MICHIGAN — Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan brought the Republican presidential ticket to Commerce, Michigan today in an event billed as a “Homecoming Rally”—Romney grew up here in Oakland County. As expected, Romney celebrated his Michigan roots, but he did it, in part, with a crowd-pleasing reference to the utterly false and debunked notion that Obama’s US citizenship is questionable.
Let’s take a look at how Michigan news outlets reported on Romney’s reference.
Writes the Detroit Free Press’s Kathy Gray (in her story’s sixth paragraph):
Romney also slammed Obama while reveling in his return to the state where he was born and grew up.
“Nobody asks for my birth certificate,” he said. “Everyone knows I was born and raised here. It feels like coming home to this beautiful state.”
Unfortunately, Gray does not immediately thereafter—or ever, really, in her piece— clarify that “slam,” explain that there is no legitimate debate about Obama’s birth certificate. Instead, in the paragraph following Romney’s quotation, the reporter moves on to paraphrase the economic ideas that Romney presented at the rally.
By letting Romney’s words stand—particularly when they are given prime position in the top-third of the article—the Free Press reporter lends them unwarranted credence, and gives the Republican candidate a pass on a smarmy rhetorical tactic—and passes said rhetoric along to readers, unchallenged and unexplained. Four paragraphs later, Gray provides Michigan Democratic Party chair Mark Brewer with the opportunity to make an offhand, “he-said” response: “And it’s real sad to hear that [Romney’s] now become a birther, too.” But Gray gives no explanation of what a “birther” is, and she stuffs Brewer’s quote in her story’s third-to-last paragraph, next to a list of other Romney/Ryan policy positions that Brewer opposes. This makes it seem as if Obama’s citizenship is as up for debate as the wisdom of the auto industry loans or Medicare reform.
Mlive, a statewide news site, makes a similar mistake. Reporter Dave Murray puts the challenge to Romney’s joke entirely in the hands of a political opponent, like so:
The former Massachusetts governor leaned heavily on his Michigan roots, joking “No one has ever asked to see my birth certificate; they know I’m from right here.”
The remarks were called “extreme” by Michigan Democratic Party Chairman Mark Brewer, who asked whether Romney has joined “birthers” who believe Obama was not born in the United States.
Murray’s article leaves it at that, moving on to cover the rest of the rally’s agenda. (He did write a a second story with more background—but readers may not have followed him there.) This speaks to the dangers of superficial political event coverage, when reporters stick too close to the candidate’s rally script, which I have written about before.
The Detroit News leads with the birth certificate joke in its headline: “Romney in Michigan: ‘No one’s ever asked to see my birth certificate.’” (Note that The Detroit News and the Detroit Free Press recorded Romney’s words in slightly different ways. This isn’t the only instance in the article where this is so, either.)
But while the Free Press lets Romney’s reference slide by unchallenged, Detroit News political reporter Marisa Schultz counters it immediately with key background information. Writes Shultz Schultz:
[Romney] recalled his roots growing up in Michigan and falling in love with wife, Ann, here. Ann Romney was born at Henry Ford Hospital, Romney said, and he arrived at Harper Hospital in Detroit.
“No one’s ever asked to see my birth certificate,” Romney said to cheers. “They know this is the place where we were born and raised.”
President Obama released his long-form birth certificate after conspiracy theorists, perpetuated by calls from the likes of Donald Trump, doubted whether Obama was a U.S. citizen, and therefore not entitled to be president. Obama was born in Hawaii.
Reporters were chosen that would write a story favorable to Romney. That's the wat the FP is. I would sk Mr. Romney why did he, Mitt Romney, the authentic American, dodge the draft and ran to France to avoid serving in Viet Nam while other authentic Americans died in Viet Nam. I have to assume his robust sons never volunteered for recent wars either because they were on a mission for the church as well. Coward Romney running for President!
#1 Posted by ET, CJR on Fri 24 Aug 2012 at 07:59 PM
What this is about:
http://crooksandliars.com/blue-texan/romney-campaign-ready-go-breitbart-thin
"The Obama campaign's hugely effective attacks on Mitt Romney's career at Bain Capital, including one of the best Democratic political ads produced in decades, have clearly knocked Team Willard off their game. They are apparently frustrated and angry, and they're looking to strike back...
The idea that Obama "hasn't been vetted" comes directly from the late Andrew Breitbart's and his pet project, "The Vetting" which to date has produced nothing but a series of widely-mocked nothing burgers."
More here:
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/05/a-case-study-in-right-wing-media-malpractice-from-breitbartcom/257599/
#2 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Fri 24 Aug 2012 at 10:37 PM
We've seen this framing:
http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/07/sununu-unleashed-obama-needs-to-learn-how-to-be-an-american.php
and we know what's it's about:
http://www.eschatonblog.com/2012/08/since-real-reporters-are-either-too.html
#3 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Fri 24 Aug 2012 at 10:47 PM
The writer should have made clear wther the reporter might have included a "birther" clarification that was deleted by an editor. In my 30 years of reporting, many efforts to write the full story were obstructed by editors fearful of rebuke from the top floor.
Further, while the "birther" issue is clear and can be set right in a short sentence, many issues are not so simple to resolve quickly, or within a space limitation, and with a deadline rapidly approaching.
#4 Posted by Frank Niering, CJR on Sat 25 Aug 2012 at 08:23 AM
Damn!
The "neutral" watchdogs are in a Level 9 meltdown over a joke!
Obama has joked about the birthers too, for Pete's sake!
Get a grip, fellas. You'll have WAY more fun skewering Romney in the next four years than you had carrying Obama's water in the past four.
#5 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Sat 25 Aug 2012 at 02:43 PM
"The "neutral" watchdogs are in a Level 9 meltdown over a joke!
Obama has joked about the birthers too, for Pete's sake!"
Ah. The ol' "they're just words! What's the difference whether a black guy or white guy says them?"
Are they telling the same joke, Val? Is the punch line the same? Do the words mean the same things when coming out of different people's mouths?
And you call me the racist. What a tool.
#6 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Sat 25 Aug 2012 at 04:43 PM
Speaking of tools, from here:
http://www.esquire.com/_mobile/blogs/politics/mark-halperin-romney-birther-joke-12025904
Mark Halpern stands by his tweet:
http://thepage.time.com/2012/08/24/a-mess/
"[Derpity derpity doo] I can say that this Romney/birther moment is representative of the whole, horrible campaign cycle we are in.
The level of vitriol and personal animus that exists on both sides over the flap is truly discouraging...
I stand by my own tweet of earlier today:
Joke not funny.But not planned.But insensitive.But PBO does birther jokes.But distractions bad 4 Mitt pre-Tampa.But Dem faux outrage=zzz."
Is a frontal lobotomy a prerequisite to becoming a Washington journalist like Halpern?
#7 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Sat 25 Aug 2012 at 07:29 PM
Yep...
Call me crazy, but I think it's definitely racist to hold people to different standards on the basis of race.
I guess I'm just a slave to the dictionary...
#8 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Sun 26 Aug 2012 at 08:47 AM
“There are few things in life that are harder to find and more important to keep than love. Well,love and a birth certificate" -- President Barack Obama
All this whining from the hypocritical, thin-skinned leftists who can't take a damned joke isn't going to mean dirt to an electorate in an economy that has seen 8% or greater unemployment since the Obamessiah took office.
5 trillion in debt in just 3 years.
Stagnant wages.
Millions upon millions of new people on food stamps and disability.
A proposed budget that was so stupid, not a single Democrat voted for it.
Gas prices.
Disdain and contempt for business owners.
Bowing before foreign heads of state.
Etc., etc., etc....
And you guys think the American people are going to be put off by a joke?
Seriously?
#9 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Sun 26 Aug 2012 at 09:08 AM
For the record, I'm a long time blogger at the Detroit News Politics blog. I didn't report, I strongly criticized the inherent racism.
http://blogs.detroitnews.com/politics/2012/08/24/romney-goes-full-birther/.
#10 Posted by Libby Spencer, CJR on Sun 26 Aug 2012 at 11:08 AM
Libby, thank you for sharing! I'm continuing to follow Michigan political coverage for CJR. I'll look for your blog posts, but please do feel free to email me (link on the byline here) to point me to particular posts, and to simply keep in touch.
#11 Posted by Anna Clark, CJR on Sun 26 Aug 2012 at 11:56 AM
"All this whining from the hypocritical, thin-skinned leftists who can't take a damned joke"
Sorry Valois, which party was raging for a week or two about the need to replace Biden over a reference to chains in a conversation about banks?
Wow, context and meaning was really important that week.
A-holes.
"isn't going to mean dirt to an electorate in an economy that has seen 8% or greater unemployment since the Obamessiah took office."
Yeah, since the first day after the republicans brutally f-ked up the country, unemployment as been high. This is a legitimate arguement to have, but Romeny doesn't want that discussion.
In fact, apart from race baiting, it's hard to see what discussion he wants to have. He's got no policies.
Sargent pretty much nails it:
http://m.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/post/birther-jokes-and-the-good-obama-bad-obama-conundrum/2012/08/24/64d9a28a-ee18-11e1-afd8-097e90f99d05_blog.html
"Romney and Republicans often don’t seem to have decided which Obama they’re running against.
[As] the race intensitfied, Romney also needed to prove to the right wing base that he has what it really takes to take it to Obama. Remember, the right’s mythology is that John McCain lost to Obama in part because he wasn’t willing to be aggressive enough in exposing Obama’s true beliefs, instincts, and inclinations. Romney began targeting a new and more sinister version of the President, the one who favors “equal outcomes” and wants everyone to enjoy the “same or similar rewards” regardless of how hard they work. This Obama — the one whose plan to restore Clinton era rates upon the richest two out of every 100 taxpayers is indistinguishable from socialism — could have sprung from the fevered imagination of Glenn Beck.
In recent weeks, even as one outside group is running ads criticizing the benign version of Obama more in sorrow than in anger, Romney has been targeting the second, more sinister Obama more regularly. Obama believes only government is responsible for your success, and disdains your hard work and individual initiative. [republican derpityderpderp] to take what’s rightfully yours and redistribute it downward. As Bernstein notes, attacking this Obama is what gets the big crowd reactions.
I don’t know whether it’s fair to say Romney’s birther joke is of a piece with any larger strategy. But the broader point is that the increasing attacks on the second version of Obama suggest Romney has decided he needs to leave behind his initial theory of the race — that he can win on the economy alone."
You think people who hated the Bush republicans so much, they left aside the fact that two of his names are a letter away from two of America's most notorious enemies, that they'd completely forget who f-ked up the economy 4 years ago?
And continues to f-k it up because they're too busy talking about birthers and birth control:
http://m.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2012/08/republicans-wanted-culture-war-now-theyre-getting-it
You guys started this conversation, now you want to stop because it's distracting from 'real issues'? Since when have 'gay marriage' demagoging republicans EVER wanted to talk about real issues?
Sorry folks, but you and I know your 'real issues' platform of "we make things even worse!" is a loser. You're the ones creating the distractions so we don't talk about that. It takes some real chutzpah to then turn around and complain about how distracted we've become.
Try not being stupid if you'd prefer us not to talk about how stupid you people are.
#12 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Sun 26 Aug 2012 at 12:54 PM
@Libby Spencer:
How is it "inherently racist" to joke about a birth certificate?
Was Obama "inherently racist" when he joked about it?
Are you advocating race-based standards for making political jokes?
"Black" people can make jokes that "white" people can't? Is THIS what you claim?
What's your point, here, exactly?
Liberals toss this racist crap out there all the time and if you're going to call somebody racist, you ought to explain your accusation.
#13 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Sun 26 Aug 2012 at 12:57 PM
Just to make a record...
Thimbles has repeatedly and maliciously misidentified me as a female lawyer named Valois. He has repeatedly, maliciously and publically accused this lady of being a pedophile in this very forum.
Thimbles is going to do what Thimbles is gojng to do, but for the record, I'm not her and I've done my due diligence by making this clear to Thimbles and to the powers that be at CJR....
#14 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Sun 26 Aug 2012 at 01:21 PM
If you can't see the distinction between appearing before a predominantly black audience in a southern state and informing them in an affected drawl that the political opposition intends to "put y'all in chains".. And instead appearing in your home state and making a light-hearted joke about the Birthers.
You are either stupid, crazy or dishonest...
You pick.
Biden was directly accusing his opponents of racism.
Romney was just having a little fun with a Birther joke - just as Obama has done himself.
#15 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Sun 26 Aug 2012 at 01:33 PM
"Gay marriage" demagoging Republicans?
You mean like the "pre-evolution" Obama who ran on ant-gay marriage platform in 2008?
THAT Obama?
Well, a baked potato would beat Obama on the issues.
That's why Obama is hiding from the press (though you won't see the evidence of this from the "watchdogs" here).
When Obama gets off teleprompter, he shows his commie roots. That's when we get "you didn't build that" and "we're gonna spread the wealth around" stuff. And when he's on teleprompter, he's way too stilted to persuade anybody of anything.
As for the issues...
You want somebody who knows how to make money? Vote for Romney.
You want somebody who hates people who know how to make money? Vote for Obama.
You want somebody who sticks up for America and wants to see it gain international power and influence? Vote for Romney.
You want somebody who resents American power and wants to see America diminished? Vote for Obama.
The issues aren't especially complicated and Obama can't credibly run on his record. His one "success" (Obamacare) is pretty much universally detested by the electorate. The gay marriage flip-flop thing isn't going anywhere. Neither is the "war on women" thing.
In general, the whole class warfare thing won't get Obama anywhere. But it's all he's got, and so I guess we're just going to have to deal with it for the next 70 days.
#16 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Sun 26 Aug 2012 at 01:56 PM
You want somebody who knows how to make money for himself? Vote for Romney.
Because these private equity hedge fund guys are not sh$t hot at making money for their investors after firing your dad, socializing his pension to the taxpayer, and helping his business go under so that Rmoney (yes I know you're cribbing from the National Review) can book higher management fees.
"“Bain Capital, as we’ve seen, produced real dollar-on-dollar investment returns that were, at best guess, somewhere between 20% and 40% a year. If we figure the money was typically tied up for five to seven years, it was below 30%.
From 1984 through the end of 1998, the stock market overall produced gains of nearly 20% a year. If you had leveraged each dollar with $2 in debt at corporate interest rates, your returns would have ballooned to nearly 30% a year. If you’d been able to borrow $3 at corporate interest rates, you’d be up towards 35% a year. That’s how much money you could have made by issuing company bonds and then spending the money picking stocks out of the paper at random.
If they look pretty similar to the returns Bain Capital earned under Mitt Romney, maybe that’s not a complete coincidence.”
In other words, Bain produced all Beta, no Alpha. They used high leverage and took big risk for what was essentially market level rates of return. Any investor who listened to Vanguard’s John Bogle would have done about the same during 1984-1998 – just buy the S&P500 index, and hold it, reinvesting the dividends. The net returns would be ~20% per year — without giant fees or excessive risks necessary...
Said differently: Bain’s sins are the same sins most of Wall Street committed: Too high leverage, too much risk, excessive fees for too little performance."
Yeah, the us government needs more of that. Gekko/Galt ticket FTW.
#17 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Sun 26 Aug 2012 at 02:21 PM
And about those management fees.
You see, you folks decided to put a souless tax cheat leech banker as your candidate right after the souless tax cheat leech bankers turned much of the global economy to confetti:
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/08/24/business/Few-Have-Recovered.html
That was stupid. If you want us to talk about that, I'm okay with that discussion.
#18 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Sun 26 Aug 2012 at 02:28 PM
That whole "hate the rich" thing doesn't play anywhere outside of the urban leftist bongo "occupy" scene.
Americans (at least the vast majority of them) don't hate rich people. They LOVE rich people. Television shows are devoted to promoting rich people. Entire departments at book stores are devoted to advice books written by rich people.
Go down to Barnes and Noble and ask what sells better... Trump's latest book? Or the Communist Manifesto?
When you go to Walmart, you don't see Rolling Stone and it's latest and greatest Taibbi loony diatribe at the checkout line. You see instead about 50 magazines devoted to tracking rich and famous people.
Take a poll sometime. Ask the guy at a job fair if he'd rather work for a rich guy or a poor guy. See how that works out for you...
The "divide and conquer" class warfare strategy - a strategy right out of Saul Alinsky's playbook - isn't working. Americans reject that message. It's repulsive in the literal sense - it repels people.
People are attracted to a unifying and invitational message - a bandwagon driven by a candidate with a positive and confident persona. Reagan had this persona. So did Clinton. People thought Obama had it, and now they're really pissed off to see that they were deceived.
Get ready to say "President Romney". Barring a miracle, I can't see a way for Obama to pull off a reelection.
#19 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Sun 26 Aug 2012 at 02:46 PM
"When Obama gets off teleprompter, he shows his commie roots. That's when we get "you didn't build that" and "we're gonna spread the wealth around" stuff. And when he's on teleprompter, he's way too stilted to persuade anybody of anything."
Pull the string and out comes the talking points. You know, I'll be the first one with his hand up to criticize Obama's record if you want to have an honest discussion.
Because if we were having an honest discussion, you wouldn't read this:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/25/business/economy/american-stock-market-leads-others-in-recovery-from-crisis.html
and continue trying to play the commie card. Obama has been a failure in many regards, in that he's continued to support conservative policies and undermine progressives even in the face of complete conservative collapse.
So yeah, Obama kinda sucks. So what, when your alternative is Romney and the conservative clown car he's in the back seat of? Is Obama the best alternative? No! Is he the best alternative between him and the guys who seem to have come off the set of a Danny Boyle zombie movie "Rar! Tea Party! Small government! Where's that Uterus! Screw you if your 54! Rar!"
If them's the choices....
#20 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Sun 26 Aug 2012 at 02:51 PM
You know, I find it interesting that the Romney campaign is so focused on an out of context quote.
"You didn't build that!"
Does anyone know why he, and his fellow hedge fundy private equity jackoffs, are so butthurt over a little out of context quote?
Because they're scared. Why? Because it's true.
The businesses that comprised Romney's fortune? He didn't build those. The wealth in America that was a legacy of post depression policy? The infrastructure that enabled Ameirica to dominate the world economy for 50 years? They didn't build that.
But they sure stripped it and sold it off, using games and loopholes unavailable to normal Americans to escape their patriotic duty of paying their share of taxes.
They didn't build this country, but they've sure profited from its collapse.
America should get more of these 'profit from liquidation and tax cheating' specialists in government. We need more of them on the judiciary too. It will all turn out well, I'm sure.
Just like the last time under Bush.
#21 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Sun 26 Aug 2012 at 03:27 PM
You're missing my point.
Namely, that Americans (except leftists) are repelled by class warfare rhetoric.
They just aren't buying the "hate the rich" silliness.
And for good reason - the "rich" are already shouldering the burden of paying taxes. According to the CBO, the top 1% pay 28.1% of all federal taxes (including FICA and Medicare taxes). The top 10% pay a staggering 55% of all federal taxes and the lowest 20% pay a miserable 0.8% of all federal taxes. The second lowest quintile pay only 4% of the taxes. And the bottom 60% of Americans (by income) combine to pay less than 15% of all federal taxes.
Americans in the bottom two quintiles of income have NEGATIVE federal income tax rates - they get more from the U.S. treasury than they pay in income taxes.
Americans in the top quintile of income earners pay 18.7 times the income tax paid by the third quintile, though the median income of the top quintile ($170,844) is less than 3.5 times the median income of the third quintile ($49,534).
But even without knowing these facts - Americans understand them. They don't begrudge wealth and success and they don't envy it as much as they admire it. The "us v. them" strategy is just doomed to fail, even though Obama doesn't really have any choice but to try..
#22 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Sun 26 Aug 2012 at 04:02 PM
As Romney said..
The context is worse than the quote, as far as Obama's "you didn't build that" line. It displays an attitude that "does not comport with the American experience".
It shows a plain disdain for the American dream. "There are a lot a smart people out there. There are a lot of hard working people out there. You didn't do anything special by making a business."
That's the clear message. And it will be his undoing, in my estimation.
The ONE thing that happened after this remark was that his handlers chained the teleprompter back to him.
But I think it's too late.
Driving through Maryland to federal court last week I passed a bunch of businesses - a car repair shop and a florist shop among them - that had placed huge "I did too build this" signs in their parking lots.
Everybody's dream is to start a business and make a go of it. Most will never try, and most of those who do try will fail... But it is the defining American dream, nonetheless, and it sits at the core of the American psyche. And having a President piss on it doesn't play well in flyover country.
#23 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Sun 26 Aug 2012 at 04:17 PM
"The context is worse than the quote, as far as Obama's "you didn't build that" line. It displays an attitude that "does not comport with the American experience"."
Does not comport? Really Val? Tell that to Paul Ryan:
http://www.salon.com/2012/08/14/paul_ryan_didnt_build_that/singleton/?mobile.html
"“Of course we believe in government,” Ryan said to the New Yorker’s Ryan Lizza. “We think government should do what it does really well, but that it has limits, and obviously within those limits are things like infrastructure, interstate highways, and airports.” In other words, the government spending that helped Ryan’s family get ahead falls within the proper role of government. The government spending that helps other families get ahead …? Fortunately, Ryan Inc. also builds landfills, so we’ll have somewhere to bury all that wasteful spending on the poor and middle class."
http://m.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/08/06/120806fa_fact_lizza?currentPage=all
You know what doesn't comport? Trying to privatize social security (as Ryan did in 2005 under one of Bush's rare domestic policy retreats), trying to covert Medicare into a coupon system, talking about a conversion to the gold standard as if that's a serious monetary option, and meanwhile propsing and voting for enormous tax cuts for the upper brackets paid for by cuts to the social safety net.
Oh yeah, and let's deregulate banks and health care since that's had such a successful record.
Does not comport. GTFO, Valois.
#24 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Sun 26 Aug 2012 at 06:08 PM
I'll speak to you of what does not comport. Since all rhetoric is just a joke no matter what the meaning of the joke is (are you making fun of crazy people or are you appealing to them? Oh, that doesn't matter according to Valois and Halpern) does it comport with the average American that he's being asked to vote for a lizard person?
I mean wow, he may have a birth certificate, but there's no proof that his blood is at all warm. Everytime I hear the guy talk I feel like screaming PUT THE GLASSES ON, and I'm sure I'm not alone.
The fact is people really don't get this guy. He's rich and been rich since his zygote stage (check his scalp for the 666, that's all I'm saying - ha ha) and he doesn't relate to real people. He's never lived in their world, he's only dismantled it.
I mean here's David Simon for instance:
http://davidsimon.com/mitt-romney-paid-taxes-at-a-rate-of-at-least-13-percent-and-hes-proud-to-say-so/
"Can we stand back and pause a short minute to take in the spectacle of a man who wants to be President of The United States, who wants us to seriously regard him as a paragon of the American civic ideal, declaiming proudly and in public that he has paid his taxes at a third of the rate normally associated with gentlemen of his economic benefit.
Stunning.
Am I supposed to congratulate this man? Thank him for his good citizenship? Compliment him for being clever enough to arm himself with enough tax lawyers so that he could legally minimize his obligations?
Thirteen percent. The last time I paid taxes at that rate, I believe I might still have been in college."
There's a guy who writes and relates to people for a living, and even he doesn't get the Romney enigma - how does a guy who specializes in stripping businesses down and ripping government off run on that record like it's something to be proud of? Really, is it supposed to be a joke?
#25 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Sun 26 Aug 2012 at 06:28 PM
The notion that does not comport with the American experience is that infrastructure creates business.
Americans know the truth - namely that precisely the opposite is the case.
The bridges, teachers, cops and other government resources are funded by the "rich", not the "poor".
The street that the "poor" woman uses to catch the subsidized bus from her section 8 house to the store to buy Snickers Bars with her food stamps is paved with money Romney and other "rich" Americans paid... NOT her. And Romney also pays for the teacher to deal with her five illegitimate kids, and for the cops, judges and jailors to deal with them when they grow up.
Entrepreneurs don't owe their existence to the Gubmint...
Gubmint owes its existence to entrepreneurs.
Thus, Ryan is right in his characterization and the proper role of government should be limited to the things it should do,
The Wright brothers didn't build a plane because the Gubmint made a runway.
Ford didn't build the Model T because the Gubmint paved roads.
#26 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Sun 26 Aug 2012 at 07:19 PM
"The notion that does not comport with the American experience is that infrastructure creates business."
Uh.. wrong, but whatever. Let's look at what Obama defines as 'the American experience':
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/07/13/remarks-president-campaign-event-roanoke-virginia
"And what this reminded me of was that, at the heart of this country, its central idea is the idea that in this country, if you’re willing to work hard, if you’re willing to take responsibility, you can make it if you try... That you can find a job that supports a family and find a home you can make your own; that you won’t go bankrupt when you get sick... That your kids can get a great education, and if they’re willing to work hard, then they can achieve things that you wouldn’t have even imagined achieving. And then you can maybe retire with some dignity and some respect, and be part of a community and give something back...
That’s the idea of America. It doesn’t matter what you look like. It doesn’t matter where you come from. It doesn’t matter what your last name is. You can live out the American Dream. That’s what binds us all together. (Applause.) "
So what's Romney's 'American experience':
"[O]n their side, they’ve got a basic theory about how you grow the economy. And the theory is very simple: They think that the economy grows from the top down. So their basic theory is, if wealthy investors are doing well then everybody does well. So if we spend trillions of dollars on more tax cuts mostly for the wealthy, that that’s somehow going to create jobs, even if we have to pay for it by gutting education and gutting job-training programs and gutting transportation projects...
Part number two is they believe if you tear down all the regulations that we’ve put in place -- for example, on Wall Street banks or on insurance companies or on credit card companies or on polluters -- that somehow the economy is going to do much, much better. So those are their two theories. They’ve got the tax cuts for the high end, and they’ve got rollback regulation."
So what's the contrast between Romney's experience and Obama's experience of America?
"Now, here’s the problem. You may have guessed -- we tried this. We tried this in the last decade and it did not work."
The last four actually, but hey, who's counting?
" But I just want to point out that we tried their theory for almost 10 years, and here’s what it got us: We got the slowest job growth in decades. We got deficits as far as the eye can see. Your incomes and your wages didn’t go up. And it culminated in a crisis because there weren’t enough regulations on Wall Street... So that’s where their theory turned out."
Now I'm starting to see why this speech in context scares you. People, read this speech.
"The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together... So we say to ourselves, ever since the founding of this country, you know what, there are some things we do better together. That’s how we funded the GI Bill. That’s how we created the middle class... We rise or fall together as one nation and as one people, and that’s the reason I’m running for President -- because I still believe in that idea. You’re not on your own, we’re in this together. "
Unfortunately, the America you want is one where we're on our own.
#27 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Sun 26 Aug 2012 at 11:00 PM
So now that we've established the context - that the America you want is the one where people are on their own against banks and all the world's private tyrannies, while in the America Americans want: justice is pursued, taxes are paid, services are funded and provisioned, investments are made which allow businesses to thrive-
let's go derpsect the rest of your derp.
"The bridges, teachers, cops and other government resources are funded by the "rich", not the "poor"."
And the rich are funded by the business brought in by the middle class (seen the account deficit lately? Not exactly tearing up the markets abroad) You are game playing here. We all sacrifice out of our plenty to fund the services which serve the plenty. We all benefit from well funded and operated schools, roads, fire departments, water departments, air traffic control, communications infrastructure, etc... It's not a rip off to the rich to pay for services and projects which benefit all from rich to poor. It is a ripoff when someone uses those benefits to build a fortune and then says "F^@& YOU" when it's his turn to support them.
It's a ripoff when the rich lobby for their very own personal tax rate of below twenty percent when the rest are paying 30 percent or more.
It's a ripoff when the rich helps elect a guy who prefunds the boomer's social security benefits (to the tune of 2 trillion) and then blows the wad making room for tax cuts.
It's a ripoff when the democrats do the work to get the budget in order and put the deficit within shot of being paid off in a decade, and the rich get a frat boy elected you blows the wad again on tax cuts, which Paul Ryan defended and voted for.
It's a ripoff when the country is facing deficits because when the government has had to clean up the several trillion dollar mess the rich made (not exactly funding that, are you a-hole), that they won't give a cent back of their Bush tax cuts or spend a dollar less on their elective wars while they scream "Something must be done about entitlement spending!"
That's the moment I feel ripped off the most, because that's when it comes clear conservatives don't care about deficits. NEVER HAVE.
http://flaglerlive.com/8577/david-stockman-reagan-nixon-bush-trickledown/
" Reagan had promised on the campaign trail: lower budgets, lower spending, higher tax revenue. But trickle-down economics was a wish, not a reality. It’s never worked. Lower taxes don’t generate more revenue. They generate deficits.
Reagan knew it. So did Stockman. So did their guru, Friederich von Hayek. The deficits were intentional all along. They were designed to “starve the beast,” meaning intentionally cut revenue as a way of pressuring Congress to cut the New Deal programs Reagan wanted to demolish. “The plan,” Stockman told Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan at the time, ”was to have a strategic deficit that would give you an argument for cutting back the programs that weren’t desired. It got out of hand.”"
You didn't want to pay so much for labor, so the government broke labor during Reagan. You got 'bipartisan' trade deals from both republicans and democrats. You got to keep all the money made from business while the walmart worker got to top up his fridge with food stamps. You can't take all the money and then complain about "WAH. I have to fund the federal government disproportionately. WAH."
You're a vampire in a vampire's world, shouldn't you be kvetching about garlic?
#28 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Sun 26 Aug 2012 at 11:47 PM
"The Wright brothers didn't build a plane because the Gubmint made a runway.
Ford didn't build the Model T because the Gubmint paved roads."
But these things would have been a whole lot less useful, and thus their market would have been a whole lot smaller, had the government not built the infrastructure that was responsible for growing their business.
I shouldn't even have to respond to this. It's been done. Valois, can you give us the story of how you became so brainwashed and stupid? I want to hear the part where you got your pull string installed.
Bet it was in a awesome lab like where Wolverine got his adamantium. That would be a cool story.
#29 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Mon 27 Aug 2012 at 12:01 AM
Half of Americans pay no federal income tax. The "rich" already pay for the freeloaders.
The destruction of the working class is a direct consequence of the creation of a permanent welfare underclass.
The problem we face is entitlement spending and it is just a matter of time until it is radically reformed.
A healthy democracy cannot exist when half of the citizens pay nothing into the system. Restoring the middle class and balancing the budget each require cutting off the mooches and putting them to work.
If we reform Social Security, Medicare and wel
ything else will take care of itself.
Every time you walk into a Staples or a Baskin Robins, you see people who have jobs because Bain Capital saved them. Every time you see somebody at Walmart buying a Snickers bar with food stamps, you see what Obama has accomplished.
#30 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Mon 27 Aug 2012 at 06:58 AM
"Every time you walk into a Staples or a Baskin Robins, you see people who have jobs because Bain Capital saved them."
It's too bad, so sad Val, that you didn't bother to check your story.
You see Dunkin Doughnuts was a pretty successful brand in 2005 when three private equity groups bought it.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/13/technology/13iht-donut.html
"Three private-equity firms confirmed that they had agreed to buy the parent of Dunkin' Donuts for $2.4 billion.
Bain Capital Partners, the Carlyle Group and Thomas H. Lee Partners are acquiring Dunkin' Brands, a franchiser of Dunkin' Donuts restaurants, from Pernod Ricard, the French wine and spirits company, it was announced Monday..
Dunkin' Donuts reported revenue of $4.8 billion last year with a gross profit of $362 million, according to Pernod Ricard's annual report."
Turns out this buyout stuck Dunkin with over a billion in debt. Oh, forgot to check that did you? So yeah, Dunkin' was now this highly leveraged purchase in 2005. Turns out they had a lot of debt that the company needed to get rid of since debt service was eating over 50% of their revenues.
So they did an IPO. Raised over 400 million dollars. Paid off a bunch of debt with that capital infusion - good times all around eh?
Except pre-IPO, these private equity a-holes paid themselves 500 million.
http://m.seekingalpha.com/article/282070-dunkin-s-ipo-strong-brand-name-awash-in-debt
Dunkin doughnuts and baskin robbins are franchises. The parent company doesn't take the costs, doesn't take the risks, that the franchisees take on. They shouldn't have this much debt.
But they're being run by vampires. Every time you walk into a Baskin Robins, you see people who have jobs because franchisees took the risks to open one and pay Bain Capital and their vampire buddies $20,000 bucks a year. Every time you walk into a Baskin Robbins, you're walking into a place that owes a billion dollars because the vampires were more interested in draining a half a billion out of it than making it work with a healthy balance sheet.
And if the names Dunkin'' Doughnuts and Baskin Robbins should fade away like other Bain
victimsinvestments have, every time you walk by their shuttered shops, take a moment to think about how Bain Capital "saved" them.Because, if you elect Mitt f'in Romney, that's how he'll "save" America.
#31 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Mon 27 Aug 2012 at 11:26 AM
PS.
"Thimbles has repeatedly and maliciously misidentified me as a female lawyer named Valois. He has repeatedly, maliciously and publically accused this lady of being a pedophile in this very forum."
No, you identified a woman with the last name Valois because you're an idiot. You spelt out her first name and last after blasting her email on these pages associated with your rantings.
I just happened to notice one day, when I was clipping one of your comments after you used accused me of being a racist for the nth time based on one conversation that you drag around with you, that there's an id field associated with your posts so that these kind of shenanigans are discoverable.
That field is a slightly mangled version of your email field. Yours is "pamvaloi"
I didn't label you Valois, you did - in every single post you've put here since 2009. And I wouldn't have noticed were you not forcing people to review the site's html code weekly with your lying.
#32 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Mon 27 Aug 2012 at 12:45 PM
My identity means nothing to the debate here.
I can't help but notice that you are dodging your repeated accusations that attorney Margaret Valois is me, and, therefore a pedophile.
The only reason you (falsely ) bring it up is out of pure malice. PERIOD.
You are trying to intimidate me instead of dealing with the pertinent issues.
Well, it isn't working because.... Well, frankly, because you're off your damned rocker. And you are a misinformed and stupid bully.
Any idiot who stupidly and mistakenly misidentifies a practicing. lawyer by name as a pedophile is a TRUE idiot. Look up "libel per se" on Google, dude.
It is true that I inadvertently posted the email address of an esteemed colleague here as the result of an autocomplete feature of my phone. And for that I am guilty.
But YOU Thimbles, are the one who has repeatedly libeled this lady, despite multiple warnings.
A pedophile?! Seriously?
What a gentleman you are!
The truly ironic thing is that this lady is about 50 degrees. left of your politics, in my estimatipn. She devotes her practice to helping poor people and she drives a Hyundai.
I'm making a record here. You are on notice. I've done my due diligence. But you can't cure stupid.
When the crap hits the fan, Dude, don't come bitching to me. I gave you every opportunity to act honorably.
#33 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Mon 27 Aug 2012 at 11:02 PM
"I can't help but notice that you are dodging your repeated accusations that attorney Margaret Valois is me"
You're accusing me of accusing you. Ooo meta.
"... is me, and, therefore a pedophile."
Note everybody, I'm not the one saying it.
"You are trying to intimidate me instead of dealing with the pertinent issues....you are a misinformed and stupid bully."
Somebody get the widdle victim a hanky.
"Any idiot who stupidly and mistakenly misidentifies a practicing. lawyer by name as a pedophile is a TRUE idiot."
I agree, so why do you keep associating the two, Val?
"It is true that I inadvertently posted the email address of an esteemed colleague here as the result of an autocomplete feature of my phone. "
And that has nothing to do with the id field in every one of your posts. You could be Valoidiot, Valoimbecile, Valoiamatoolwhoslosingthegameilovetoplay - the email does get truncated.
I'm going with Valois. It's a common enough name.
"But YOU Thimbles, are the one who has repeatedly libeled this lady, despite multiple warnings."
Methinks, the lady doth protest too much.
You are the one creating the association. The only time I have mentioned that person's name in a thread was here and that was to request cjr to take down her details after you exposed her and repeatedly used the word pedophile in conjunction with her details.
As you say, it takes an idiot.
"my estimatipn"
getting worked up Val?
Anyways, I thought this was going to be a conversation about how Romney was going to turn America into Dunkin' Doughnuts or something. And I was so looking forward to that conversation since I recently heard from Obama that - when it comes to Romney and Dunkin' Doughnuts? He didn't build that.
What's the matter, Valoicandishitoutbuticanttakeit? (A dutch name, I assume.) Don't you want to discuss the pertinent issues any more?
Man, I've never met a person so lacking in a sense of humor, yet so willing to become a big joke.
#34 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Tue 28 Aug 2012 at 03:01 AM