Romney : telling it like it is or blowing the election?

[mia h]

Mitt Romney on Obama Voters

Looks like Mitt has given up on 48,49% of voters so does he think he's got no chance of winning?

But he is right about 47% of Americans paying no income tax, he just fails to mention that the 47% includes groups like children, retirees, stay at home mom's, the disabled\long term sick, the prisoner population, oh and of course those people wth really good accountants that hide all their income *cough* old tax returns Mitt *cough*

[Stattick]

I like the part where he says that people aren't entitled to food. [/sarcasm]

[Chelemar]

So our message of low taxes doesn’t connect… my job is not to worry about those(people without work? money? food?) people. I’ll never convince them that they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives.

What scares me is not that he's totally wrong, which he is.  It's that he believes that as President, it's not his job to worry about what he would consider the bottom 43 percent of the country.  How ANYONE can now vote for him is beyond me.  How even one citizen is not a concern for the President, there's something wrong.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/09/17/romney-my-job-is-not-to-worry-about-those-people/

Actually, according to the above linked article, he's not right about the 47% paying no income tax.  There's a difference between no income tax, and no federal income tax.

53% of those who do pay income tax, also pay federal income tax. 

Another 28.3 percent, who have jobs and pay taxes that are deducted from their wages in the form of S.S. and medicare still do pay those taxes.  That is not earned back.  They however, qualify for deductions in great enough amounts so that they don't have to pay anything into the federal coffures.

That is 81.3 percent.

10.3 percent are retired/elderly.

They are on Social Security.  SS is not required to pay federal income taxes, they been there done that.

That leaves a little over 8 percent, however, the number given by the site is 6.9.  This group could be unemployed or disabled.   They are not working, or not reporting their income, nor are they paying payroll taxes, or income taxes in any form.

Anyway you look at it, he's wrong. 

[Chelemar]

Did anyone not think that Romney came across as totally insincere when he spoke of his mother, Lenore Romney, who ran for US senate from Michigan.  He spoke highly of his mother and other women he respected, "  My mom and dad were two partners.  A life lesson that
shaped me by everyday example.  When my mom ran for the Senate,
my dad was there for her every step of the way.  I can still see
her as saying in her beautiful voice, ``why should women have any
less safe than men about the great decisions facing our nation?
-- great decisions facing our nation?''
   (APPLAUSE)
   Don't you wish you could have been here at this convention
and heard leaders like Governor Mary Fallin, Governor Nikki
Haley, Governor Susana Martinez, Senator Kay Alieanos (ph),
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice?
   (APPLAUSE)
   As governor of Massachusetts, I -- I chose a woman
lieutenant governor, a woman chief of staff.  Half of my cabinet
and senior officials were women.  And in business, and mentored
and supported great women leaders who went on to run great
companies."  Yet, he doesn't respect women enough to allow them to determine their own right to decide their own moral code, their own right to choose?"

When asked about the seperation of church and state, Romney responded

"Perhaps the most important question to ask a person of faith who seeks a political office is this:
Does he share these American values:
The equality of humankind
The obligation to serve one another
A steadfast commitment to liberty"

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/08/30/transcript-mitt-romney-speech-at-rnc/#ixzz26oEN0lll

Seems he forgot all about that when he was talking to his secret buddies too.

[gaggedLouise]

Well, he's honest enough not to flinch from the gist of his statements in that video - told the press last night that he is essentially unapologetic about his view of those loser 47%. Though he admitted that "his views were not fully spelled out" on that occasion (when does a politician ever have the time to compoletely spell out all of his program in every last detail and implication?) and that he "could have communicated things better". But so far he's not backing down on the content of what he said.

I can think of a few politicians and statesmen who have made the same kind of reasoning at some point in their careers (Thatcher would have applauded him) but it's a bit more unusual when they actually stand by those statements under pressure and at a critical phase of their careers. I'll give him that.

[Teo Torriatte]

He is blowing the election. And he is also failing to mention that even though it is true that 47% of Americans don't pay federal income tax, the majority of those still pay state tax, sales tax, payroll tax, etc.

And... it's not his job to worry about them? I say that's the one thing we should make sure he is right about.

[gaggedLouise]

A funny aspect of this: the theory that your economic conditions are going to hardwire what kind of ideas you form of yourself, what you expect from your life and hence whom you'll vote for (I think that's the underpinning of Romney's way of passing these welfare slaves off as the people who have to vote Democrat and who can't really understand a free society) - that line of thought comes from a staple, dumbed-down take on Marxist-Leninism ("vulgarized Marxism" is what it used to be called). Stalin's cronies used to put it the same way: if you're living on a country manor and have hundreds of people working for you, or you're married to the overseer at such an estate, then you're incapable of even beginning to understand what questions you ought to pose and how society really works. You're a hopeless case and your thinking will mirror this.

He's going to have some major problems with this.

[mia h]

Just realised something else about Mitt's speech.
47 - 49% of Americans are unthinking DNC zombies
5 -10% are capable of thought and changing thier votes

so by Mitt's calculations
41 - 48% of Americans are unthinking GOP zombies
90 - 95% of Americans are unthinking zombies of one type or another

Nice that he thinks so much over the voters.

[Oniya]

Hmm.  Has he spoken out against solar power yet?  I mean, if he wants the zombies to vote for him, getting rid of those pesky plants would be a great campaign plank. 

[Lilias]

[Chelemar]

Yeah, scary isn't it.

[ReijiTabibito]

I'm a conservative (Though not the kind you see on the Fox News).  I believe in the death penalty, and in a lot of fiscal conservative policies - though, to be fair, you don't need to be conservative to believe in those - I know people who are otherwise diehard liberals that advocate for them.

But hearing this from the Republican presidential nominee (albeit taken surreptitiously, it would seem), makes me say only one thing.

That.

Is.

DISGUSITNG.

Allow me to elaborate.  I'm married.  My wife works two jobs, and I've been working while going to school to get a teacher's certification (just had to quit my job because I'm starting student teaching).  We make enough money to get by - rent, food on the table, gas in the vehicles, insurance.  Plus maybe a little every so often to do something special.  When the two of us get money from another source - such as gift money for our anniversary, or birthdays, or Christmas - we stretch it out to the extreme, try and make it last months instead of blowing it all in a few days.  And that's only if we don't use it to help pay the bills first.

But this past year, we didn't pay a dime in income taxes, federal, state, or local (nor the years before it).  And between the first two, we received around $3k in tax refunds from the Powers That Be.  Now, as has been pointed out, my wife and I are part of the 28.3 percent that pay taxes deducted from wages, like SocialSec and Medicare.  But the big April 15th tax bit cost us nothing.

So, according to Romney, my wife and I are moochers who are living off the government, and will vote Obama because I believe that the government's responsibility is to take care of me.

Bull.

F**king.

SHIT!

You think I want to live this way the rest of my life, Mr. Romney?  You think I want to be trapped in a crappy apartment living paycheck to paycheck, telling anyone who pesters me about kids that we don't have the money to afford to raise a child right now?  Not when we're barely breaking even just for two of us?

According to you, anyone who doesn't pay income tax to the government is gaming the system, welfare kings and queens sitting at home, getting money from the government, never working to try and improve their condition.

I want to pay taxes!  Because paying taxes will mean I actually have a good, steady job!  Paying taxes will mean that I have income that can be spared to help out my fellow Americans!  Paying taxes will mean that I have finally gotten enough money to start a family!

I am a big believer in personal responsibility, that I have to pay for the decisions I make (and that that payment is not necessarily financial), the good ones and the bad ones.  But you?  You just take allllll that away from me and slap me with the moocher label.

Oh, and to echo Stattick?  I love how you claim that food and shelter are entitlements.  News flash, Hotshot!  You need those things to live.  Or do you believe that when the Founding Fathers advocated life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness they were just talking about yours?!

And yes, Obama will be out there talking about tax cuts for the rich, because you people don't need tax cuts!  Fact Alert: a 40% tax rate on $300,000 means that you still have $180k to live on!  And that's just the money you get from people actually willing to listen to your crap!  Doesn't count all the sweet 15% capital gains millions you have simply because you decided to take over the family business of being in business.

You are building a wall, Sir, in America.  A financial wall between men like yourself, who game the system to hoard millions, and men like myself who have no interest in gaming the system, I just want to take care of my wife and (one day) kids.

And to you, in a manner that you find memorable, I say this:

Governor Romney, if you seek peace, if you seek prosperity for the United States: Come here to this gate!  Mr. Romney, open this gate!

Mr. Romney, tear down this wall!

[/rant]

[Stattick]

According to what Rmoney declared his income to be (so, it might be higher if he lied on his taxes), he only makes $55,000. Of course, unlike you or I, he doesn't get fired if he shows up to work late, or doesn't wear his uniform right. He can take time off whenever he wants. He gets all the top notch perks. And mostly, he just checks his e-mail, answers his phone, and makes a few calls per day to manage his businesses, so it's hardly "work" in the traditional sense. But with travel required for work, visiting his general managers in foreign countries and so forth, I'm sure that there's times where he spends a good twenty or twenty five hours working in a week, between visits to the nicest restaurants in town, seeing all the best attractions the region has to offer, and staying at the most exclusive and posh resort in the region.

Must be nice to make that kind of money. Think of it this way. Because of the declining wages of the middle class, most of us will never be able to make that sort of money. $55,000 a year? That might just barely be an attainable goal. But I lied by implication of course. Rmoney doesn't make $55,000 in a year. That's his DAILY income. He makes enough money to buy a nice new car EVERY DAY, without taking out a loan to do so. He can afford to buy a nice new house every other day... without a loan that would take any of the rest of us 25 to 30 years to pay back.

I just wanted to write this so no one was left with the impression that Rmoney only makes $300,000 a year. I'm sure that not what ReijiTabibito meant to convey, but one reading of his post could give the mistaken impression that Rmoney's annual income was barely over a quarter of a million per year. In actuality, Rmoney's income is around twenty million a year. If he's not lying on his taxes about his income.

[gaggedLouise]

With the fire Romney has come under in the last 36 hours, and his lagging behind Obama in the sympathizer polls, it's very likely that Ryan will become more visible in the campaign - and try to do some of what the then VP candidate didn't achieve four eyars ago. They'll have to take risks and make some sweeping, antagoinizing statements - Obama too, but Romney will be forced to do more of that since he's pressed to win over people and he has more to prove about himself as a political man.

So in that way, it was logical to have these statements from the donor dinner, although they were not meant to be made public. He is not likely to go back on his idea that a large part of the American people are living off entitlements and are free eaters who are not contributing anything and still think they have the right to keep bleeding the system. They can't be worked with, they should just be forced to take charge of their own lives and leave the bigger picture to the Romneys and Trumps of the world.

[errantwandering]

I think Romney's comments are being misconstrued here.  I'm not talking about his stance on entitlements, that's something he's said before and will doubtless say again, though likely not in as aggressive terms as the red meat he's throwing to possible donors here.  I'm talking about the way he breaks down voting.  He isn't saying that it isn't his job to care about half of the country.  He's saying that 47% of people will always vote Democrat, 47% of people will always vote Republican, and then you have the independents in the middle who actually decide Presidential elections, so his job as a candidate is to worry about the independent vote, and to energize his 47% base to make sure they show up and vote.  This isn't all that wrong...if you look at every major election that's played out in the past few decades, they've all gone down exactly like that.  Obama is doing pretty much the same thing:  he's never going to get the hardcore religious right to vote for him, and he's not trying to.  He's been throwing meat to his supporters to get them excited, and he's been appealing to the independents on social issues to try to get them to swing his way this election.

[Valerian]

That may have been what he was thinking when he said that -- inasmuch as he was thinking at all -- but it still highlights a fundamental problem with his views.  Romney, like a lot of politicians (on both sides, though more so on the right in my opinion), thinks of getting elected as his job, not serving his constituents.  If he is elected (and allow me to hope with every fiber of my being that this won't happen), he won't magically start caring about that 47% just because he's an incumbent rather than a candidate.  He'll always be thinking of the next election or position he can grab, and he'll still be working only on behalf of those he thinks are worthy.

[gaggedLouise]

That may have been what he was thinking when he said that -- inasmuch as he was thinking at all -- but it still highlights a fundamental problem with his views.  Romney, like a lot of politicians (on both sides, though more so on the right in my opinion), thinks of getting elected as his job, not serving his constituents.  If he is elected (and allow me to hope with every fiber of my being that this won't happen), he won't magically start caring about that 47% just because he's an incumbent rather than a candidate.  He'll always be thinking of the next election or position he can grab, and he'll still be working only on behalf of those he thinks are worthy.

Perfectly put, Val. And with this idea that once you're elected and in office - as president, senator, MP, governor or whatever - you really don't have much of an obligation to anyone except those you think deserve to have a say, and to your own cronies and allies (the latter part being left unstated in public, but it's very much part of the equation) democracy gets very diluted. Apart from their own outline declarations of what they intend to do and the restraints of what they *can* actually achieve within the system -  this brand of politicians are pretty much left with a blank slate to do whatever they see fit up to the next election. Any in-depth criticism of what they are doing can be disparaged as "a self-serving media elite", "commie journalists", isolated idiots who are out of touch with the people or the times,  or whatever.

I do agree a government or a political leadership should be expected to anchor their mandate continuously for the entire period they are seated. Not by blindly following the gallups, but by keeping up an earnest conversation with the people about what they are trying to do, what the problems are, whether it's the right way to take on those problems, what could be ahead and so on. If the guy is only aiming to please his own hardcore supporters and thinks half the nation, and even much of his own party, are a band of trash who will only understand if it's clubbed into their heads or they are seduced by smooth talk, how can he govern for the (whole) people and by the people?

But yes, this is probably seen as unrealistic with the kind of media and parties we have today.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

Sounds like Romney is simply trying to play people’s insecurities and paranoia against each other.  He has run a very numbers based campaign where he gets up with a bunch of statistics, numbers and “facts” to impress the crowd.  The 47% figure he posts up looks real until investigated.  Most people don’t investigate.  People that make up that 47% wouldn’t even realize they do because they pay taxes.  So when someone hears that speech they will think to themselves, “those lazy bastards don’t pay taxes like I do!  No wonder our country is broke because they aren’t paying their share.  Freeloaders!”  While at the same time those people don’t think about their own tax refunds, benefits or anything of that sort.  People know they pay taxes if they work because they seem them on each paycheck, so immediately they do not think of themselves in that number.   He has sent out a message appealing to nearly everyone while calling half of them freeloaders.

[Oniya]

Found some interesting numbers a little while ago.  According to US Tax data, the states that top the list as far as percentage of non-tax-payers are....

Mostly southern, and mostly Republican-oriented.

The top ten:

MISSISSIPPI	44.5%	1
GEORGIA	42.5%	2
ALABAMA	40.3%	3
FLORIDA	39.0%	4
ARKANSAS	38.8%	5
SOUTH CAROLINA	38.8%	6
NEW MEXICO	38.7%	7
IDAHO	38.6%	8
TEXAS	38.5%	9
UTAH	38.3%	10

And, the other end of the scale:

NEW JERSEY	29.2%	41
MINNESOTA	29.2%	42
WASHINGTON	29.0%	43
WYOMING	28.6%	44
MARYLAND	28.2%	45
CONNECTICUT	26.6%	46
MASSACHUSETTS	26.3%	47
NEW HAMPSHIRE	26.3%	48
NORTH DAKOTA	26.3%	49
ALASKA	22.0%	50

And, from the conservative media...

http://www.upworthy.com/when-these-6-people-think-you-blew-it-you-know-your-campaign-is-in-trouble?c=cp2

6.

"He said he has a terrific campaign. Actually he doesn't. He says that the campaign workers are working well together, well, actually, no, they're not working well together, and that his campaign's going in the right direction. No, it's not. And this is not being said by liberals ... these are conservatives. ... Savannah, I'm going to go put a bag over my head now, so I will talk to you soon." — Joe Scarborough, conservative pundit and former Republican congressman

[ReijiTabibito]

I just wanted to write this so no one was left with the impression that Rmoney only makes $300,000 a year. I'm sure that not what ReijiTabibito meant to convey, but one reading of his post could give the mistaken impression that Rmoney's annual income was barely over a quarter of a million per year. In actuality, Rmoney's income is around twenty million a year. If he's not lying on his taxes about his income.

Thanks for the point out, Stattick.  ^_^  I am quite aware that he makes millions of dollars a year.  In a moment of self-reference and perhaps stupidity, I was referring to the newsclip (found on the Daily Show) wherein Romney states that his income comes 'overwhelmingly' from investments and so on and so forth, and that, to quote: "I get speaker's fees from time to time, but not very much."

Said 'not very much' being the aforementioned $300k.

To understand more, check out The Daily Show's January 18 clip Tax and the Mitty.

That may have been what he was thinking when he said that -- inasmuch as he was thinking at all -- but it still highlights a fundamental problem with his views.  Romney, like a lot of politicians (on both sides, though more so on the right in my opinion), thinks of getting elected as his job, not serving his constituents.  If he is elected (and allow me to hope with every fiber of my being that this won't happen), he won't magically start caring about that 47% just because he's an incumbent rather than a candidate.  He'll always be thinking of the next election or position he can grab, and he'll still be working only on behalf of those he thinks are worthy.

And if that was what he had said, I would have wholeheartedly agreed with him.  I'm not a politician, but I'm no fool.  I know damn well that there will be people who vote Republican till the day they die, and there are similar Democrats out there.

But he didn't make that statement about ideology or credo or hell, even race.  If he'd made it about race I could chalk him up as another homegrown racist elitist.  But no, he made it about money.

I've struggled in the last 4 years since I graduated from college.  I graduated right around the time the economy was tanking in 08, and big corps and small businesses alike were freezing new hirings because of, to quote Jon Stewart, "bespoke-suited turd monkeys."

I've been drastically underemployed, but I've worked to make sure I could take care of myself and wasn't just leeching off others without something to chip in of my own.

So to hear someone so flippantly soundbite the struggles I have had pisses me off to no end.

[Callie Del Noire]

I find it ironic that typically the most informed viewers typically watch the Daily Show and after.. along with more than one news channel.

[Oniya]

I find it ironic that typically the most informed viewers typically watch the Daily Show and after.. along with more than one news channel.

The oft-quoted joke being 'I get my news from Comedy Central, and my comedy from Fox News'.

I think it might have something to do with the fact that if you're the type of person to watch the Daily Show, you have no 'sacred cows'.  You know that Jon Stewart can and will rag on anything.  Therefore, if you're willing to watch something where one of your viewpoints is just as likely to get skewered as the next guy's, you're more likely to be open-minded enough to watch more than one news station.

[ReijiTabibito]

I don't.  Jon and Stephen are hilarious, as well as their cast of correspondents, and seeing their antics (mixed in with some nice truth, of course) leads me to want to see what the other newswires are really saying.

All my friends, liberal or conservative, watch TDS and the Report.

[Vekseid]

The oft-quoted joke being 'I get my news from Comedy Central, and my comedy from Fox News'.

I think it might have something to do with the fact that if you're the type of person to watch the Daily Show, you have no 'sacred cows'.  You know that Jon Stewart can and will rag on anything.  Therefore, if you're willing to watch something where one of your viewpoints is just as likely to get skewered as the next guy's, you're more likely to be open-minded enough to watch more than one news station.

Did you catch how reserved he was when he held his 'rally'?

Someone took the wind out of his sails there. It depressed me. : /

[Caitlin]

Although I'm not an American, I will tell you that most of the people here are hoping for Obama to get a second term. He's doing great things on the international level and personally I'm getting a bad vibe from Mitt Romney. Then again, the bad vibe isn't nearly as bad as when Bush Jr. did his thing, when he was president it really felt like the entire world was doomed (and, in my opinion, a certain degree it was).

It does suck that Obama didn't manage to get the economy running yet the way it's supposed to be, but on the other hand, what can you expect after 8 years of Bush? It's worrisome that he doesn't manage to get the budget under control though, and I hope he finds a solution for that. Either way, I hope that the USA will massively vote for Obama and that in the coming 4 years a new person will be found to take over after he's done.

[gaggedLouise]

Although I'm not an American, I will tell you that most of the people here are hoping for Obama to get a second term. He's doing great things on the international level and personally I'm getting a bad vibe from Mitt Romney. Then again, the bad vibe isn't nearly as bad as when Bush Jr. did his thing, when he was president it really felt like the entire world was doomed (and, in my opinion, a certain degree it was).

It does suck that Obama didn't manage to get the economy running yet the way it's supposed to be, but on the other hand, what can you expect after 8 years of Bush? It's worrisome that he doesn't manage to get the budget under control though, and I hope he finds a solution for that. Either way, I hope that the USA will massively vote for Obama and that in the coming 4 years a new person will be found to take over after he's done.

+1. Being European myself I can pretty much vouch for every word she said; if Western and Central Europeans had been allowed a third of a vote each (just as a thought experiment here, mind you) then Obama (or Hillary Clinton) would have outclassed everybody else back in 2008. And it's true no one could know how deep the economic trough was going to be, or how much of a stalemate the GOP (mostly) would create in the congress. There's been so much eyerolling at this spectacle of a paralyzed senate around here.

But it's probably true, too, that this side of the pond we have a hard time understanding where somebody like Romney, or Bush or Palin, or Ross Perot, is coming from, what makes them fit in with U.S. perceptions of "how to do politics". And why people identify with them and their lives.  I agree Romney sounds like crass and that he's not "a man of the people", but from here it's even hard to get why he has the appeal he has, and I admit the obstacle is located within me, within us non-Americans, Europeans. I can understand why many people admire him as a businessman, even if he's done some really questionable things, but his political appeal to many millions of Americans is as confounding as that of Sarah Palin. They're being seen from a different set of baselines around here.

[Stattick]

It does suck that Obama didn't manage to get the economy running yet the way it's supposed to be, but on the other hand, what can you expect after 8 years of Bush? It's worrisome that he doesn't manage to get the budget under control though, and I hope he finds a solution for that. Either way, I hope that the USA will massively vote for Obama and that in the coming 4 years a new person will be found to take over after he's done.

The economy probably would have been doing reasonably well by now if it wasn't for the GOP. But their policy of obstructionism during this crisis has made things far worse. They gambled with the long term prospects of a recovery for the nation and entire world while grasping for short term political benefits. I don't think they care how dangerous the game is that game they've been playing. I don't think they realize how much enmity they've earned from people that have been paying attention. I used to consider myself a centrist. I've voted for Republicans. Hell, I even voted for Bush Jr's second term, thinking that he was the better choice because of the wars we were involved in (this was before it had become clear that his administration had lied to get us to invade Iraq, and that Iraq was an unnecessary war that was pulling men and resources from the real conflict in Afghanistan).

So, I'm no lefty liberal (although I have to be honest in find myself leaning further and further left these days). But what the GOP's done in the last few years in Congress since Obama's been elected? It's stupid, unprecedented, destructive, short sighted, damn near toppled the whole world into deep, uncontrolled depression, and was completely unnecessary. It's hard to put into words just how much the GOP's let me down, or how angry I am at them. I may very well go the rest of my life without voting for another Republican because of their actions these last four years. I don't think I'm the only one that feels that way either. I think that there are a lot of people who had otherwise mostly ignored politics who started paying attention when everything went to hell, who feel the same way I do about the GOP's "grind the government to a standstill" policy during the worst economic disaster since the Great Depression. I think there's a lot of people who saw the GOP stop job bills or negotiate recovery bills down to something far less effective than what they originally were. And I think that there's a lot of other people out there who have gone from feeling relatively neutral about the GOP to hating them. I'm not sure who in the Republican leadership decided that the obstructionism was a good idea, but my feeling and hope is that they've alienated millions of voters who, like me, will probably never vote for another Republican again.

I'm not sure why the Republicans would do something like this, unless I speculate that the Evangelical wing of the party has become so entrenched and powerful, that they managed to swing the party over to such damaging politics because they think we're living in the end times, and Jesus is going to make his encore appearance any day now. Maybe they know that in the real world, that their politics are suicidal, but that in the spiritual world, that their vengeful God requires no less than a slash and burn policy. It's the only scenario that I can think of that fits the facts, that the party has let itself fall under the sway of apocalyptic prophets, people who might just engineer events to bring us closer to the apocalypse they think needs to happen so their Messiah will return. And that, of course, is yet one more reason why no sane person should vote for them.

[Caitlin]

I'm not sure if you want to hear this; but I strongly doubt that the Republicans have the people's best interest at heart. They're owned by lobby groups and why would they care how the economy is doing? As far as I know the majority of them are millionairs or made at least more than enough money already that they won't ever have to rely on a job like so many hard-working people do.

I support the idea of not having the government spend more money than it gains, but that's about all the values I share with Republicans. For everything else I'm in favour of the Democrats, who at least recognise that times have changed and that the old system doesn't work anymore. Their ideas to fix things aren't always the best solutions either, but at least they're trying to do something, which is a lot more than I can say from the Republicans. And this all comes from somebody who only casually follows American politics. To foreigners it's pretty clear to see what's going on, if the rest of the USA saw what we see they might consider voting for Republicans as well. My only real worry is that the Democrats don't have what it takes either to fix the system, there need to be fundamental changes that are going to hurt millions of people really badly. The way things are currently going is simply no longer sustainable, and slowly but surely we see the USA degrade to a second world, and in some parts even to a third world, country.

I've seen and read the articles about the homeless camps, compared to the slums of Rio de Janero there really isn't that much difference. To me it's unthinkable that college educated people have to live in such camps due the problems they ended up in. Part of it is their own mistake, for living on credit for too long a time, but for an at least equal part the system is to blame as well.

In my own case I have mortgage and a college debt I have to pay off and that's it. No outstanding debts anywhere. There is lots of stuff I want and could use, but I'll be damned if I take a loan so I could buy any of it. I'd rather take the slow secure way of saving up money, even though it'll take me a couple years longer to get all that I want. At least then I know that when I buy it the stuff will be mine, and I doesn't cost me an arm and a leg to pay off a loan.

Ahem... I didn't mean to turn this into a rant, hehe. The situation here isn't exactly great either, but my country is at least still doing well and among the best performing economies in Europe. We have some major issues to solve here as well though.

[Vekseid]

Their own mistake for getting sick? Or for getting laid off in a liquidity trap?

[Oniya]

Credit is a sneaky thing.  When Mr. Oniya and I bought our first house, I had almost no credit history.  The only thing on my record was a Kirby vacuum cleaner that I'd paid for in automatic installments.  That was just as much of a red flag to the real estate people as the store credit card that Mr. Oniya had nearly gone to collections for (but that we paid off before entering into the house-buying thing.)

[Caitlin]

Their own mistake for getting sick? Or for getting laid off in a liquidity trap?

Of course you can't blame people for getting sick or laid off. There are, however, plenty of people living with several maxed out credit cards and who then get a new credit card just to pay of the interest on their previous cards. You'll end up in a never ending circle that way with as only outcome bankruptcy. Some of my American friends did so, while having a decent job and not being ill, for the simple reason so they could buy more things. From what I saw this wasn't all that uncommon before the crisis hit. I can understand that people still do the same now, but then to make ends meet or to pay the hospital bill if they get ill.

I do think that people also have their own responsibility to stay healthy though, which means no smoking, limiting the use of alcohol and other intoxicants, cutting down on sugar, in general cutting down on food that has high amounts of calories, and a minimum amount of daily exercise. A lot of the health issues can be avoided in our society by simply living healthier. According to the research I read yesterday, 35% of the Americans are currently obese and the estimates are that this will be 50% by 2030. Personally I find that very worrisome, the health costs will sky rocket in the USA in the future and the work efficiency will decrease, which in turn means that the American economy won't be as competing with other world economies. Considering the USA's tendency to import more than they export this will mean a big problem. You're gonna end up relying on the rest of the world to produce for you, while you won't be able to generate the required income to pay for it all.

To clarify my earlier point; with mistakes I meant spending more money than you have, on items that aren't basic essentials to stay alive. (Hospitals, food and non-luxury clothing are part of those basic essentials, whereas an SUV, 3D television or iPhone isn't.)

[Vekseid]

Draw the figures. How many people are that truly irresponsible with credit, out of the two million homeless, compared to people with medical bankruptcies?

One of my favorite things about the whole "Cut down on sugar bit, rice is cheap!" - where are these people going to cook their rice? Or pasta?

There's a pretty strong correlation between poverty and quality of diet. Same with quality of education.

[Caitlin]

You're right yes, and I won't claim to have all the answers either. Still, the current numbers I read about are pretty worrisome either way. That 35% I mentioned doesn't equal all the homeless, the vast majority of it has their own place to live and to cook.

For those who are bankrupt and homeless I don't really have any ideas how to help them either. I read the articles and I find it very sad how it got that far, but with the way the system currently works I don't know what could be done to help them get back on their feet either.

There is, however, no excuse for not getting more exercise. Something as simple as walking to places that are less than 2 miles from your house, rather than taking the car, can do miracles already when done consistently. Getting exercise doesn't mean you have to join a gym or go jogging, but simply walking more than always taking the car can help already too.

[mia h]

There are, however, plenty of people living with several maxed out credit cards and who then get a new credit card just to pay of the interest on their previous cards.

Well there's 3 "people" to blame for that; the person taking out the credit card, the bank for letting them have the credit card, the government not putting in the right regulation in place to stop the bank. All of them need to take responsiblity but it's easier to play blame around that way nothing actually changes.

I do think that people also have their own responsibility to stay healthy though, which means no smoking, limiting the use of alcohol and other intoxicants, cutting down on sugar, in general cutting down on food that has high amounts of calories, and a minimum amount of daily exercise. A lot of the health issues can be avoided in our society by simply living healthier.

Don't know if you've ever seen "Supersize Me" but it's worth a watch if you haven't. Low income families by fast food because it's cheap and they can actually afford it, but it's also full of sugar and all other kinds of junk. Same goes in supermarkets, cheap food is pumped full of sugar and preservatives but if you've got a choice between a lousy diet and no diet, it's not really a hard choice.

According to the research I read yesterday, 35% of the Americans are currently obese and the estimates are that this will be 50% by 2030.

And that's not going to change as along as the health system is focused on treatment and not prevention. Not all doctors, but most get payments for every test and examination they do, it's in there financial interests for more people to be ill and for them to order more tests and hand out more prescriptions than they need to. There was a survey of doctors a while back zero or close to zero admitted to giving unnessescary tests etc. but 60% of those surveyed knew of "other" doctors that would regularly perform extra tests, give extra prescriptions etc.
Take the kick-backs out of the system and maybe something can be done about that 35%

[Caitlin]

And that's not going to change as along as the health system is focused on treatment and not prevention. Not all doctors, but most get payments for every test and examination they do, it's in there financial interests for more people to be ill and for them to order more tests and hand out more prescriptions than they need to. There was a survey of doctors a while back zero or close to zero admitted to giving unnessescary tests etc. but 60% of those surveyed knew of "other" doctors that would regularly perform extra tests, give extra prescriptions etc.
Take the kick-backs out of the system and maybe something can be done about that 35%

Very true all, I read another research about that about 1.5 months ago. The current health system in the USA is so messed up that you pay 3x more than what somebody in France has to pay, for the same procedures, and twice as much as somebody in Germany (I'm not sure if I remember the figures right, but it was something like that). They managed to draw a correlation that if the health care was cheaper the ecomony itself would get such a giant boost that it might resolve the crisis already. Right now people are getting by, but if they get ill and don't have a good insurance they're pretty much screwed.

Actually, I believe that research was posted on E and either in off topic or in this sub forum. It was pretty bad to read how it works in the USA and I'm really glad that the system is very different here. This year I'd pay 220 euros max, next year the goverment made some changes and it'd slightly over 300 euros, but still not terrible. (Well, unless you're on a lower income, but even then it's affordable and doesn't causeyou to go bankrupt.)

[Serephino]

Personally, I really don't like being written off.  I don't pay income tax because I'm on disability; something no one will help me fix by the way.  Because, you know, I'd need long term treatment, and Social Security is barely giving me enough to live off of.  The only Psychiatrist in my area is a dumbass that really shouldn't have a license because he doesn't know a true mental illness from his own ass.  A medication was making me compulsively suicidal to the point I couldn't be left alone, and he told me to keep taking it... 

Yes, this is the level of care I get.  I'm sorry, but if you want me to work and contribute, I need better care than that.  Mitt Romney may think it's an entitlement, but that is extremely short sighted.  People who have access to better care will be more productive.  You can't work if you're sick all the time, or just getting a little lost causes you to break down into tears. 

I honestly don't know why a large part of the population hasn't gotten sick of being taken for granted.  Hardly any campaign focus is being given to traditionally red or blue states.  This is a problem on both sides.  Romney knows he's going to win Texas, so to hell with them.  His campaign dollars are better spent bombarding us here in Pennsylvania because we don't always vote consistently.  President Obama knows he's going to win (insert blue state here) so why waste the money?  That wouldn't sit too well with me.

Also, in public he said he could have worded things better.  Of course he could.  Of that I have no doubt; reason being he'd have speech writers and PR people ready to make everything sound pretty.  People are the most honest when they don't think anyone is watching.  He thought he was just talking to his allies, so his guard was down.  Whoever recorded and posted that sure got him by the short ones.  He can't deny it because it's on tape.  If he tries to twist out of it he'll piss off the buddies he was talking to, because he's either an outright liar, or fair weather friend.  He's kinda both, but he wants that kept his little secret I think. 

I also do believe he was only talking in terms of a target audience.  In my English class when doing persuasive writing the teacher said your target is the people on the fence.  Speaking to those already on your side is a waste of breath because they're already with you.  Speaking to those already pretty firmly against you is a waste of time and energy too.  You may get lucky and change the minds of a few that are open enough to listen, but those firmly on the other side aren't likely to budge.  It is those that haven't come to a firm decision one way or another that you want to go after.

My problem with what he said is the way he said it.  If you don't pay income tax you're nothing more than a leech that believes the government has a responsibility to ensure your well being.  I mean, really, if you can't afford things like food and shelter because of the wrecked economy, oh well.  You should just be left to die because the government owes you nothing.  You only think it does, and therefore are guaranteed to vote for President Obama to ensure you continue getting these entitlements for at least another 4 years.  Also, his numbers are wrong.  My boyfriend works part time at Walmart.  I've seen his pay stubs.  He gets state taxes taken out, but gets nothing back.  Also, if I take his last refund and divide it by 24, then compare that to how much is taken out of each check for federal income, the numbers don't match.  He gets most of it back, but not all of it.

Even though I'm registered as a Democrat, I've been known to vote for Republicans if I like what they have to say.  I just haven't liked anything a Republican has said since the Tea Party took over.  I would really like to see those people go away.           

[mia h]

If you don't pay income tax you're nothing more than a leech that believes the government has a responsibility to ensure your well being.

Saw something earlier today that had done the numbers, Romney has basically written off 76 million people as being worthless. Which includes 150,000 people that earn more than $500,000 a year but don't pay 1 cent of Federal income tax, who knows some of them might have been in the room with Mitt. It also includes all US troops stationed oversea in receipt of combat pay *shakes angry fist at troops in Afghanistan* "You leeches!!!"

[Vekseid]

I have no idea how Romney expects to handle the debates.

[LunarSage]

I've heard Romney and Obama get their funding from the same sources.  Is it possible that this was all an elaborate scheme to make sure that Obama is viewed as the "only choice"? 

[gaggedLouise]

I have no idea how Romney expects to handle the debates.

I suppose he'll try to portray Obama as a weak guy who won't stand up to the Chinese and Iranians. to unions and to organized crime.

I've heard Romney and Obama get their funding from the same sources.  Is it possible that this was all an elaborate scheme to make sure that Obama is viewed as the "only choice"? 

??? No - I don't see any sponsor trying such a self-defeating strategy. Some corporations and pressure groups provide money to both candidates to be sure of some result no matter who wins, but why would they want to kill Romney off in this way?

[Callie Del Noire]

I've heard Romney and Obama get their funding from the same sources.  Is it possible that this was all an elaborate scheme to make sure that Obama is viewed as the "only choice"?

A lot of people 'double dip' as in making sure that the 'winner' knows they helped out.

[Stattick]

I've heard Romney and Obama get their funding from the same sources. 

No. Not even close. Most of Romney's funding comes from the monied elite and big corporations. Most of Obama's funding comes from poor and middle classed people giving what they can. That's why for most of this election cycle, Romney's out raised Obama by a wide margin. So far as I've heard, no one's offered to give $100 million to Obama, but Romney gets offers like that.

Is it possible that this was all an elaborate scheme to make sure that Obama is viewed as the "only choice"?

No. Just no. Might as well join the guy that thinks the Trilateral Commission, Bilderbergs, and grey aliens are calling the shots in a vast Satanic conspiracy to bring about armageddon so the Aliens can sell our delicious organ meats on the intergalactic black market.

[LunarSage]

Meh.  I still think whoever wins, the American people lose.

That's all I'm gonna say about that.

[Stattick]

Sauce

[Chris Brady]

That may have been what he was thinking when he said that -- inasmuch as he was thinking at all -- but it still highlights a fundamental problem with his views.  Romney, like a lot of politicians (on both sides, though more so on the right in my opinion), thinks of getting elected as his job, not serving his constituents.

You don't get it do you?  That IS his job.  That's ALL he has to do.  He doesn't serve anyone except himself.  That's what ALL politicians do.  They CANNOT 'serve their constituents' because they are literally all over the map, both politically, and in terms of geography.  A farmer in Oklahoma is not going to have the same wants and needs as a lawyer in New York, a teacher in Seattle or taxi driver in San Diego.  In fact, it might even be diametrically opposed.  But Obama and Romney don't care.  They can't care.  You, the voter, are a faceless mob.  Not an individual with individual needs, cares and problems, one giant mass of thoughtless flesh, to be shouted at and vaguely promised stuff that is feasibly impossible.  And as long as they get IN for those four years, then it's all good!  They're done, they just have to show up from time to time, smile for the camera and make nice to the crowd.

Politics is possible the biggest scam in the world.  Has no one noticed who have been voted into the various political offices?  I mean, in the 80's (from 81 to 89) you had Ronald Reagan.  Who was an ACTOR.  Both Television and Movies.  Not a leader of men, but a liar trained in the arts of make believe.  This is the type of person that's a good choice to LEAD a country of MILLIONS?  And yet, he was elected TWICE.

Arnold Schwarzenegger, a renowned body builder and actor got to be GOVERNOR of California.  He wasn't a leader, he just played several in films.  This is what should be leading people?  I came across a cute little article in a local paper claiming that 36% of Americans want George Clooney to run for office.  GEORGE FUCKING CLOONEY.  Not to mention that football star Tim Tebow is apparently considering a career in politics after life in American football.

(For those curious here's the link:  http://www.wellandtribune.ca/2012/09/17/americans-vote-for-george-clooney-in-political-poll )

None of these people had training in any of the political sciences, and yet they get elected.  Why?  Because they're pretty, or charismatic, not because they're capable.  And it's not the U.S. that does it either.  The European countries are no better at this.  And I'm pretty sure everywhere else does it too.

And does no one EVER notice that there's always something on the news about how so and so who got elected didn't keep their promises during the election?  That the news repeat year after bloody year?  Election after freaking election?  No one at all?  And you wonder why?  Because they CAN'T.  It's economically and politically impossible to do so for the vast majority, but no one cares.

For those of you who believe that Corporate 'America' runs the country by bribing politicians are only half right.  They are bribing people, but NOT the big politicians, it's the little guys, the guys in the party that are there for 20-30 years of their lives, making things move behind the scenes.  Obama, Romney, the Governors, and any other political 'face' are simply mouth pieces to say whatever they need to say to keep their 'party' in power for as long as possible.

Does anyone really believe that 4 years is enough time to actually RULE a nation of several million people?  Honestly?

Politicians WILL LIE, CHEAT, STEAL and ANYTHING ELSE they have to do to get YOU, the Voter, to give them a nice fat paycheck month after month.  That is it, that is all.

Don't ask me how to fix it, because at this point I don't think anyone can.  The snowball is just too big, and it's getting bigger the longer it goes down that slope.

Apologies to Valerian and anyone else I've upset with this rant.

[Caitlin]

I have to disagree with your rant, although politicians have their self-interest at heart, which I do agree with, there are still universal values that count for everybody. Everybody should have a place to live and have enough food to eat, everybody should have access to basic healthcare when they need so, everybody has the right to get an education. Both the farmer in Oklahoma and the lawyer in New York want at least that much. A government should provide in those basic needs, especially in First World countries.

It's like those aid programs for Africa; you can either give people food, or teach them how to take care of themselves. A government should help its citizens to at least a basic place to life, sufficient money to buy food and have enough schools to follow an education. At the same time people should not expect to live in mansions, eat royal dinners or study at a top 100 university, but I don't think that the majority of the low incomes have such expectations of their government anyway.

[Chris Brady]

And no one has promised to take those 'universal values' away, have they?  In fact, even if they do, it's pretty much protected by society, anyway.  Given that sort of rhetoric would get them lynched, before the entire country in question (and that's ANY country that has any sort of welfare system in place.)

So they never will threaten that, they'll just promise you everything, as long as it gets them in office.

And it seriously doesn't worry you that we have actors in the role of President?

Here's a cute fact:  Back when Reagan was running against Jimmy Carter, during one debate, Carter's office told Reagan's to not stand beside him, unless on the podium.  Why?  Because Jimmy Carter was only 5' 9" tall, compared to Reagan's 6' 1".  And Carter's office was afraid that if the American people saw that, Carter would lose the '81 election.  Because short men are not seen as leaders.

So after the debate, while the cameras were still rolling, Reagan steps away from the podium to shake Carter's hand.  And guess who won that election?

[Caitlin]

Well, it won't be my president since I have a queen, but to be honest actors themselves might not even be a bad choice. For example, you overlook the fact that Arnold is also a great businessman and achieved many other things in his life. He may be primarily known as an actor, but he also has other valuable skills. I don't know what else Reagan did, but I do know that it went beyond the ability to play a role on television.

Personally I'd rather see somebody lead a country who has some achievements on his name than the local janitor who makes a mess out of his life. There are thousands of actors out there and it's hard to break through in the business and become really successful. The fact that they managed to break through in the first place means they have the qualities to succeed. In general it's good to have somebody with such qualities in control of a country, since you're more likely to succeed than, compared to having somebody lead who didn't achieve anything noteworthy.

I do admit that people aren't only chosen for their skills and that not each candidate makes the best choice. Charisma and looks often play a greater role than they should and it doesn't mean that you'll end up with the best possible leader. On the other hand, the best possible leaders might not even be interested in the job, since they can get something better elsewhere. If I were offered to become the next POTUS I'd probably politely decline. I don't want to be in the publicity 24/7 and carry all the responsibility that comes with the job. I'd much rather live a more laid back life outside the spotlights.

[Will]

The 47% thing was really just one part of the video.  To be fair, the whole thing is a trainwreck of foot-in-mouth disease.  He even voiced concerns that people might get tired of his wife.

Uh... care to rephrase that, Mr. Romney?

[Callie Del Noire]

The 47% thing was really just one part of the video.  To be fair, the whole thing is a trainwreck of foot-in-mouth disease.  He even voiced concerns that people might get tired of his wife.

Uh... care to rephrase that, Mr. Romney?

You got to admit..she seems a bit.. meek at times. (My opinion.. of course it might be the campaign keeping her privacy..which I can respect. I don't think that family is a big deal normally in the run)

[Chris Brady]

For the record, I think it's a bit of both:  Romney blew the election by telling it like it is.

And for those of you who don't know, I am Canadian.

[Callie Del Noire]

For the record, I think it's a bit of both:  Romney blew the election by telling it like it is.

And for those of you who don't know, I am Canadian.

No he blew the election by selling out anything he could to get the nomination. If he could have dropped trow center stage at the GOP Convention and be assured of of getting the nomination..he'd have done it. Or set someone on fire.. or kiss a guy. NOTHING would be against his morals to get the ticket. He's been working on it for 7 years..

[Teo Torriatte]

No he blew the election by selling out anything he could to get the nomination. If he could have dropped trow center stage at the GOP Convention and be assured of of getting the nomination..he'd have done it. Or set someone on fire.. or kiss a guy. NOTHING would be against his morals to get the ticket. He's been working on it for 7 years..

And he has been thinking about it and planning it for a whole lot longer. Ever since his father lost his own bid for president. You are right, he will do or say anything he thinks will get him closer to the White House.

Case in point- now he was wiped the "Etch-a-Sketch" and is suddenly touting himself as the grandfather of Obamacare. Really, Willard, really?!?

[Will]

You got to admit..she seems a bit.. meek at times. (My opinion.. of course it might be the campaign keeping her privacy..which I can respect. I don't think that family is a big deal normally in the run)

I know exactly what point he was trying to make - you want to save your weapons until they can do the most damage at the best possible time.  The way he said it just made him sound like a complete tool, which is really becoming a theme with him.  If you think the country is too dependent on entitlements, fine.  Let's talk about it.  But don't write off half the country as lazy leeches.  That makes you a tool.

And it's important to remember that the only taxes he's talking about are income taxes.  People that don't have to pay income tax generally pay sales tax on every dollar they earn, because they have to spend every dollar they earn.  Not to mention payroll taxes.  So in the end, they can end up paying a pretty sizable percentage of their income as taxes, regardless of whether they owe anything come April.  But I suppose that's not something Mitt Rmoney has to think about.  He might not even remember what it's like to physically take himself to the bank and cash a payroll check.  If he ever has.

[Caitlin]

Heck... Even I am paying taxes in the USA and I'm not even an American citizen... Wutaboutmybleepbleeprights!? :p

(Though in my situation it'll be rectified within several months, as soon as I get the US tax papers and a tax number.)

[OldSchoolGamer]

For the record, I think it's a bit of both:  Romney blew the election by telling it like it is.

And for those of you who don't know, I am Canadian.

Except that's not how it is.  The notion that 47% of Americans don't pay tax has been thoroughly debunked.  Romney is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.  And rather than admit his error, he doubled down on it.

[mia h]

Except that's not how it is.  The notion that 47% of Americans don't pay tax has been thoroughly debunked.  Romney is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.  And rather than admit his error, he doubled down on it.

Didn't you see the GOP convention posters : "Our Campaign will not be run by Fact Checkers"

[Caitlin]

I suppose a pretty lie is more pleasing to his ears than the hard truth?

[Teo Torriatte]

I can't believe I'm gonna defend Romney, but I will give him this much... he was very careful to say 'income taxes'. So technically he wasn't lying... but he also knows that people don't hear the 'income' part and will just assume that 47% of the people don't pay any taxes whatsoever. It's actually a fairly old republican trick. In truth, as has been stated here already by me and others, there are very few people that don't pay any taxes, whatsoever.

tldr; Romney wasn't really lying, he's just a ****ing weasel.

[Callie Del Noire]

As a full time student on VA disabilty .. I'm firmly in the 'leech column' of his equation. I only paid taxes for every year but the last 2.. and what is the weight of 30 years against the last 2?

[Oniya]

tldr; Romney wasn't really lying, he's just a ****ing weasel.

What's the phrase?  An eagle can soar, but a weasel will never get sucked into the engine of a jet plane?

[Denivar]

Something significant that this entire thing highlights is how badly lower income people have been screwed over in the US by payroll tax.

Most people understand payroll tax to be a flat tax rate on all your income, and thus reasonably fair. In fact, it only applies to the first $115,000 or so of income. So, those with very high incomes like Romney pay almost no payroll tax, while for all normal people, payroll tax eats a significant portion of their income.

Now, an important thing to remember is that payroll tax is a big deal. It is what pays pensions for the elderly and disabled. Federal income tax will produce revenue of around $1.4 trillion this year, and payroll tax $0.8 trillion. And the very rich basically don't pay payroll tax.

This has allowed Romney et al to complain about people not paying income tax, while failing to recognize the payroll tax they pay -- and Romney doesn't pay.

Remember, payroll tax works out to 15.3% of your income (if you're earning less than $115k or so), and unlike income tax, payroll tax has very little scope for deductions or otherwise avoiding it. How much federal income tax does Romney pay? Well, he won't reveal his tax returns, but he says "at least 13%".

[Caitlin]

You should introduce the tax we have in The Netherlands, Romney would die from a stroke. ;)



Between 0 - 18,945 euro we pay 33.10 percent tax (belasting = tax)
Over the next amount until 33,863 euro we pay 41.95% tax, etc.

If you make for example 500,000 euros a year, then you pay 52% tax over the last 443,509 euro you earn. The more you earn, the more tax you progressively pay.

And that is just the income tax. We also have a VAT of 19%, which will be raised to 21% next year. On top of that we also have excise on for example cigarettes and gasoline. For cigarettes this raises their price with 300% and for gasoline it raises the price with 120%.

We do have a good healthcare and social security system though. People are cared for from birth to death.

[Denivar]

You know, for all the "let's go back to the good old days" implications the Republicans have, they'd die of a stroke over the taxes the US used to as well.

In the 1950's it worked roughly like this (numbers adjusted for inflation):

- First $40k you earn you pay 20% tax on
- For each additional $40k you earn your tax on that additional amount goes up by a small amount (1-3%)
- Once you hit $4 million in income you'll be paying 91% tax on your last $40k. The tax stops going up at this point, so any amount you earn above $4 million you pay 91% tax on.

This wasn't for a brief period either -- it was like this for many years, throughout most of the 50's and 60's.

[Caitlin]

You'd have to index that to current standards though... 40k then is easily more than 100k now. Still, you do make a really good point.

Clinging to the past will never help anybody. You can use the past as an inspiration and to learn from mistakes, but apart from the dark ages mankind has continued to develop itself and at more progressive rate the last 200 years. Living in a past that is no more will only serve to hinder your own progress.

I often wished I had a time machine to fix mistakes I made, but after living in regret for several years I finally accepted that changing the past is impossible, no matter how badly you want it. Instead I now focus on the future and I've become a lot happier since. As a result my standard of living also significantly improved.

[Oniya]

I think he did index it...

In the 1950's it worked roughly like this (numbers adjusted for inflation):

I managed to miss out on the 60's, but I know that the cost of living was also a lot less, proportionately.  My father supported a family of five (this was before my kid sister and myself) on a military salary.  Even after he came home from 'Nam and had the two of us added in, my mother didn't have to work.

[gaggedLouise]

I think he did index it...

I managed to miss out on the 60's, but I know that the cost of living was also a lot less, proportionately.  My father supported a family of five (this was before my kid sister and myself) on a military salary.  Even after he came home from 'Nam and had the two of us added in, my mother didn't have to work.

I'll just answer this by borrowing the line I got from a neo-con guy here when we were talking U.S. economics and Scandinavian economics, especially the cost of living, starting up companies and wages; it was around 2007 I think. I was roughly making the same point as you, that life is a lot more expensive now than fifty years ago, that nobody's supporting a family with two adults and a couple kids on just one salary anymore, unless the job is that of a high-ranking business exec or the like, and that U.S. small towns and countryside have been widely slipping into long-term poverty for some time. Well, he came back with:

"Poor people in Louisiana are much better off than mid-range working class here /in Sweden/. Have you seen the cars that are driven around on the highways and local roads of Louisiana? Those are no junk cars, I can tell you!"

:D

[Oniya]

Was he certain that those 'non-junk' cars belonged to poor people?  I lived in a small town for the last five years, and actually saw someone drive down the street, lose their muffler, stop, get out, toss it into the truck bed and keep going as if this was no big deal.

[Avis habilis]

"Poor people in Louisiana are much better off than mid-range working class here /in Sweden/. Have you seen the cars that are driven around on the highways and local roads of Louisiana? Those are no junk cars, I can tell you!"

:D

Has Mr. Neo-Con seen the drivers' houses? It's not at all an unusual thing here in Maine to see people whose most valuable asset is their car; they live in mobile homes that are one peeled strip of vinyl away from being an aeolian harp.

[gaggedLouise]

Was he certain that those 'non-junk' cars belonged to poor people?  I lived in a small town for the last five years, and actually saw someone drive down the street, lose their muffler, stop, get out, toss it into the truck bed and keep going as if this was no big deal.

The obvious rejoinder. I really should have pointed out to him that many of those who were trapped by Katrina and later accused of being "dumb and careless" , likely didn't have cars to escape from New Orleans in, or may not have had the money to buy gas and food for that kind of trip.

But I bet he'd have dismissed that as commie media allegations.

[Denivar]

Yes, the numbers I gave were indexed for inflation.

Incidentally here is an interesting chart, showing job creation vs top marginal income tax in the US:



Correlation does not prove cause, but those are interesting numbers to overcome for anyone who claims that reducing the top marginal tax rate is going to create a bunch of jobs.