Romney Butthurtedness:

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/11/14/reports-romney-says-obama-won-by-offering-gifts-to-minorities-and-young-voters/?hpt=hp_t1

Quote :

"Mitt Romney told donors on a call Wednesday that President Barack Obama outmatched him by offering "gifts" to African-Americans, Hispanics and young voters, according to various news outlets. The 2012 Republican nominee, who lost to Obama by 126 electoral votes, said the president courted voters by offering policies–some of them this election year–that appealed to key constituencies in the Democratic base. "With regards to the young people, for instance, a forgiveness of college loan interest, was a big gift," Romney said "Free contraceptives were very big with young college-aged women," he continued. "And then, finally, Obamacare also made a difference for them, because as you know, anybody now 26 years of age and younger was now going to be part of their parents' plan, and that was a big gift to young people. They turned out in large numbers, a larger share in this election even than in 2008." "You can imagine for somebody making $25,000 or $30,000 or $35,000 a year, being told you're now going to get free health care, particularly if you don't have it, getting free health care worth, what, $10,000 per family, in perpetuity, I mean, this is huge," he said. "Likewise with Hispanic voters, free healthcare was a big plus. But in addition with regards to Hispanic voters, the amnesty for children of illegals, the so-called Dream Act kids, was a huge plus for that voting group." He talked about how turnout was a lot lower this year, mentioning how the president got fewer votes than he did four years ago and that he got less than the 2008 Republican nominee, John McCain, received."

11/14/2012 10:13:50 PM

Conservatives are evil people that don't care about emotions

11/14/2012 10:16:57 PM

liberals are pussies that make fun of conservatives behind the safety of the internets

11/14/2012 10:20:05 PM

I do it to your faces.

11/14/2012 10:21:24 PM

Honestly, even if they are 'gifts', this is an idiotic thing to make a bid deal about.

Every single generation has some sort of 'gift' given to them by the government, with the younger generation usually getting the shaft.

11/14/2012 10:23:29 PM

Romney would have shafted me big time.

11/14/2012 10:25:12 PM

Romney's gift was when he got shit out of the right cunt.

[Edited on November 14, 2012 at 10:27 PM. Reason : Lol Rodney ]

11/14/2012 10:27:07 PM

He was trying to gift rich people with tax cuts. Butt hurt is fucking way over used.

11/14/2012 10:33:23 PM

The worst thing about being rich is that you are in a minority. Doesn't help when you are a filthy former-CEO.

HOLLA AT OBAMA

[Edited on November 14, 2012 at 10:36 PM. Reason : /]

11/14/2012 10:35:06 PM

Seriously....

Like, rich people get a 'gift' by having a lower tax rate on capital gains

11/14/2012 10:36:28 PM

It's not a "gift," because it stimulates the economy as the rich people have more money to spend on job creation and small business and stuff! They're really doing it to help us plebs.

11/14/2012 10:41:55 PM

Mitt should have held his horses and ran in 2016, he probably would have won.

11/14/2012 11:00:17 PM

Rich people do us all a favor by hiring us! Don't you realize that companies would all actually have a lot more money if they didn't have any employees, they just do it as a goodwill gesture and as a show of great generosity to the unwashed mob.

11/14/2012 11:06:25 PM

It's cute how people think there's a major difference between Homobama and Rmoney...especially if you're in the middle class. It doesn't matter we're fucked six ways from Sunday no matter how you look at it.

Obama just happened to secure the majority with these gifts (and they are) but additionally all the macfags and butthurt hippies put him back into office.

11/14/2012 11:13:48 PM

But I just love to a flaming mad Republican all upset 'casue Mitt ain't the President of their America.

For example

http://www.wmbfnews.com/story/20098129/north-carolina-secession-petition-exceeds-needed-signatures

HAHAHAHAHAHA

[Edited on November 14, 2012 at 11:18 PM. Reason : /]

11/14/2012 11:17:27 PM

Meh, people and their political views. When Homobama sucked during the first four years people said he had a lot to overcome after the Bush era...are people going to stick to that for the second four?

Not that I'm a Romney guy, to quote South Park

Quote :

"It's always between a giant douche and a turd sandwich. Nearly every election since the beginning of time has been between some douche and some turd. They're the only people who suck up enough to make it that far in politics"

11/14/2012 11:31:19 PM

Didn't I post that Romney gave people free dominos pizza


and didn't I immediately post that Obama gave the same people a free stevie wonder concert?



If the election came down to gifts, we all know who won.

11/15/2012 4:27:26 AM

Quote :

"Honestly, even if they are 'gifts', this is an idiotic thing to make a bid deal about. Every single generation has some sort of 'gift' given to them by the government, with the younger generation usually getting the shaft."

Romney ran ads promising to spend more on medicare than Obama, because Obamacare included "cuts".

I feel like I'm the only one who remembers this crap. Romney was the entitlement, deficit spending, candidate. I'm not arguing based on what CNN said, I'm arguing based on what Romney's own ads said.

11/15/2012 7:41:08 AM

they are gifts, actually. a gift from the taxpayers.

and when you're receiving those gifts, you like to keep receiving them, and even more. So when a person with a lot of influence over those gifts is being challenged in an election, it's likely that you'll vote for the guy who wants to give you more gifts, not less. Of course these people want more. Of course they'll vote for that guy. People want anything they can get "for free" and won't think another thought about it; how it's paid for; or what impacts it has.

11/15/2012 9:28:50 AM

Who the fuck cares lol?

Any and every person will takes free shit at anytime.

11/15/2012 9:32:16 AM

^^ I'm confused how this would hold for >50% of the voting population.

Considering that working, productive, people are more likely to vote than freeloaders, it would seem that the population of people voting for Obama are net-losers with this "gift" thing. So in other words, your argument is mostly wrong. No, wait, it's completely wrong.

[Edited on November 15, 2012 at 9:34 AM. Reason : ]

11/15/2012 9:34:31 AM

No. Nowhere did I say this holds for any percentage of the voting population. Yes, it's some percentage, likely well under 50%.

I'm not sure why you got up on your horse there, but you're reading more into my post than is there. I said the policies/programs are indeed gifts and that those receiving gifts, would vote for the person giving them more gifts. So yeh... not sure why you're talking voting populations with me.

Are you just assuming that I agree that these voters are the reason Romney lost? If so, that's a dumb thing to do.

[Edited on November 15, 2012 at 9:39 AM. Reason : .]

11/15/2012 9:38:09 AM

Living in a society with a platform to be gainfully employed is a gift.

11/15/2012 9:40:41 AM

Quote :

"it's likely that you'll vote for the guy who wants to give you more gifts, not less."

So this statement applies for some arbitrary population of voters.

Quote :

"Are you just assuming that I agree that these voters are the reason Romney lost?"

As far as I can decipher the wdprice3 position, some unspecified fraction of voters voted for Obama because he promises to give them gifts, but this isn't relevant for the outcome of the election.

The way I would generally interpret political discussion, is that arguing that people vote a certain way is offered because it would affect elections. But I guess that's not the case here. We'll just believe that we live in a nation of entitlement queens. But it won't have any material impact on our nation. It's just nice to believe in a vacuum.

11/15/2012 9:51:26 AM

No, most vote democrat and have for a while, because that segment of the population believes their gifts will continue to flow due to democrats. Sure that has an effect on elections, but that effect is pretty much known before the election and is accounted for by politicians. It's not like Romney was blind sided by those votes not going to him. He already knew they weren't. He didn't lose because of those votes, because he never would have had them. He lost because he's a flipflopper and too far right.

11/15/2012 9:56:52 AM

So the population who voted for Obama was already mostly filled with the "takers", and it was relatively smaller number of the "makers" in the political middle who swung to vote for Obama, in spite of the fact that he was buying off the rest of his base with the spoils of their labor.

...and they did this because Romney was a weak candidate. Boy, he must have seriously blown balls for that middle ground to willingly sacrifice themselves like that.

11/15/2012 10:07:19 AM

You are trying to read more than what's there and making a fool of yourself. It is no secret that those who are on government programs heavily favor democrats. For Romney to blame Obama's "gifts" on his loss, is idiotic. To say that Obama won because of those votes is idiotic. To assume all of those "gifts" were from Obama is idiotic. I don't know what proportion of voters are within this group. I doubt it's near 50%.

Quote :

"it was relatively smaller number of the "makers" in the political middle who swung to vote for Obama, in spite of the fact that he was buying off the rest of his base with the spoils of their labor."

This doesn't even make sense. There are plenty of "makers" who voted for Obama for other reasons, one of which is that they agree with these policies.

[Edited on November 15, 2012 at 10:15 AM. Reason : .]

11/15/2012 10:12:51 AM

The problem is that the narrative is completely and totally wrong.

Obviously it's a one sided-narrative. Aside from the occasional lady mistaken on Obamaphones, the ones talking about gifts are ostensibly the ones not getting those gifts. As far as I can tell from general demographics, the ones complaining the most about the gift culture are equally embedded, if not more, than those not complaining about it.

Plus, the ones voting for and implementing these gifts are not the ones getting them.

Do you not see the reality-distortion field? Because it is all around you.

[Edited on November 15, 2012 at 10:42 AM. Reason : ]

11/15/2012 10:42:17 AM

^

tldr; version :

ROMNEY MAD HAHAHAHAHA

11/15/2012 10:45:20 AM

Quote :

"It doesn't matter we're fucked six ways from Sunday no matter how you look at it."

Pretty much sums it up.

11/15/2012 10:54:17 AM

I voted for Obama, and I dont know where the fuck my gifts are at?

I got 90 days of unemployment this year, but that was due to a legitimate layoff, and it was after no gap in employment since I was 16....pretty sure I paid for that somewhere along the way.

Romney thinks that government backed student loans are a gift to young voters? The only thing I remember Obama proposing that sounds like a gift was student loan forgiveness after paying for a really long period of time and still working in an underpaid industry like education, social work, etc.

11/15/2012 10:58:03 AM

red states receive more federal aid that blue states, period.

republicans need to stop.

11/15/2012 12:01:46 PM

Gifts are voluntary. Nothing the government gives is a gift. Elections are basically a referendum on what should be done with stolen goods. You can choose where you want the goods to go, but you can't choose to have the government return the stolen goods or to stop stealing.

In before:

1) What about the roads
2) Move to Somalia
3) Social contract.

11/15/2012 12:10:52 PM

Quote :

"rich people get a 'gift' by having a lower tax rate on capital gains "

You dont have to be rich. That applies to anyone with an investment.

11/15/2012 1:24:24 PM

Quote :

"Elections are basically a referendum on what should be done with stolen goods. You can choose where you want the goods to go, but you can't choose to have the government return the stolen goods or to stop stealing."

This is actually correct but then you apply it solely to government, and not at all to capitalism. As if somehow what we have is not a government, you know, designed for capitalism.

11/15/2012 1:26:28 PM

Quote :

"Elections are basically a referendum on what should be done with stolen goods."

you're right, except the "stolen goods" are not money stolen from people who god damn earned it, they're goods stolen by people out of the earth and turned into money.

11/15/2012 1:26:50 PM

The libertarian-right: making correct arguments out of words, incorrect arguments out of concepts and semantics.

Yoinks.

11/15/2012 1:28:44 PM

Quote :

"You dont have to be rich. That applies to anyone with an investment."

Yeah so would a tax rebate for buying cadillacs.

11/15/2012 1:29:16 PM

Quote :

"red states receive more federal aid that blue states, period. republicans need to stop."

11/15/2012 1:32:00 PM

The fact that destroyer can essentially produce the exact words of a Marxian analysis with none of the cognitive or semantic content is evidence of something truly amazing to me

Either way I'm lollin

11/15/2012 1:32:34 PM

Str8foolish, cute retort. I take it you arent saving for your own retirement?

Im also unaware of any rebates for buying a caddys. Was that in the GM bailout?

[Edited on November 15, 2012 at 1:39 PM. Reason : .]

11/15/2012 1:37:14 PM

I'm saving for my retirement, but because I'm not rich I can only save so much because rent, food, utilities, and the basic life necessities consume a larger proportion of my income.

This is true of every person who isn't rich. The proportion of your income that can go to investments is increasingly limited the less money you have, because bottom line costs of living are non-negotiable.

This is the same reason a consumption tax is regressive: The poor necessarily spend a higher proportion of their income on consumption than the rich. So a, say, 5% sales tax will affect 80% of a poor man's income but only 10% of a rich man's income. So the effective tax rates on total income are then 4% and 0.5%, respectively.

Do you get it yet?


[Edited on November 15, 2012 at 1:48 PM. Reason : .]

11/15/2012 1:44:38 PM

Quote :

"Str8foolish, cute retort. I take it you arent saving for your own retirement?"

Actually, 25% of American households aren't.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_in_the_United_States#Distribution_of_wealth

2007 net worth, median and mean, in $1,000s

1.1 -2.1

These people could have some very marginal benefit from capital gains... but really not. They basically don't save, so no, it's not relevant.

11/15/2012 1:48:39 PM

Btw some poor people have cadillacs too.

11/15/2012 1:49:22 PM

where do I get my free Obamaphone and Food Stamps?

11/15/2012 1:50:23 PM

I didnt ask you for the amount of money you saved, only if you were saving. Once you retire you will be able to take those gains at the cap gains rate vs income tax rates. (unless you guys dont mess that up)

11/15/2012 1:52:05 PM

Quote :

"This is the same reason a consumption tax is regressive: The poor necessarily spend a higher proportion of their income on consumption than the rich."

What percent of a rich person's spending is not spent on consumption?

11/15/2012 1:53:28 PM

Quote :

"Just In: North Carolina will set up a system for people to obtain health insurance under the Affordable Care Act that will be jointly run by the state and federal government, Gov. Beverly Perdue said Thursday."

11/15/2012 2:17:16 PM

Quote :

"What percent of a rich person's spending is not spent on consumption?"

Obviously it varies but via http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marginal_propensity_to_consume you can pretty much count on it decreasing as their disposable incoming increases.



I mean...is this really up for debate? It's basically a question of "Who has more disposable income as a proportion of their total income, the rich or the poor?"

Quote :

"I didnt ask you for the amount of money you saved, only if you were saving. Once you retire you will be able to take those gains at the cap gains rate vs income tax rates. (unless you guys dont mess that up)"

Right, and if I put aside all of my food money for the next few years I could buy a cadillac and reap that sweet cadillac rebate. Awesome, sounds like a great program that totally doesn't lopsidedly benefit the rich.

11/15/2012 2:54:36 PM

Quote :

"This is actually correct but then you apply it solely to government, and not at all to capitalism. As if somehow what we have is not a government, you know, designed for capitalism."

I don't even want to talk about capitalism because the "ism" adds in a whole lot of baggage that I don't necessarily support.

How should what I said be applied to capital? Should someone be allowed to work for an organization with a hierarchical structure? Is it conceivable that people would actually choose to work for such an organization, and that other people may choose to work for organizations structured and styled in a very different way? It could even be argued and shown empirically that the market rewards flatter, non-hierarchical organization by eliminating a lot of the knowledge problems we see in large corporations.

Left libertarians should (and usually do, from what I see) acknowledge that corporations are propped up by the state. They're subsidized, they get tax loopholes, they get all kinds of special deals through political connections. Even if economies of scale are at play, do they really outweigh diseconomies of scale introduced by the lack of knowledge and the principle-agent problem?

11/15/2012 3:12:24 PM