SUBSCRIBE NOW WELCOME BACK. Do you want to continue reading where you left off? New Republic subscribers can pick up where they left off no matter which device they were previously using. SUBSCRIBE NOW

Go Home “47%” Was Bad for Romney; Ryan Has Been Deadly

PLANK SEPTEMBER 27, 2012

“47%” Was Bad for Romney; Ryan Has Been Deadly

BY NOAM SCHEIBER

The conventional wisdom on Obama’s recent surge is that it’s due largely to Mitt Romney’s 47% disaster, and there’s clearly something to this. If nothing else, it’s given Team Obama grist for an absolutely devastating ad.

But it’s worth pointing out another dynamic that’s been overlooked here: The escalating disaster that is Paul Ryan. At the time of his selection, a number of pundits argued Ryan’s strategic benefits, suggesting he would boost Romney by energizing conservatives, or by allowing Romney to run as the candidate of big ideas, or that he would at least be the party’s best defender of the Medicare plan Romney was going to have to defend whether he wanted to or not. This seemed like a stretch at the time—after all, Ryan’s Medicare plan proved to be a massive liability the one time voters weighed in on it. But who could say for sure? 

Well, fast forward a month-and-a-half and the numbers look pretty persuasive. This week the New York Times released a set of polls, conducted by Quinnipiac, assessing the state of the race in Ohio and Florida. The top-line numbers were jaw-dropping enough: Obama’s lead in Ohio grew from six to ten over the last month, and from three to nine in Florida. (It’s better to focus on the change here than the magnitude, which is highly sensitive to polling methodology.) But once you look at the internal numbers, they’re even less kind to Romney. More to the point, they suggest Ryan has done enormous damage to the ticket. 

Back in late August, Obama led Romney on the question of who would handle Medicare better by 8 points in Florida and 10 points in Ohio; now he’s up 15 in Florida and 16 in Ohio. And the problems are especially acute among senior citizens, a group Obama has traditionally struggled with. A month ago, Obama was down 13 points in Florida among people 65 and older; today he’s up 4. On the specific question of Medicare, Obama was down 4 points among Florida seniors in August; today he’s up 5 points. (The Quinnipiac Poll re-shuffled its age-groups between August and September, so you won’t be make apples-to-apples comparisons by eyeballing their crosstabs. But the super-kind people at Quinnipiac re-reshuffled them for me.) 

The numbers for Ohio are similar: In August, Obama was down 8 among seniors in the state; today he’s up 1. A month ago Obama was down 6 points among Ohio seniors on the Medicare issue; today he’s up 6. The turnaround here is simply breathtaking. 

Nor is the Times/Quinnipiac poll an outlier. Though I haven’t looked at the internal numbers, a set of Washington Post/Kaiser Family Foundation state polls out today shows something similar: Obama up 19 over Romney on Medicare in Ohio, 15 in Florida, 13 in Virginia, and 17 nationally (his largest lead on the question all year). As the Post write-up puts it: “[T]he more voters focus on Medicare, the more likely they are to support the president’s bid for reelection.”

Interestingly, the early post-Ryan polling actually showed the GOP ticket gaining ground on Medicare, if only by disingenuously accusing Obama of cutting $716 billion from the program to pay for healthcare reform. (Ryan had proposed identical cuts, except in his case they would have been refunded to the wealthy as tax cuts.) But that that was before the Democrats joined the fight. Since then, the Dems have relentlessly attacked the Ryan plan, both at their convention and on the campaign trail, and the numbers have followed suit. It’s hard to believe Obama would have had the success he’s had here without Ryan himself on the ticket. 

So, yes, the “47 percent” is a big deal. But the likely upshot is to prevent Romney from getting up off the mat, not to knock him down in the first place. It’s Ryan who deserves credit for that. 

Update: A reader asks if the movement among seniors is more pronounced than among younger cohorts, which is what you'd expect to see if Medicare were driving this. The short answer is yes, though the relative movement varies a bit.

According the Quinnipiac, Obama has seen a 17-point improvement among Florida voters 65-and-over since August, but only a 5-point improvement among those 50-64, and no change in his lead among those 18-49. His margin in Florida specifically on Medicare improved by 9 points among those 65-and-over, versus 7 points for the other two groups. (I'd argue that the reason seniors swung much more toward Obama on the first question than the second is that they're more likely to base their vote on Medicare. Or, put differently, no one likes the Ryan Medicare plan, but seniors are much more likely to vote according to that dislike.) 

In Ohio, Obama has seen a 9-point improvement overall among voters 65-and-over, versus 6 points among those 50-64, and no change among those 18-49. On the Medicare question, he saw a 12-point improvement among seniors, versus 7 points among those 50-64 and 5 points among those 18-49. 

Follow me on twitter: @noamscheiber

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 63 comments

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

63 comments

Looks like seniors are getting the message on Ryan's plan for their retirements. Good.

- GSpinks

September 27, 2012 at 7:29pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Well, as MLB people can tell you, the time to surge is just before the playoffs and the World Series. The November election is the equivalent of the World Series (which actually ends the first week in November), and Obama has begun a late-season surge. I'm glad seniors, who have a big stake in this election, are starting to realize who's on their side. You go, geezers!

- magboy47.

September 27, 2012 at 8:16pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Yeah. When Romney introduced Ryan as his VP, it made little sense to me. He was doubling-down on on the Conservative side, at a time he needed to move in the moderate direction. Pundits at the time said Romney needed to "shore up" his support among conservatives. Right, like conservatives were going to vote for Obama if Romney got too moderate. And I knew the Ryan plan was horrible -- privatizing Medicare, that had already been established. Even Romney had to distance himself from it within weeks. But I sure didn't know that Ryan was more reality challenged than Romney. It's nice that the electorate can see that.

- AllanL5

September 27, 2012 at 9:30pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I heartily agree that Ryan's threat to Medicare has hurt Romney a lot. IF Obama wins - and I emphasize IF because I don't want to get or seem overconfident - it will be fascinating to see whether Ryan's star fades or brightens in Republican speculation about 2016. My guess is that it will brighten because many in the Party will blame the election on Romney's weakness as a candidate and will claim that the Republicans really need to be true to themselves (by picking Ryan or some other far right type) next time around. Which will be fine with me.

- Thunderroad

September 27, 2012 at 11:15pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The only way these bastards slink away into the darkness is Obama has a blow out, and we know that's not going to happen.

- austinous

September 28, 2012 at 12:06am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

@AllanL5: It's not that conservatives would vote for Obama if Romney got too moderate; it's that they would stay at home and sit this one out - wait for the "Messiah" next time.

- Claris

September 28, 2012 at 6:19am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Well, to toot my own horn, when I heard Romney picked Ryan, I said to my wife, "well, that's the election." But it has played out a little differently than I imagined. I think Ryan hurt Romney because Romney didn't endorse Ryan's bold approach (if not his specific policies). Instead, Romney tucked tail and said as little as possible. It confused people and has made Romney seem indecisive and weak. It's allowed Obama to fill in the gaps. Or this is all simply due to Clinton. Old people listen to Clinton.

- polcereal

September 28, 2012 at 11:05am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

As one of the geezers, I'm not convinced that Obama really is better for me than Romney, but I think Ryan probably has done Romney harm. The pity is, the public will wake up on January 20, 2013 with a sick feeling in the pit of their stomachs, realizing that they have reelected a man they do not have much confidence in, that the federal debt is still expanding at a rate of $1 trillion annually, and/or their taxes have gone through the roof, and that Obama still can't stand up to the Arabs. The Democrats will pay the price in 2014, when they will probably be washed out to sea in an even bigger tidal wave than the one that hit them in 2010. The country will pay the price, in terms of lost economic growth, during the next four years of a second Obama administration, and probably for at least four years after that if a Tea Partier is elected president in 2016. And if Obama gets another term, it's highly unlikely that any Democrat will be able to win in 2016. Our best chance for moderate, pragmatic leadership is with Mitt Romney in 2012.

- Spengler47

September 28, 2012 at 11:23am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Obama can't stand up to the Arabs? I imagine Gaddafi would like to object, but he can't. Same for Bin Laden and a long number of AQ no #2's and #3s. Oh perhaps he hasn't flapped his gums a whole lot and not achieved much other than that contrary to the US' interests? I understand his predecessor was very effective in that regard.

- Nari224

September 28, 2012 at 11:51am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

It always seemed to me that Romney picked Ryan not for any strategic reasons (i.e. his ideological positions) or any tactical reasons (i.e. Wisconsin's electoral votes) but because he imagined Ryan as an ambitious corporate CFO who would be loyal and easy to work with during and after the election. (I doubt Romney ever expected to lose; I doubt he expects to even now. Acquiring the White House is like arranging the players in a major corporate deal, and he's seen enough of these deals turn around at the last minute for one reason or another, just when they looked most moribund. Except acquiring the White House turns out not to be just like a business deal. Not yet.) In other words, he hired Ryan for reasons that make sense to CEOs - because he fits in with the internal "culture" of the company, is hungry, and owes his professional future to his new boss, not for reasons that make sense to campaign strategists and pundits. From the authoritative position of the CEO of Romney-for-President, Inc., choosing Ryan was hardly bold, it was just what you'd expect from someone whose career has almost never had to attend to the reactions of subordinates (the elderly of Florida, for example) to the means he employs to achieve his ends. Watching this campaign go down in flames goes no little way toward restoring my faith in this truly unusual country and its rickety but strangely enduring political system.

- rmutt

September 28, 2012 at 12:00pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Does Nari224 really think killing Obama and ousting Khadafi really constitutes a successful foreign policy in the Arab world? Obama threw his support behind the Arab "spring" and it blew up in his face. American diplomats were murdered in Libya and the Al Qaida flag was flying over US diplomatic facilities in Egypt.

- Spengler47

September 28, 2012 at 12:16pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Picking Ryan changed the campaign's focus from unemployment to the deficit, SS, and Medicare. It reeks of desperation, a little like McCain picking Palin. If Obama wins, one more thing to celebrate is all that wasted Super PAC money, especially Sheldon Adelson's $100 million, even it that's chump change to him. It's like a team with a huge payroll missing the playoffs. I'm looking at you, LA Angels.

- dstatton

September 28, 2012 at 12:18pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Everytime I see Romney and Ryan together; I picture Dean Wormer telling HIS frat boy protege; "Put Niedermeyer on it-he's a sneaky little shit just like you"

- stanmvp48

September 28, 2012 at 12:20pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Amazing. One-time Wonder Boy, progeny of the esteemed Irving Kristol and Gertrude Himmelfarb, persuades Republican presidential candidates to select first Quayle, then Palin and now Ryan as running mates. Hmm.. I get it. Eureka! Bill Kristol is a Democratic mole1

- rpbto

September 28, 2012 at 12:27pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Noam Schreiber wrote the few critical articles on Obama in 2008. It was brave from him. He was right then. Obama has not changed. Still a bad candidate for the White House. Not one of his moves brought relief to us. Just many failures. Are we not scared in the current times? Romney is significantly a better talent. Ryan is also a good brain. Both could outperform the current team.

- sf4200

September 28, 2012 at 12:44pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

If Obama is re-elected it will be because (1) the GOP put on a bad convention, (2) Romney is a somewhat stilted campaigner and picked the wrong running mate, (3) Bill Clinton can still sell refrigerators to esquimaux, and (4) the national newsmedia are still working hard for Obama. All of that notwithstanding, Obama has an approval rating of only 49% or 50%, the national debt stands at $16 trillion, we are adding $1 trillion to the debt annually, unemployment is stuck at 8% and appears to be rising again, and the economy appears to be headed back into recession. Come January 20, 2013, the American people are going to realize that Obama, the Democrats, and the news media frightened them into making a very bad mistake. They will realize that they were gulled into re-electing a president in whom they have very little confidence.

- Spengler47

September 28, 2012 at 1:16pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Romney is significantly a better talent. Ryan is also a good brain. Both could outperform the current team." Well, there is certainly no arguing against that. But then, I've never known how to respond to pep squad cheers.

- Fishpeddler

September 28, 2012 at 1:30pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Only the truly gullible imagine that the President, any president, can calm savage rent-a-mobs and direct revolutions in foreign lands by "projecting strength", or in less than the usual time for these sorts of things conjure a full recovery from a giant fiscal and banking crisis. I think the American people are going to feel just fine when they re-elect the President. They are a lot more realistic in their expectations than Republican propaganda wishes them to be, and will most likely see some progress made on a number of vexing issues in the second term. Deal with it.

- Robert Powell

September 28, 2012 at 1:40pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Spengler, I'm not sure how long you've been visiting this site, but if case you're new, I should mention that the audience here is a bit too sophisticated to go for your 'correllation equals causation' arguments. In other words, the fact that Obama occupies the White House does not mean he is plausibly responsible for the current debt, the rate of growth of the debt, or the state of the economy. Also, you have provided no plausible basis for believing that Romney would handle this better. The fact that he is bearing the standard for the Republican party suggests he is in the throes of the same economic fantasies as almost the entirety of his party. You self-identified as a geezer, and I believe it. This is exactly the foolishness I overhear at the nursing home from people being spoon fed conservative drivel from Fox News hour after hour.

- Fishpeddler

September 28, 2012 at 1:43pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Come January 20, 2013, the American people are going to realize that Obama, the Democrats, and the news media frightened them into making a very bad mistake. They will realize that they were gulled into re-electing a president in whom they have very little confidence." Hey, if that's what you've got to tell yourself to deal with the increasingly likely outcome of an election you aren't going to like. The rest of us will be busy actually trying to help improve the country we love, 'kay?

- janus

September 28, 2012 at 1:45pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Excellent reply Fish, and RP. To that, I would only add that it's actually the House of Representatives that's ultimately responsible for America's financials. So Spengler has a decent point, but he's blaming the wrong branch of government official(s). If you want to know what's going to happen to the economy over the next 4 years, wait to see who takes control of the House in November.

- GSpinks

September 28, 2012 at 1:58pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

>>The conventional wisdom on Obama’s recent surge is that it’s due largely to Mitt Romney’s 47% disaster, and there’s clearly something to this. If nothing else, it’s given Team Obama grist for an absolutely devastating ad.<< The impact of the ad depends on your political leanings. I'm surprised Obama ran this. If you lean far left, I'm sure it sounds heartless. But if you bust your ass for $60K a year, and you know your money is going so that someone can laze about for $30K of government handouts per year, then I'll bet it rings pretty true. Busting your ass for 40 hours a week for $40K a year seems stupid once you realize you can go on the dole for $30K a year doing nothing. Romney hit on a very important point that few really understand: Very few pay income tax. They only pay for their own retirement. A poll out today indicates that 79% believe EVERYONE should be paying income tax. When they realize this year that 46% don't pay a dime, well.... And when the realize that 95% of those in Europe DO, well.... Combine that with the slacker on the front of the video telling everyone to vote for O because he gave her a free cell phone, well... Lastly, I have friends (well educated, making a lot themselves) that believe millionaires don't pay any taxes. They honestly believe that someone making $10M generally pays nothing in tax. When shown the CBO data that says they are paying around $3.3M in tax on average, they cannot believe it. They refuse to believe it. Romney would do well to educate people on these points. When the data is laid out in front of people, Obama's position is indefensible.

- seattleeng

September 28, 2012 at 2:01pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"The impact of the ad depends on your political leanings. I'm surprised Obama ran this. If you lean far left, I'm sure it sounds heartless." Seattle, you don't have to lean hard left, you just have to have a heart. Ask around, someone else can tell you what it feels like.

- Fishpeddler

September 28, 2012 at 2:07pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

seattle, you make me sick. People on minimum wage, people struggling for $30K a year, people working 2 or 3 jobs as I have done, are not "lazing." F*** you. Pardon my asterisks.

- Sophia

September 28, 2012 at 2:10pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"But if you bust your ass for $60K a year, and you know your money is going so that someone can laze about for $30K of government handouts per year, then I'll bet it rings pretty true." Seattle, it sometimes seems like you are posting this stuff from Mars. As far as I can tell, you long ago picked up a feed of Reagan's welfare queen story and think that sufficiently encapsulates life in America for the lower class. We invite you to actually visit our planet one of these days.

- Fishpeddler

September 28, 2012 at 2:14pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

AND FURTHERMORE, seattle, are seniors "lazing?" What about children? What about students, struggling to get degrees, often working too? What about disabled people, you think their lives are a bed of roses? I'm sure also that injured vets are "lazing," just enjoying that snuggly warm gov'mint Hammock of Dependency. You are so full of ignorance it could replenish the Aral Sea and leave some left over to irrigate the Sahara.

- Sophia

September 28, 2012 at 2:15pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Also let me tell you about that $30K. Jobs making $30 are hard work, hard jobs, people are NOT lazing around to make $30K. And - do you think people make $30K on Social Security? You have GOT to be kidding me. Aside from the fact that if you are on Social Security you are either old and have worked for decades; or you are disabled, frequently from WORK your numbers are just flat wrong, hugely wrong. So - go work a few low paying jobs. Go. Enjoy. But first no cheating - you gotta give up your house, cars, savings accounts, stock portfolios - strip yourself bare so you'll be a real poor person (ie, lazy bum, right?) THEN you go out and laze around on a minimum wage job or three.

- Sophia

September 28, 2012 at 2:20pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Love the idea of replenishing the Aral Sea Soph.....it should be up to the soft-headed lefties who organized its depletion to pay for it with Gazprom receipts. Fat chance. Being poor is hard work for sure. I've done it too, and recommend the experience to you too seattle. Take 15 grand out of the bank, leave the credit cards at home an walk out for half a year. Think of it as a six-month expedition to a new world. I would like a system that encourages work and individual dignity, and in which everyone can be both a maker and a taker.

- Robert Powell

September 28, 2012 at 2:53pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Like many of the regulars here, I was initially enthusiastic about Obama and, despite the environmental realities, have become disillusioned over time. After the Bill Clinton Extravaganza and Romney’s 47 percent, have a feeling folks (-- not *those people*) are more willing to give BHO another shot at turning things around. Hell, I’ve even been looking for reasons to give Romney the benefit of the doubt. Alas. At the end of the day GOP, if you want the White House, provide a better option than the crappy platter that’s been trotted out this time ’round. And all the while, GWB chuckles to himself about the better favorability rating he currently has over Mitt. Good luck.

- OkiSaru

September 28, 2012 at 3:10pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

And by the way GOP, good luck with demographics over the coming 20 years. The white-Protestant-centric, hard-line immigration (Latino), anti-gay rights, quasi-theocracy, shoot-first, ask-questions-later foreign policy platform isn’t going to – shall we say – be winning converts anytime soon.

- OkiSaru

September 28, 2012 at 3:20pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

disabled vets lazing. Charming.

- miceelf

September 28, 2012 at 4:30pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Seattle: "When they realize this year that 46% don't pay a dime, well...." Of course, Seattle, you will weave your way out of this, but this sentence is a lie. Because everyone in the United States pays some form of tax - whether you call it payroll deductions, or sales taxes, or municipal taxes ... everyone pays "a dime". Stop fucking lying. You will say that you referred to "income tax" in the preceding sentence. It would still be a lie. Because the stats refer to federal income tax, not state taxes. As you have put it, you are lying. Stop it. You will say that the 79% were in fact talking about federal income tax. I wonder if that is the case - until we know the polling question, the number, as it is based on two lies in a single sentence, is meaningless. Be that as it may, I should like to see how many of that 79% (which, you are too much of a moron, I guess, to notice, includes the 46% who apparently do not pay a dime - but we will leave that aside) would agree to remove all the tax credits that make the 46% percent the 46%, and how many would like to start taxing seniors. So the part that might not be a lie, is totally meaningless. You really are not good at this.

- icarus-r

September 28, 2012 at 4:32pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I agree Lyin' Ryan is devastating, and in my opinion the pick was Murdoch's, in the name of (un)godly conservatives, sniping from their yachts. But when the new Obama ad showcasing Mitt as his true self, spewing his 47% speech gets wide-spread viewing, the game will be over. No self-respecting person can glibly call themselves Republican anymore, and it seems only 25% do lately. Watching the gasbags climb all over each other on their way out the doors is the best part, like small man Murdoch claiming to be an independent......no one will be flying out to Murdoch's yacht's any more....

- smabry03

September 28, 2012 at 4:39pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Given the level of reasoning skills demonstrated by Seattle, and the self-proclaimed fact that he is in the upper echelons of a US tech company, he explains a lot of what's wrong with American business today.

- zardoz67

September 28, 2012 at 4:44pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Mitt's new human interest story, courtesy of his Mormon buddy, Bill Marriott, of the hotel chain, certainly lays to rest any elitist charges against Mitt. It is a story any family can relate to of Bill, being stranded near a pier in his yacht for want of a linesman to catch his tow line, waiting for over twenty minutes while others in his family are enjoying ice cream, finally sees an open birth and when he calls out in need "who will tow me in", who answers the call, but our Mittens. Always willing to catch the line of a fellow yachter, offer some Grey Poupon, and then scurrying off to buff the hood ornaments of fellow Bentley owners. What is not to love people?

- smabry03

September 28, 2012 at 4:54pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Zardoz and Mice: the real question is why Seattle finds it necessary to first, lie, and second, use language that if any of my students used would result in an automatic fail mark. The tax deduction issue, welfare, food stamps, social security and so on, are all debatable on merits. As it happens, I do think that many of the Republican policies that have led to 47% of Americans not paying "federal income tax" are misguided, economically unsound and socially corrosive - because they hide from the middle class and seniors the true cost of social services provided to ... the middle class and seniors. There is no sound economic reason, for example, for the mortgage interest deduction, or for the child tax credit. Let's discuss those on their merits. As well, the continuing delusion that social security and medicare are being paid for separately because there is a flat income tax - doubly regressive, because of its flatness and because it is capped - should end: there is, in effect, a minimum 15.3% federal rate of taxation on earned income - and we all pretend it is not there. Let's discuss that on the merits, as well. Instead, we have one lie heaped upon another, with an allegation that seniors and vets are lazing about, or that people on welfare are getting $30K a year. Is this all Republicans and Rightwingers can do?

- icarus-r

September 28, 2012 at 5:45pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Ryan's youth means that he will probably be around long enough to say(sadly): "... I told you so..."

- rvogel

September 28, 2012 at 5:58pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Loved rmutt's comment. I like to listen to Mitt talk. He's so obviously from another world and of a unique disposition because of his background. He's like a well crafted literary character. The debates should be delightful.

- Vogelfam

September 28, 2012 at 6:04pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

seattle, Where did you get the idea that someone who's never worked gets $30,000 a year from the government--your fevered brain? There's no such person in America. Let me quote Sophia: "You are so full of ignorance it could replenish the Aral Sea and leave some left over to irrigate the Sahara." And you hate veterans, some of whom are dependent on the government, because of the injuries they received in combat. You are one piece of anti-American work, seattle.

- magboy47.

September 28, 2012 at 6:09pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Loved rmutt's comment. I like to listen to Mitt talk. He's so obviously from another world and of a unique disposition because of his background. He's like a well crafted literary character. The debates should be delightful." Yes, Vogelfam, Romney does remind one of some of the well-crafted characters in The Great Gatsby, doesn't he?

- magboy47.

September 28, 2012 at 6:13pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"If Obama is re-elected it will be because (1) the GOP put on a bad convention, (2) Romney is a somewhat stilted campaigner and picked the wrong running mate, (3) Bill Clinton can still sell refrigerators to esquimaux, and (4) the national news media are still working hard for Obama." Spengler47, How could the national news media still be working hard for Obama, when Fox News just came out with a poll showing Obama ahead of Romney by 5 points, 48-43? Hmmm?

- magboy47.

September 28, 2012 at 6:20pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I think the most interesting thing about Romney is that he values money and wealth above everything else. It's how he measures his self-worth and he just can't help himself. Here's a man who just COULDN'T resist sharing the fact that his wife drove not one, but at least two cadillacs. He humbly said he drove a pick-up and thought that would suffice, but he absolutely couldn't resist bragging about his financial success with his wife as his surrogate. Anyone with half a brain knows you DON'T say stuff like that if you're running for president or you downplay it at the very least. But for Romney, self-worth and financial worth (remember that picture from college or prep school where the young men are tossing money? or how about the $10,000 bet during the Republican primaries?) are one and the same. It's part of his psyche. And he absolutely, cannot let a moment pass without reminding us of his financial success and so-called financial acumen. It's who he is, and it means everything to him. It's his complete frame of reference.

- Claris

September 28, 2012 at 6:41pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Good analysis, Claris.

- magboy47.

September 28, 2012 at 8:02pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Sophia writes: "Also let me tell you about that $30K. Jobs making $30 are hard work, hard jobs, people are NOT lazing around to make $30K." Stop listening to your FEELINGS Sophia and take a deep breath and look at the numbers. Remember, I was a short order cook for many years. You don't have to tell me how hard these jobs are. But my point was why do places like the EU tax the working poor so heavily while we don't? They tax the living crap out of a person earning $22K per year. How can we offer similar social programs without taxes the working poor? Answer: We cannot. Next, if working a crap job pays $30K/year, and getting on the dole brings in $30K/year, why would anyone work for $30K or even $40K per year? Magboy writes: "Where did you get the idea that someone who's never worked gets $30,000 a year from the government--your fevered brain? There's no such person in America." Magboy, we spent $1T a year in welfare (cash, food, housing, medical care, social services). If 50% of our 100M households received it, that'd be $20K/household. If 25% of households received it all, that'd be $40K/household in welfare. Yes, we're between 25% and 50%. But make no mistake, the numbers are substantial.

- seattleeng

September 28, 2012 at 8:07pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"...why do places like the EU tax the working poor so heavily while we don't? They tax the living crap out of a person earning $22K per year. How can we offer similar social programs without taxes the working poor? Answer: We cannot." And, as pointed out repeatedly above in responses you pointedly choose to ignore, we don't. People earning $22k a year pay payroll taxes, medicare taxes, and some even pay state income taxes, county income taxes, and city taxes on top. All pay sales taxes on damn near ever penny they spend. Stop lying. "...if working a crap job pays $30K/year, and getting on the dole brings in $30K/year, why would anyone work for $30K or even $40K per year?" A very good question. While it's utter bullshit that kicking back and getting $30k in welfare money in your pocket for sitting there and doing nothing is a possibility, let's put that aside and assume your delusion is true and that's actually the America we live in. People actually do work for $40k a year. And $30k a year. And $20k a year. Why do you imagine they do such a stupid, stupid thing? Why would anyone? For that matter, long-term-short-order-cook-turned-corporate-engineering-mogul, why did you?

- janus

September 28, 2012 at 9:02pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Yes but in EU countries (it varies somwhat from country to country, however) both the middle class and the blue collar family get a lot more bang -- health care, education, better transport, infrastructural investment -- for their tax buck than Americans do. You may know of a big pushback by the working poor in Europe to change the system to the American model. If so, it's escaped me.

- ironyroad

September 28, 2012 at 9:04pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Magboy, we spent $1T a year in welfare (cash, food, housing, medical care, social services). If 50% of our 100M households received it, that'd be $20K/household. If 25% of households received it all, that'd be $40K/household in welfare. Yes, we're between 25% and 50%. But make no mistake, the numbers are substantial." seattle, Even if your figures were in the ballpark, who cares? Why are you so jealous of poor people? Can you answer that? I've told you before that we pay poor people so they won't light America on fire. Is that an alternative you could live with? I couldn't. I lived in Detroit when it was on fire in 1967. We were under martial law. Is that what you'd like to see in place of supporting people on welfare? I wouldn't. I resented bayonets being pointed at me when I pulled up to a checkpoint, especially since I had a job. You've missed a lot in life, seattle. Being jealous of poor people is bizarre. One thing I'm sure you don't know. There are millions of people on welfare who would love to have a job, but your anal-retentive corporate buds refuse to offer them jobs. I thought we lived in a capitalist society. Corporate America has almost $2.5 trillion in the bank now. Just one-fifth of that would get a huge chunk of welfare recipients off the dole and paying taxes themselves. American capitalism refuses to do its job and employ people. That's the main reason so many people are on the dole. You obviously don't care that your Main Men, the capitalists, aren't doing their job. So why do you care so much about the unemployed, many of whom were employed, until your capitalists crashed our economy?

- magboy47.

September 29, 2012 at 12:39am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

On the subject of Mittens as "literary character", the estimable David Brooks referred to him in a recent column as "Thurston Howell III". I don't know if Gilligan's Island qualifies as literature, but Lyin' Ryan is a dead ringer for Gilligan.

- Robert Powell

September 29, 2012 at 4:33am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Seattle:"But my point was why do places like the EU tax the working poor so heavily while we don't? They tax the living crap out of a person earning $22K per year. How can we offer similar social programs without taxes the working poor? Answer: We cannot." Actually, that was not your point, but that does not matter. As Irony pointed out, in the EU, tax rates vary from country to country - to even talk about the EU taxing the working demonstrates ignorance or mendacity. In any event, I know that you will turn around and argue that what you are referring to here are not income taxes, but rather, VAT - which is pretty high "in the EU". (Yes, Seattle, I know your stupid games and wordplay.) And, also as Irony pointed out, you are taking into account only the "expense" side of the ledger - like a cynic who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing, you argue as if all people do in the EU is pay taxes without actually receiving services. Which is laughable from a basic economics perspective, stupid from an argumentative perspective (because you are not arguing to ignoramuses here) and unethical from a democratic perspective. Be that as it may, IF you are referring to income taxes, of course what you say is a lie. Here is the graph setting out personal tax rates across a range of countries. Combination of regressive payroll taxes and other taxes in the US means that income tax rates are on the whole higher here than in many European countries. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tax_rates If you are talking about the regressiveness of sales taxes in principle, I agree. Except that in most European countries, there are special taxes on luxury items and on environmentally unsound goods that the regressiveness is relatively moderated. Again, if you want to discuss tax policy, let's discuss tax policy. Instead, you engage in a bizarre "let's tax the poor" dialogue that even the NRO and the Daily Caller have disavowed. You are not only dishonest, but immoral and stupid to boot.

- icarus-r

September 29, 2012 at 1:12pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Janus writes: "And, as pointed out repeatedly above in responses you pointedly choose to ignore, we don't. People earning $22k a year pay payroll taxes, medicare taxes, and some even pay state income taxes, county income taxes, and city taxes on top." Someone earning $22K/year in the US will pay and effective tax to the government of 4.3%, or $946 in taxes to uncle sam (that's payroll, medicare, federal, excise, etc). Now, assuming they spend all of the remaining $21K on purchases, where they pay an additional 9% in sales tax. That's an additional $1890 in taxes. All up they've paid $946+$1890 = $2836, or 12.8%. I'm sorry, but that doesn't come CLOSE to what someone in France is paying at that income level. They will pay almost triple this amount in taxes. Can you imagine taxing a $22K earner so heavily? France can. And they do. Irony writes: "Yes but in EU countries (it varies somwhat from country to country, however) both the middle class and the blue collar family get a lot more bang -- health care, education, better transport, infrastructural investment -- for their tax buck than Americans do" Not true. With Obama care our health care will be at parity. Actually even better, because we'll cover most routine things that other plans won't. Our per-student spending on education is much higher than Europe (we are $7743 per student, versus France at $5541, Finland at $5653, etc). And with Obamacare we're now the most generous gov provided health care provider in the world. And for the sub $40K earner, it's all FREE. Thus, we are the most the generous government in the world. There is no other government that comes close. Now, isn't it time we start asking those that are getting so much to pay their fair share? Just like they do in EU and Canada? Magboy writes: "Why are you so jealous of poor people? Can you answer that? " I want the math to work. I want what we do to be sustainable. Nobody here on TNR really even understands the numbers. You all assume the middle class and working poor in the US pay the same in taxes as places with big social programs. They do not. Big social programs means big taxes on middle class (and working poor). There is no way around that. Question: Would you want all these big social programs if it meant the $30K earner saw his tax bill rise from $4000 to $10000? Make no mistake, his tax bill WILL rise to these levels. Just like it has in the EU. Would you want all these programs if it meant the $60K earner saw his tax bill (incl local) rise from $8,400 to $18,000? Just like the EU? This is where it's all heading. Magboy writes: "Corporate America has almost $2.5 trillion in the bank now." Yes, that they earned. Odd concept: you earn money and then you decide how to spend it. And if the government makes the climate worrisome, then you don't spend it. Odd how that works, isn't it? Magboy writes: "until your capitalists crashed our economy?" As covered many times, the economy was crashed by the government mandating loans be made to those that were not qualified to borrow money.

- seattleeng

September 29, 2012 at 1:32pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Icarus writes: "Actually, that was not your point, but that does not matter. As Irony pointed out, in the EU, tax rates vary from country to country - to even talk about the EU taxing the working demonstrates ignorance or mendacity. In any event, I know that you will turn around and argue that what you are referring to here are not income taxes, but rather, VAT - which is pretty high "in the EU"" With or without the VAT, the conclusion is the same. The OECD publishes this work, their terminology is "tax wedge" (income tax +employee and employer ss contribution minus cash transfers). France's tax wedge for the average earner is 49.4%, while the US is 29.5% for the average earner. This does NOT include consumption taxes such as VAT and sales tax. VAT would make this even worse. IN other words, the taxes for the average earner go even HIGHER when you consider the VAT. This means that when VAT is considered, the average earner in France is paying almost 60% to the government. It doesn't impact US earner as much, but can probably add a solid 3-4% Make no mistake, EU tax rates are simply crushing. And they will come here too. It's the only way you can pay for all this. And yes, we have arrived at EU style benefits. Click on www.oecd.org/tax/taxpolicyanalysis/taxtheaveragetaxburdenonearningsinoecdcountriescontinuestorise.htm and then see the link in the 3rd from last graf that says "access the graphs and data" and you'll see the same table.

- seattleeng

September 29, 2012 at 1:49pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Seattle: As I suspected, you are again weaving and bobbing all over the place. I don't know if you do so knowingly - and this demonstrates intellectual dishonesty - or unknowingly. You started by saying that 46% don't pay income taxes and people laze about on $30 k in government benefits. You have been demonstrated to talk nonsense. Then you changed your tune and said that in the EU people earning $22 K are subject to crushing taxes. Of course, the proposition as it stands is silly. Now, as you always do, you introduce a new term and new a "study". The OECD on tax wedges; and then you go on about averages in the EU - when you are talking about an entity of 27 countries with NO fiscal union or harmonization, again, it is either ignorant or dishonest. From the OECD, this is the definition of a tax wedge:

These tax wedges result from the combined effects of a range of policy instruments at the disposal of governments: personal income tax, employee and employer social security contributions, payroll taxes and cash benefits. Variations in their levels reflect the differing priorities of governments and voters in different countries with respect to the desired level, composition and financing method of government expenses, including social benefits.
Because it is an aggregate of policy instruments and because it measures both taxes and benefits, and contributions by employees AND employers, the measure says nothing whatever about the impact on the poor, and certainly does NOT demonstrate that the poor in the United States have to be taxed more, or that people laze about on $30 K in government handouts. More to the point, if you actually bother to read the materials on income taxes that the OECD itself publishes, you will find the following: Ireland has a "tax wedge"of 8.1%, lower than that of the United States, but its income tax rate is 41% above 32 K pounds, higher than that of the United States. That should tell you something. That is, the two are not directly related. So yet again, you weave and bob and distort and lie and talk about irrelevant metrics. On the whole, you remind me of one of my idiot cousins. Also an engineer. He lives in Germany. Endlessly complaining about high levels of taxation. Wanted to move to the US - got a job offer. Sent the contract to me - he was proud that he had negotiated a pay raise and lower taxes ... forgot to read the fine print, though. He had to give up his six weeks of paid holiday for two; health insurance would not be covered in the event of a lay off; paid sick leave - he takes at least a month a year, in the aggregate - of course nonexistent; bankruptcy protection for his pension contributions or vacation pay - nonexistent; unemployment benefits, 27% up to a maximum of $1024, I think, about a third of what he would get in Germany ... and so on and so forth. Well, he can count; he did not take the job. And does not complain his taxes any more.

- icarus-r

September 29, 2012 at 3:30pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Not true. With Obama care our health care will be at parity. Actually even better, because we'll cover most routine things that other plans won't. Our per-student spending on education is much higher than Europe (we are $7743 per student, versus France at $5541, Finland at $5653, etc)." You know seattle, sometimes your remarks are of a nature that forces me to conclude that either (a) you are a stupid person or (b) you think I'm a stupid person. I hope neither is true but your argumentative moves are depressingly indicative of one or both beliefs. Firstly, we were talking initially about taxation. I mentioned that citizens in many EU countries pay higher taxes but they get services back for that. I included health care among a few others. Perhaps you'd care to address that particular issue -- taxation and services to the citizen who pays up. Your response about the ACA is therefore at best tangential and at worst irrelevant. The ACA is a federally-sponsored but private-enterprise operated health insurance system with a couple of important components, the individual mandate and the subsidy for insurance premiums for the low paid, that have no real equivalent in Europe. Dollar expenditure comparisons tell us nothing important (except perhaps that we get less for our outlay than they do). Secondly, you might note that "bang for the buck" is an important consideration with qualitative and not just quantitative aspects. Merely listing expenditure on health care is pointless or misleading. If I live in a state where gas is $3.50 a gallon and you live in a state where it's $3.32 a gallon, I can crow about how much more I spend on gas per week all I want, but it's unlikely to convince you that I'm having a better driving experience or enjoying the distinction more. Health care expenditures produce proportionally better results in Europe, so the great achievement here in America would be, if at all possible, to reduce expenditure and have better outcomes. Which is, I remark parenthetically, unlikely to happen as long as for-profit enterprises have a lock on the basic system. Thirdly, the question of access is primary. If millions are, as yet, outside the system then the degree to which the system functions excellently for those inside it is worth noting but irrelevant if the discussion is about universal coverage -- which is exactly what the taxpayer (or, in some countries, insurance contributor, but it's essentially a type of tax) gets in return for higher taxes. Your comment about "other plans" is meaningless as ALL health care systems in European countries cover "routine things." That is, indeed, part of the reason for their ability to control costs better than us.

- ironyroad

September 29, 2012 at 4:19pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"As covered many times, the economy was crashed by the government mandating loans be made to those that were not qualified to borrow money." seattle, I see you haven't had the courage to read the book by Michael W. Hudson, a former WSJ writer, The Monster: How a Gang of Predatory Lenders and Wall Street Bankers Fleeced America--and Spawned a Global Crisis. Most of the people scammed by loan sharks already owned homes. They were pestered by phone calls from boiler rooms to refinance, and the criminal loan deals that resulted are what crashed the housing market. You couldn't depart from the Party Line if you tried, seattle. In spirit you are a Bolshevik, as was Ayn Rand. She so blindly hated the Bolsheviks that she became one. "Magboy writes: 'Corporate America has almost $2.5 trillion in the bank now.' Yes, that they earned. Odd concept: you earn money and then you decide how to spend it. And if the government makes the climate worrisome, then you don't spend it. Odd how that works, isn't it?" Part of the job of American capitalists is to provide jobs to Americans when they are making record profits. If they can't do that, then what good is capitalism? Record profits means there is no worrisome government climate. American capitalists have become, in spirit, very much like you--America-hating Bolsheviks. Odd how your mind works, isn't it? God, how you must hate America!

- magboy47.

September 29, 2012 at 5:30pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

magboy: The cognitive dissonance inherent in "record corporate profits" and "socialist anti-colonial communist redistributionist Kenyan Muslim" is one of those things that drives the moonshine madness of conservatism in the US today (no less than the eeyorism of the likes of drofnats). Record profits, stock market at an all time high, and God forbid the President propose to bring the tax rates to 2000 levels - that is the end of civilisation, capitalism, Christianity and the Universe as We Know It. I agree, almost always, with just about everything you write. There is one thing I should quibble with, though. It is not the "job" of corporations to create jobs here or elsewhere. I agree with Seattle that from the perspective of investors, corporations, and the 'private sector' in general they are entitled to hoard money as Third World speculators hoard basic goods. But that is from their perspective. And from his perspective, a lunatic racist is entitled to not hire Blacks, and Todd Akin and Ron Paul are entitled, from their perspective, to pay women less. This says nothing at all about public policy. It is the "job" of our elected representatives democratically assembled - what the Right denounced as Guvmint - to ensure that social resources are used for proper social objectives. And so, discrimination is prohibited and racism is punished. The problem of the hoarding of capital is not the hoarder, but the failure of policy to discourage hoarding.

- icarus-r

September 29, 2012 at 6:43pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

icarus-r, "There is one thing I should quibble with, though. It is not the "job" of corporations to create jobs here or elsewhere." I agree, icarus. It isn't the actual job of wealthy corporations to provide employment to anybody. But it is their dialectical job. According to capitalist theory, jobs will be created automatically once capitalists prosper (we won't equate Third World employment, which is often akin to slavery, to real jobs). We know that Marxist dialectics don't work, because classes aren't disappearing, and the workers aren't inheriting the earth. And now we know that, at least for the present, capitalist dialectics are a bunch of crap, too. So why have capitalism? The same corporations who are refusing to hire Americans are refusing to pay any significant taxes. My favorite example is General Electric. They make billions of dollars of profit every year from U.S. taxpayers in the form of military contracts, which are, of course, grossly padded with fraudulent billings and cost overruns. But in a recent tax return G.E. claimed that U.S. taxpayers owed them a credit of $4 billion for one year. They came to this obscene conclusion after hiring 2,400 tax accountants and turning in a return that numbered in the thousands of pages. And they're now moving much of their manufacturing operations overseas. That's what I'm talking about when I tell seattle that corporate America has become un-American. If Obama gets re-elected, he needs to get Democratic business people involved in a jobs initiative. There are still patriotic business people in this country who can be persuaded to give Americans jobs, even if that's not their job to do so. The health, maybe the survival, of our economy depends on it. Somebody in America besides the government needs to stand up for Americans. I'm not a socialist. I wish capitalism were working. I'm old enough to remember the days when wealthy business people thought it was their civic duty to hire Americans. And they volunteered to pay taxes up to 90% (which were way too high), because they thought that a healthy government created a healthy atmosphere for business. Times sure have changed, haven't they?

- magboy47.

September 30, 2012 at 12:57am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Isn't the biggest problem the fact that most Americans think that American corporations actually want to employ Americans, and the truth is that they don't? If that fairy tale was exploded, the GOP would have a real big problem among their currently most passionate supporters. I sense that our biggest problem, on lots of different levels, over the next couple of decades, will be how to figure out the ways to regulate capitalism so as to nurture entrepreneurial energy (which is good) and to suppress the destructive desire to find the next cheapest place to produce (which means cutting loose every place that went before). Business people have a big say in this -- but it's got to include others. I have the feeling that the age (1985-?) of uncontrolled global "market" domination might be giving way to something else, but who can say for sure that our society is capable of thinking this through. There's no law that says that a particular group of people is always going to get it right.

- ironyroad

September 30, 2012 at 1:22am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Nice critique of Capitalism. Would like to see it promulgated by the Dems. Capitalism has its own internal ethical system. Good equals earnings per share. Other niceties are irrelevant. It is indifferent to freedom, the health and well being of the populace, and the destiny of the nation and future generations. People are not human beings, they are consumers. And work for ordinary people is not a source of dignity and pride, but a commodity to be bought and sold like soy beans. As Marx pointed out, Capitalism is a miracle of productivity and wealth. But without the moral compass of humane government policy it is a monster that will devour itself and the dysfunctional, amoral world it creates.

- Vogelfam

September 30, 2012 at 11:42am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

On his website, Romney wants to repeal the 35% estate tax so his kids and his granchildren will get every penny of his wealth and won't have to work (plus, on his website, he wants up to $200,000.00 of of unearned dividends, interest and capital gains to have zero tax, if they don't have any other income). How can Romney lecture anybody on the sin of a lack of personal responsibility?

- Nusholtz

September 30, 2012 at 2:18pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Vogel, magboy and irony: I think the greatest sin of conservatism in the twentieth century has been the conflation of means and objects. Capitalism is a means of generating wealth; politics is a means of distributing social goods and services. The perversion of conservatism has been to identify capitalism as the prime object not just of economics but of politics, and politics - government, the democratic polity, the Republic itself - as an instrument of capital. It's one thing when capital is productive - then it employs people and grounds both the capitalist and labourer to the land - but quite another when capital only generates other capital and is devoted to the protection of its own oligarchic class members. The difference between Democrats and Republicans - minor in immediate effect, but enormous in conceptual and long-term impact - is precisely this: Democrats, as a rule, understand the distinction; Republicans, as a rule, deny it. Democrats are democrats; Republicans deny the primacy of the republic. There is irony for you.

- icarus-r

September 30, 2012 at 3:31pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"How can Romney lecture anybody on the sin of a lack of personal responsibility?" It all depends on the definition of personal responsibility, I think. Romney is personally responsible for his own wealth and wishes to remain personally responsible for its disposition. The vets and the seniors who, according to Seattle here, laze about on $30 K of government handouts each year are personally responsible for their age (the got old, didn't they?) and their condition (shouldn't have walked in the path of that IED, you fool!). It's simple really.

- icarus-r

September 30, 2012 at 3:34pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

There is confusion in that the market price is somehow considered magically fair and just. It reflects supply and demand, what people are willing to pay, and monopolistic advantage. It can be a pretty good way to allocate certain resources, but it emphatically does not make awards based on virtue--or even hard work for that matter. Mexican roofers get 10 bucks an hour for dangerous, back-breaking work. Hard work, righteous virtue--sure, compensation--fagadabout it. Happen to own land near a new light rail line? You virtuous,hard working, bastard you--enjoy the yacht club buddy. Now we know that capitalism works pretty well, but there has to be some adjustment for the distortions in compensation, and some floor for human dignity. By the way, I don't think a guy making 40k will quit to get 30k free. A job is not just a source of income, it is a source of pride and identity. Most people would rather work than not. It makes them feel like they have value.

- Vogelfam

September 30, 2012 at 5:47pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Abso-fuckin-lutely Vogelfam. And if you feel like you have value it's more likely that you do.

- Robert Powell

October 1, 2012 at 4:39pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

Close