Very often a change of self is needed
more than a change of scene.
Arthur Christopher Benson
A Romney-Campaign Ending Gaffe? No!
(Wishful thinking of Obama Campaign)
I have to admit that the post header Today, Mitt Romney Lost the Election lured me to the Bloomberg site. To save the curious reader, a progressive website posted an eavesdropped snippet from a Romney conversation with a donor where Romney seemed to concede the 47% or so working households not paying federal income tax: ""believe that they are victims. I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives. My job is not to worry about those people."
Earth to Romney: That comment, if true, is both offensive and clueless, not unlike Obama's 2008 equally offensive and clueless bitter Midwesterners clinging to their guns and Bibles. Obama thought that Midwesterners were stupid, voting against the politician playing Robin Hood on their behalf, raiding the Treasury and borrowing shamelessly against their childrens' and grandkids' tax bills. The fact that Obama found that he couldn't buy the votes of middle America should be a starting point. Second, there are several reasons to vote against "The (Spendthrift) One". If you are structurally unemployed, your savings are being gutted by core inflation and manipulated anemic low interest by the Fed; you may worry about the foundation of your senior entitlements going broke, or ponder the chances of finding another job in your field or starting a business in a listless economy. Even if you are vested in the safety net, you may worry about its viability on an ongoing basis under Obama's utter lack of management and negotiation skills.
I do think that Romney has a point in the fact that the bottom 47% are freeloaders whom don't pay their fair share of taxes. That fact remains after all the ideology. The idea that whatever vendors that provide goods and services are more worthy than the government unfair, unjust; it constitutes moral hazard. At minimum, there should be some stake vested in frugal government and against undue dependence on government. A pandering Democrat Congress and President fulfill de Toqueville's prediction--"The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money."
A wider NYT discussion is on the Mother Jonea' expose is here. I was hoping mentally challenged progressives could go through one discussion off this issue without raising the trite predictable disingenuous talking point that low-income workers pay payroll taxes. This is totally irrelevant . A payroll tax is simply a payment that applies to eligibility of mandatory retirement benefits. It doesn't even cover full benefits guaranteed. Both social security and Medicare are government Ponzi schemes. The fact that today's workers pay only a fraction of their future benefits and their relevant reserves consist of mandatory "investments" in government overspending, not income-producing assets, makes our dependence on future taxpayers. But the fact remains (as I pointed out in a recent post) most of today's one-third payroll tax revenues are simply redirected to current beneficiaries. Not a dime goes into general revenues and expenses covering government overhead--Defense, justice, government agencies and programs, etc.
But one final comment, Mr. Romney: you will be President of all the people, including the freeloaders. Deal with it.
GALLUP: STILL MORE THAN HALF BELIEVE
THE GOVERNMENT IS OVEREXTENDED
It's not only that Obama is a lousy President, he's an incompetent investor. Government Motors wants free of Obama's micromanagement (e.g., executive compensation: Obama is in a state of denial about a taxpayer paper loss (GM is under $24/share with $53 needed for breakeven); let me post the latest on one of my favorite targets: the Volt:
GM is still losing as much as $49,000 on each Volt it builds, according to estimates provided to Reuters by industry analysts and manufacturing experts. GM on Monday issued a statement disputing the estimates.
Cheap Volt lease offers meant to drive more customers to Chevy showrooms this summer may have pushed that loss even higher. There are some Americans paying just $5,050 to drive around for two years in a vehicle that cost as much as $89,000 to produce.
And while the loss per vehicle will shrink as more are built and sold, GM is still years away from making money on the Volt, which will soon face new competitors from Ford, Honda and others.
GM's basic problem is that "the Volt is over-engineered and over-priced," said Dennis Virag, president of the Michigan-based Automotive Consulting Group.
Over-engineered and over-priced, just like the government.
Not a surprise to the percentage of Americans who live in the real world, i.e., believe that government is doing too much of what should be left to the private sector has declined from an all-time of 61 to 54% (whch I attribute to too much Obama snake oil), as if people don't realize that we have Enron-style accounting for entitlements. smoke and mirrors for ObamaCare, underfinanced pensions, and grossly neglected infrastructure.
END THE FED!
Musical Interlude: My Favorite Groups
Commodores, "Brick House"
