second term was in the toilet if the unemployment numbers were above... what number, again?
Is it just that incumbents have some kind of unfair advantage, or is it maybe possible that more of the US electorate doesn't think he's incompetant?
d-usa wrote: Europe, somehow managing to work less hours per week and still be more productive than us.
Even with taking vacation every other month they are still more productive than the USA.
No they're not. Not sure what you're smoking there.
But thats ok. I have no beef with Europe. They can do what they want. I just don't want to be Europe. Nor do I want to be Asia, or Africa. Ok maybe Australia. The whole killer drop bear/crocodile combo is intriguing.
Frazzled wrote: In current US plitics, its extremely difficult to push out an incumbent, well at any level actually. I think the heavy hitters are waiting until its an even playing field.
Really? This from the guy who confidently told us for months how Obama's second term was in the toilet if the unemployment numbers were above... what number, again?
Is it just that incumbents have some kind of unfair advantage, or is it maybe possible that more of the US electorate doesn't think he's incompetant?
Hey its not my fault the Republicans put up a string of potential candidates about as exciting as lukewarm dishwater, but only half as useful. I still may be surprised. I think Romney and Obama aren't terribly different in reality. I just think Romney would be more competent about actually running things. Not like I'm voting for either of them.
You should do, less growth hormones and.... hmm ?... oohh....
Clarification : I was under the impression that Mr. David Brooks -- quoted/referenced above -- was/is a conservative commentator irregardless or whichever deadtree press printed his opinions here ?
You should do, less growth hormones and.... hmm ?... oohh....
Clarification : I was under the impression that Mr. David Brooks -- quoted/referenced above -- was/is a conservative commentator irregardless or whichever deadtree press printed his opinions here ?
He's not. He works for the NYT.
Beef wise F that. If I want good beef I'll go to Argentina. Now thats quality.
d-usa wrote: Europe, somehow managing to work less hours per week and still be more productive than us.
Even with taking vacation every other month they are still more productive than the USA.
No they're not. Not sure what you're smoking there.
But thats ok. I have no beef with Europe. They can do what they want. I just don't want to be Europe. Nor do I want to be Asia, or Africa. Ok maybe Australia. The whole killer drop bear/crocodile combo is intriguing.
It's about 300 years too late to decide you don't want to be European.
d-usa wrote: Europe, somehow managing to work less hours per week and still be more productive than us.
Even with taking vacation every other month they are still more productive than the USA.
No they're not. Not sure what you're smoking there.
But thats ok. I have no beef with Europe. They can do what they want. I just don't want to be Europe. Nor do I want to be Asia, or Africa. Ok maybe Australia. The whole killer drop bear/crocodile combo is intriguing.
It's about 300 years too late to decide you don't want to be European.
Clarification : I was under the impression that Mr. David Brooks -- quoted/referenced above -- was/is a conservative commentator irregardless or whichever deadtree press printed his opinions here ?
He's a Republican which is no longer the same thing as being a conservative evidently.
People should stop being so dependent on the government giving out handouts, on the taxpayer's dollar no less.
Welfare is supposed a temporary thing. Way too many people abuse the system and just stay in their apartment drinking beer doing nothing.
Romney could have worded it a little better. he's not the best speech giver, but thats not whats important when running the country.
47% of Americans not paying federal taxes does not mean that they are on welfare.
From the article Many of the Americans who owe no income tax are reprieved because basic exemptions — such as the "standard deduction" — took their taxable income below the cutoff levels. The other half rely mainly on a variety of tax breaks, such as the credit that helps offset child care costs.
These Americans range from the very poor to solidly middle-class families with jobs, homes, cars and vacations. The Tax Policy Center says "relatively few nontaxable households" have incomes exceeding $100,000; families that make between $50,000 and $100,000 often owe no income tax because of breaks for their kids and for education.
Americans who pay no federal income tax still often pay an array of other taxes. They include payroll taxes for Social Security and Medicare, sales taxes, property taxes and state and local taxes.
A handful of extremely wealthy families do not pay federal income taxes. This summer the Internal Revenue Service reported that six of the 400 highest-earning households in America owed no federal income tax in 2009.
Still, many are low-income Americans. According to the August 2010 AP-GfK poll, a majority of Americans who make less than $30,000 a year are Democrats. But 27 percent identify as Republicans, and 15 percent say they're independents. About 57 percent say they will vote for Obama, while 38 percent back Romney. About 43 percent identify themselves as conservatives.
This is a classic example of a candidate saying what the audience wanted to hear. He doesn't believe it, hell, I doubt most of the people in the room believe it. but it makes everybody feel good, much like casting all republicans as heartless titans of industry feels good.
Support for Romney in lower middle class and working class homes is certainly significant, much as support for Obama in the lower upper class is significant.
In many ways it's similar to various Obama statements (the clinger bit in particular). What's going to be slightly more damaging to Romney is that he was explicit in 1) how many people he was talking about, and 2) how they felt, thought, and acted. Also, Romney may have offended, and lost the votes of, people in the group he was speaking of, who had previously supported him. Obama's comments probably didnt' describe anybody voting for him.
Ouze wrote: After posting for the last few months that I thought it would be neck and neck to November, and that it's impossible to call who'd win: At this point I no longer think Mitt Romney has a real chance of winning the election*. He really is a truly awful candidate; doing a truly awful job campaigning.
IMHO I think that republicans who actually think they have a good chance at becoming president are sitting this cycle out.
After Obama oversaw the killing of Osama Bin Laden, I think that solid republican candidates like Chris Christie or Mike Huckabee decided not to run this time because they knew if they were nominated they would have to run against the president who oversaw the killing of America's biggest enemy for a generation.
As such, we got sub-par republican candidates this time. There is a reason the republican base was crying out for a decent person to run. Here are some funny quotes to remind you of the primaries
Herman Cain :
I love this guy and enjoy watching him on TV -- yet he would make a poor president.
Spoiler:
Newt Gingrich :
Wow....this guy was a bit to far from moderate to have any chance of getting independents to vote for him.
Spoiler:
Rick Perry Comedy gold here -- I still laugh when watching this.
Ouze wrote: After posting for the last few months that I thought it would be neck and neck to November, and that it's impossible to call who'd win: At this point I no longer think Mitt Romney has a real chance of winning the election*. He really is a truly awful candidate; doing a truly awful job campaigning.
*barring an unknown unknown.
I actually don't agree. I'm not saying he's an inspiring candidate. He's certainly not. But I don't know that he's awful.
I think his campaign has been doing a fairly awful job. I think the GOP has gotten awfully twisted for making an electable moderate like Romney have to behave otherwise.
Although it does have to be said that campaigns are reflections of candidates to some degree. The candidate picks his staff, after all.
Frazzled wrote: Beef wise F that. If I want good beef I'll go to Argentina. Now thats quality.
I found a farm that sells Beefalo from their own pasture. Ill go there once every few months and buy enough to stock up my freezer and use that.
That's the best meat I've ever had, and I can drive by it anytime and see the animals on the pasture. If you can manage to find a local farm like that, I highly reccomend buying from it.
reds8n wrote: I was under the impression that Mr. David Brooks -- quoted/referenced above -- was/is a conservative commentator irregardless or whichever deadtree press printed his opinions here ?
I really need to learn how to troll and derail a thread when the topic is not advantageous for my beliefs.
But, yeah, Romney is great. People overstate how weak President Obama is, the vast majority of the nation still blames President Bush for our economic problems, but Romney still manages to out-John-Kerry John Kerry.
reds8n wrote: I was under the impression that Mr. David Brooks -- quoted/referenced above -- was/is a conservative commentator irregardless or whichever deadtree press printed his opinions here ?
reds8n wrote: I was under the impression that Mr. David Brooks -- quoted/referenced above -- was/is a conservative commentator irregardless or whichever deadtree press printed his opinions here ?
That is correct.
Nah, only igf you're a lefty yourself, lefty.
Or if you are so far right that anyone left of you is considered liberal, regardless of whether they are actually right of center or not.
Yep. It's pretty great that I'm an actual socialist, but those on the right have no words to describe me since anyone that wants a progressive income tax is a Bolshevik to them.
reds8n wrote: I was under the impression that Mr. David Brooks -- quoted/referenced above -- was/is a conservative commentator irregardless or whichever deadtree press printed his opinions here ?
That is correct.
Nah, only igf you're a lefty yourself, lefty.
Or if you are so far right that anyone left of you is considered liberal, regardless of whether they are actually right of center or not.
True that. After all the world really went to crap when Mussolini went all soft and lefty.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
TheHammer wrote: Yep. It's pretty great that I'm an actual socialist, but those on the right have no words to describe me since anyone that wants a progressive income tax is a Bolshevik to them.
Its been a long time since I've been called a communist. Ah, quite refreshing.
It's almost like you are intentionally vague about your beliefs, so when you do say ugly and hateful things you can fall back on that vagueness as a shield!
4 More Years! 4 More Years! 4 More Years! 4 More Years!
Frazzled wrote: Nah, only igf you're a lefty yourself, lefty.
Hmm, consider reading deeper. Brooks is as skeptical of the libertarian bread and circuses as many Democrats but he is a committed disciple of Milton Friedman. Brooks's greatest crime from the Republican perspective is that Democrats actually listen to him.
TheHammer wrote: It's almost like you are intentionally vague about your beliefs, so when you do say ugly and hateful things you can fall back on that vagueness as a shield!
Frazzled wrote: Nah, only igf you're a lefty yourself, lefty.
Hmm, consider reading deeper. Brooks is as skeptical of the libertarian bread and circuses as many Democrats but he is a committed disciple of Milton Friedman. Brooks's greatest crime from the Republican perspective is that Democrats actually listen to him.
No no, its the glasses. They just don't cut it.
I can't be arsed to read the NYT frankly - more than the ten free articles a month
Frazzled wrote: Nah, only igf you're a lefty yourself, lefty.
Hmm, consider reading deeper. Brooks is as skeptical of the libertarian bread and circuses as many Democrats but he is a committed disciple of Milton Friedman. Brooks's greatest crime from the Republican perspective is that Democrats actually listen to him.
I think there's something to this, Manchu. The Democrats, especially Clinton and Obama, have managed to occupy a lot of previously Republican and conservative positions that it literally gives no room for Republicans to exist in any debate. The only option they have is to just join the Democratic Party and try to influence it from within, or to go completely insane.
Anyway, back on topic, people are kidding themselves if they think this will actually hurt Mitt Romney. Those remarks are a frank statement of what his whole campaign is about -- no surprise here, folks. No one who likes this ticket even slightly is going to like it any less because Romney candidly told his fellow plutocrats what is blasted constantly on Fox News by all those passionate Ayn Rand devotees. Mannahnin mentioned earlier that many people in the 47% Romney mentioned regularly vote Republican. I'll add: and they will continue to do so. I reckon Romney could walk up them in person, spit in their eye, then have Paul Ryan punch their mother, and they'd still vote for him.
Yes, but the entire election is hinging on the 5-7% of stupid people who could go either way, and those people usually hate this type of overt class warfare.
It doesn't put any states in play, but it definitely cements President Obama's lead and will likely hurt Romney with the awful and stupid undecideds, and those are literally the only people who matter.
Manchu wrote: Anyway, back on topic, people are kidding themselves if they think this will actually hurt Mitt Romney.
I disagree somewhat. This comment will obviously play well to the base, but Mitt already has the base; he doesn't 'need' them to win, he needs the swing voter.
Although there's very little that I factually disagree with in this statement, it does provide fodder for media frenzy, continues to depict him as an out of touch rich person, and implicitly assists Obama.
Frazzled wrote: Nah, only igf you're a lefty yourself, lefty.
Hmm, consider reading deeper. Brooks is as skeptical of the libertarian bread and circuses as many Democrats but he is a committed disciple of Milton Friedman. Brooks's greatest crime from the Republican perspective is that Democrats actually listen to him.
I think there's something to this, Manchu. The Democrats, especially Clinton and Obama, have managed to occupy a lot of previously Republican and conservative positions that it literally gives no room for Republicans to exist in any debate. The only option they have is to just join the Democratic Party and try to influence it from within, or to go completely insane.
I've read in a couple of places that US politics is centered slightly to the right. "to the right of what?" is the first, and obvious question, but one article pointed out that candidates can succeed while espousing far right ideals: theocratic rule, total deregulation, leaving the UN, selling the national parks, etc. However, nobody is successful with far left ideas like nationalization of industries, legalized drugs/prostitution, taxation of religious property, or cradle to grave welfare. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but there is an inherent self reliance and vaguely religious morality to the American people that rejects the far left.
Manchu wrote: Anyway, back on topic, people are kidding themselves if they think this will actually hurt Mitt Romney.
I disagree somewhat. This comment will obviously play well to the base, but Mitt already has the base; he doesn't 'need' them to win, he needs the swing voter.
Although there's very little that I factually disagree with in this statement, it does provide fodder for media frenzy, continues to depict him as an out of touch rich person, and implicitly assists Obama.
This election is also about enthusiasm. Getting out the vote is more important now than winning undecideds. Blue collar conservatives have never warmed up to Romney, and this isn't going to motivate them to actually vote.
TheHammer wrote: I think there's something to this, Manchu. The Democrats, especially Clinton and Obama, have managed to occupy a lot of previously Republican and conservative positions that it literally gives no room for Republicans to exist in any debate. The only option they have is to just join the Democratic Party and try to influence it from within, or to go completely insane.
You've got the right direction but it needs some refinement. The Democratic Party has undergone a drastic moderation since the mid 1980s. The question is, were the Republicans forced to react to this or was this a Democratic reaction to Republicans trending further right? My opinion is that for Republicans a kind of schizophrenia is the legacy of the Reagan years: you do whatever you want to in government, at the cost of huge spending, and you counterbalance it with ultra-rightist, star-spangled rhetoric. You flat-out say that you're opposed to government spending as you're signing blank checks. The Tea Party, for example, ostensibly exists because some Republicans are fed up with this -- and yet the Tea Party itself is if anything even more committed to neoliberal economic theory than the "mainstream" conservatives of the 90s. It's quite a mess. But this isn't the Democrats edging Republicans out of the debate. Let's be clear, the Democrats only wish they could wreak the kind of havoc on the traditionally regimented Republican party structure that clowns like Ron Paul manage. It isn't murder; it's suicide.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
sourclams wrote: This comment will obviously play well to the base, but Mitt already has the base; he doesn't 'need' them to win, he needs the swing voter.
I think we mollycoddle this supposed swing vote way too much. It seems to me that there are a lot of people who claim to be independents that have in fact made up their minds one way or the other long before the name Romney ever came up. Sure, there is a group of people out there who really don't have an firm decision but I don't think they're truly the "tie breakers" that we imagine them to be. The issue is not getting people to vote for you once they're in the booth; it's getting the people who want to vote for you to the booth and demoralizing the people who want to vote for the other guy so they don't bother to show up.
Well, the tradtional explanation is that Reagan existed as a sharp reaction to the growing welfare state of the 60's and 70's. Dont' forget, there was literally welfare available back then, for pretty much anybody that didn't work. It was also a time of rapidly expanding social spending that we now tolerate/accept/embrace: medicaid, medicare, SSI, etc.
These were well meaning programs, but most American's consider it immoral or wrong to not work when you can. That's different in other countries, by the way. We start from a position that accepting aid from society, especially in an overt way, is shameful. That level of self reliance is right of center, globally.
Polonius wrote: Blue collar conservatives have never warmed up to Romney, and this isn't going to motivate them to actually vote.
I dunno, Romney did a good job serving up apple pie at the convention. I think lower middle-class Republicans correctly perceive themselves as the most vulnerable in relation to this election. One way or another, they are going to be the least satisfied group by late 2014 so Romney effectively plays to their memories of 2010. The insight I see again and again about Romney from this group is that his personality is immaterial.
I saw some compleling evidence that the % of "true" swing voters is so miniscule that it is almost pointless. That is not where elections are won and lost.
We saw in 2010 the "real" election process. Demotivate your opponents base, and whip up yours. Swing voters play little part in the decision so don't matter. Instead, you try to convince others that their vote is useless. That both parties represent the same thing, so don't go vote, the government is in gridlock, nothing will change, etc. Then, you tell your specific voting blocks exactly what they want to hear to get them to the polls about abortion, guns, and gays.
Polonius wrote: Blue collar conservatives have never warmed up to Romney, and this isn't going to motivate them to actually vote.
I dunno, Romney did a good job serving up apple pie at the convention. I think lower middle-class Republicans correctly perceive themselves as the most vulnerable in relation to this election. One way or another, they are going to be the least satisfied group by late 2014 so Romney effectively plays to their memories of 2010. The insight I see again and again about Romney from this group is that his personality is immaterial.
And I suppose I underestimate the level to which people dislike Obama. It's pretty similar to Kerry in that way.
But... man. Lower middle class social conservatives would get almost nothing out of a Romney presidency, except perhaps a few supreme court justices.
While Romney might be the most personally conservative person to run in a while, I can't imagine he cares very much about social issues.
Polonius wrote: Well, the tradtional explanation is that Reagan existed as a sharp reaction to the growing welfare state of the 60's and 70's.
And I think that's correct. But the canonization of Reagan as the patron saint of libertarianism is emblematic of this ever rightward trajectory. It's not a coincidence but a bullet point on the neoliberal model of public policy: plan the economy but talk (loudly) about the invisible hand. What passes for conservatism among Republicans strikes me as an outright sham. So I find myself in a certain section of the Big Tent party.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Polonius wrote: Lower middle class social conservatives would get almost nothing out of a Romney presidency, except perhaps a few supreme court justices.
For the lower middle class, voting Republican has been about voting against your interest for all of my short life.
While Romney might be the most personally conservative person to run in a while, I can't imagine he cares very much about social issues.
Polonius wrote: Well, the tradtional explanation is that Reagan existed as a sharp reaction to the growing welfare state of the 60's and 70's.
And I think that's correct. But the canonization of Reagan as the patron saint of libertarianism is emblematic of this ever rightward trajectory. It's not a coincidence but a bullet point on the neoliberal model of public policy: plan the economy but talk (loudly) about the invisible hand. What passes for conservatism among Republicans strikes me as an outright sham. So I find myself in a certain section of the Big Tent party.
Well, never forget that nobody who is in the free market wants it to remain a free market. The end game for any successful enterprise is to control your market. Crony capitalism is no more a free market than a centrally planned economy.
Ideology is for speeches. Actions are to benefit somebody, somewhere. The only questions are who pays, and who benefits.
Indeed, a Free market works when businesses are trying to make it a controlled monopoly, but are prevented from doing so by their competitors and market forces.
Hey, Polonius might join me in the heroic struggle against the evils of capitalism!
Crony capitalism is capitalism. There exists no possibility where a company will do anything it can in its power, including violating any notion of "free market", to maximize its profit.
Trying to differentiate "crony capitalism" from the "pure and good capitalism" is just a lie liars tell people.
Kilkrazy wrote: Clearly there is a certain amount of swing or there would never be any variation in election results.
Presumably there is a spectrum of opinion covering hardcore left/right, softcore left/right, and the undecided middle.
The point of electioneering is to get more of the softcore people on to your side as well as the middle.
there is swing, but that tends to occur in the time between elections, not during the elections themselves. Meaning: Obama lost some moderates in his first two years, and won some back by the third. Nobody knew exactly how many, and there are some that are making up their mind.
It's not that people dont' make decisions. It's just that: 1) people make decisions earlier than they think, and 2) even those that are consiously undecided have plenty of biases built in.
Especially when an incumbent is running, people tend to have a strong opinion about that candidate. It's hard to choose de novo between a fresh candidate and an incumbent.
TheHammer wrote: Hey, Polonius might join me in the heroic struggle against the evils of capitalism!
Crony capitalism is capitalism. There exists no possibility where a company will do anything it can in its power, including violating any notion of "free market", to maximize its profit.
Trying to differentiate "crony capitalism" from the "pure and good capitalism" is just a lie liars tell people.
I'm not understanding the bolded part at all.
I think you messed up something there. like forgetting the word not somewhere.
Kilkrazy wrote: Clearly there is a certain amount of swing or there would never be any variation in election results.
But the question is, where does that swing occur? I don't think it occurs discretely a month before the polls open. It's an organic development that cuts across election cycles. In my experience, people who have some serious problems with their party platform will vote for one or two presidential candidates before finally deciding to switch sides halfway through the term of the president they helped elect. Election season just mobilizes these decisions into actions, or immobilizes them.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Polonius wrote: It's just that: 1) people make decisions earlier than they think,
Funny enough, you could rephrase that as "people make decisions later than they think," and it would be just as true and get to the same meaning.
But, I think you get my point: Businesses exist to create profit, and will do anything and everything they can do to make that profit. If it means poisoning drinking water or corrupting officials, they will do it. And if business A won't, business B will.
Manchu wrote: Funny enough, you could rephrase that as "people make decisions later than they think," and it would be just as true and get to the same meaning.
Well, you have plenty of post hoc reasoning and all that. "Of course I always wanted this."
I think, in general, people rarely actually make decisions. Various biases, values external pressures, and filters all combine to make us act, for reasons that we later ascribe.
What he said was both wrong and not wrong, in that some of it was true, and some of it was made up for rhetorical purposes to persuade a crowd to part with their money.
The campaign not worrying about the people that are going to vote for Obama either way is both true and reasonable. I imagine the number (47% of voters) is probably accurate as well.
The trouble comes from the rhetorical aspect of turning all of those 47% into unemployed government dependents, which is obliviously a load of manure, but it was manure the crowd wanted shoveled into their garden. Or some other gardening metaphor.
I've been a lazy piece of garbage for several years, I haven't paid income tax because of deductions... give me bootstraps to pull myself up with Mitt!
Everyone who says you're a vile caricature of Mr.Burns is just wrong, wrong I say! You're clearly a real life sneering plutocrat!
TheHammer wrote: Are people seriously saying that there is nothing factually wrong with what Romney said?
Really? Reallllllly?
The statement that 47% of people don't pay federal income tax is factually accurate and according to the minute of research not all that misleading. The people in this group are poor working families who take the child tax credit. Or elderly households who no longer have income. Oh and unemployed households also don't pay taxes.
nomotog wrote: The statement that 47% of people don't pay federal income tax is factually accurate and according to the minute of research not all that misleading. The people in this group are poor working families who take the child tax credit.
My buddy makes 70k a year. He has a stay-at-home wife, 3 kids, and a house. He pays no federal taxes every year.
70k a year is more than the average college earner makes. Hes not rich, but it's not poor either.
The statement that 47% of people don't pay federal income tax is factually accurate but misleading. He still pays payroll taxes, sales taxes, property taxes, etc...
TheHammer wrote: Are people seriously saying that there is nothing factually wrong with what Romney said?
Really? Reallllllly?
The statement that 47% of people don't pay federal income tax is factually accurate and according to the minute of research not all that misleading. The people in this group are poor working families who take the child tax credit. Or elderly households who no longer have income. Oh and unemployed households also don't pay taxes.
The other stuff sounds like bull.
Also (combat deployed) soldiers.
They obviously need bootstraps so they can pay income taxes!
But, I think you get my point: Businesses exist to create profit, and will do anything and everything they can do to make that profit. If it means poisoning drinking water or corrupting officials, they will do it. And if business A won't, business B will.
I figured that
I wouldn't ever say a business is going to poison someones water just to poison someones water even if it makes a profit.
They may poison water as a side result of some activity that helps them make a profit, but this is mearely the result of them not having a better alternative.
Why should it cost so much to dispose of waste? Why do we put insane regulations up that are so expensive to comply with that its cheaper just to ignore them and pay the violation fines?
Regulations need to be cheaper to comply with then just paying the fine.
Currently, its cheaper just to dump waste into the nearby creek and pay the $100,000 fine each year then it is to set up a waste disposal plant that costs $2,000,000 to set up and $200,000 a year to run. Make it cheaper and easier to set up that disposal plant(like not having so many regulations regarding its setup and operation)
nomotog wrote: The statement that 47% of people don't pay federal income tax is factually accurate and according to the minute of research not all that misleading. The people in this group are poor working families who take the child tax credit.
My buddy makes 70k a year. He has a stay-at-home wife, 3 kids, and a house. He pays no federal taxes every year.
70k a year is more than the average college earner makes. Hes not rich, but it's not poor either.
The statement that 47% of people don't pay federal income tax is factually accurate but misleading. He still pays payroll taxes, sales taxes, property taxes, etc...
He must have a great accountant, but it really just serves to illustrate how broken the system is. Sales taxes and property taxes are out of control...
TheHammer wrote: Are people seriously saying that there is nothing factually wrong with what Romney said?
Really? Reallllllly?
The statement that 47% of people don't pay federal income tax is factually accurate and according to the minute of research not all that misleading. The people in this group are poor working families who take the child tax credit. Or elderly households who no longer have income. Oh and unemployed households also don't pay taxes.
The other stuff sounds like bull.
Also (combat deployed) soldiers.
They obviously need bootstraps so they can pay income taxes!
The fact you are willing to try to use soldiers, clearly the most visible of the 1%, says a lot about you and the character of your discourse.
You have to careful with remarks about the US military. There are some who have quite a perception and will go off on the deep in. Take my sig for example. I'm consider a "Murderer" because I shot back in anger
Jihadin wrote: You have to careful with remarks about the US military. There are some who have quite a perception and will go off on the deep in. Take my sig for example. I'm consider a "Murderer" because I shot back in anger
Wait I thought thats because of what you did to that bathroom after you ate Thai that one time.
I assume this has already been posted, but according to the BBC:
53.6% paid income taxes, 46.4% did not
28.3% paid payroll taxes but not income taxes
10.3% were elderly and retired and were not taxed on Social Security benefits
6.9% did not pay any tax with household incomes of less than $20,000 (£12,300)
Manchu wrote: Romney said the exact right thing for what he thought was his audience.
The problem is, it ended up in front of the wrong audience.
That's kind of what I was alluding to ... but also the idea that Romney is not an incompetent politician for saying these remarks. I'd be surprised if this story made anyone change their mind one way or the other about him.
Manchu wrote: Romney said the exact right thing for what he thought was his audience.
The problem is, it ended up in front of the wrong audience.
That's kind of what I was alluding to ... but also the idea that Romney is not an incompetent politician for saying these remarks. I'd be surprised if this story made anyone change their mind one way or the other about him.
I would, too. Romney is by necessity running a get-out-the-base campaign, because the far right doesn't trust his ass. Nor should they, given his record. The Republican narrative has been "half the country mooches!" for two or three years now, thus that's the message Romney needs to put out when addressing the base.
The irony of all this is that, underneath the campaigning, I suspect he's probably exactly the sort of fiscally moderate, socially indifferent candidate who theoretically should be able to win easily. They're just trying to run the "not a McCain-style moderate" campaign, 'cause the base is unenthusiastic.
But, I think you get my point: Businesses exist to create profit, and will do anything and everything they can do to make that profit. If it means poisoning drinking water or corrupting officials, they will do it. And if business A won't, business B will.
I figured that
I wouldn't ever say a business is going to poison someones water just to poison someones water even if it makes a profit.
They may poison water as a side result of some activity that helps them make a profit, but this is mearely the result of them not having a better alternative.
Why should it cost so much to dispose of waste? Why do we put insane regulations up that are so expensive to comply with that its cheaper just to ignore them and pay the violation fines?
Regulations need to be cheaper to comply with then just paying the fine.
Currently, its cheaper just to dump waste into the nearby creek and pay the $100,000 fine each year then it is to set up a waste disposal plant that costs $2,000,000 to set up and $200,000 a year to run. Make it cheaper and easier to set up that disposal plant(like not having so many regulations regarding its setup and operation)
Actually, it sounds more like someone needs to increase those fines to a level where it's cheaper to comply with the regulations than it is to pay the fines.
Jihadin wrote:You have to careful with remarks about the US military. There are some who have quite a perception and will go off on the deep in. Take my sig for example. I'm consider a "Murderer" because I shot back in anger
The people who think that are morons who do not understand the concept of acts made between enemy combatants, and should be disregarded.
Manchu wrote: Romney said the exact right thing for what he thought was his audience.
True, but he should have anticipated that he wouldn't know what his audience was.
He has made many such "audience gaffes". So has Obama (and every other politician), of course, and they are to be expected. But the Romney campaign has expressed a clear inability to cope with the realities of modern media.
Interestingly the ratings have been responding positively for Romney. Maybe this line-in-the-sand gaffe is what his campaign needed to get some energy.
I usaully wait about three days before I attribute anything to the points. For what he said might not be why. At this point in time the perception of Obama handling of the ME riots might be shifting it (I said MIGHT people)
sourclams wrote: Interestingly the ratings have been responding positively for Romney. Maybe this line-in-the-sand gaffe is what his campaign needed to get some energy.
Polonius wrote: Blue collar conservatives have never warmed up to Romney, and this isn't going to motivate them to actually vote.
I dunno, Romney did a good job serving up apple pie at the convention. I think lower middle-class Republicans correctly perceive themselves as the most vulnerable in relation to this election. One way or another, they are going to be the least satisfied group by late 2014 so Romney effectively plays to their memories of 2010. The insight I see again and again about Romney from this group is that his personality is immaterial.
A round here, people see Obama as someone choking off jobs and Romney as the onewho will get industry going again. That plays pretty well if you're trying to feed a family.
Polonius wrote: Blue collar conservatives have never warmed up to Romney, and this isn't going to motivate them to actually vote.
I dunno, Romney did a good job serving up apple pie at the convention. I think lower middle-class Republicans correctly perceive themselves as the most vulnerable in relation to this election. One way or another, they are going to be the least satisfied group by late 2014 so Romney effectively plays to their memories of 2010. The insight I see again and again about Romney from this group is that his personality is immaterial.
A round here, people see Obama as someone choking off jobs and Romney as the onewho will get industry going again. That plays pretty well if you're trying to feed a family.
Historically, economically depressed regions tend to vote counter to the sitting president since it's easy to pander to them with promises of reform that are rarely realistic. There's little precedent for a sitting president to survive into a second term during a recession or economic stagnation. It's happened, but it runs counter to typical election conventions. That Romney hasn't already been coronated says something about the strength of his candidacy and just how weak the republican platform is, even now.
The most annoying thing about Romney's comment is how terrible his understanding of politics is.
While 47% percent of the population may vote Democrat, and while 47% of the population may not earn enough money to pay income tax, they're not the same people. Plenty of struggling people vote Republican, for all sorts of reasons. And plenty of affluent people vote Democrat, for all sorts of reasons.
More than anything else, Romney's speach just strikes me a basically lazy. It's the product of a rich guy with a focus on free enterprise, who can't be bothered to figure out that's not everybody else's priority. Which explains, in part, why his politics are so limited, and so unappealling to the USA at large.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: Which considering how little I make, and that I pay income taxes, is pretty goddamn pathetic/scary.
Well, it isn't that they pay no income tax. The first dollar you earn you're paying 10%. It's that for 47% of Americans the amount they pay in tax is less than the tax credits available to them, most commonly due to the Earned Income Tax Credit.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote: He's right. Half the US doesn't pay income taxes. We've become like Europe, expecting someone else to help us, to pay for it, to tell us what to do. Just look at the threads on this section. Everyone's whining about how someone else is evil for the decisions they made, and they should get "help."
And now you're claiming the problem in Spain is due to welfare, and not due to a property bubble coupled with poor financial sector practice.
And that Greece's government debt problem is due to welfare, and not due to outrageous levels of corruption at the highest levels of the public and private sectors that had been in existance since before Greece restored democracy.
At some point you just have to realise that you don't get to just make up the world you want to live in, you actually have to spend some time learning about what is actually going on in the world.
So, when Brooks worked for the National Review was he a liberal then? What about when he argued for the invasion of Iraq?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
labmouse42 wrote: After Obama oversaw the killing of Osama Bin Laden, I think that solid republican candidates like Chris Christie or Mike Huckabee decided not to run this time because they knew if they were nominated they would have to run against the president who oversaw the killing of America's biggest enemy for a generation.
You build a serious tilt at the Presidency about four years out, pretty much as soon as the last election is over. Serious candidates saw Obama's winning margin and the general mood of the election, and figured they'd wait out a cycle. The only ones left were the crazies (Gingrich, Cain) and guys running out of time (Romney, who is only a few years younger than McCain, and was unwilling to wait eight years to have his chance at the presidency).
Turns out the GFC has lasted way longer than anyone realised it would, and the GOP managed to rebuild its base through the Tea Party and healthcare protests. Obama was actually pretty vulnerable as a result, but no strong candidate had lined up.
Instead you've got Romney.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ahtman wrote: Or if you are so far right that anyone left of you is considered liberal, regardless of whether they are actually right of center or not.
We're actually at a point where a guy can call himself a conservative, state he became a conservative by being out-debated by other conservatives, and meet and work with other conservatives as part of the conservative establishment... and people like Fraz will still declare they're not conservative for no sensible reason.
We're post-reality now, people. We're actually at the place where Fraz looks reality square in the eye and says 'feth you, I prefer my own personal fantasy'
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Manchu wrote: Anyway, back on topic, people are kidding themselves if they think this will actually hurt Mitt Romney. Those remarks are a frank statement of what his whole campaign is about -- no surprise here, folks.
The insight, to me, is not that that is what Romney really thinks - as you said that's been more or less the core of his campaign. The insight is how shoddy his political thinking is, as if he actually believes it's the bottom 47% against the top 47%.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
TheHammer wrote: Yes, but the entire election is hinging on the 5-7% of stupid people who could go either way, and those people usually hate this type of overt class warfare.
It doesn't put any states in play, but it definitely cements President Obama's lead and will likely hurt Romney with the awful and stupid undecideds, and those are literally the only people who matter.
The undecideds don't matter. They make up about 4% of the electorate, and most of them don't vote anyway. You could all of them and it won't matter one bit if participation among your core voting blocs doesn't show up on election day.
What the campaign is really all about is energising your base. If this makes any difference at all, it'll be in convincing some left leaning people, particularly among groups who have poor participation rates like college kids, that Romney is some kind of Bond villain and they have to vote against him.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Easy E wrote: I saw some compleling evidence that the % of "true" swing voters is so miniscule that it is almost pointless. That is not where elections are won and lost.
We saw in 2010 the "real" election process. Demotivate your opponents base, and whip up yours. Swing voters play little part in the decision so don't matter. Instead, you try to convince others that their vote is useless. That both parties represent the same thing, so don't go vote, the government is in gridlock, nothing will change, etc. Then, you tell your specific voting blocks exactly what they want to hear to get them to the polls about abortion, guns, and gays.
Therefore, moderation is for chumps!
Well said. I've been trying to make this point on Dakka for a long time now, and you said it perfectly.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Grey Templar wrote: Indeed, a Free market works when businesses are trying to make it a controlled monopoly, but are prevented from doing so by their competitors and market forces.
Yep, and when that happens you get something close to the perfect market. The problem is that the perfect market is a point in time, and unless the market expands as fast as a capital grows, you get crowding out and an inevitable move to oligopoly/monopoly.
At which point you either need to regulate the industry, or accept reduced competition. Neither position is ideal, but in different markets each may be preferable to the other.
But, I think you get my point: Businesses exist to create profit, and will do anything and everything they can do to make that profit. If it means poisoning drinking water or corrupting officials, they will do it. And if business A won't, business B will.
Sure, which is why we create systems, or at least try to create systems, in which the profit incentive of the company broadly lines up with the overall interests of society.
The point is in realising that aligning business interests with society is a complex thing, that requires not so much lots of regulation, but the right pieces of legislation.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Grey Templar wrote: Regulations need to be cheaper to comply with then just paying the fine.
Couldn't the fine also be greater?!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
AustonT wrote: The fact you are willing to try to use soldiers, clearly the most visible of the 1%, says a lot about you and the character of your discourse.
Um, soldiers aren't part of the 1%.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Relapse wrote: A round here, people see Obama as someone choking off jobs and Romney as the onewho will get industry going again. That plays pretty well if you're trying to feed a family.
And could a single one of them outline the actual policies Romney plans to use to revitalise industry?
Or is it pretty much just a gut level kind of thing?
Grey Templar wrote: Regulations need to be cheaper to comply with then just paying the fine.
Couldn't the fine also be greater?
It could, but it is far easier politically to make something easier then it is to make something more punishing.
Politicians will get almost no flak for making it easier to be good on the environment compared to increasing fines.
Tax breaks for eco-friendly waste processing along with maybe some softening of other regulations will make businesses more likely to follow regulations then increasing the fine.
It would be political suicide to do something as drastic as doubling fines. And even if you did, fines are currently so absurdly low that businesses would still just as soon keep paying the fines.
You would have to take fines up by the power of 10 or more to make corporations even begin to think about going through the "proper" channels. An increase like that doesn't have a snowballs chance in Hell.
Grey Templar wrote: It could, but it is far easier politically to make something easier then it is to make something more punishing.
Politicians will get almost no flak for making it easier to be good on the environment compared to increasing fines.
Tax breaks for eco-friendly waste processing along with maybe some softening of other regulations will make businesses more likely to follow regulations then increasing the fine.
It would be political suicide to do something as drastic as doubling fines. And even if you did, fines are currently so absurdly low that businesses would still just as soon keep paying the fines.
You would have to take fines up by the power of 10 or more to make corporations even begin to think about going through the "proper" channels. An increase like that doesn't have a snowballs chance in Hell.
Or you could just drop the 1950s style fine system and move to penalties based on the harm caused and the cost of clean up.
And yeah, direct subsidy for more environmental behaviour is solid policy. Hey, you can even build a model that places a tariff on undesirable behaviour, and uses that money to fund desirable behaviour
Oh, and I think 'its far easier politically to make something easier than it is to make it more punishing' is about the most succinct explanation of the US deficit problem I've heard
hahaha Bill Kristol and Peggy Noonan jumping ship now too. Hiiilarious. I think the grand strategy of the more intelligent, educated Republicans is working out. This thinking was this: the Republican party needs an enema to free itself from the Tea Party red-necks. The best way to achieve this purge is to give these jackasses free reign--enter Paul Ryan. After Obama cruises to victory the Republican primary system can rid itslef of Tea-Baggers who are unelectable nationally. Even the dimmest right-winger will be able to grasp this. The focus can then return to 2016 with a bump in the mid-term elections and the 'regular' Republican makes a return.
d-usa wrote: That didn't work with Palin in 2008 though..
I would argue that it's with Palin that the trouble started. Her participation marks the beginning of the Tea-Bagging of the Republican Party. The Romney-Ryan debacle marks the end of it--at least that is the hope of the traditional Republicans.
Well, the Mitt has truly hit the fan. As far as I'm concerned, Mitt will only see 1600 Pennsylvania as a tourist. He looks awkward, he doesn't look confident, and he sure as hell doesn't look presidential.
He screwed up in London with the Olympics, and with the not so secret meeting with MI6 The guy just can't keep his mouth shut and now he's put another nail in his coffin.
It was mentioned earlier that it's hard to beat an incumbent but looking back at the Reagan in '79 campaign or the Clinton in '91 campaign, these guys looked the part. Their policies may have been bull, but they talked like winners and they looked like winners. Romney looks clumsy in comparison.
Obama is there for the taking, and any half decent Republican (are there any) would have been a shoe-in.
olympia wrote: hahaha Bill Kristol and Peggy Noonan jumping ship now too. Hiiilarious. I think the grand strategy of the more intelligent, educated Republicans is working out. This thinking was this: the Republican party needs an enema to free itself from the Tea Party red-necks. The best way to achieve this purge is to give these jackasses free reign--enter Paul Ryan. After Obama cruises to victory the Republican primary system can rid itslef of Tea-Baggers who are unelectable nationally. Even the dimmest right-winger will be able to grasp this. The focus can then return to 2016 with a bump in the mid-term elections and the 'regular' Republican makes a return.
The modern traditional response to failure at the polls is not to moderate, but to instead double down on "conservative principles" rhetoric. I can almost hear Hannity and Rush now talking about how Mitt and Ryan didn;t advocate ENOUGH for what conservatives believe in, and hnece that is why they lost.
They did the same thing after McCain got crushed. They will do the same thing after Romney gets crushed in the Electoral College.
Everything else aside I just love how he just sounds almost appalled at the idea of people feeling entitled to food, healthcare and shelter.
What's with this guy? It's like he's actively trying to not get elected. Is it just that he thinks beating out a black guy carrying a bad economy would just be too easy, so he needs to create a bigger challenge? Oh well if nothing else it's entertaining. Can't wait to see how he tops this one.
dogma wrote: True, but he should have anticipated that he wouldn't know what his audience was.
Again, my theory is that he didn't need to more accurately anticipate the audience. It doesn't matter that people who oppose him are confirmed in their opinions unless it motivates them to actually vote. On balance, I'd say this kind of rhetoric mobilizes more support than opposition because while it's not surprising to Democrats it is reassuring to Republicans, especially the ones who sign big checks.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Chongara wrote: Everything else aside I just love how he just sounds almost appalled at the idea of people feeling entitled to food, healthcare and shelter.
And as for Paul Ryan's "Catholicism":
John XXIII wrote:Man has the right to live. He has the right to bodily integrity and to the means necessary for the proper development of life, particularly food, clothing, shelter, medical care, rest, and, finally, the necessary social services. In consequence, he has the right to be looked after in the event of illhealth; disability stemming from his work; widowhood; old age; enforced unemployment; or whenever through no fault of his own he is deprived of the means of livelihood.
Chongara wrote: Everything else aside I just love how he just sounds almost appalled at the idea of people feeling entitled to food, healthcare and shelter.
What makes you think he thinks that?
And healthcare is not a right. Food, water, and shelter are rights. Healthcare is a luxury.
olympia wrote: hahaha Bill Kristol and Peggy Noonan jumping ship now too. Hiiilarious. I think the grand strategy of the more intelligent, educated Republicans is working out. This thinking was this: the Republican party needs an enema to free itself from the Tea Party red-necks. The best way to achieve this purge is to give these jackasses free reign--enter Paul Ryan. After Obama cruises to victory the Republican primary system can rid itslef of Tea-Baggers who are unelectable nationally. Even the dimmest right-winger will be able to grasp this. The focus can then return to 2016 with a bump in the mid-term elections and the 'regular' Republican makes a return.
bs. In general Romney has been running one part "I'm a businessy guy and sort of conservative" and three parts "the other guy sucks campaign." The Other guy sucks campaign only works for Democrats due to the incredible bias of MsM. Republicans win when they go epic. Romeny's a moderate. He ran as a moderate, nad has just been painted wacky right to win the nomination and by the willing MsM.
If you're going to run on competence you have to come from a place where the population knows about you, and you aren't instantly painted by Pravda, er the NYT and the opposing campaign in negative terms. Compare Perot (you remember the guy who gave the Presidency to Clinton). He was a very well known entrepeneur, and had some good ideas. Plus the media loved his quirkiness, which he used.
Having said that, Romney was the best of the ones that ran, which says so much.
Chongara wrote: Everything else aside I just love how he just sounds almost appalled at the idea of people feeling entitled to food, healthcare and shelter.
What makes you think he thinks that?
His tone of voice. Watch the video he says "who believe that they [the 47% of Americans] are ENTITLED to food, to healthcare to housing, you-name-it". He really puts emphasis on entitled in that sentence in a way that makes him seem incredulous (or at the very least annoyed) that people would feel that way.
Grey Templar wrote: Food, water, and shelter are rights. Healthcare is a luxury.
How does that make any sense?
How can something that mankind survived without for thousands and thousands of years be considered a right or even a necessity?
Rights belong to individuals not to the species. I think you will find that an individual man deprived of healthcare will not survive long once he is injured or becomes sick.
Grey Templar wrote: Food, water, and shelter are rights. Healthcare is a luxury.
How does that make any sense?
How can something that mankind survived without for thousands and thousands of years be considered a right or even a necessity?
Rights belong to individuals not to the species. I think you will find that an individual man deprived of healthcare will not survive long once he is injured or becomes sick.
Depends entirely on the injury. There are plenty of sicknesses and injuries that don't require anything beyond some rest. And I still do not believe it is a right or an entitlement.
Rights are a funny thing. You have to be given them. I see nothing giving me or anyone else the right to medical attention off the bat. its not in the constitution nor can I see any basis of it being a natural right(I don't even believe in natural rights)
The right to food, water, and shelter is something thats earned. You have to go and collect food and water. You have to build a shelter. Once you've done that, you have the right to what you just collected and built. You have earned the right for yourself.
Medical attention is the same thing. You have to work for it. Otherwise, you are nothing but a worthless slug.
TBH, this is why I have never understood the agnostic/atheistic approach to rights. Rights must come from somewhere. As a Christian, I believe that dignity is the inalienable possession of every human being by virtue of our creation by God and that rights flow from that dignity. I can't answer for rights without God.
You have to work for it. Otherwise, you are nothing but a worthless slug.
I think this is the biggest difference between Democrats and Republicans today.
Democrats emphasize that all people, regardless of who they are or what they have done, have certain basic and inalienable rights. Republicans emphasize that rights are something that people have to earn (and are basically fungible with money).
Grey Templar wrote: Food, water, and shelter are rights. Healthcare is a luxury.
How does that make any sense?
How can something that mankind survived without for thousands and thousands of years be considered a right or even a necessity?
Because we live in a positive law system, and if you get a chart voted in that say that 'x' is a right, then it is a right.
Yes, and currently its not a right and I don't believe it should be. And I seriously doubt there will ever be enough traction to get an amendment made to the constitution to make it so.
The government's job is to protect you from other governments and from each other. its not its job to keep you from dying of disease.
The government is not some "thing" that is separate from us. When we ask what the government should do, we are asking what WE should do as a people, as a community, as a society, as a nation. What is the point of our cooperation? Clearly, the point is to foster the commonwealth.
TBH, this is why I have never understood the agnostic/atheistic approach to rights. Rights must come from somewhere. As a Christian, I believe that dignity is the inalienable possession of every human being by virtue of our creation by God and that rights flow from that dignity. I can't answer for rights without God.
TBH, this is why I never understood the religious / christian approach to rights. Rights must come from your own sense of morality, not just because some imaginary being says that you will be rewarded for respecting them or punished if you don't. Take responsibility for your own actions, good and bad!
Grey Templar wrote: Food, water, and shelter are rights. Healthcare is a luxury.
How does that make any sense?
How can something that mankind survived without for thousands and thousands of years be considered a right or even a necessity?
Because we live in a positive law system, and if you get a chart voted in that say that 'x' is a right, then it is a right.
Yes, and currently its not a right and I don't believe it should be. And I seriously doubt there will ever be enough traction to get an amendment made to the constitution to make it so.
The government's job is to protect you from other governments and from each other. its not its job to keep you from dying of disease.
Well I'm glad to live in country that it likes to provide other services besides just protecting itself from other countries.
PhantomViper wrote: Rights must come from your own sense of morality, not just because some imaginary being says that you will be rewarded for respecting them or punished if you don't. Take responsibility for your own actions, good and bad!
So you have rights because you say you do? Can you also have wings because you say you do?
The Christian view presupposes a certain anthropology -- that man has dignity by virtue of his very existence and that dignity necessitates rights. Unless I'm much mistaken, secular humanists adopt the same anthropology. But they cannot explain it.
Grey Templar wrote: Food, water, and shelter are rights. Healthcare is a luxury.
How does that make any sense?
How can something that mankind survived without for thousands and thousands of years be considered a right or even a necessity?
Because we live in a positive law system, and if you get a chart voted in that say that 'x' is a right, then it is a right.
Yes, and currently its not a right and I don't believe it should be. And I seriously doubt there will ever be enough traction to get an amendment made to the constitution to make it so.
The government's job is to protect you from other governments and from each other. its not its job to keep you from dying of disease.
That is a very strange thing to think to say, not to call it other things that would probably get me banned (again).
A healthy individual is a productive member of society that by its contributions benefits everyone else and therefore you as an individual as well.
Someone that is dead or permanently ill because of a lack of healthcare is a drain on society and therefore on everyone else and you as an individual as well.
Society as a whole (and by extension all the individuals that compose it), benefits allot more from healthcare being available to everyone than by restricting it to only those that have the means to purchase it...
PhantomViper wrote: Rights must come from your own sense of morality, not just because some imaginary being says that you will be rewarded for respecting them or punished if you don't. Take responsibility for your own actions, good and bad!
So you have rights because you say you do? Can you also have wings because you say you do?
Right now, yes. Law is very Hobbesian. It is so because the Sovereign says so.
PhantomViper wrote: Rights must come from your own sense of morality, not just because some imaginary being says that you will be rewarded for respecting them or punished if you don't. Take responsibility for your own actions, good and bad!
So you have rights because you say you do? Can you also have wings because you say you do?
Right now, yes. Law is very Hobbesian. It is so because the Sovereign says so.
PhantomViper wrote: Rights must come from your own sense of morality, not just because some imaginary being says that you will be rewarded for respecting them or punished if you don't. Take responsibility for your own actions, good and bad!
So you have rights because you say you do? Can you also have wings because you say you do?
Right now, yes. Law is very Hobbesian. It is so because the Sovereign says so.
Positivism is a position not a reality.
Law doesn't care much about reality. When reality doesn't fit, we create legal fictions.
PhantomViper wrote: Rights must come from your own sense of morality, not just because some imaginary being says that you will be rewarded for respecting them or punished if you don't. Take responsibility for your own actions, good and bad!
So you have rights because you say you do? Can you also have wings because you say you do?
The Christian view presupposes a certain anthropology -- that man has dignity by virtue of his very existence and that dignity necessitates rights. Unless I'm much mistaken, secular humanists adopt the same anthropology. But they cannot explain it.
Exactly. We have rights as human beings because the society in which we are inserted recognizes those rights.
I'm profoundly sorry that your God doesn't give you the right to free healthcare that my secular society provides me...
TBH, this is why I have never understood the agnostic/atheistic approach to rights. Rights must come from somewhere. As a Christian, I believe that dignity is the inalienable possession of every human being by virtue of our creation by God and that rights flow from that dignity. I can't answer for rights without God.
TBH, this is why I never understood the religious / christian approach to rights. Rights must come from your own sense of morality, not just because some imaginary being says that you will be rewarded for respecting them or punished if you don't. Take responsibility for your own actions, good and bad!
That actually is the exact basis. Personal responsibility.
God says you should/should not do things. This forms the basis of your personal morality.
Its good because it forms a 3rd party baseline of what is moral.
If everyone independently comes up with their own concepts of what is moral, then in the end you have chaos because one person may find it completely ok to go around killing people and taking their stuff, because its good for them. Who cares what other people think right?
If God tells you what is good and bad, then everyone has the same standard to compare to.
Good/Bad is a useless definition unless a third party defines it.
Kovnik Obama wrote: Law doesn't care much about reality. When reality doesn't fit, we create legal fictions.
Yes but we keep in mind that they are indeed fictions.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
PhantomViper wrote: We have rights as human beings because the society in which we are inserted recognizes those rights.
No, those are called privileges not rights.
PhantomViper wrote: I'm profoundly sorry that your God doesn't give you the right to free healthcare that my secular society provides me...
As I already mentioned, the Church teaches that healthcare is a right. It is up to people of good will to create societies in which such a right is recognized and enacted.
Kovnik Obama wrote: Law doesn't care much about reality. When reality doesn't fit, we create legal fictions.
Yes but we keep in mind that they are indeed fictions.
Not so often. How often do you hear, on the abortion debate, that it's crazy to want to recognize a foetus as a person? When we gladly recognize a company, a church, or even God (in some legal systems) as persons? How often do we hear that women 'own' their bodies, when that's absolutely incorrect?
Grey Templar wrote: God says you should/should not do things. This forms the basis of your personal morality.
No, conscience is the basis of my personal morality. And I understand conscience in the following terms:
In the depths of his conscience, man detects a law which he does not impose upon himself, but which holds him to obedience. Always summoning him to love good and avoid evil, the voice of conscience when necessary speaks to his heart: do this, shun that. For man has in his heart a law written by God; to obey it is the very dignity of man; according to it he will be judged.
Kovnik Obama wrote: Not so often. How often do you hear, on the abortion debate, that it's crazy to want to recognize a foetus as a person? When we gladly recognize a company, a church, or even God (in some legal systems) as persons? How often do we hear that women 'own' their bodies, when that's absolutely incorrect?
Hmm, I think a better example of the confusion you're talking about is the personhood of corporations. Nonetheless, I think most people in positions of authority with regard to the law understand the difference between a legal fiction and reality.
The Christian view presupposes a certain anthropology -- that man has dignity by virtue of his very existence and that dignity necessitates rights. Unless I'm much mistaken, secular humanists adopt the same anthropology. But they cannot explain it.
Nor can the religious view, because no one can, not really:
"Why does man have rights?"
"Because god makes it so"
"Why is that god's call?"
"Because god is god"
Ultimately when it comes down making assertions about what is "Righteous" or not is going to stem from some arbitrary assumption, when you boil it down the core. That assumption could be anything from "God exists and calls all the shots" to "The color red is inherently evil", both statements are about equally testable. Righteousness is not some empirically observable quality of the universe like gravity or matter.
Certainly you can describe the various systems of morality that have arisen in terms of what likely caused them to arise (Culture, usefulness in creating a structured society, psychology, etc..), and simiarly how they're enforced and the purposes they serve. However that really doesn't translate into "Morality" in the way I think people usually use the term. That's always going to be created on a fundamentally arbitrary basis no matter if it's us, "god" or some other force doing the creating.
Grey Templar wrote: God says you should/should not do things. This forms the basis of your personal morality.
No, conscience is the basis of my personal morality.
Do you see the problem with this?
Your conscience is not going to be the same as other peoples. And thats going to cause problems.
I don't see it as an insoluble problem. Just as conscience is a process of dialogue, so too can I dialog with people who potentially disagree with me. One possible result of this dialogue is consensus. Among Catholics, for example, there is a consensus of teaching regarding the dignity of the human person. But this consensus is not limited only to Catholics. Indeed, it serves as one basis for the understanding of rights among Western thinkers.
Tyranny is not necessary for rights to either exist or be recognized.
Manchu wrote: Hmm, I think a better example of the confusion you're talking about is the personhood of corporations.
Corporations are correctly attributed personhood. Personhood means nothing more than 'mask', 'costume', and only refers to the capacity of a entity to be considered by law as something else than an object.
PhantomViper wrote: We have rights as human beings because the society in which we are inserted recognizes those rights.
No, those are called privileges not rights.
Nah, it's also Rights. The Enlightement alienated legitimacy in Law, just like in knowledge, from God.
Again, you confuse a philosophical position with reality. Unless you consider human rights to be as transitory as, for example, property rights, this position is untenable.
Manchu wrote: Hmm, I think a better example of the confusion you're talking about is the personhood of corporations.
Corporations are correctly attributed personhood. Personhood means nothing more than 'mask', 'costume', and only refers to the capacity of a entity to be considered by law as something else than an object.
Wow, and now three strikes. Personhood as a term of art in law is distinct from personhood otherwise. The fact of its existence as jargon does not make it less of a fiction.
The Christian view presupposes a certain anthropology -- that man has dignity by virtue of his very existence and that dignity necessitates rights. Unless I'm much mistaken, secular humanists adopt the same anthropology. But they cannot explain it.
Nor can the religious view
Sure they can. In your view, revelation is only as good as the word of the person who reports it -- which you judge poor. But the religious view is indeed distinct from "it is because I (speaking for God) say it is." Well, at least regarding Christians. That positivism is basically true of Islam and Mormonism.
That actually is the exact basis. Personal responsibility.
Its actually the exact opposite. You are advocating that all your sense of morality comes from a 3rd party, you aren't making any personal choice and by that definition are completely free from any responsibility regarding the morality that you choose to enforce: i.e.: "I can't be blamed for denying homosexuals the right to marry! Its all "Gods" choice, not mine!"
God says you should/should not do things. This forms the basis of your personal morality.
Wrong. The basis of my personal morality comes from the society that I'm inserted, my upbringing, my education and countless other factors and help form my personality. I don't blame "God" for any of my choices or prejudices, they are my own.
If everyone independently comes up with their own concepts of what is moral, then in the end you have chaos because one person may find it completely ok to go around killing people and taking their stuff, because its good for them. Who cares what other people think right?
That is the reason why you have laws. Your personal morality doesn't matter and you are indeed free to have whatever moral position you wan't, as long as you abide by those laws.
If God tells you what is good and bad, then everyone has the same standard to compare to.
There isn't a single shred of evidence that there is a "God" and I refuse to surrender my personal sense of morality to a book written 2.000 years ago that frankly advocates and supports some pretty immoral stuff!
Manchu wrote: Again, you confuse a philosophical position with reality. Unless you consider human rights to be as transitory as, for example, property rights, this position is untenable.
Well, their's such a thing as Philosophy of Law, and it's what brought me from Law School to the nether ends of the Philosophy Department. That was a long time ago, tho. But no, there is no confusion there. Just like in Philosophy the subject alienated knowledge and truth from God, the Person did the same. Rights have been positively given and taken ever since the 18th century. And yes, Rights are transitory, in the sense that the authority of the Sovereign is temporal. It's a perfectly tenable position. I'd refer to Constitutional Law by Lebrun, it's a fething bible to any canadian lawyer, but I'd doubt you have it available.
Wow, and now three strikes. Personhood as a term of art in law is distinct from personhood otherwise. The fact of its existence as jargon does not make it less of a fiction.
I don't get what your aiming at. Yes, legal terms have a way of becoming mundain terms. If someone complains about corporations being 'persons', he complains about a legal status. Thus it's the legal definition that counts. Yes it's a fiction. But it's a legal fiction, meaning that in a legal context, it becomes powerful. It gives Rights.
Grey Templar wrote: God says you should/should not do things. This forms the basis of your personal morality.
No, conscience is the basis of my personal morality.
Do you see the problem with this?
Your conscience is not going to be the same as other peoples. And thats going to cause problems.
I don't see it as an insoluble problem. Just as conscience is a process of dialogue, so too can I dialog with people who potentially disagree with me. One possible result of this dialogue is consensus. Among Catholics, for example, there is a consensus of teaching regarding the dignity of the human person. But this consensus is not limited only to Catholics. Indeed, it serves as one basis for the understanding of rights among Western thinkers.
Tyranny is not necessary for rights to either exist or be recognized.
Yes, but what if those who disagree with you just kill you out of hand? You can't tell them its wrong to do that, they'll just look at you like you're crazy and then do as they please.
Of course people can do the same thing if you say its wrong to murder and steal because God said so, but people are more likely to follow the word of God then the word of a man.
Religious Morality is far more stable as it has a 3rd party enforcing the rules. People can't just change it on a whim, which they can do if Morality is determined by a person's individual take on morality.
People are inherently evil, anyone who says otherwise is deluded, so anything he comes up with himself is going to be inherently selfish. Which I think anyone will agree is not good for everyone else.
Without a 3rd party to enforce the morality, morality becomes meaningless.
This 3rd party doesn't have to be God. It can be a government. Something with power that can enforce it.
A dictator is going to enforce his own morality on people. It may or may not be a good thing, thats entirely subjective, but the point is that it is a morality that is uniform accross all people that come under his rule. When you have uniformity, you have stability. If someone wrongs you, you have a standard to measure it to. You don't have "I think thats wrong", you have "You without a shadow of a doubt violated the law"
Hlaine Larkin mk2 wrote: Doesn't the US constitution state all men are equal, then shouldn't everyone gets healthcare or no one gets it, not some get it and others don't
All men are created equal. at any point in time after creation(conception) they may or may not be equal in various areas.
Everyone enters the world with nothing and we leave the world with nothing, what happens in between is completely variable.
PhantomViper wrote: We have rights as human beings because the society in which we are inserted recognizes those rights.
No, those are called privileges not rights.
That sounds like a semantics question to me. Over here, the right to free healthcare is a right granted by our own Constitution.
Might as well throw one rock at two birds. First, we're talking about human rights. So the question becomes, what is such a thing? I'd say we are talking about what kind of treatment is owed to individual humans by other humans by virtue of their humanity. I have human rights because I am a human not because I am granted them by other humans.
Manchu wrote: Might as well throw one rock at two birds. First, we're talking about human rights. So the question becomes, what is such a thing? I'd say we are talking about what kind of treatment is owed to individual humans by other humans by virtue of their humanity. I have human rights because I am a human not because I am granted them by other humans.
Ok, I might be missing something here, but you have rights only when you are granted those rights by those around you, otherwise you actually don't have them. Only when society recognizes those rights, be them what they may be, will individuals actually possess them.
Hlaine Larkin mk2 wrote: Doesn't the US constitution state all men are equal, then shouldn't everyone gets healthcare or no one gets it, not some get it and others don't
No. Having a right is not the same as that right being fulfilled. You do not obtain the right to food once you obtain food. We owe food to every other human being, even the ones who don't get fed.
All men are created equally means that all have equal opportunity, not equal rewards. That's why Civil Rights in the Sixties were so important as the equality of opportunity wasn't being presented to all races in the U.S.
It doesn't guarantee equal shares of benefits, land, money, healthcare, etc. for everyone. That's communism. And we all know how well that worked. Ask the Pre-1989 Soviet Union.
Manchu wrote: No, there is a difference between having rights and other people recognizing them.
I'm not so sure.
If other people don't allow you to exercise a right that you have, then do you really have it?
Having something you can't use is, for all practical purposes, the same as not having it at all.
I'm 21, I have the ability to purchase and drink alcohol. I am not allowed to posess or drink alcohol in my campus apartment. When I'm in my apartment, its as if I don't have the ability to drink. If I violate this rule I can be charged exactly as if I was underage(so it goes on my record, I get fined, etc...)
Ignoring the fact I can go off campus to drink, I effectivly don't have the ability to drink or purchase alcohol. My "rights" are suspended, so its like I don't have them at all.
Grey Templar wrote: If other people don't allow you to exercise a right that you have, then do you really have it?
YES -- you do have it. That is the key. A right implies an obligation. The person who denies your rights is in violation of their own obligation. This is why it is immoral to deny rights. If you didn't have a right except inasmuch as the right was fulfilled then it would be okay to deny people rights.
Grey Templar wrote: Without the ability to exercise a right, the right is effectivly worthless.
No. Even when moral obligations are not fulfilled, they still exist. Not fulfilling them is a sign of immorality and illegitimacy. This is why human rights language is so powerful.
Manchu wrote: No. Having a right is not the same as that right being fulfilled. You do not obtain the right to food once you obtain food. We owe food to every other human being, even the ones who don't get fed.
That's correct. And yet you still don't have a Right to food outside of a legal system recognizing it. Positivism isn't exclusive in regards to humanism. You are the one confusing moral obligations with legal obligations. The 1st doesn't become the second unless there's an engagement on the part of the ruling body.
Kovnik Obama wrote: And yet you still don't have a Right to food outside of a legal system recognizing it. [...] You are the one confusing moral obligations with legal obligations.
No. I am showing how moral obligations are distinct from legal ones. I am saying the moral obligation exists apart from its fulfillment in the law.
Polonius wrote: Are people unclear on the distinction between having rights and being able to exercise them?
I have often wondered how the Republican rhetoric of "basic rights must be earned/bought" can get so much traction. This kind of explains it.
a) that paints me as a conservative, I don't like that. My initial reply was actually to rebuke the idea that Healthcare isn't a Right people are entitled to. b) Law is a narrative fiction used to influence pragmatically society, and even nature. Saying that Rights must be earned means nothing else than (at least in my case) rights are nothing more than wishes until they get recognised. They can be very legitimate wishes.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Polonius wrote: Are people unclear on the distinction between having rights and being able to exercise them?
Or, more prosiacly, the difference between moral/human rights, and legal rights?
Clearly, the difference between consitutional and statutory rights is lost on this audience.
These things are very clear. The question was 'what is the foundation of a Right'. In modern society, it's the will of the Sovereign, which is by transfer the will (or consentement) of the population.
If anything, it paints you as a Republican -- which is hardly meaningful since you are a Canadian. But, all the same, the viewpoints you have expressed here do imply that you would be more ideologically at home among them than among the Democrats.
Kovnik Obama wrote:These things are very clear. The question was 'what is the foundation of a Right'. In modern society, it's the will of the Sovereign, which is by transfer the will (or consentement) of the population.
Again, that is merely one account and it's a poor one unless you view human rights as something besides inalienable.
Manchu wrote: Again, that is merely one account and it's a poor one unless you view human rights as something besides inalienable.
To which you prefer natural rights. That alternative hasn't exactly been fruitful in regards to human rights, and the rise of modernity correspond with it's abandon.
And the will of the Sovereign, in contractualism, is always alienable. In which case it comes back to it's source, the consent of the population. This isn't just some means of restricting the recognition of legitimate rights, as a fiction, it also takes in account the possibility of the population to reclaim the right it has passed to the Sovereign to be the arbiter of rights.
Natural rights theory has been very fruitful in the realm of human rights, where positivism has found little footing. Even your own "contractualist" rhetoric belies its underlying paucity. From where does the right of the population to posit further rights via some institution proceed?
Manchu wrote: Natural rights theory has been very fruitful in the realm of human rights, where positivism has found little footing. Even your own "contractualist" rhetoric belies its underlying paucity. From where does the right of the population to posit further rights via some institution proceed?
Depends on which author you prefer. Both major sources (Hobbes and Locke) will refer to a natural right, self-preservation in the case of Hobbes and ownership in the case of Locke. In both cases, the institution is needed in order to avoid the unpleasantness of remaining in a natural order, war for Hobbes and scarcity for Locke.
Grey Templar wrote:Of course people can do the same thing if you say its wrong to murder and steal because God said so, but people are more likely to follow the word of God then the word of a man.
Yeah, but He rarely speaks firectly to thine enemies, so what use is He?
Grey Templar wrote:Religious Morality is far more stable as it has a 3rd party enforcing the rules. People can't just change it on a whim, which they can do if Morality is determined by a person's individual take on morality.
Your statement assumes that God influences morality directly, which never actually seems to happen; rather it is always Man interpreting Him, and thus completely transforms your point to an untenable position.
Grey Templar wrote:People are inherently evil, anyone who says otherwise is deluded, so anything he comes up with himself is going to be inherently selfish. Which I think anyone will agree is not good for everyone else.
Evil based on what set of morals? You appear to be assuming that there is a universal morality on which 'good' and 'evil' can be judged. So pick your poison: Kantian, Utilitarian or Virtue ethics?
azazel the cat wrote: Evil based on what set of morals? You appear to be assuming that there is a universal morality on which 'good' and 'evil' can be judged. So pick your poison: Kantian, Utilitarian or Virtue ethics?
I chose Virtue. Easier to justify my shortcomings when I can point at some of my excellences, and say, ''well, help me determine what sum of virtue allows me to call myself virtuous''.
azazel the cat wrote: Evil based on what set of morals? You appear to be assuming that there is a universal morality on which 'good' and 'evil' can be judged. So pick your poison: Kantian, Utilitarian or Virtue ethics?
I chose Virtue. Easier to justify my shortcomings when I can point at some of my excellences, and say, ''well, help me determine what sum of virtue allows me to call myself virtuous''.
Manchu wrote: Well, we are on point. The issue is, are these things that Romney criticizes Americans for feeling entitled to human rights?
Because I think we ought to feel entitled to human rights.
Is health a basic need? I think that asking the question is giving the answer. Should an ideal welfare government provide it's population for it's basic needs? Definitly. Is there anything that justify the U.S. not being that ideal welfare government, or at least closer to it? I don't think so. You should have more means than most other modern western country, but then I'm no economist.
Kovnik Obama wrote: Is health a basic need? I think that asking the question is giving the answer.
I assume you would agree that basic needs exist whether or not they are addressed. Why then is it so difficult for you to acknowledge that the right to basic needs exists regardless of whether such rights are enacted by a government?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jihadin wrote: Government entitlement is a right. That doesn't mean an individual has the right to ride it out.
Manchu wrote: Why then is it so difficult for you to acknowledge that the right to basic needs exists regardless of whether such rights are enacted by a government?
Because, like I said before, it's an abuse of language, which has (or can have) theoritical repercussions. Rights are recognized by those who feel entitled to them or who owns them (or owns the mean of their acheivement). In other governments then welfare, there wouldn't eve be a human category of rights.
Even the 'natural rights' mentionned by Hobbes and Locke are nothing more than imperative, either the one to preserve yourself, which underlies all logic, or the one to obtain that which is necessary to preserve yourself with Locke.
All men are created equally means that all have equal opportunity, not equal rewards. That's why Civil Rights in the Sixties were so important as the equality of opportunity wasn't being presented to all races in the U.S.
It doesn't guarantee equal shares of benefits, land, money, healthcare, etc. for everyone. That's communism. And we all know how well that worked. Ask the Pre-1989 Soviet Union.
Ah... by the strict economic definitions the Soviet Union was a total Socialist state - that is, the government owned everything and saw to the distribution of things to the people, in theory giving each their fair share. Even the Soviets recognized the difference; thus the 'Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. A proper Communist state, no one owns anything. Everyone pools their resources, and everyone gets a fair share. It's pretty much impossible beyond the most basic tribal culture.
The reason the Soviets failed had little to do with the nature of the system and the all-too-fallable nature of greedy people in the works siphoning off a most UNfair share.
Manchu wrote: Why then is it so difficult for you to acknowledge that the right to basic needs exists regardless of whether such rights are enacted by a government?
Because, like I said before, it's an abuse of language, which has (or can have) theoritical repercussions. Rights are recognized by those who feel entitled to them or who owns them (or owns the mean of their acheivement). In other governments then welfare, there wouldn't eve be a human category of rights.
Like totalitarian dictatorships, feudalism, oligarchies, etc.
EDIT: The real problem with unbridled capitolism is that it really does not allow for the recognition of the value of the worker as a person, as opposed to the value of the work he does. If he can't work, unbridled capitolism kicks him to the curb and fills his spot with someone who can work. This is why regulation of capitolism is necessary; it does not recognize the existance of the value of the human, as oppoed to the worker.
Manchu wrote: Why then is it so difficult for you to acknowledge that the right to basic needs exists regardless of whether such rights are enacted by a government?
Because, like I said before, it's an abuse of language, which has (or can have) theoritical repercussions. Rights are recognized by those who feel entitled to them or who owns them (or owns the mean of their acheivement). In other governments then welfare, there wouldn't eve be a human category of rights.
That's nonsense. Human rights are proper to human beings, irrespective of the type of government at issue. A government cannot abolish humanity even if it does abuse humans.
Manchu wrote: Why then is it so difficult for you to acknowledge that the right to basic needs exists regardless of whether such rights are enacted by a government?
Because, like I said before, it's an abuse of language, which has (or can have) theoritical repercussions. Rights are recognized by those who feel entitled to them or who owns them (or owns the mean of their acheivement). In other governments then welfare, there wouldn't eve be a human category of rights.
That's nonsense. Human rights are proper to human beings, irrespective of the type of government at issue. A government cannot abolish humanity even if it does abuse humans.
Of course he can. You underestimate the power of narrative. The 3rd Reich (GODWYN) is a perfect example of how you can negate humanity. Man is inseparable from his historicity.
The context of the last 100 years (heck, 20 years) leaves us with a grossly inflated estimation of the basic human condition as it has existed through the previous gazillion years.
What if, for example, food stamps were limited to flour, butter, lard, eggs, canned string beans, and raw navy beans, with an extra allowance for 1 gallon milk/week for kids under 15?
You could live indefinitely on that diet, for probably close to $15/week or $60/month. Basic human need covered, and to a greater degree than the vast majority of human existence was accustomed to (and even in current days, looking outside of the industrialized world).
@sourclams: I know what you point is but I don't think it's relevant. The issue is not whether Romney believes Americans wrongly feel entitled to filet mignon but whether he believes they wrongly feel entitled to food.
Manchu wrote: No, the Third Reich is a perfect example of how a government that denies human rights is morally illegitimate.
That's tautological. According to your definition, human rights = legitimacy. Of course a government in which they are absent is illegitimate to you.
What's 'human' is defined socially. It's specifically because the Reich defined some as abhuman that it was capable of getting the support of such a large part of it's population. It didn't just deny human rights, it didn't even go there.
Kovnik Obama wrote: That's tautological. According to your definition, human rights = legitimacy. Of course a government in which they are absent is illegitimate to you.
No, you are really off the tracks. I am talking about moral legitimacy. Respecting human rights is a matter of morality. To the considerable extent that the Third Reich failed to respect human rights -- rights which precede it and every other government -- it is morally illegitimate.
Kovnik Obama wrote:there's a direct relation between the prevalence of pragmatic scientific definitions in society and social positivism.
And what is the relationship between such a correlation and historicity as a phenomenon -- and between the phenomenon of historicity and the concept of human rights? I believe your technical vocabulary exceeds your articulacy.
Well, since we've hit the point where you feel obligated to insult me, I think it's an happy coincidence that I'm off work and thus no longer have a valid excuse to remain on Dakka.
Manchu wrote: @sourclams: I know what you point is but I don't think it's relevant. The issue is not whether Romney believes Americans wrongly feel entitled to filet mignon but whether he believes they wrongly feel entitled to food.
Disagree. The 'cut spending' camp has no problem with some entitlement spending. The issue is the extent to which entitlements have grown and will continue to grow. Spending cuts is essentially an argument for imposition of austerity.
You could, like I pointed out, cut food stamps to an ample amount of basic staples and cut food stamps spending by 80% or increasing its coverage 5x, both reducing spending and covering all basic human needs/rights. The lack of degree of austerity is exactly what entitlements are ultimately about.
@Kovnik Obama: I don't think you are being clear. In fact, I think you are purposely being unclear and evasive. You cannot be anymore offended by the accusation than I am by the poor argumentation I accuse you of.
You understand that humans have basic needs. You refuse to say humans have rights to those basic needs except that a government agrees to provide them. I respond that human rights arise from basic human needs and just like those needs exist independently from government action or inaction. Your retort is a stand-alone reference to historicity and an alleged correlation between pragmatic scientific definitions and social positivism as if these things are self-evidently relevant.
I agree, it is indeed a happy coincidence that takes you away from this discussion.
Jihadin wrote: Government entitlement is a right. That doesn't mean an individual has the right to ride it out.
Can you re-word this?
Here's my take...
No one denies that there are some people who need to be “in the cart”, so to speak – the very old, the disabled, the outcasts, the dying. Some people just aren’t going to be contributors, either at this particular point in their lives or, in the case of the very disabled, ever.
But it is ridiculous to suggest that 47% of the country is unable to contribute a single dime to federal income taxes (not talking about all taxes, just the federal). At this point, half the people are in the cart, and the other half the people are pulling the cart. That’s not sustainable...
Mitt Romney realize that... heck ALL politicians realize that... hence his inelegant comment at a FUNDRAISER.
I find the hysteria over this comment ridiculous...
Just like the right's hysteria to the "I believe in redistribution of wealth" that Obama said years ago...
Well.. duh! That's nothing new... we already knew that.
Manchu wrote: @sourclams: I know what you point is but I don't think it's relevant. The issue is not whether Romney believes Americans wrongly feel entitled to filet mignon but whether he believes they wrongly feel entitled to food.
Disagree.
Mitt Romney wrote:There are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe that government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you name it.
My italics/bolding.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: I find the hysteria over this comment ridiculous...
Should or should not Americans feel entitled to food?
What, so you're basing your entire argument off of a one-liner? Didn't realize that was the case.
Has Romney said anywhere (has anyone except Ron Paul said anywhere) that he intends to cut all spending to 0? No, of course not. The point being made is not an attack against people who have no food, it's an attack against entitlement.
Implicit in all of that statement was 'to this ever-increasing degree'. Nobody on the fiscal Right actually thinks entitlement spending to be zero. If that's what you feel Romney's statement reveals, then naturally this is going to be a very shallow discussion.
I ask you this question: I give you 1/4 of the typical Food Stamps allotment ($60/month) on the assumption that you buy only wheat flour, eggs, butter, lard, canned string beans, and raw navy beans.
Yes and as I already pointed out Romney is not criticizing entitlement to filet mignon but to food itself, regardless of what he will actually be able to achieve regarding spending cuts should he be elected. If Mitt Romney is elected president, he will not be able to cut all government spending regarding food stamps. The point is that it is not commensurate with respect for basic human rights to vote for a man who believes people should not feel entitled to food. If you disagree, even assuming you would only provide the barest minimum of government spending regarding food, then I would advise you not to vote for Mitt Romney.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: What do you really mean be "Fundamental Right"? What is that really? I'm not trying to be obtuse here.
I mean "human right," a thing that every human person and all human institutions owe to every human person by virtue of our humanity. I adopted your word "fundamental" but what I basically mean is inalienable -- no one can take it away, no one has the authority to grant it, it simply is. No tricks.
Sure, people have the right to food. Its not the government's, or anybody elses, job to make sure that right is exercised.
You have the right to work and buy food. Nobody is going to stop you here.
If you can't find a job thats not anybody elses problem but yours.
People are also free to help the poor, and thats something that some organizations and people do. The government should not be one of those organizations. They can do it if they have the ability, but it should be low on the priority list. And among the first things that get cut if money is low.
The government's priorities should be as follows,
1) National Defense(including public security and law enforcement)
2) Public utilities and services(education, fire departments, road repair, etc...)
3) Research and Development(grants to businesses and individuals that are investigating worthwhile technological improvements)
4) Welfare of all types
If there isn't enough money for 1, 2, 3, and 4. Money gets taken away from 4 till there isn't any left.
If there isn't enough money for 1, 2, and 3. Money gets taken away from 3 till there isn't any left.
If there isn't enough money for 1 and 2. money gets taken away from 2 until there isn't any left.
If there isn't enough money for 1, we're no longer solvent as a country.
Manchu wrote: Yes and as I already pointed out Romney is not criticizing entitlement to filet mignon but to food itself, regardless of what he will actually be able to achieve regarding spending cuts should he be elected.
If you are really reading so deeply into a one-lline statement while judging so superficially the man's personal and public platform, then it's little wonder this argument hasn't progressed.
whembly wrote: What do you really mean be "Fundamental Right"? What is that really? I'm not trying to be obtuse here.
I mean "human right," a thing that every human person and all human institutions owe to every human person by virtue of our humanity. I adopted your word "fundamental" but what I basically mean is inalienable -- no one can take it away, no one has the authority to grant it, it simply is. No tricks.
Do you believe there is a human right to food?
Ah... I see now.
The answer is "no". Does that make me evil?
Wars has been (and will be) fought over food/resources... that's human nature.
With respect to a possible Pres. Romney... he can't cut those benefits... no President can... because, it's a spending directive from Congress.
sourclams wrote: If you are really reading so deeply into a one-lline statement while judging so superficially the man's personal and public platform, then it's little wonder this argument hasn't progressed.
I believe that these remarks accurately reflect Mitt Romney's personal and public platform because they are extremely candid having been delivered in the expectation of privacy with his most ardent supporters.
whembly wrote: The answer is "no". Does that make me evil?
I don't know that it makes you evil but it is certainly an evil position.
Manchu wrote: @d-usa: His point is obviously that the votes Ross Perot got would have otherwise gone to George Bush.
Which is a stupid argument against voter choice on the ballot: "My guy will loose if we give actual options to voters."
Nothing changes the fact that Perot didn't give the election to anybody or steal the election from anybody. Bush didn't earn enough votes, and Clinton earned enough.
Frazzled has admitted to voting third party before though, so it's just funny to watch him try to blame a third party candidate for a Bush loss.
Manchu wrote: Again, my theory is that he didn't need to more accurately anticipate the audience. It doesn't matter that people who oppose him are confirmed in their opinions unless it motivates them to actually vote. On balance, I'd say this kind of rhetoric mobilizes more support than opposition because while it's not surprising to Democrats it is reassuring to Republicans, especially the ones who sign big checks.
I would say that its polarizing in that it has roughly the same, but inverse, effect on confirmed supporters and confirmed opponents. However the rhetoric employed here is like poison to large groups of the population in places that Romney needs to win in order to win this election: Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania.
Romeny's a moderate. He ran as a moderate, nad has just been painted wacky right to win the nomination and by the willing MsM.
And the fact that his party has seen a resurgence of "wacky right" in the last few years, and Mittford has a tendency to sloppily play to the majority of his party's support.
Manchu wrote: Again, my theory is that he didn't need to more accurately anticipate the audience. It doesn't matter that people who oppose him are confirmed in their opinions unless it motivates them to actually vote. On balance, I'd say this kind of rhetoric mobilizes more support than opposition because while it's not surprising to Democrats it is reassuring to Republicans, especially the ones who sign big checks.
I would say that its polarizing in that it has roughly the same, but inverse, effect on confirmed supporters and confirmed opponents. However the rhetoric employed here is like poison to large groups of the population in places that Romney needs to win in order to win this election: Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania.
ah... good point.
Like I said earlier, this'll hurt Romney...
The news about Obama saying "I believe in wealth redistribution"... not so much.
Denying that there is a human right to food is not really evil in and of itself, just as with any statement that could potentially be made from error alone, but holding the position so that you may deny people food is evil. The justification of evil is also evil.
whembly wrote: If its a true inalienable rights, the government needs to be empowered to enforce it. In practical terms, how do you do that?
It can and has been done in many ways. I'm not sure what you mean, to be honest.
Manchu wrote: Denying that there is a human right to food is not really evil in and of itself, just as with any statement that could potentially be made from error alone, but holding the position so that you may deny people food is evil. The justification of evil is also evil.
whembly wrote: If its a true inalienable rights, the government needs to be empowered to enforce it. In practical terms, how do you do that?
It can and has been done in many ways. I'm not sure what you mean, to be honest.
That position is not the same thing as "government is denying" you food.
I don't equate "right to food" as the same level to my freedoms.
I need government to recognize my right to free speech, religion, 2nd amendment, etc...
As an affluent nation, we "the people" instructed our government to manage welfare for those who need it. That's fine and I approve .
I guess, I'm having a hard time articulating that we shouldn't rely on our government for everything. We need to rely on ourselves, family and community.
Beside... the government don't know what I like to eat!
Maybe its because we have such abundance of food that it's "moot" now? (hence, why we are the phatest folks on the planet).
Manchu wrote: Denying that there is a human right to food is not really evil in and of itself, just as with any statement that could potentially be made from error alone, but holding the position so that you may deny people food is evil.
But there is no human right to food, we have institutional structures that exist to deny such an idea. Most of us do not consider it a right, and it is therefore not a right...
daedalus-templarius wrote: So is the point of this thread now to show who gives a gak about their fellow human beings and who doesn't?
Nope, try to keep up. As I just explained to you last page (EDIT: Sorry, two pages ago), a lot of this discussion has been about whether Mitt Romney's politics respect human rights and that has led to discussion about what various posters think human rights are. What I hope to have shown, as I stated pages ago, is that Democrats and Republicans have very different views of what "rights" are, at least in the sense of human rights. Well, I should revise that a bit -- I think the difference is more a matter of dignity. I think both parties would agree that rights proceed from dignity but that for Democrats dignity is an inalienable characteristic of human beings whereas for Republicans dignity is a characteristic that must be earned/cultivated and has a lot in common with the characteristic of material wealth.
daedalus-templarius wrote: So is the point of this thread now to show who gives a gak about their fellow human beings and who doesn't?
Nope, try to keep up. As I just explained to you last page (EDIT: Sorry, two pages ago), a lot of this discussion has been about whether Mitt Romney's politics respect human rights and that has led to discussion about what various posters think human rights are. What I hope to have shown, as I stated pages ago, is that Democrats and Republicans have very different views of what "rights" are, at least in the sense of human rights. Well, I should revise that a bit -- I think the difference is more a matter of dignity. I think both parties would agree that rights proceed from dignity but that for Democrats dignity is an inalienable characteristic of human beings whereas for Republicans dignity is a characteristic that must be earned/cultivated and has a lot in common with the characteristic of material wealth.
The government's job is to protect you from other governments and from each other. its not its job to keep you from dying of disease.
One could argue that the denial of healthcare is an aggressive act.
I don't see anyone involved denying healthcare.
Not giving something to someone is not the same as denying them from having it.
A government without a public healthcare option isn't denying healthcare to anyone. The government shutting down all healthcare providers would be denying people healthcare.
Frazzled wrote: . Compare Perot (you remember the guy who gave the Presidency to Clinton).
See, talk like that is just stupid.
Clinton became president because he earned the most votes out of the three.
OF THE THREE.
So what's your point, that people voting for who they want is bad and that only the two self approved parties should be allowed to run?
Strange position coming from you.
No that Perot took 20% of the vote, mostly from the right wing.
Highlighted where you are wrong for you.
What do you mean he "took" the vote? Did people go to the polls wanting to vote for somebody else but then were strong armed to vote for Perot?
Did Bush take votes from Clinton? Did Clinton take votes from Bush? Do you think that only these two parties should be allowed to get votes?
Those 20% of the votes are not votes that Perot "took" from anybody. Those 20% are votes that Bush and Clinton didn't earn.
True, although if people are given 3 options and 2 are similer one could say that one is taking away from the other.
There are 2 blocks of voters. Conservative and Liberal, each individual voter will be in one of these 2 blocks with varying degrees of intensity.
Normally, we also have 2 candidates. One liberal and one conservative.
If a third candidate shows up on the scene his voters will need to come from somewhere. This candidate will also come from one of the 2 spectrums.
The truth is, the Candidate will draw voters from which ever spectrum he comes from.
If one section is divided between 2 candidates then both candidates will obviously have smaller sections of the pie then they normally would.
If America had 3 mainstream political parties then we could honestly say nobody is "stealing" votes from the other. But when you have 2 partys and 3 candidates, obviously the party with 2 candidates is going to lose the election.
I'm with Manchu on this, albeit from the different religious perspective. What we call human rights are inalienable and inherent. That's what makes them rights, as opposed to priviliges.
You can deny someone their rights, but that's an injustice. To deny them a privilege they haven't earned is perfectly fine, because privileges must be earned.
For example, I don't have the right to drive a car on a public road, where I can potentially endanger and kill people if I'm incompetent at it. But I can earn that privilege by fulfilling the requirements to get a driver's license.
As described by our founding fathers, people have the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and (broadly speaking) to deny a person those rights is to commit an injustice and potentially a crime against them. Some rights are explicitly spelled out in our Constution and Bill of Rights, but it does not necessarily follow that only those rights enumerated exist.
The right to food and shelter exists, and we as modern societies have enacted laws to ensure that they are provided to those who cannot provide for themselves, because we believe that human beings have worth, and the right to life, and we choose as a society to minize the number of our fellow citizens whom we let die in the streets because they're destitute.
Similar conditions apply to healthcare. Western countries in general have also decided that human beings have the right to healthcare, and that it is unjust and illegal to deny them access to lifesaving care. Even here in the United States, laws exist which are designed to prevent hospitals from denying care to people in need. Healthcare, too, is a right, as it's one of the fundamental things humans generally need to survive, just below food and shelter.
Mannahnin wrote: Western countries in general have also decided that human beings have the right to healthcare,
The only qualification I would make is that the existence of human rights is not a matter of decision for any nation. Human rights are as old as humans. Their articulation and enactment is comparatively novel, of course.
whembly wrote:I don't equate "right to food" as the same level to my freedoms.
I need government to recognize my right to free speech, religion, 2nd amendment, etc...
But you believe in your right to live, yes?
So here's a good test:
I'll get all the food, and you can have all the jesus, and we'll see who continues to live.
Unless you think that the right to live is not an inalienable human right, or you believe that you can live without tangible sustenance.
@D-USA: What Frazzled is trying to get at is that if Perot hadn't run, then Bush Sr would have beat Clinton. And he is wrong, because Bush Sr was going to get trounced in that election even without Perot. However, the objective argument is sound: it's the same argument as saying that Nader cost Gore the presidency and led to Bush Jr to win the presidency.
@whembly Having a right to food means that anyone no matter how poor and destitute has the right to sustenance, I assume you would agree with that statement.
As far as I can tell you arguing that it is duty of a government to care for it's poor and helpless, but it does not do so because people have a right to food but rather it does so because it is it's duty. So the question is it a governments duty because it is an inalienable right or is it its duty because it is the moral thing to do, and is there a difference.
youbedead wrote: @whembly Having a right to food means that anyone no matter how poor and destitute has the right to sustenance, I assume you would agree with that statement.
As far as I can tell you arguing that it is duty of a government to care for it's poor and helpless, but it does not do so because people have a right to food but rather it does so because it is it's duty. So the question is it a governments duty because it is an inalienable right or is it its duty because it is the moral thing to do, and is there a difference.
Thanks for help... yup, I agree.
Yes, I believe the government has a "duty" to help thos ein need because it is the moral thing to do...
How is it not the same thing? It's moral to do because it's their right not to starve to death. We don't want them to die, and we respect their right to life.
What I "don't like" is government (or big charities) wanting money from me because THEY know better... just rubs me the wrong way...
Why does government have to be "they"? Government is US. It's our collective will, put in place by us, for us. That's the idea. We elect representatives to represent us and put policies in place to serve our interests and desires. One of these is that we don't let people starve to death because that's the moral and right thing to do, and human beings deserve better.
Not letting people be bankrupted because they can't afford healthcare and contract a serious illness is the same kind of thing.
youbedead wrote: @whembly Having a right to food means that anyone no matter how poor and destitute has the right to sustenance, I assume you would agree with that statement.
As far as I can tell you arguing that it is duty of a government to care for it's poor and helpless, but it does not do so because people have a right to food but rather it does so because it is it's duty. So the question is it a governments duty because it is an inalienable right or is it its duty because it is the moral thing to do, and is there a difference.
Thanks for help... yup, I agree.
Yes, I believe the government has a "duty" to help thos ein need because it is the moral thing to do...
How can fulfilling a need be the moral thing to do, yet not a human right? That level of cognitive dissonance should make your head explode like in The Running Man.
youbedead wrote: @whembly Having a right to food means that anyone no matter how poor and destitute has the right to sustenance, I assume you would agree with that statement.
As far as I can tell you arguing that it is duty of a government to care for it's poor and helpless, but it does not do so because people have a right to food but rather it does so because it is it's duty. So the question is it a governments duty because it is an inalienable right or is it its duty because it is the moral thing to do, and is there a difference.
Thanks for help... yup, I agree.
Yes, I believe the government has a "duty" to help thos ein need because it is the moral thing to do...
How can fulfilling a need be the moral thing to do, yet not a human right? That level of cognitive dissonance should make your head explode like in The Running Man.
Helping an old woman cross the street is a moral thing to do, it is not an inalienable right for her to be helped across the street though.
Mannahnin wrote: How is it not the same thing? It's moral to do because it's their right not to starve to death. We don't want them to die, and we respect their right to life.
Right... but it's not the same thing.
What I "don't like" is government (or big charities) wanting money from me because THEY know better... just rubs me the wrong way...
Why does government have to be "they"? Government is US. It's our collective will, put in place by us, for us. That's the idea. We elect representatives to represent us and put policies in place to serve our interests and desires. One of these is that we don't let people starve to death because that's the moral and right thing to do, and human beings deserve better.
Government ARE "they".
Not letting people be bankrupted because they can't afford healthcare and contract a serious illness is the same kind of thing.
youbedead wrote: @whembly Having a right to food means that anyone no matter how poor and destitute has the right to sustenance, I assume you would agree with that statement.
As far as I can tell you arguing that it is duty of a government to care for it's poor and helpless, but it does not do so because people have a right to food but rather it does so because it is it's duty. So the question is it a governments duty because it is an inalienable right or is it its duty because it is the moral thing to do, and is there a difference.
Thanks for help... yup, I agree.
Yes, I believe the government has a "duty" to help thos ein need because it is the moral thing to do...
How can fulfilling a need be the moral thing to do, yet not a human right? That level of cognitive dissonance should make your head explode like in The Running Man.
Helping an old woman cross the street is a moral thing to do, it is not an inalienable right for her to be helped across the street though.
She doesn't "need" your help to cross: that action is a nice thing to do, but there is no moral imperative. But just to wreck your ridiculous strawman, it is that woman's right to be able to move freely: were she being restrained from crossing, then it would be a moral thing to support her right to mobility.
Morality is separate from need, that is a basic part of many ethics system. Personally I believe that healthcare and food are basic human rights however I can easily understand how one can view a duty and right seperately
Mannahnin wrote: Why does government have to be "they"? Government is US. It's our collective will, put in place by us, for us. That's the idea. We elect representatives to represent us and put policies in place to serve our interests and desires. One of these is that we don't let people starve to death because that's the moral and right thing to do, and human beings deserve better.
Not letting people be bankrupted because they can't afford healthcare and contract a serious illness is the same kind of thing.
Oh... so you think Healthcare is right? Okay.
Scenario 1: An old lady collapses in front of you in the street. Do you care for her? Do you call her an ambulance? Do you expect her to be treated?
Scenario 2: Say you can pay a few dollars a year to ensure that if any old lady collapses in the street in your town, the ambulance and hospital have to treat her, and can't take her live savings and bankrupt her for the cost of the treatment. Do you pay? Or do you think it's more moral and correct not to?
Mannahnin wrote: Why does government have to be "they"? Government is US. It's our collective will, put in place by us, for us. That's the idea. We elect representatives to represent us and put policies in place to serve our interests and desires. One of these is that we don't let people starve to death because that's the moral and right thing to do, and human beings deserve better.
Government ARE "they".
You don't vote, then?
Of course I do...
Are you really saying that I should support, believe, and worship my government?
And "I'm" the one accused of wearing tinfoil hat at times...
Not letting people be bankrupted because they can't afford healthcare and contract a serious illness is the same kind of thing.
Oh... so you think Healthcare is right? Okay.
Scenario 1: An old lady collapses in front of you in the street. Do you care for her? Do you call her an ambulance? Do you expect her to be treated?
Of course....
Scenario 2: Say you can pay a few dollars a year to ensure that if any old lady collapses in the street in your town, the ambulance and hospital have to treat her, and can't take her live savings and bankrupt her for the cost of the treatment. Do you pay? Or do you think it's more moral and correct not to?
Um... old lady... let's see.. OH YEAH, she's on Medicare... so that's covered...
Oh, next... let's see (looks at whembly's paycheck)... OH THERE, I pay Medicare taxes! So, I *do* pay.
I'm awesome... right? Of course... I'm the AWESOME!
Frazzled wrote: The Other guy sucks campaign only works for Democrats due to the incredible bias of MsM.
Normally we don't see 'its not fair the mainstream media is cheating' until mid-October. You guys must be really down on how hard your candidate sucks this time around.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Grey Templar wrote: Yes, and currently its not a right and I don't believe it should be. And I seriously doubt there will ever be enough traction to get an amendment made to the constitution to make it so.
The government's job is to protect you from other governments and from each other. its not its job to keep you from dying of disease.
So a guy turns up in an emergency ward, and he's got a bullet in his stomach, but he's got no insurance and no money and you think what? Best to just put him away from the hospital and let him bleed out?
Mannahnin wrote: Why does government have to be "they"? Government is US. It's our collective will, put in place by us, for us. That's the idea. We elect representatives to represent us and put policies in place to serve our interests and desires. One of these is that we don't let people starve to death because that's the moral and right thing to do, and human beings deserve better.
Government ARE "they".
You don't vote, then?
Of course I do...
Are you really saying that I should support, believe, and worship my government?
What are you drinking? No, I'm not saying that. I'm explaining the basic service and function of government to you. Yes, I understand and appreciate that the actual people staffing it are different people from me and mostly not the exact people I would personally have chosen, but I'm realistic and unselfish enough to recognize that my personal priorities are not the center of the universe.
Pretending that government is some oppressive external force is a weird mental game people play, mostly, I think to avoid their own responsibility for it, and because they're comfortable in an orderly society, with all the benefits government provides (like police, military, fire services, road, sewer, clean water, a system of laws, mandated emergency care, etc.), but are somehow incapable of admitted to themselves that most of the benefits of the society they live in, and which makes them more comfortable, safe and prosperous than 99.9999999999999999999% of all humans who ever lived, is because of what we've achieved using government,
Scenario 1: An old lady collapses in front of you in the street. Do you care for her? Do you call her an ambulance? Do you expect her to be treated?
Of course....
Scenario 2: Say you can pay a few dollars a year to ensure that if any old lady collapses in the street in your town, the ambulance and hospital have to treat her, and can't take her live savings and bankrupt her for the cost of the treatment. Do you pay? Or do you think it's more moral and correct not to?
Um... old lady... let's see.. OH YEAH, she's on Medicare... so that's covered...
Oh, next... let's see (looks at whembly's paycheck)... OH THERE, I pay Medicare taxes! So, I *do* pay.
I'm awesome... right? Of course... I'm the AWESOME!
Okay, so you're saying that you agree with me. You are willing to pay taxes to ensure other people's right to healthcare is provided for. Because that's the morally preferable option to them dying in the streets or being bankrupted for life through no fault of their own.
Grey Templar wrote: Your conscience is not going to be the same as other peoples. And thats going to cause problems.
If person A thinks its ok to murder people for their stuff and Person B doesn't, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to know whats going to happen.
Which is why we form various kinds of elective government and kind of muddle our way to some kind of middle ground where that most people can be largely happy with.
And that middle ground includes, because very few of us at all are sociopaths, an idea that you give medical attention to people who need it, even when they can't pay for it. This includes the US, which has had that piece of law on its books since Saint Reagan passed it into law.
Grey Templar wrote: Yes, and currently its not a right and I don't believe it should be. And I seriously doubt there will ever be enough traction to get an amendment made to the constitution to make it so.
The government's job is to protect you from other governments and from each other. its not its job to keep you from dying of disease.
So a guy turns up in an emergency ward, and he's got a bullet in his stomach, but he's got no insurance and no money and you think what? Best to just put him away from the hospital and let him bleed out?
Scenario 1: An old lady collapses in front of you in the street. Do you care for her? Do you call her an ambulance? Do you expect her to be treated?
Scenario 2: Say you can pay a few dollars a year to ensure that if any old lady collapses in the street in your town, the ambulance and hospital have to treat her, and can't take her live savings and bankrupt her for the cost of the treatment. Do you pay? Or do you think it's more moral and correct not to?
Your asking an individual on what to do or can do. Its the entitlement system thats in question
Frazzled wrote: No that Perot took 20% of the vote, mostly from the right wing.
Exactly where he took his votes from is pure speculation. Given the protest nature of the Perot vote, it's likely that if Perot wasn't an option Republican voters would have stayed home rather than switch their vote to 'no new taxes' Bush. This is further supported by a look at Perot's numbers, as he recorded his strongest results in states that went strongly to either Bush of Clinton.
Also, 20 years ago this year. Let it go, dude. Complaining about the mainstream media being unfair to Republicans is probably as ridiculous, but at least it's a little more current.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Manchu wrote: What I hope to have shown, as I stated pages ago, is that Democrats and Republicans have very different views of what "rights" are, at least in the sense of human rights.
I think it's more that Republicans in the last few years have managed to put themselves in a rhetorical position that they don't actually believe.
People don't deny medical care to people in desperate need, and don't want to be part of a society that would do such a thing. Acknowledging this basic part of humanity, Reagan passed into law the requirement to provide emergency medical care even when the patient cannot pay.
But the Republicans have taken up such crude, oppositional point to ACA that they end up opposing every single thing the bill assumes, even stuff that previously everyone just took for granted.
You know how I keep saying the the Republican Party simply lacks an intellectual foundation to their party? Well that's what produces stuff like this, instead they just lurch from issue to issue, claiming whatever they think will sound like strong opposition to the other side.
Grey Templar wrote: Yes, and currently its not a right and I don't believe it should be. And I seriously doubt there will ever be enough traction to get an amendment made to the constitution to make it so.
The government's job is to protect you from other governments and from each other. its not its job to keep you from dying of disease.
So a guy turns up in an emergency ward, and he's got a bullet in his stomach, but he's got no insurance and no money and you think what? Best to just put him away from the hospital and let him bleed out?
He doesn't have the right to be treated. Doctors however have the obligation to treat him due to the Hippocratic oath, plus whatever moral responsibilities people have.
The Doctors also have the right to charge him for the treatment.
He will be treated and charged for that treatment. It may put him in deep debt that may take years to pay, but he will be treated.
Its not nice for sure. Its horrible, but thats how the world works.
Why should I pay for someone elses misfortune?
If I'm going to pay into a system, I want it to be towards my own care. I also want to have the choice in the matter, not be forced by the government to do something I may or may not need. In fact, the statistics show I will probably never need it.
A government without a public healthcare option isn't denying healthcare to anyone. The government shutting down all healthcare providers would be denying people healthcare.
It is denying healthcare to those that cannot afford to participate in the system as structured or, more properly relative to the US, denying certain people a sort of healthcare that doesn't involve them going into massive debt.
Grey Templar wrote: Yes, and currently its not a right and I don't believe it should be. And I seriously doubt there will ever be enough traction to get an amendment made to the constitution to make it so.
The government's job is to protect you from other governments and from each other. its not its job to keep you from dying of disease.
So a guy turns up in an emergency ward, and he's got a bullet in his stomach, but he's got no insurance and no money and you think what? Best to just put him away from the hospital and let him bleed out?
Um... he'd be treated.
Under the EMTALA Act.
EMTALA is not a guarantee to health care though. All EMTALA means is that they won't let you die.
Are you really saying that I should support, believe, and worship my government?
And "I'm" the one accused of wearing tinfoil hat at times...
Of course you should support it. You pay your taxes and follow it's laws. Because government is part of functioning society, and a functioning society is better than the alternative.
You can deny someone their rights, but that's an injustice.
I agree, and I think one of the problems inherent in the debate is what a right actually is. For example, I would claim that what you believe to be morally right is distinct from a right in itself which comes into existence only by firm consensus. For example, I think its right that I should have access to delicious whiskey but access to delicious whiskey is not a right because, while there is consensus that whiskey is good and people should have access to it, it isn't so firm as to render it inalienable.
The Government is not a charity organization. Its the Government.
I've said it before and I'll say it again. The Government's job is to defend the citizen's from other governments/each other and to keep order. Thats it. Anything else is not needed.
So a guy turns up in an emergency ward, and he's got a bullet in his stomach, but he's got no insurance and no money and you think what? Best to just put him away from the hospital and let him bleed out?
Um... he'd be treated.
Under the EMTALA Act.
EMTALA is not a guarantee to health care though. All EMTALA means is that they won't let you die.
I've said it before and I'll say it again. The Government's job is to defend the citizen's from other governments/each other and to keep order. Thats it. Anything else is not needed.
And in the course of defending citizens from each other it is generally wise to make them happy, because happy people don't tend to do violent things. At least without the consent of others, lots of happy people enjoy contact sports and BDSM.
I've said it before and I'll say it again. The Government's job is to defend the citizen's from other governments/each other and to keep order. Thats it. Anything else is not needed.
And in the course of defending citizens from each other it is generally wise to make them happy, because happy people don't tend to do violent things. At least without the consent of others, lots of happy people enjoy contact sports and BDSM.
Frazzled wrote: . Compare Perot (you remember the guy who gave the Presidency to Clinton).
See, talk like that is just stupid.
Clinton became president because he earned the most votes out of the three.
OF THE THREE.
So what's your point, that people voting for who they want is bad and that only the two self approved parties should be allowed to run?
Strange position coming from you.
No that Perot took 20% of the vote, mostly from the right wing.
Highlighted where you are wrong for you.
What do you mean he "took" the vote? Did people go to the polls wanting to vote for somebody else but then were strong armed to vote for Perot?
Did Bush take votes from Clinton? Did Clinton take votes from Bush? Do you think that only these two parties should be allowed to get votes?
Those 20% of the votes are not votes that Perot "took" from anybody. Those 20% are votes that Bush and Clinton didn't earn.
True, although if people are given 3 options and 2 are similer one could say that one is taking away from the other.
There are 2 blocks of voters. Conservative and Liberal, each individual voter will be in one of these 2 blocks with varying degrees of intensity.
Normally, we also have 2 candidates. One liberal and one conservative.
If a third candidate shows up on the scene his voters will need to come from somewhere. This candidate will also come from one of the 2 spectrums.
The truth is, the Candidate will draw voters from which ever spectrum he comes from.
If one section is divided between 2 candidates then both candidates will obviously have smaller sections of the pie then they normally would.
If America had 3 mainstream political parties then we could honestly say nobody is "stealing" votes from the other. But when you have 2 partys and 3 candidates, obviously the party with 2 candidates is going to lose the election.
That still doesn't mean that anybody is stealing votes.
The big question might be is what you describe the actual problem, or is it a symptom of a different problem.
That there's a very strange change in thinking. When a person is at the emergency ward with a gunshot, there's no debate on the issue. It's come on in, we'll treat you. But if that person has a long term illness somehow whether or not they're treated becomes a debatable point.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Grey Templar wrote: I've said it before and I'll say it again. The Government's job is to defend the citizen's from other governments/each other and to keep order. Thats it. Anything else is not needed.
You can say it all you want, it doesn't make it true. Government does what the electorate demands of it. If the electorate demanded that government melt 1,000,000 plastic cups every month and throw the whole lot into the ocean, then that would be what government does.
Frazz
