DCP's Stock goes Down again

[_Jaybear]

If you're referring to Romney's comment at the fundraiser, you've either misunderstood it or deliberately misrepresented it.

The words the Romney spoke, and the context in which they were spoken were not vague or ambiguous.
Sometime people say what they mean, and mean what they say. That is especially the case, when they believe the conversation is private.

While its hyperbole to say that Romney "despises" half the public, his words clearly an unequivocally conveyed a contempt/disdain for those people who rely on public assistance.

[_Chap]

So you believe that ALL employers should have dictated to them what benefits they can and cannot offer their employees?

Why not leave that up to the employers, and the potential employees to decide? In other words, leave it up to the American people to decide what is appropriate or inappropriate in the way of benefits.

This is the kind of thing that contributes to the job crisis...companies being dictated to what benefits they are REQUIRED to offer.

If you choose to work for a small business or as a private contractor, you have the intelligence to walk into that situation with your eyes open. What happened to "buyer beware"? As a private contractor for my freelance website work, I know the company I am building a website for is not going to offer me full benefits. As a matter of fact, they are not going to offer me ANY benefits. I know that going in, and charge accordingly for my services.

If someone CHOOSES to work for a Catholic organization, they either have, or should have, a pretty good idea what the benefits for that organization are, depending on that company's ideology.

If you don't like the benefits offered to you by a specific company, DON'T WORK FOR THAT COMPANY. Find a company that provides the type of benefits that suits your needs. It's called working in a free market.

Of course. No regulations on working conditions are necessary, since workers who object to working in a dust-laden factory that destroys their lungs, or who don't want to destroy their bones by working with phosphorus, or who don't want to do welding without eye protection can simply work for an employer who arranges things differently. They have a choice. Similarly, if employees want to be paid in US dollars rather than by vouchers for the company store, they can just go elsewhere. And so on.

God almighty! Has the history of the last one and a half centuries been completely forgotten and overwritten by the delusion that an average employer who owns a business and the individual job-seeking worker dependent on his or her earnings can be expected to meet and negotiate on equal terms? Is it imagined that the working conditions of 19th century workers were rendered as relatively safe as they are today by the sheer human good-will of the employers?

... leave it up to the American people to decide what is appropriate or inappropriate in the way of benefits.

Oh. Didn't they already do that through the laws passed by their elected representatives? Or is that no longer a legitimate way for the American people to decide what happens in their country?

[_sock puppet]

Romney said it as a candidate, not as a sitting president. It looks to me like he was explaining what his campaign strategy was, why trying to appeal to 47% of the electorate perhaps made no sense, that to be elected, he needs to make his play for the other 53%. It is much like why Obama is not making campaign stops in many red states (their electoral votes are going to go for Romney anyway).

If the question was couched in how he would govern if elected, and Romney answered that by poo-pooing the 47%, that would be very damning. I think that the press has painted out a campaign strategy comment as if it were a comment Romney made about how he'd govern.

[_Chap]

Romney said it as a candidate, not as a sitting president.

Now, where have I heard that kind of distinction drawn before on this board?

It looks to me like he was explaining what his campaign strategy was, why trying to appeal to 47% of the electorate perhaps made no sense, that to be elected, he needs to make his play for the other 53%.

Certainly. And in doing so he made his contempt for the 47% utterly plain. The one does not exclude the other - or excuse it.

[_cinepro]

Whatever Romney actually thinks, his statement was, in itself, problematic and inaccurate. He is the one who must bear the blame for saying what he said. Blaming everyone else for "misinterpreting" Romney is lame.

I agree that his statement was a disaster, and I won't be surprised if he loses the election because of it. But stranger things have happened...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DTxXUufI3jA

But to me, he is saying that a message of governmental austerity and tax breaks will have no effect on a large portion of the population when it comes to votes. He can't worry about their votes. He isn't saying he doesn't care about their situation, or their struggles. He is just acknowledging that there is a huge portion of the population that will not be receptive to his message, and he isn't going to be spending energy or money trying to convince them otherwise.

It's like the observation in baseball, where there's a 160 game season. Teams know that everyone is going to win 60 games and lose 60 games, and the difference is what happens with the 40 games in the middle.

If Obama decided to make abortion rights the key issue of his campaign, he might make the observation that there is X% of people who irrevocably disagree with him on the issue, and his job isn't to worry about those people, but to focus on the people whose votes he can get. It's just a matter of defining what the selling points of the campaign are, and which people will be receptive to those points.

As far as Romney's comments go, people tend to get very, very focused on the things that directly benefit them, even when it goes against what they might believe in principal. So if someone is getting support from the government, that can have a very powerful effect on how they view government's role in peoples' lives.

For example, a few years ago my wife and I finally bought a house, and we just happened to qualify for the home buyer's "tax credit". The government wanted to give us $8,000 for buying a home. This was a terrible, terrible idea, and I was opposed to the program. But did I cash the check? You bet I did (I even joked about it in my Christmas Card that year). So I know how the prospect of getting money from the government can change how people see the world.

Now that was just a one-time thing. But what if I was faced with voting decisions that I thought might affect how much I can get from the government on a monthly or yearly basis? Would I have the courage to vote against my own self-interest if it were for the good of the country as a whole?

[_Jaybear]

Romney said it as a candidate, not as a sitting president. It looks to me like he was explaining what his campaign strategy was, why trying to appeal to 47% of the electorate perhaps made no sense, that to be elected, he needs to make his play for the other 53%. It is much like why Obama is not making campaign stops in many red states (their electoral votes are going to go for Romney anyway).

If the question was couched in how he would govern if elected, and Romney answered that by poo-pooing the 47%, that would be very damning. I think that the press has painted out a campaign strategy comment as if it were a comment Romney made about how he'd govern.

Don't blame the press. They simply reported what he said.

Romney statement was not just mean spirited, but it was incoherent.
Mitt Romney conflated Obama's base support (47%) with people who don't pay federal taxes (47%).

If his campaign strategy is to write off all of the 47% who don't pay federal taxes, then his campaign manager is an idiot.

[_Chap]

Whatever Romney actually thinks, his statement was, in itself, problematic and inaccurate. He is the one who must bear the blame for saying what he said. Blaming everyone else for "misinterpreting" Romney is lame.

I agree that his statement was a disaster, and I won't be surprised if he loses the election because of it. But stranger things have happened...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DTxXUufI3jA

But to me, he is saying that a message of governmental austerity and tax breaks will have no effect on a large portion of the population when it comes to votes. He can't worry about their votes. He isn't saying he doesn't care about their situation, or their struggles. ...

He isn't saying that he doesn't care about their struggles. He just regards them as a bunch of dependent moochers with a victim complex.

[_sock puppet]

Romney said it as a candidate, not as a sitting president. It looks to me like he was explaining what his campaign strategy was, why trying to appeal to 47% of the electorate perhaps made no sense, that to be elected, he needs to make his play for the other 53%. It is much like why Obama is not making campaign stops in many red states (their electoral votes are going to go for Romney anyway).

If the question was couched in how he would govern if elected, and Romney answered that by poo-pooing the 47%, that would be very damning. I think that the press has painted out a campaign strategy comment as if it were a comment Romney made about how he'd govern.

Don't blame the press. They simply reported what he said.

Romney statement was not just mean spirited, but it was incoherent.
Mitt Romney conflated Obama's base support (47%) with people who don't pay federal taxes (47%).

If his campaign strategy is to write off all of the 47% who don't pay federal taxes, then his campaign manager is an idiot.

I agree. Trying to eek out a win by playing just to 53% is like threading a needle. Too narrow of a path to take.

I also think the comments about the 47% were unbecoming, but it may not reflect what Romney's attitude towards them as people he would govern nearly as much as an explanation of why seeking their vote would not be the best use of his campaign resources.

Romney spoke those words, but the press has represented them to the public as what a President Romney's attitude towards 47% of the people he would govern would be. That is the press's error.

[_Chap]

...

Romney spoke those words, but the press has represented them to the public as what a President Romney's attitude towards 47% of the people he would govern would be. That is the press's error.

Romney's words clearly express what his attitude towards the 47% actually is now. I fail to see why that fact is not a good guide towards his likely attitude in the future. I really don't see how the press is in error in pointing out what he has said, and in drawing the obvious inference.

(Of course, unless he is even more unreflective than he has already proved himself to be, his minders will ensure that he never openly expresses that attitude again.)

[_cinepro]

He isn't saying that he doesn't care about their struggles. He just regards them as a bunch of dependent moochers with a victim complex.

I think he was way off with the percentage, but I didn't know we were all supposed to pretend that there aren't people who have set themselves up to be as dependent on the government as possible.

For example, I hire about 25 people a year for seasonal work. In the last 10 years, I've had at least 15 people decline a job offer because they wanted to max out their unemployment benefits. I've literally offered them a job, and they say "No thanks, I've still got some unemployment left so I'm going to wait a little longer."

So if you were a politician and part of your platform was to reform unemployment benefits and make them harder to get and shorter in duration, would you "worry" about getting the votes from those 15 people?