Sore-Losing Doesn’t Bode Well for Well-Considered Policy Choices on Taxes…
by Linda Beale
Sore-Losing Doesn’t Bode Well for Well-Considered Policy Choices on Taxes…
Romney and Ryan have apparently joined the GOP sore-losers ranks most ably demonstrated by John McCain’s bitter post-presidential candidate spin. Romney betrayed the GOP’s disregard for ordinary Americans in a post-election talk with some of his major donors.
Like his “47% comment” in which he disparaged those who don’t have to pay income tax (but generally pay payroll and other taxes) by asserting that they aren’t personally responsible and enjoying being dependents, Romney’s comment about the reasons he lost essentially blames the voters for taking bribes from the sitting president. He suggested that Obama appealed to specific interest groups “the African American community, the Hispanic community and young people” with generous “gifts” like health-care reform, amnesty for children of illegal immigrants. See Maeve Reston, Romney attributes loss to ‘gifts’ Obama gave minorities, LATimes.com (Nov. 15, 2012).
Young voters, Romney said, were motivated by the administration’s plan for partial forgiveness of college loan interest, the extension of health coverage for students up to age 26 on their parents’ insurance plans and free contraception coverage under Obama’s healthcare plan, which he credited with ushering greater numbers of college-age women into Obama’s coalition.
The extended insurance coverage, in particular, was “a big gift to young people,” he said, noting that they turned out as a “larger share in this election even than in 2008.” Id.
Similar language was used to describe the reasons African Americans and Latinos voted in large numbers for Obama.
Such willingness to attribute defeat to political bribery goes a long way in demonstrating how out of touch the GOP is with what government should be doing. There is some obligation for politicians to serve the people–thinking in the long term and not just for the short term, but considering what kinds of programs merit consideration because of the good they do for individuals and in turn for society. Romney’s deafness to this issue–and his view that taking care of the wealthy few is the only goal of tax policy (and probably spending policy as well)–justly helped in his defeat. It is terribly important that federal officials recognize the staggering inequality now existing and growing in this country and its impact on all of our lives and the sustainability of the economy as well as the future of our democratic institutions. Romney didn’t get it. Obama got it imperfectly. Given a choice, a majority recognized the difference.
It is now time for the GOP to take off its blinders and get a better sense of how their economic policies and in particular their tax policies have been harmful to ordinary Americans and hence to the economy.
cross posted with ataxingmatter
They are only sore-losers if it is not true.
We now know that what they are saying IS true.
Therefore, they are just staters of facts.
Hello StocksDoc,
It’s always interesting that those who may have some reasonable income (I’m assuming you’re not broke or the bum pictured as your avitar) casting insults at the poor. That’s the 47%. They work for a living, but they get paid crap salaries to do the basic labor for our economy. What is it they’re taking from you? They may get a little assistance with their medical bills. Have you ever had the pleasure of waiting for medical attention in the ER of almost any local municipal hospital? What’s that? Your employer provides you with a quality medical insurance plan? The working poor often don’t have that “luxury.”
Try to keep in mind that median family income in our great country is below $40,000 and only that high if more than one member of the family is working. Individual median income is below $30,000. How much tax should such an income be expected to generate?
Romney and Ryan don’t know the meaning of the words truth and fact. It’s easy to throw brick bats at the poor given that they genrally lack a platform from which to display their less than enviable financial status. Your comment betrays your ignorance which leads to your inability to distinguish between facts and Romneyisms and Ryan bullshit.
So glad we dodged that Romney bullet.
http://iamimminent.blogspot.com/2012/11/please-go-away-mitt-romney.html
Jack, Nicely put. I saw a cartoon a few weeks back. First panel showed George Washington, and underneath it said “I cannot tell a lie.” Next panel showed Richard Nixon. Underneath it said ” I cannot tell the truth.” And then it showed Romney, and the caption underneath said: “I cannot tell the difference.”
nanute
that is undoubtedly true.
unfortunately it may apply to our side as well.
those “gifts” that Obama promised may well have helped him win the election.
but gifts of that nature are what politics is all about, and it may well be that gifts of that nature is what it takes to have a successful country.
i think it would be better if we celebrated the gifts, rather than pretend they have nothing to do with our holy purpose.
” . . . it [is certainly true that] gifts of that nature [are] what it takes to have a successful country.”
Fixed it for you.
Joel
thanks for fixing my grammar. i agonized about it and decided that it is collectively “gifts of that nature” as a singular policy and not each of those gifts taken plurally and distinguishably from other gifts whose nature is not determined.
i think i would tend to give you this one… it “sounds” more correct. on the other hand, i am frequently brought up short by the use of singular or plural respectively where the opposite would “sound” more correct to my native ear.
as for “certainly,” well, if i ever find anything “certainly” i’ll be the first to tell you.
Joel
a better way to have said that would have been
if i had said “giving gifts of that nature is what it takes..” you would have understood the singular verb. a kind person would have understood that “giving..” was implied. But as we know grammar-persons are never kind.
I wouldn’t be too certain, because then sooner or later you will be certainly wrong.
Dale,
The correction of “may well be” to “certainly true” was the correction. The grammar fix was just an extra gift for you. If I went around fixing all the grammatical mistakes I find on internet threads, I wouldn’t have time for meals or sleep, let alone gainful employment.
You’re welcome.
Joel
Dale,
Your word “successful” is a dimensionless quantity, so I have no concern for my certainty that “gifts of nature” is the path to having a successful country.
Joel
The thing that strikes me most about Romney’s comments is the notion that somehow the policy of allowing young people up to 26 to stay on their parent’s health care policies was a bribe by Obama. I have a family policy that covers my 23 year old daughter. The policy was purchased in the private market and it is expensive. My daughter thanks me, not Obama. After all, the government did not pay for it or subsidize it.
The provision of “Obamacare” allowing adult children to stay on their parent’s health insurance is a cost-free way of making it easier for people to do what everyone believes they should do-maintain health insurance coverage. What Obama did for us was save us some paperwork. It is a sound policy and adopting sound policies is part of the job to which Romney aspired, not a bribe.
My daughter voted for Obama not because of any bribe but, at least in part, because Romney is so arrogant and clueless and because he so clearly holds so much of the American people is such contempt that he left her with little choice. My sense is that Romney should look in the mirror and, if he doesn’t think “loser”, he should think again.
My apologies for the rant. There are certainly other, better reasons for sapient people everywhere to be glad that the election turned out as it did. This one just got my goat.
joel
first if you go around fixing everyone’s grammar you are certainly going to be wrong much of the time. I think Chomsky tried to point at a difference between knowledge and performance. I don’t know if he meant what i mean. but in general i think that what people say is “correct” except when they are trying too hard to be correct.
for example, i am sure you meant “gifts of that nature” and not “gifts of nature.” i certainly wasn’t objecting to your certainty about that.. i was objecting to your preposterous certainty that you know more about “grammar” than i do.
and, as a matter of “logic” (i think)
i would be the last to claim any certainty about my “dimensionless quantity,” so my bromide about “certainty” can hardly be used as a justification for your certainty about “gifts of that nature”… which (the gifts), oddly enough is what i was defending, though i chose to say “probably.”
you don’t seem satisfied that i was essentially agreeing with you, you want to pick a fight to prove you are smarter than me.
you may well be. i don’t really care about that.
” i was objecting to your preposterous certainty that you know more about “grammar” than i do.”
Then you object to phantoms, Dale. I never asserted I knew more about “grammar” than you do. Why do you make up faux controversies?
“you want to pick a fight to prove you are smarter than me.”
LOL! Projecting much, Dale?
Joel
actually, no.
on the other hand, you seem to have poor insight into your own motivations.
correcting my grammar.. incorrectly (perhaps)… and then prancing around calling it a “gift” is hard to understand on any other basis than “i’m smarter than you.”
sadly, people who correct other people’s grammar rarely know more than they learned in the eighth grade.
Ah, Dale. I see that your obsession with defending your posts has derailed this thread. Here you go:
You’re right Dale. You’re way smarter than I could hope to be. I stand in awe of your grammar.
Now let’s get back to the, you know, actual topic of the post, shall we?
Joel
actually, it was you who did the derailing. i said something you agreed with, but you couldn’t resist correcting my grammar. even after i agreed with you about the grammar, suggesting i could have done a better of job of making the deep structure of my sentence clear if i had known a grammarian would be listening.
if it helps you to feel better, i was listening to my dogs the other night. the oldest, and dearest, was saying, “I know they teach us in school that the two-legs are smarter than us. But I have been watching this guy for ten years, and I just can’t see it.”
Now, if I can’t convince my favorite dog in ten years that i am smarter than her, how would I expect to teach you in just a few blog comments?
(note: yes, i know, smarter than she is. just teasing you.)
Joel
btw
the actual topic of this thread was “sore losing.”
I read it through again just now and the topic of the post (not the thread) doesn’t seem to include you, me, my intelligence or grammar.
It does seem to be about the GOP. Now let’s get back to the, you know, actual topic of the post, shall we?
Amnesty without better border security is simply voter pandering. Obama handicapped law enforcement to gain the latino vote. Shameful.
Health Insurance Reform did what? It certainly does nothing to control actual healthcare costs. More of something for nothing. Obamacare’s gift is huge tax increases and regulations during one of the worst recessions in history. Gifts you say? Are you people just soft in the head?
“Amnesty without better border security is simply voter pandering.” – how does that follow? That’s only true if iObama feels that Latinos get a fair shake now but delivered amnesty anyway. Do you see any indication of that? I highly doubt it. “Obama handicapped law enforcement to gain the latino vote.” – or, Obama made policy less discriminatory (and therefore gaining some latino vote, to be fair).
To assume that everyone, let alone the President, secretly feels like you do (right winger?) about amnesty is more than a little presumtuous.
Offering amnesty does nothing to fix the illegal immigration problem. Reagan did the same. Obama pandered to an ethnic group over illegal entry into this country. It’s not about American citizens. Is that so hard to comprehend? I guess you bought into the discrimination distraction too. If you want to find illegal Mexicans what do you look for? Does an illegal Mexican somehow look different? Is that too hard to comprehend?
At what point is amnesty off the table if it causes more and more Mexicans enter this country illegally? What’s to stop them?
So far soft in the head has it.
What makes you believe healthcare reform does not conntrol costs?
Because it was healthcare INSURANCE reform. Obamacare does nothing to control actual healthcare costs.
What makes you think it does? That was the primary fault in Romneycare.
What problem has Obama actually fixed? Unemployment-no, deficits-nien, budget-nyet, immigration-non, energy-bu shi.
hancke, I was going to ask which of these problems you mention was fixed by some President that you actually liked, and then point out that since we still have all of these problems the answer is “none”. But, since this is all not related to the subject at hand, I’m done.
Not related huh? If Obama didn’t fix any of these problems then why did he get re-elected? Political bribery perhaps? lol. Thanks for reinforcing my point.
Joel
you appear to be in good company in the logic department.
but, first, it was you who brought up grammar, not me.
but if you think the topic of the post was “the GOP” you already have the answer to everything, so there is no reason to think about anything.
like i said, good company.
hancke
i am trying not to be mean to you.
but you really are not contributing anything useful to this blog. isn’t there something else you could be doing with your time?
for what it’s worth, what i think i have noticed… and i should not be surprised, it is practically a general rule of human cognition… is that you remember a few words from the beginning of an argument you read, and a few words from the rousing…emotion laden… conclusion. then you spend the rest of your life responding to those few words .. without regard for the rest of the argument… by asserting the emotional conclusion you have associated with it. there is no thought at all. generally humans have no need for thought. the key words trigger the response and usually provide the appropriate emotional reward. but from time to time it is necessary to actually think through the whole argument and see if there is a better way to make cause-and-effect sense of the problem at hand.
you are not going to do that.
Lead the way Coberly.
hancke
i try. i try.