President Obama: The Most Polarizing Moderate Ever

[Havakasha]

Mitt Romney's Secret Fundraiser Remarks Put The Lie To Supply-Side Economics
Posted: 09/19/2012 2:21 pm Updated: 09/19/2012 5:47 pm

WASHINGTON -- Lying just beneath Mitt Romney's dismissal of nearly half the electorate at a high-dollar fundraiser in May is an admission not as immediately damaging, but perhaps more important in the long run.

Romney told his donors back then that his campaign's political calculation assumes people who do not pay federal income taxes will not be interested in a candidate who proposes tax cuts. But that ignores the decades-long argument that the GOP has employed on behalf of tax cuts -- that wealth in the private sector will "trickle down" and spur economic growth, and therefore benefit everybody. If trickle-down economics is true, Romney should have no problem selling it to all the people who will supposedly benefit.

Unless he doesn't buy it either.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1897501.html

[Havakasha]

And Romney said not a word about all the redistribution upward in a tax code that favors investment over labor income. That’s why Romney pays federal taxes at a much lower rate than do many in middle class — and why, given his stress on the importance of paying income taxes, he might usefully release a few more of his own tax returns.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinio...y.html?hpid=z3

[Havakasha]

Mr. Stewart once again shows Fox News to be propagandists for the Republican Party.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1899787.html

[Havakasha]

http://www.dailykos.com/

"There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, 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.
And I mean the president starts off with 48,49... he starts off with a huge number. These are people who pay no income tax. Forty-seven percent of Americans pay no income tax. So our message of low taxes doesn't connect. So he'll be out there talking about tax cuts for the rich. I mean, that's what they sell every four years. And so my job is not to worry about those people. I'll never convince them that they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives."

Others have dissected the fallacies of the 47 percent figure; the presumption that those 47 percent pay no taxes at all, when in practice often they pay more taxes, as a percentage of their income, than others; the rather unremarkable circumstances that can land one in that bracket, by definition unremarkable if nearly half of the nation can count itself a part of it, and so on. That the figure is a favored talking point of lower wingnuttia is also not especially surprising, as the Mitt campaign staff seems to fairly wallow in those dregs.
No, what impresses me most about Mitt's little Sermon by the Fount is that, remarkably, we may have found an instance in which Mitt Romney actually believes what he says. He speaks easily, and off the cuff; much of the awkwardness of his public appearances is, seemingly, tempered. This is not something memorized and delivered by rote. Wherever Mitt first heard this thing, he believes it, and has internalized it, and has internalized the inherent irresponsibility and entitlement of, according to him, approximately half of the nation.

You cannot write off "who believe 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" as merely inelegant wording. That is not an inelegant expression of campaign strategy towards half of America; it is, however, a perfectly elegant statement of contempt for them. There are plenty of ways to note that half of America will not be voting for you without lumping the lot of them together as believers in their own victimhood, or people who merely think of themselves as entitled to free things. We have moved on from belittling the help to belittling wide swaths of the retired, of troops overseas, of people working two jobs, or three. It is now half of America that has been assigned shameful loafer status, and by a room full of people who have multiple homes, who may have a yacht here or there, who may summer in the Hamptons, and who have more money to spend on a single speech and plateful of food than half the country might see in a year. And there is Mitt, giving the speech that does it. Members of the wait staff flit in and out of the picture as he delivers these remarks: Shirkers, slackers and hooligans, the lot of them.

[Havakasha]

Obama Praised ‘Competition’ And ‘Innovation’ In 1998 Remarks


PEMA LEVY SEPTEMBER 20, 2012, 7:44 AM 2723
Republicans’ line of attack this week is that President Obama favors wealth-redistribution policies based on a clip of Obama from 1998 in which he says he believes in “redistribution” — setting up the campaign as a choice between free enterprise and big government.

But the clip circulated by Republicans fails to include part of Obama’s remarks in which he went on to advocate for “competition” and “innovation,” according to a video of the full relevant remarks obtained by NBC News. The clip used by Republicans was posted to YouTube Tuesday by a user who has not been identified, according to an ABC News report.

“I think the trick is figuring out how do we structure government systems that pool resources and hence facilitate some redistribution because I actually believe in redistribution, at least at a certain level to make sure that everybody’s got a shot,” Obama says in the clip released earlier this week.

In the fuller remarks, Obama went on to say: “How do we pool resources at the same time as we decentralize delivery systems in ways that both foster competition, can work in the marketplace, and can foster innovation at the local level and can be tailored to particular communities.”


http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/20...ref=fpnewsfeed

[Havakasha]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...g.html?hpid=z1


But now NBC News has obtained the rest of Obama’s comments, and it is clear his remarks were taken completely out of context. Obama is not talking about redistributing wealth at all — instead, he speaks about competition, the market place and innovation in an effort to improve government services in Chicago.
Nevertheless, the Romney campaign had seized on the remark as evidence of Obama’s apparently socialist tendencies. “You know, President Obama said he believes in redistribution,” GOP vice presidential nominee Paul Ryan said Tuesday. “Mitt Romney and I are not running to redistribute the wealth. Mitt Romney and I are running to help Americans create wealth.”
Below is the YouTube version — which now has more than 500,000 views — touted by the Romney campaign. You can see it is missing the section outlined in bold in the quote above.

A Romney campaign spokesman said that the campaign only had the clip that was used on YouTube, not the rest of the Obama’s remarks.
We realize that the Romney campaign was trying to change the subject from the damaging video of Romney’s remarks in a private gathering just a few months ago. Perhaps this is a lesson that they might check the facts before they rush out with unfounded accusations — let alone ones based on remarks from the distant political past.

Four Pinocchios
(About our rating scale)
Check out our candidate Pinocchio Tracker

[Havakasha]

Gotta love this.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politi...738_story.html


The financial tide has turned against Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney and his key allies, who spent more than they brought in and were outraised by President Obama during the month of August, according to disclosures filed Thursday.

Romney’s presidential campaign committee raised nearly $67 million last month — a strong figure — but spent about the same amount building its campaign organization and responding to a barrage of attack ads from Obama and his allies. Even so, the campaign spent just $13.7 million on ads, which was less than the $15 million it spent in July.


Romney was also forced to take out a $20 million loan because the campaign had run out of money raised during the primary season. The campaign also fell behind in its attempts to reach grass-roots donors despite the addition of tea party favorite Paul Ryan to the ticket, records show.

The spending left the campaign with about $50 million cash on hand at the start of September, not including the remaining debt, according to the disclosures.

Obama’s campaign account, by contrast, had nearly $90 million on hand going into September, even after spending $83 million in August. Officials said Obama had 1.19 million donors last month — more than a third of its total for the 2012 cycle.

[Havakasha]

http://news.yahoo.com/obama-more-cam...-election.html



WASHINGTON (AP) — At the end of August, President Barack Obama had about $88.8 million to spend on the final months of the campaign, nearly twice as much as Republican rival Mitt Romney, according to campaign fundraising reports released Thursday.
While Romney's report showed he had $50.4 million to spend as of Aug. 31, he also owed $15 million on a $20 million loan taken that month.
The loan helped Romney pay for mailings, staff salaries and TV advertising — and it helped his finances appear healthier on paper. It also boosted his cash-on-hand total from $35.4 million — a number that's closer to a third of Obama's haul.
While Romney raised about $66.6 million in August to Obama's $84.7 million, the $20 million loan boosts Romney's total receipts to $86.6 million, slightly higher than his Democratic opponent's take.
Both Romney and Obama spent about as much as they raised during the month of August. Romney spent about $66.4 million, while Obama spent about $83.7 million.
Romney and the Republican Party raised more than $111 million combined. That was less than Obama and the Democrats, who raised more than $114 million.
Romney took out a $20 million loan in late August, in the days before his campaign had access to funds they had raised for the general election because he was not yet the official nominee. He used general election money as collateral for the loan.

[Havakasha]

http://www.wjla.com/articles/2012/09...its-80145.html

And then, well, here’s a sampling.

• Bill Kristol in the Weekly Standard: “It's worth recalling that a good chunk of the 47 percent who don't pay income taxes are Romney supporters—especially of course seniors (who might well "believe they are entitled to heath care," a position Romney agrees with), as well as many lower-income Americans (including men and women serving in the military) who think conservative policies are better for the country even if they're not getting a tax cut under the Romney plan. So Romney seems to have contempt not just for the Democrats who oppose him, but for tens of millions who intend to vote for him.

“It remains important for the country that Romney wins in November (unless he chooses to step down and we get the Ryan-Rubio ticket we deserve!). But that shouldn't blind us to the fact that Romney's comments, like those of Obama four years ago, are stupid and arrogant.” http://bit.ly/OM58Q8

• Michael Gerson in the Washington Post: “Republican ideology pitting the “makers” against the “takers” offers nothing. No sympathy for our fellow citizens. No insight into our social challenge. No hope of change. This approach involves a relentless reductionism. Human worth is reduced to economic production. Social problems are reduced to personal vices. Politics is reduced to class warfare on behalf of the upper class.” http://wapo.st/SenhfB

•

[Havakasha]

This is a core SiriuslyWrong talking point taken apart right before your very eyes. lol

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinio...y.html?hpid=z3
Five Myths
Challenging everything you think you know
Five myths about the 47 percent

By William G. Gale and Donald B. Marron, Published: September 21

As Mitt Romney recently noted, about 47 percent of U.S. households do not pay federal income taxes. Some see this as evidence of a welfare state run amok. Others think that gimmicks and loopholes let both rich and poor Americans duck their taxes. Let’s correct some misconceptions about about this group, now colloquially called the 47 percent.

1. Forty-seven percent of Americans don’t pay taxes.

The most pernicious misconception about people who don’t pay federal income taxes is that they don’t pay any taxes. That oft-heard claim ignores all the other taxes Americans encounter in their daily lives. Almost two-thirds of the 47 percent work, for example, and their payroll taxes help finance Social Security and Medicare. Accounting for this, the share of households paying no net federal taxes falls to 28 percent

And those aren’t the only other taxes they bear. According to economic research, the corporate income tax discourages domestic investment; that depresses wages, so workers are effectively paying some of the corporate tax. More directly, many households pay federal taxes on gasoline, beer and cigarettes. And then there are state and local sales, property and income taxes — all of which are often less progressive than the federal income tax. Putting all these together, a family of three with an income of $30,000 would owe no federal income tax (in fact, they would get money back). But they could easily pay more than $4,500, or 15 percent of their income, in taxes.



Keep reading.