ELECTIONATE AUGUST 22, 2012
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
Clearly, the Romney campaign's anti-Obama welfare ads have come at a cost. Given the way they have been condemned as false by even mainstream media sources—as Alec MacGillis pointed out yesterday, Joe Scarborough has explained that he was “stunned” by the ads' demonstrable falseness—the Romney camp has forfeited any hope of pivoting to the “high road” in response to future Obama attacks.
But judging from the Romney campaign's relentless commitment to the welfare message (there have been multiple iterations of the ad over the past several weeks), Boston seems to believe it's working. Are they right? Certainly, the advertisements target the audience that Romney needs—namely, white working class voters. It's harder to say whether the message will be as effective as they hope: It's been a long while since welfare's traditional ability to dredge up deep resentments has been tested on the national stage. Still, given the precariousness of Romney's position—and, frankly, his willingness to push the envelope—it's the smartest tactical move he's made yet.
To win the presidency, Romney will need to consolidate nearly all of the undecided, predominantly white working class voters with reservations about Obama’s performance. The problem is that the Obama campaign has long possessed a strategy to block Romney’s path to victory: Depict Romney as an out-of-touch plutocrat bent on annihilating the middle class. In contrast, Team Romney hasn’t really crafted a specific messaging strategy built to appeal to particular demographic groups. They've seemed to believe that generic ads criticizing the president will be sufficient to persuade voters with Obama reservations to join Romney’s side. For the most part, though, these ads haven’t moved the needle, in part because the president is already extremely well-known.
But the ads alleging that Obama dismantled the welfare work requirement are different— and potentially more effective. For one, they're targeted to appeal directly to white working class voters, as many others have pointed out. And unlike other attacks on Obama, the welfare advertisement introduces new information that voters probably didn't know—which can be more effective than other ads that simply stress facts that voters already internalized. (Never mind that this information is new because it isn't true.)
Since the Romney campaign has invested heavily in these advertisements, we can assume that they test well in focus groups. The reasons aren't surprising: The attacks play on a deep sense of resentment with the benefits received by the “undeserving” poor. Some polls point toward an uptick in anti-assistance sentiment since the recession. According to relatively recent Rasmussen surveys, 71 percent say that too many people get welfare and 47 percent of adults think the government spends too much on poverty programs. Remember: These surveys were taken before the overwhelming majority of Americans have heard the accusation that Obama has gutted welfare reform. That skepticism about the deservingness of welfare recipients will likely go through the roof when voters are told (again, erroneously) that Obama scrapped the work requirement.
Prior to welfare reform, voters were wildly dissatisfied with welfare, so we know that these arguments can turn welfare into a politically toxic issue for Democrats, as it was prior to Clinton’s pledge to “end welfare as we know it." If Romney's ads produce feelings anything like those that hampered Democrats in the '80s, Obama would be in big trouble, as suggested by a Rasmussen poll showing 83 percent of voters supporting welfare's work requirement.
But! Welfare has been off the national radar for nearly two decades. Two decades! Even if an ad plays on powerful underlying sentiments, is than enough to elevate an issue in the absence of sustained media attention? The advertisements provide completely new information to voters, so does that mean they have a larger impact because they’re telling voters something they didn’t know, or is their force blunted by the absence of external validation or sustained media coverage? The Obama campaign is also airing a response ad contesting Romney’s assertions, which will likely lessen the force of Romney’s attacks with Obama-leaning voters. On balance, there's no question that Romney's welfare message is much less powerful than it would be if it were accurate and consequently accompanied by news coverage. But that doesn't preclude the possibility that it could still make a bit of a splash.
The welfare advertisements represent a marked shift in Romney's strategy. Rather than reinforcing existing perceptions of Obama, the Romney campaign is trying to introduce new information about the president to critical white working class voters. Realistically, Romney's chances hinge more on building up his own image than bolstering Obama's negatives, but if the Romney campaign just doesn't possess any tools to restore their candidate's image, then an attack targeted at swing voters and drawing on powerful underlying sentiments is probably their next best option. Whether Romney's welfare angle works without sustained media attention remains to be seen.
54 comments
Hmmm...of the things to worry about in the presidential election campaign, I'd put the execrable Republican voter suppression and superior Romney resources higher on my list, for starters. But you nevertheless make an interesting point, Nate. I'd think that Obama can and will draw on Clinton (whose signing a welfare reform bill is part of one Romney ad, isn't it?) and others to rebut this claim effectively. But I don't underestimate the power of feeding false information to American voters who want to believe it...
- Thunderroad
August 22, 2012 at 8:52pm
I guess I also see the welfare ad as indicating some desperate flailing by Romney, trying to throw anything against the wall in the hope that it will stick. Again, I'm not saying it won't work, but as your piece point out Nate this is hardly the most salient issue these days.
- Thunderroad
August 22, 2012 at 8:57pm
I'm starting to worry. The combination of big money, big lies and 24/7 propaganda broadcasts? aaacckkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk
- Sophia
August 22, 2012 at 9:09pm
Meh. The white working class voter almost overwhelmingly believes that Obama is the new face of Socialism ... I don't know that this tactic introduces new "information" about Obama, as Cohn hypothesizes. If anything, it just solidifies beliefs about him.
- austinous
August 22, 2012 at 9:41pm
I would like to see a simple 30 second cartooned picture response: (1) the ACA reduces the cost of medicare by $716 (2) those savings are applied to increase benefits for preventative care and reduce the amount seniors pay for prescription drugs (3) if the ACA is repealed by Romney, seniors will lose preventative and prescription drug benefits.
- Nusholtz
August 22, 2012 at 9:47pm
Romney's concern is very real. Prior to welfare reform, this is how things were done. states got to determine if someone was doing enough to remain eligible. And guess what: States found a multitude of ways to ensure everyone remained eligible. Why? Because it ensured the money kept flowing to them. Imagine that...states telling lies to keep getting federal money. No moral hazard there, is there? To reform this some 20 years ago, a standard set of rules were defined. And lo and behold, it worked. States couldn't game the system anymore. The big question here is: How can this administration convince us that what they claim will happen will actually happen. They have been very wrong about a lot of things. All administrations are. But this administration has a particularly poor track record in predicting how the population responds to things. There is ample evidence to suggest that if the rules go back to the way they were, the problem we had before will return. Voters can readily grasp this.
- seattleeng
August 22, 2012 at 9:52pm
Maybe it's time that some one mans up to stop these recurring thoughts from entering public discourse. Maybe it's time that some one lifts up his hands and keeps the crowd from rushing the platform.
- Doug12
August 22, 2012 at 10:01pm
Nutz writes: "he ACA reduces the cost of medicare by $716 (2) those savings are applied to increase benefits for preventative care and reduce the amount seniors pay for prescription drugs " But that isn't how it works. Money was in fact taken from old people to pay for younger folks that can't afford insurance. This money was supposed to be the savings reaped from paying doctors less (the doc fix). The doc fix never has and never will materialize because it is draconian, and if it is ever implemented it will result in most doctors dropping medicare. There is a reason the doc fix is punted each year. What makes you think it will suddenly start to be implemented?
- seattleeng
August 22, 2012 at 10:01pm
Then Democrats should up and lie about Romney and keep lying, say Romney wants to gut social security, say that his medicare reform will force seniors onto vouchers starting next year and keep repeating it. Force Romney to scream that it won't, and then Democrats can accuse him of lying. Mitt Romney is a sociopath, Oh and seattle, wrong as usual. Good lord, you can't make up facts on your own. How is it you can read for so long what is written on TNR but still learn nothing? Why do you throw your money away for? I am truly curious, you want idiocy go to redstate.
- blackton
August 22, 2012 at 10:30pm
"Romney's concern is very real." In the context of this post, Seattle, you are essentially saying, "Yes, all of Romney's allegations are false, but his concern is very real. So, for the moment, let's ignore the 'all of Romney's allegations are false' part so I can pontificate about the dangers of welfare reform reform." It seems a thousand more times more important that a candidate for president can -- apparently -- lie with impunity. Am I just being an old fuddy-duddy here?
- Fishpeddler
August 22, 2012 at 11:10pm
Blackton, the dems are lying about Romney. They said he was a felon and hadn't paid any taxes. They said that he was a felon for misreporting his role at Bain. They said he killed a wife. And then yesterday, Obama said they said none of that. I am at TNR because 50% of what is written I take no issue with 25% of what is written I'm on the fence about and find it interesting, and the other 25% is flat out wrong. Why on earth would I ever go some place where I agreed 100% with everything written? Fish writes: "In the context of this post, Seattle, you are essentially saying, "Yes, all of Romney's allegations are false, but his concern is very real. " No, I'm saying his allegations are true and his concern is true. Tell me, Fish, what mechanism will prevent this from reverting to the way it was 20 years ago, when states were encouraged to sustain recipients forever?
- seattleeng
August 22, 2012 at 11:41pm
"Voters can readily grasp this. seattle, Most voters can't readily grasp anything. That's why George W. Bush got a second term and why most Republican voters will believe anything Romney says about welfare. As you have proven in previous comments, the thing Republican voters resent most in the universe is having to give a piece of their pie to people they don't even know and whom they think are lesser human beings. Most Democratic voters don't readily grasp things either, but at least they don't cut off their noses to spite their faces like Republican voters do. If Romney wins, within 3 years of his inauguration, I'm predicting that Wall Street and our economy will crash again, because of the severe deregulation that he is promising to implement. That gives him little time to create the 12 million new jobs in his first term that he is boasting he will provide. If you were a betting man, which would you put your money on under President Romney--12 million new jobs or 12 million jobs lost? Betting tip: history has shown us that Wall Street only crashes under Republicans.
- magboy47.
August 23, 2012 at 1:44am
seattle, um...no. We don't know if the took the tax amnesty and if he did then he would have been a felon...and you have proof he didn't take the amnesty? And in point of fact thousands of people die each year because they do not have insurance and can not afford it, so yes Republicans are partly responsible for thousands of needless deaths each year. That is not saying Republicans kill people, but they do not care that people die. And yes, Romney was a felon for misrepresenting his role at Bain. He lied. He claimed Utah as his primary residence and saved tens of thousands on property taxes then he blamed the clerk and said, no he was living in Mass. all that time. Now I am not sure his lying about Bain was a prosecutable crime, but lie he did. And show me where in the world was the work requirement dropped from Federal law. What happened prior to when a law is enacted is irrelevant, the law is as it has stood for nearly 2 decades, the work requirement is on the books. Romney is a sociopath.
- blackton
August 23, 2012 at 1:50am
Given how much my extended family freaks out at the mere thought of people being on welfare, it's still an issue worth pushing for him.
- ARealHero
August 23, 2012 at 1:54am
I think Obama needs to aggressively showcase the GOP governors who requested the work waiver. Anything else is pussy-footing around with dangerous polemic.
- ironyroad
August 23, 2012 at 2:09am
This dishonest attack will gain some ground because it plays to racist perceptions of many "working class" voters. Fortunately the audience for this message is much more limited than it was in the past, but racism is Romney's best line of defense in many swing states. In the minds of some voters Obama is African-American, so OF COURSE he's a socialist who's primarily concerned with making sure the welfare mothers get their checks. The ad is nothing but a cynical attempt to dredge up the worst racist instincts of white voters who are having a hard time getting by in a bad economy.
- Attrill
August 23, 2012 at 2:40am
Yes. Fantastic piece by Ta-Nahisi Coates here: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/09/fear-of-a-black-president/309064/ Obama's color is key to the "welfare" thing. They wouldn't be playing this violin otherwise. It's dog whistling, like the Obama Is Not American, doesn't understand our Anglo-Saxon Heritage, wasn't born here, all that C***, it's starting to make me furious (and scared). I read a piece recently too about white supremacists in the US military are a real problem, people are joining to learn the arts of war for their own future purposes apparently. G*d help us. And damn the "respectable" Republicans for using this, for not standing up to it. Romney that means YOU. McCain had vastly more honor. And, all the wrong people are armed. Just read a piece, the University of Colorado allows concealed carry in classrooms and professors can't object? And they have a dorm for people with guns? What are we doing? This is the state where a U of C student just murdered and wounded a whole bunch of people. This is all of a piece. "Pro-life" my sweet bippie. Ryan - omg that fool - http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2012/08/ryan-is-more-extreme-than-akin.html
- Sophia
August 23, 2012 at 3:19am
"The attacks play on a deep sense of resentment with the benefits received by the 'undeserving' poor": It's much more than that. It's just racist. I agree completely, Attrill and Sophia. It's an attempt to hang the old stereotype "lazy, black, welfare mothers" around Obama's neck on the basis of skin color. That's why it doesn't matter if the "new" information is correct or not. It's just a pretense to cast Obama as "soft on welfare" through racial stereotyping; the Romney campaign doesn't have the guts to openly own its racism or, at least, its cynical use of it. It's like the Fox News video making the rounds on Facebook right now where Fox commentators preface each outrageous statement to come with "Some people say...." The truth about who is actually saying what doesn't matter - it's just pretense for the spread of disinformation or, in this case, nasty stereotypes.
- Claris
August 23, 2012 at 8:00am
I live in Virginia, a swing state. Last night I saw 3 Romney 30 second spots in rapid succession - the "welfare" ad with the supposed gutting of work requirements. This ad cleverly plays to indenpendents and Democrats by praising Bill Clinton's welfare reforms, the take away being that Clinton was a reasonable Democrat, unlike this socialist (never mind that Republicans impeached Clinton). Another was the lie that the president cut $715 billion of Medicare benefits to pay for "Obamacare".The 3rd was the out of context "Our plan worked" . All this time I'm wondering where the Obama ads are. The Dems better start hitting the airwaves fast, or this thing is lost. To outright lies.
- dubyadoubte
August 23, 2012 at 9:43am
"Fish writes: "In the context of this post, Seattle, you are essentially saying, "Yes, all of Romney's allegations are false, but his concern is very real. " No, I'm saying his allegations are true and his concern is true." Seattle, the entire point of the post was that Romney's allegations are false. You said absolutely nothing which even attempted to refute that point, then you expect us to proceed as if you had said his allegations are true. If your entire argument takes as its starting point a denial of the original post, it would be helpful if you mentioned it. I can't help but suspect that you didn't go to the trouble of explicitly denying that Romney is lying because, well, it is not plausibly deniable. "Tell me, Fish, what mechanism will prevent this from reverting to the way it was 20 years ago, when states were encouraged to sustain recipients forever?" You're inadvertantly goading me into making a point I'd decided against making earlier, because I'm trying to be nice and only give you crap in small increments (I guess that would be excrement in increments). I continually marvel at how you apparently experience no shame over shifting a topic whenever your own position is clearly untenable. Sometimes this shift occurs within even the first sentence of your comments. So in the present case, we have a post about the mendacity of Romney's allegations which you cannot even bear to engage honestly before trying to turn it instead into a discussion about the potential effect of reforms to the current welfare program. Show some intellectual integrity, man. You will, of course, now charge that I am failing to answer your question, but there is a very good reason for that: because I am not willing to fall for your deceptive technique of deflecting EVERY discussion away from any issue where your own argument is obviously false or weak.
- Fishpeddler
August 23, 2012 at 10:22am
Magboy writes: "As you have proven in previous comments, the thing Republican voters resent most in the universe is having to give a piece of their pie to people they don't even know and whom they think are lesser human beings." Odd. Study after study shows the red state populations give like crazy. In excess of 10% in many cases. Not only do they donate money, but they also donate buckets of time. And most of this time and money goes directly to help those with less. No matter how you slice charity, it is almost uniquely a red-state phenom. The more liberal a person is, the less they give in time and money. This is true all over the world. The more you believe in government, the less you believe in directly helping others. You tend to believe it becomes a problem for the state. Convenient, eh? As I've noted before, I vote for almost every local tax increase. New school? No problem. Levy to improve road? Great. Love it. The issue is shoveling money to the federal government, where the efficacy of a dollar is abysmal. Someone in need gets just $0.40 of an allocated dollar. If a charity or any other organization were delivering these rates, the CEO would be in jail. This is not a money issue. At all. It's an efficiency issue. Blackton writes: "We don't know if the took the tax amnesty and if he did then he would have been a felon...and you have proof he didn't take the amnesty?" We also don't know if either candidate is a pedophile, do we? How can we get to the bottom of that? Obama never released medical records. Neither did Clinton. Perhaps both were trying to mask years of cocaine abuse? Does Obama have AIDS? Perhaps an un-treatable STD? These are important things we need to know, right? What about college records? We know the president smoked a load of weed in high school. He told us he enjoyed coke in his books. Were there ever any drug arrests? We know he told his publisher he was born outside the US, and that remained in his bio for 8 years. Did he tell colleges that too? American needs to know! You can contrive all sorts of situations in which it sounds reasonable to demand answers. What is wrong here is the campaign suggesting lack of records means Romney is a felon.
- seattleeng
August 23, 2012 at 10:45am
Wait, Romney killed a wife? That needs to be out there repeated in 30 second ads over and over in battleground states!
- ReganaD
August 23, 2012 at 10:58am
seattle, I don't know if people in red states give more in charity, but if they do, it's mostly to people like themselves. You know I was talking about the resentment of people who have some of their taxes given to those they consider inferior to themselves. That's why you changed the subject to charity. You are, indeed, a genius at one thing, seattle--changing the subject.
- magboy47.
August 23, 2012 at 11:21am
SeattleOink! The $716 billion in savings from the ACA was plowed back into benefits. Where did you get your fantasy from?
- Nusholtz
August 23, 2012 at 11:27am
dubyadoubte, You're right about the GOP's admiration for Clinton. Southern Democrats are 100% Republicans on economics, and Clinton was to the Right of Reagan on some economic issues. The reason Republicans impeached him was that pesky little matter of his political party label--he was a Democrat who got a second term in office, and as such, it didn't matter if he was an undercover GOP operative. Republicans will vote against their own policies, if a Democrat embraces them. They've proven that over and over in the last 2 years. When a Democrat's in the Oval Office, they want political anarchy. But they seem to love the economic anarchy that often results from a Republican president's deregulation of our economy. And yes, the closet Republican Clinton helped deregulate Wall Street.
- magboy47.
August 23, 2012 at 11:32am
seattleeng: "They said that he was a felon for misreporting his role at Bain." No, that's not what they said at all. Please read the statement. It was that Romney either misrepresented his role at Bain to the public OR he lied to the SEC which would be a felony. http://www.politico.com/politico44/2012/07/obama-team-romney-committed-a-felony-or-lied-to-voters-128757.html Since an "or" statement is true if either part is true, the first part can be true while the second part is false. Consequently, it is a matter of basic logic that they did not assert that Romney is a felon. What they were asserting was that Romney couldn't have it both ways.
- dsimon
August 23, 2012 at 11:52am
This is another example of an article being WAAAAAAY more nuanced than the headline. The ads have the POTENTIAL to be "devastatingly effective" (or even just plain effective), but there is no evidence that they are outside the implication that they are effective with focus groups. And, as Cohn correctly points out, they are unusual in that they attempt to raise brand-new information with voters on an issue that has not featured in national elections in over two decades. How that would work, we do not yet know. Better yet, we don't know if it will work for Mitt Romney in particular, given that a very large chunk of the white working class now regards him as a wealthy, out-of-touch financier who doesn't care about their job prospects. It's not clear whether a voter who thinks that will now be persuaded to pull the lever for Romney because Romney can be counted on to prevent more Federal money to be given to undeserving poor people. This tactic would have been a lot better for a generic Republican candidate without Romney's baggage as an enemy of the working stiff.
- wildboy
August 23, 2012 at 12:04pm
Wow, talk about a sensationalist home page teaser! "The devastating effectiveness of Romney's welfare ads"? I was fwitghtened! The article, needless to say, is much more even-toned.
- adsprung
August 23, 2012 at 12:20pm
seattle says "Study after study shows the red state populations give like crazy. In excess of 10% in many cases. Not only do they donate money, but they also donate buckets of time. And most of this time and money goes directly to help those with less." Oddly...study after study shows that the demographics that have swung predominately towards Republican / Conservative candidates that promise to cut government benefits are hte most dependent upon government benefits. So what is the definition of "giving" in GOP circles? This NYT article points out and the interactive graph shows quite clearly, that the rural, non-urban areas are more dependent upon government handouts than not. http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/02/12/us/entitlement-map.html?ref=us http://tinyurl.com/6sem6xg A good take away point from the article: "...Support for Republican candidates, who generally promise to cut government spending, has increased since 1980 in states where the federal government spends more than it collects. The greater the dependence, the greater the support for Republican candidates." Clearly, when Romney talks about welfare in rural areas like a coal mine in West Virginia, it's because it tends to be the GOP way of illuminating an inherent tribal bias of giving something to the "others." In this case, welfare & unemployment benefits for an out-of-work, white coal miner is a more noble version of government spending than say expanding health insurance coverage or rent assistance to the black or latino restaurant-cook in Atlanta. Why is that? Because Romney & the GOP are playing to unfounded fears and biases. It's easy to blame Obama for the structural failings of Congress and the failed supply-side economic policies as practiced for the last 35 years because he's had a scant 3 years to fix a 4 decade long problem in the making. Americans simultaneously expect him to create jobs and then howl when he proposes stimulus money to create jobs. It reflects our inherent contradictory nature of being independent lemmings. The issue of entitlements like SS/Medicare/Medicaid is one of a growing, older population and shrinking of the middle class where a family of 4 living off of $40K a year is really the working poor that are relying on welfare programs to just get by and not enough workers to pay for the system. When you have a 60 year old retiree taking out $3 in benefits for every $1 he put in, clearly it isn't a case of welfare queen extravagance but basic math. Yet the discussion of raising taxes and cutting benefits is usually an either / or discussion. Romney & the GOP can't get past the tax issue to even begin discussing how to fix our issues. They think simply promising the same level benefits, cutting taxes and cutting spending will somehow create a miracle. At least Obama has proposed ways to pay for these & that includes raising taxes. Yet every time 'supply side' policy is tried under a GOP administration the U.S. finds itself in an economic free-fall and morass that takes years to climb out of. And here we have the same GOP group saying to the American public "let's give it another go" because we didn't completely bankrupt America the last time and we haven't transferred the remaining 20% of the wealth out there to the wealthy. Maybe if Romney was an honest person to begin I might consider his policies worth listening to with but the guy deals in patently false claims to hide the fact that he isn't anything new but the status quo. His and Ryan's "fixes" are nothing but fairy dust smeared over the 'supply side' crap sandwich they're trying to feed and convince us will fix all of our problems. If we only got rid of SS/Medicare/Medicaid/EPA/Clean Air/Clean Water/FDA and Abortion....why everyone will be winners. As I've pointed out in other posts, where we cut and where we invest our dollars makes the big difference. If we cut defense spending then that money needs to be shifted to investments in non-defense areas that support infrastructure, education and job creation vs. continued entitlement programs.
- singlspeed
August 23, 2012 at 12:44pm
dubyadouble: regarding the dearth of Obama ads: this is a money problem I believe. I think the Obama campaign may already be in debt whereas The Death Star has unlimited buckets of money (ergo power to buy ads) PS oh limousine liberals, where are you? Are you willing to destroy your country because Obama doesn't stroke you enough??????? If so please reconsider.
- Sophia
August 23, 2012 at 2:06pm
On the subject of charity - OK who is willing to risk their life and wellbeing on the idea that some red state "Christian" will give you charity? Especially if you are not, you know, Christian? No no no no no! A civil society, a good society, a secular, diverse society, doesn't throw it's citizens to the vagaries of chance or subject them to the humility of having to beg. Especially from religious organizations. And what if you are an "alien" and/or the "wrong" color? My goodness people are totally paranoid about Mexicans in much of the Southwest and it's become an excuse along with Black Welfare Queens, etc, to suppress the vote even in northern states. OMG. Those People Will Steal My Vote. Say WHAT???? It has not happened. That isn't derailing nakedly partisan attempts to suppress the vote. Racist attempts; this is a shanda and the officials trying to pull this off are on record as saying (example in PA) that this is to give Romney the win. Why aren't they in jail? Anyway back to charity: people who haven't been poor wouldn't know what that's like would they. PS efficiency my sweet tuchas. Importantly, too, tithing isn't charity, Ann Romney's assertions to the contrary notwithstanding. The Catholics and the Mormons, to name just two religious institutions, have become enormously wealthy and politically powerful due to tithing. They should be taxed since they have entered the public square (with bells on.) These and other extremely powerful, particularly Christian organizations are attempting to determine public policy. They are political to the max and use their money to buy elections, like Prop 8 in California, like these attempts to make contraception and other women's health issues too expensive and/or criminal for women, they try to shame women for wanting contraception or seeking legal rights for abortion, in some cases this happens even if a woman's health is acutely threatened. As in she might die: Catholic hospitals have sent women away and nuns and others have been excommunicated for helping them. This isn't a story either, it happens, my own mother nearly died in childbirth due to these barbarian attitudes. So why shouldn't these political parties be taxed? Because that is what they are: political parties. As for giving time and money many less well to do people do what they can but it's a drop in the bucket and we're not so egotistical that we don't recognize that. There simply isn't that much left over and there are so many people and causes and animals in need (yes animals count too.)
- Sophia
August 23, 2012 at 2:25pm
So much to say" The "general welfare" clause of the Constitution refers to the overall well-being of citizens. It certainly doesn't refer to the welfare benefits started by malignant cripple FDR & continued by LBJ to ensure that receivers of handouts would vote Democrat."All you folks who want to vote against your handouts, vote for the other party." The Constitution specifies what the FedGov can do. It's art 1, sec.8. No mention of "if you want to be on the dole your whole life, we will pay for your litter." Are we a govt of laws or a govt of men? If men (any men) TNR is brilliant. If we are a govt of laws, TNR-Cohn need to explain why working folks should pay taxes to support tax-eaters.
- raygun
August 23, 2012 at 3:23pm
So much to say" The "general welfare" clause of the Constitution refers to the overall well-being of citizens. It certainly doesn't refer to the welfare benefits started by malignant cripple FDR & continued by LBJ to ensure that receivers of handouts would vote Democrat."All you folks who want to vote against your handouts, vote for the other party." The Constitution specifies what the FedGov can do. It's art 1, sec.8. No mention of "if you want to be on the dole your whole life, we will pay for your litter." Are we a govt of laws or a govt of men? If men (any men) TNR is brilliant. If we are a govt of laws, TNR-Cohn need to explain why working folks should pay taxes to support tax-eaters.
- raygun
August 23, 2012 at 3:23pm
Raygun taxes to support tax-eaters I have to ask: In your world of "no takers and givers" what is the justification for the draft? Do you think we will compete better globally if those with resources contribute to that goal? Should we give drought relief to farmers? Does money paid by the government to the poor or the unemployed play a role in the economy of an area hit hard by a recession? Will the people of California and Maine, or any two people, be better off if they mutually agree to help one another even if they believe they do not or will not need help?
- Nusholtz
August 23, 2012 at 3:47pm
nusholtz: the draft (forced conscription)is to provide soldiers for the War Party, the joint effort of Democrats/Republicans/Israelis. Don't know what planet you live on. but unlike Israel, the US has no draft. Bet your imbecilic ass never heard of Grover Cleveland, who denied drought relief to texas because it did not benefit the whole country. Your kumbiya moment for California & Maine omits the tiny fact that California has been overrun by ElSalvadoran MS13 gangbangers and is in servitude to Mexico, while Maine is the last refuge of the foundational American people.
- raygun
August 23, 2012 at 4:21pm
"The "general welfare" clause of the Constitution refers to the overall well-being of citizens. It certainly doesn't refer to the welfare benefits started by malignant cripple FDR..." Glad to have you here Raygun. We were due for a visit by an erudite scholar such as yourself.
- Fishpeddler
August 23, 2012 at 4:23pm
Thanks, fish guy. Your sarcasm is on the level of the Dumb & Dumber guys who didn't let themselves get picked up by the Swedish Girls Bikini Volleyball Team. You (&they) are way too smart for that. or something.
- raygun
August 23, 2012 at 4:43pm
Yeah, I've been puzzled for years about what the heck that General Welfare thing means -- I thought it meant the overall well-being of the nation. Anyway, thank heavens raygun has finally shown up to explain how I'm wrong and have it ass-backwards, and that it really means . . . er . . . the overall well-being of the nation. Whatever. I feel I'm on firmer ground now that raygun has helped me out. Tough love, doncha know . . .
- ironyroad
August 23, 2012 at 4:45pm
Uh huh. Tax eaters, like Lockheed Martin, Haliburton, Blackwater, certain "too big to fail" bank and insurance industries; what about oil? Ruins the Gulf, ruined part of Alaska already, wants to destroy the rest of it! Oh man don't get me started. Also, people who make money from capital gains, as opposed to "tax eaters," that would be the workers, who pay a higher rate on their hard earned money. Even the poor pay taxes, buy stuff, contribute enormously to the economy. Children, I suppose they are tax eaters though. Look at all those schools! But zygotes should be people! On the other hand, don't eat that many taxes in the womb! It's all good until they're born right?
- Sophia
August 23, 2012 at 5:08pm
PS "malignant cripple," you know what you sound like raygun? But then I guess cripples = "tax eaters," even if they're Presidents or scientists right? Well actually I suppose Steven Hawking IS a tax eater, British have (omg) actual health care! SO off to the camps with FDR, Steven Hawking, and the kids, who eat taxes like crazy and produce nada! Unless of course they're aliens who pick crops all day so y'all can eat and have your light sparkling wines. Them, we're gonna make so miserable they will simply self-deport then I guess you producers will have to pick your own damn grapes.
- Sophia
August 23, 2012 at 5:11pm
raygun, thanks for the tip about the El Salvadoreans. Out here in the Central Valley they aren't so easy to spot, but maybe they just disguise themselves as the regular, everyday Mexicans we have so many of in these parts. And thanks for showing up & sharing your insights - for once, I can be sure I'm far from the dumbest person in this space.
- Haole45
August 23, 2012 at 5:48pm
"If we are a govt of laws, TNR-Cohn need to explain why working folks should pay taxes to support tax-eaters." Because, raygun, it's like ransom money. You pay it so the tax eaters won't riot in the streets by the tens of millions and eventually eat you. Then you get on with your life, instead of stewing in your own vitriolic juices about something you have no control over. It's called reality. Jumpin' Jehosephats! We have another bitter Ayn Randian on board. Objectivism, anyone?
- magboy47.
August 23, 2012 at 5:57pm
dsimon writes: "No, that's not what they said at all. Please read the statement. It was that Romney either misrepresented his role at Bain to the public OR he lied to the SEC which would be a felony." What was there to misrepresent? He was Chairman and CEO not involved with the day to day management of the company. That's not at all unique. Ever hear of Bill Gates? Years before he left the CEO position more was increasingly being done by others in the company in preparation for the transition. Sophia writes: "OK who is willing to risk their life and wellbeing on the idea that some red state "Christian" will give you charity? Especially if you are not, you know, Christian? Yes, look at Bush43. While Clinton and Gore were padding their pockets to the tune of $100M since they left office, Bush spent time doing charity work in Africa and working with vets. Remember when all we heard about was that Bush was doing Iraq so all his oil buddies could give him a fat job when he left? Odd that Bush is passing the days working with vets and African kids, isn't it? Meanwhile, Gore and Clinton are on more boards than you can count. Nutz writes: "The $716 billion in savings from the ACA was plowed back into benefits. Where did you get your fantasy from?" It was plowed into benefit for young poor people. That is the beef. Money earmarked for seniors was given to the young/poor. Magboy writes: "I don't know if people in red states give more in charity, but if they do, it's mostly to people like themselves. You know I was talking about the resentment of people who have some of their taxes given to those they consider inferior to themselves. That's why you changed the subject to charity." It's been shown time and time again in study after study. Politico was the latest to report: "The eight states whose residents gave the highest share of their income — Utah, Mississippi, Alabama, Tennessee, South Carolina, Idaho, Arkansas and Georgia — all backed McCain in 2008. Utah leads charitable giving, with 10.6 percent of income given. And the least generous states — Wisconsin, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, Vermont, Maine and New Hampshire — were Obama supporters in the last presidential race. New Hampshire residents gave the least share of their income, the Chronicle stated" See that? Poor rednecks give more than 10% of their income ON AVERAGE, while rich and middle class give less. That is ON AVERAGE, which means there are many rednecks giving 20%! The average giving for someone in Iowa earning $40K/year was $6K per year once. I don't think those on the coasts quite understand how much giving there is in the middle of the country. It's such a foreign concept, I know. Magboy writes: "You are, indeed, a genius at one thing, seattle--changing the subject." Changing the subject? You assert something to be true. If it's not true, I point out a fact that contradicts it. And all you can say is I changed the subject? Why not say "Gee, Seattle, something that I assumed as a bedrock assumption that i've held my entire life you just showed me was wrong. And I appreciate that"
- seattleeng
August 23, 2012 at 7:12pm
It's also worth mentioning that the United States, the United Kingdom, and Ireland top the scales as the three countries with consistently the highest volumes of charitable giving (weighted for GDP). Even if you strip out the "internal" religious giving (within faith communities) the U.S. still comes out slightly ahead. It's quite odd as the three countries have very different attitudes when it comes to individual, social, and governmental responsibility for care. It's a somewhat different story for governmental development aid -- there, the U.S. comes in around 10th place or so with Sweden leading the pack. But it's also worth mentioning that the high levels of individual giving in Ireland and the UK have a very international stamp on them, in contrast to here in America where in terms of targeted giving a much much smaller percentage is for declared international goals.
- ironyroad
August 23, 2012 at 9:35pm
SeattleOink! writes that the $716 million was applied to benefits for young people. The $716 billion was used to provide two new benefits for seniors: paid for preventative care and the prescription doughnut hole is filled with the $716, according to Representative Chris Van Hollen and Mr. J. Cohn. Please identify what specific benefit went to young people with the $716 billion that you are talking about, if you can. If not, how would you like to handle the apology?
- Nusholtz
August 23, 2012 at 9:47pm
Raygun Nobody said there was an existing draft. So let's be specific. If people in this country cannot be called upon to support the general benefit of Society, what was the justification for a draft when there was one? I would further note that Society for its benefit can take the life of an individual in criminal courts and in battle, but, according to you, it cannot take more revenue from the wealthy for its benefit. And the reason you believe that our country cannot better itself, its economy and its people has something to do with Grover Cleveland (Good Grief!).
- Nusholtz
August 23, 2012 at 9:55pm
Raygun, I'll defer to your expertise on dumb and dumber. The movie, as well.
- Fishpeddler
August 23, 2012 at 10:26pm
How do you know that it's just "poor rednecks" in MS, AL, TN, SC, AR, GA giving more to charity? Those states have large black populations as well.
- s.trabka@frontier.com-old
August 23, 2012 at 11:00pm
I just knew there was a Grover Cleveland Fan Club out there somewhere . . .
- ironyroad
August 23, 2012 at 11:28pm
Hey, Fishpeddler! You steppin' on my conceit! I am the expert when it comes to who's dumb & dumber, in the present case.
- Haole45
August 23, 2012 at 11:32pm
seattleeng: "dsimon writes: 'No, that's not what they said at all. Please read the statement. It was that Romney either misrepresented his role at Bain to the public OR he lied to the SEC which would be a felony.' "What was there to misrepresent?...." Once again, seattleeng is changing the subject. The claim was that the Obama campaign called Romney a felon. The facts show that they did not. Instead, they were implying that Romney had a more important role at Bain than he said he did after he "left" the company. It would be nice to hear "I guess I got that wrong" just once instead of trying to deflect the error by moving to another topic. "Magboy writes: 'You are, indeed, a genius at one thing, seattle--changing the subject.' "Changing the subject? You assert something to be true. If it's not true, I point out a fact that contradicts it. And all you can say is I changed the subject?" Magboy is right. You just did, again. "Why not say 'Gee, Seattle, something that I assumed as a bedrock assumption that i've held my entire life you just showed me was wrong.'" Perhaps following one's own advice might be in order, even if it doesn't involve a bedrock assumption.
- dsimon
August 24, 2012 at 12:37am
@ironyroad: googling "Grover Cleveland Texas" revealed what looks to be a whole little world in which President Cleveland was our greatest leader, and Mrs. Cleveland was no slouch either.
- mldarby
August 24, 2012 at 10:09am
Oh. Plus did anybody pick up raygun's crack about Israel? Sheese can anybody be more offensive? Or more wrong? Let me guess. Raygun supports Paul Ryan.
- Sophia
August 24, 2012 at 2:01pm
PS good luck with that dude. I understand Romney doesn't want you guys to have any impact on the convention or the nominating process. Now I am not exactly a Ron Paul supporter (duh) but how does this advance the cause of freedom, so forth? http://www.examiner.com/article/mitt-romney-does-a-number-on-ron-paul-and-shuts-him-out-of-the-convention
- Sophia
August 24, 2012 at 2:06pm