Support NeoGAF

[Bulbo Urethral Baggins]

Romney is such a shitstain. You look at what he did at Bain Capital and how he basically ran off with the money and his huge ass homes... I can't believe this man has a 50/50 shot at being the next President. It can't happen. He's an awful human being.

Curse that man and his huge ass homes. I bet one of them must have a tennis court or swimming pool. Doesn't that just burn your ass?
This whole Bain smear isn't going to resonate with people. Give it up.
And he has a 52/48 shot at being President.

 

[ToxicAdam]

So, the system favors picking wealthy candidates. Now, do you think any American are more in favor of having their friends' and family's interests served at their workplace, or more in favor of having the poor's interests served?

'The system' doesn't pick anyone. People pick candidates. Wealthy people are more likely to be a candidate. There's a vast disparity in these two concepts.

A system that picks rich people for positions of power, where they then use that power to hold onto the power, and do favors for their rich friends and colleagues is a system that is rigged for the benefit of the wealthy. If this is not brought to the attention of the rest of the citizens, and not acted on, the people in power will slowly be able to erode at the democratic process and subtlety make it even more in their favor.

Again, this is more 'the man' goobeldegook.

People inherently favor family, friends and colleagues. That's just what human beings do. You hope that those in public service do not fall into that trap, but they do and always have. This doesn't excuse it or make it right .. but it is what it is. 'The people' know it. The saying, 'It's not what you know, it's who you know' didn't just become fashionable overnight. That cuts across all socio-economic stratas.

So I will ask again, if we aren't able to rally against the 1% to get positive change done, how do we go about it? Quiet behinds the scenes talks, rich people speaking with other rich people on how they should go about restructuring the tax code? That doesn't sound like democracy to me.

I don't think 'behind the scenes talks' was what Romney was referring to. That's interjecting words that aren't there.

But you are right, it is your right to rally against it. In the same way it's people's right to calve off other segments of the population and affix blame to them for problems. It's called scapegoating and it's another common human foible. It seems to work.

You're wasting your time. You can pick apart his posts word by word and disprove everything he says, he'll just erect other strawmen and start spinning like a top. I've seen him do it a thousands times.

Awww .. did someone's feelings get hurt in the past? I'm so sorry. You poor tortured soul, you shouldn't have to carry such heartache with you. Just put me on ignore and you can begin the healing process.

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

So I will ask again, if we aren't able to rally against the 1% to get positive change done, how do we go about it?

Maybe your problem was that America rejected the squatters nonsense and 1% bogeyman, because they had no arguments of substance, cohesion, or respect for the law.

 

[David Incorporated Esq.]

Maybe your problem was that America rejected the squatters nonsense and 1% bogeyman, because they had no arguments of substance, cohesion, or respect for the law.

Edit: Herp derp, didn't realize I was responding to Manos. Post deleted to not feed troll.

 

[ReBurn]

Maybe the problem is that we're too busy arguing against one another instead of looking for positive ways to live and work together. All we're seeing in politics these days is politicians pitting American against American in the context of wealth so that they can gain or retain power.

A 99% vs. a 1% message has just fans the flames of discontent in people. And it's a disingenuous message from most of Washington, considering the financial status of the people pushing it. We have a field of millionaire republican candidates for president running against a millionaire incumbent president. Yet they all seem to think that they can relate to the average person.

How many of these people do you think know what it feels like to have to choose between food and gas?

http://www.rollcall.com/50richest/the-50-richest-members-of-congress-112th.html

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

Edit: Herp derp, didn't realize I was responding to Manos. Post deleted to not feed troll.

You mean you can't support your argument, much like the same way dead movement was.

 

[empty vessel]

That can be fixed without taking away people's wealth.

But you do understand that, empirically speaking, income inequality has all kinds of negative effects on a society, right?

I assume you've seen reference to this Ted Talk before here, but I am linking to it again: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZ7LzE3u7Bw

The economy is a kind of game that we as a society have set up to produce and distribute wealth (often measured in yearly installments of income). The rules of our economy were chosen because we think it best helps society on balance. But given that the very rules which place income in people's hands to begin with are those chosen by society based upon what is best for society, do you not see how society can just as easily, after some of the game has been played, rearrange the outcome a bit if it thinks the result is not optimal?

Surely you do. If you want, you can consider that rearranging just another rule that is part of the game itself.

In short, that wealth that people have earned was only earned pursuant to rules that society established in the first place for the benefit of society. If society wants to take some of that wealth away, via another rule, it is perfectly entitled to do so.

The good thing is that democratic society tends to exercise fair judgment. No rule will ever be passed, e.g., that if one makes $30 million in one year that all of that person's income is subject to be confiscated and the person must begin sleeping under a highway overpass. Most of society would object to that kind of rule. But they might well take away $15 million of that income or more. I don't consider leaving a person with $15 million of income (earned pursuant to society's own rules) in one year ever to be unfair.

 

[BotoxAgent]

This whole Bain smear isn't going to resonate with people.

lol

 

[ReBurn]

lol

It will resonate with people, but it probably won't hurt Romney with republicans. It probably doesn't really matter to Romney what democrats think about Bain.

 

[Jason's Ultimatum]

I think the whole 1% vs 99% would resonate more during the general election.

 

[BotoxAgent]

It will resonate with people, but it probably won't hurt Romney with republicans. It probably doesn't really matter to Romney what democrats think about Bain.

Extreme right already thinks he's a fraud. And it's not just the attacks about Bain, but his responses to them. Every time he defends himself it just makes so much more obvious that this guy can't relate to middle class problems. He's a phoney.

 

[Joe Shlabotnik]

It will resonate with people, but it probably won't hurt Romney with republicans. It probably doesn't really matter to Romney what democrats think about Bain.

Independents, independents, independents.

 

[Skiptastic]

Before I go off on a major rant, is this intended to simply show that things are bad for the median household income? Or is the graph intended to assign some level of culpability to someone?

In either case, it's pretty dumb to just draw a straight line and say "Look! This is where we should be after ten years!" given that none of the straight lines lasted more than about five...

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

I think the whole 1% vs 99% would resonate more during the general election.

It failed before, why would it do anything but fail again?

Then again I wont be surprised when you can't answer that.

 

[ReBurn]

I think the whole 1% vs 99% would resonate more during the general election.

I'm sure it's going to be central to the general election. The republican nominee will likely be attacking Obama's record and will want to stay away from wealth inequality. They will be pushing that Obama wants to hurt the 1% through taxation, though. Obama will probably spend a lot of time on the inequality issue to keep people from looking at the difficulty he's had as president and to shape republicans as people who want to continue stepping on the poor and middle class.

 

[RoninChaos]

Great interview between Stewart and Demint;

http://www.thedailyshow.com/#tool_tip_1

It really is amazing how the conservative talking points get ripped apart when a "journalist" simply challenges it in an intelligent manner.

Holy shit. I'm watching this now.

At least Demint had the balls to go on there, but god damn.

 

[gcubed]

I'm sure it's going to be central to the general election. The republican nominee will likely be attacking Obama's record and will want to stay away from wealth inequality. They will be pushing that Obama wants to hurt the 1% through taxation, though. Obama will probably spend a lot of time on the inequality issue to keep people from looking at the difficulty he's had as president and to shape republicans as people who want to continue stepping on the poor and middle class.

he doesnt really have to do the shaping, he just has to post links to republican tax plans

 

[ToxicAdam]

But you do understand that, empirically speaking, income inequality has all kinds of negative effects on a society, right?

I assume you've seen reference to this Ted Talk before here, but I am linking to it again: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZ7LzE3u7Bw
.

Wealth disparity is a problem, but not a problem that defines our time. One that could be alleviated by moving the tax code back to 1996.

In short, that wealth that people have earned was only earned pursuant to rules that society established in the first place for the benefit of society. If society wants to take some of that wealth away, via another rule, it is perfectly entitled to do so.

I've always espoused more taxes on everybody. Everybody being the critical word.

 

[empty vessel]

It failed before, why would it do anything but fail again?

By 'failed,' do you mean repressed? In any event, OWS (and the 99% movement generally) haven't failed at all. They still exist (are organized) and they are still engaged which is why, I presume, Obama has decided to talk more about it. (Incidentally, that is an empirical measure of success right there.)

 

[RoninChaos]

I'm watching this Jim DeMint interview and he keeps talking about choice in health care. How come every politician talks about choice when it comes to health care? People don't get to choose their health care. I just switched jobs. I was on BlueCross Blue Shield before, now I"m on Cigna. That wasn't a choice. I have to change doctors because of this. Not a choice.

It seems like most people who keep touting this whole thing about choice are missing the fact that hardly any one in America chooses their health care provider if they have a job.

 

[Gr1mLock]

Curse that man and his huge ass homes. I bet one of them must have a tennis court or swimming pool. Doesn't that just burn your ass?
This whole Bain smear isn't going to resonate with people. Give it up.
And he has a 52/48 shot at being President.

Obama will SMOKE him. He won't know what happened.

 

[gcubed]

I'm watching this Jim DeMint interview and he keeps talking about choice in health care. How come every politician talks about choice when it comes to health care? People don't get to choose their health care. I just switched jobs. I was on BlueCross Blue Shield before, now I"m on Cigna. That wasn't a choice. I have to change doctors because of this. Not a choice.

It seems like most people who keep touting this whole thing about choice are missing the fact that hardly any one in America chooses their health care provider if they have a job.

a congressman that gets the best healthcare the government can buy shouldn't be lecturing about a market he doesn't live in

 

[Jason's Ultimatum]

Was this posted?

http://www.cheapinternet.com/free-internet-service-for-low-income-americans-says-fcc-chairman

FCC Chairman proposes free internet service for low-income Americans

Federal Communications Commission Chairman Julius Genachowski wants to expand Lifeline Assistance, a program that offers free and discounted telephone service to low-income Americans, to include broadband Internet service.

The Washington Post quotes Genachowski as saying, “The program is outdated, focused on phone service when high-speed Internet has become our vital communications platform.”

The Chairman wants to crack down on fraud and inefficiencies in the current telephone program and use the savings to fund free internet service.

The FCC estimates that the reforms will save approximately $2 billion over the next two years. And that may be more than enough to pay for the free internet service.

According to the proposal, the FCC will establish its own pilot program in conjunction with existing broadband providers and use the savings from the budget reforms to fund the effort. It will also determine how to fold the free internet plan into the existing Lifeline Assistance program to promote internet usage among lower income Americans.

The expanded program is built on the premise that the internet is vital to modern life and that low income Americans who don’t have access to broadband internet capability may be left behind in the future. Therefore, Genachowski noted, the program will be “modernized to meet the needs of low-income Americans in a broadband world.”

Lifeline is a little known, but rapidly growing program mandated by Congress. It offers both discounted landlines and free cell phones, and 250 free minutes per month to low income Americans. According to the latest available information, you qualify for Lifeline is you already participate in one of a number of other government assistance programs, such as Medicaid, SSI, food stamps, Section 9 housing and others, or if your household income falls below between 135-150% of the federal poverty guidelines.

The Lifeline Assistance program is funded by the Universal Service Fund, a line item that appears on each phone bill in America each month. A few cents here and a couple dollars there all add up to billions of dollars that can be spent to make sure everyone gets to participate in the technology of the future.

Some companies are already offering discounted broadband internet to low income Americans. These programs provide high-speed broadband for under $10 a month, and also offer a computer for just $150. Comcast’s program is called Internet Essentials and CenturyLink calls their’s Internet Basics. Furthermore, a public-private partnership of the FCC and cable companies will later this year offer a similar deal, called Connect to Compete, to families who have children on the National Free School Lunch Program.

Now America is becoming even more of a welfare state.

 

[BotoxAgent]

Saw this from Sullivan's blog, even the shitty Republican rag, The New York Post, is highly critical of Bain:

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/business/ad_mitt_mistakes_jRmd2LHaPIb0bbNn1ZkgaJ

* Bain in 1988 put $5 million down to buy Stage Stores, and in the mid-'90s took it public, collecting $100 million from stock offerings. Stage filed for bankruptcy in 2000.

* Bain in 1992 bought American Pad & Paper (AMPAD), investing $5 million, and collected $100 million from dividends. The business filed for bankruptcy in 2000.

* Bain in 1993 invested $60 million when buying GS Industries, and received $65 million from dividends. GS filed for bankruptcy in 2001.

* Bain in 1997 invested $46 million when buying Details, and made $93 million from stock offerings. The company filed for bankruptcy in 2003.

Romney's Bain invested 22 percent of the money it raised from 1987-95 in these five businesses, making a $578 million profit.

While I have not investigated all of Romney's Bain investments and there may be cases where he made money and improved businesses, there's little question he made a fortune from businesses he helped destroy.

Mitt Romney, through his spokesman, did not return calls. Bain declined comment.

Bain of his existence

Romney said:

He was not involved in decisions to take distributions from two Bain Capital businesses that later failed. New York Times, June 3, 2007

“People in America want to know who can get 15 million people back to work.”

Romney did:

Owned a controlling interest in Bain Capital when it took payments from five companies that later failed.

Made fortunes by bankrupting five profitable businesses that ended up firing thousands of workers.

Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/business/ad_mitt_mistakes_jRmd2LHaPIb0bbNn1ZkgaJ#ixzz1jLpNsdRg

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

By 'failed,' do you mean repressed? In any event, OWS (and the 99% movement generally) haven't failed at all. They still exist (are organized) and they are still engaged which is why, I presume, Obama has decided to talk more about it. (Incidentally, that is an empirical measure of success right there.)

By repressed do you mean ignored? The "movement" is dead and dying. Their attempts to provoke class based violence has failed. The same is true of their attempt to force conformity among Americans, with the childish 99% you're with us or against track.

Obama is simply pandering to people to try and get himself reelected. It's the liberal version of pandering to evangelicals.

 

[Measley]

Holy shit. I'm watching this now.

At least Demint had the balls to go on there, but god damn.

Enjoy it. Demint looked like he wanted to crawl into a little hole and hide during that entire interview.

a congressman that gets the best healthcare the government can buy shouldn't be lecturing about a market he doesn't live in

Exactly.

The fact that we have senators like Demint and Paul saying how awful government is, yet happily lap up government paychecks and government benefits, should show you how absolutely full of shit they are.

 

[Measley]

By repressed do you mean ignored? The "movement" is dead and dying. Their attempts to provoke class based violence has failed. The same is true of their attempt to force conformity among Americans, with the childish 99% you're with us or against track.

Obama is simply pandering to people to try and get himself reelected. It's the liberal version of pandering to evangelicals.

In Obama's defence, the majority of Americans support the wealthy paying more in taxes than they currently are.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20110458-503544.html

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-...conomy-for-republican-supporters-in-poll.html

Most millionaires agree with Obama as well;

http://blogs.wsj.com/wealth/2011/10...ort-warren-buffetts-tax-on-the-rich/?mod=e2tw

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

In Obama's defence, the majority of Americans support the wealthy paying more in taxes than they currently are.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20110458-503544.html

Interesting that study showed a drop in support for that in just one month. It's worth noting that article is already a few months old.

In fact the drop by Republicans and Dems was only different by 3% points.

In either case the majority is a slim one and I meant the overall package of crazy, not simply increase taxes for the rich, which is a fairly consistent Democratic theme in policy.

 

[empty vessel]

By repressed do you mean ignored? The "movement" is dead and dying. Their attempts to provoke class based violence has failed. The same is true of their attempt to force conformity among Americans, with the childish 99% you're with us or against track.

Not at all. The movement was and is a huge success. It was an important step that will continue to have lasting impact from which future movements will be born. That's how these things work.

Obama is simply pandering to people to try and get himself reelected. It's the liberal version of pandering to evangelicals.

That's good. Pandering is good. The problem with pandering to evangelicals is not the pandering, it is to whom is being pandered.

This isn't to say that I expect Obama to do anything meaningful about it. He will continue serving the interests of Wall Street until the political system is reformed to remove the influence of money. But talking about it is alone positive and a significant step forward.

Edit to add: raising taxes on the wealthy to reduce the deficit is nonsensical. Raising taxes on the wealthy to promote equality makes sense. The government should also spend more on the 99%, which would amount to the same thing as raising taxes on the wealthy except it would also help the economy and unemployment in the process.

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

Not at all. The movement was and is a huge success.

It attracted in the end no real broad support, articulated no actual plans or polices. and have not been able to influence anything besides Dems co-opting them.

In the case of Philadelphia I guess you could argue they produced natural fertilizer.

It was an important step that will continue to have lasting impact from which future movements will be born. That's how these things work.

It will have no lasting impact, as it had no real message to project or ability to organize any future activity, that's being generous and assuming it had a real message, which it didn't

That's good. Pandering is good. The problem with pandering to evangelicals is not the pandering, it is to whom is being pandered.

No pandering to the far left is just about as bad as pandering to Evangelicals. They're both full of nutjobs.

This isn't to say that I expect Obama to do anything meaningful about it. He will continue serving the interests of Wall Street until the political system is reformed to remove the influence of money. But talking about it is alone positive and a significant step forward.

Since "reforming" would require destroying the 1st Amendment, it's not going to happen. The US Supreme Court has already spoken on attempts to harm the 1st Amendment. So to quote from Lil Wayne, "Today I went shopping and talk is still cheap."

Edit to add: raising taxes on the wealthy to reduce the deficit is nonsensical. Raising taxes on the wealthy to promote equality makes sense.

This isn't a socialist or communist government, so thankfully we won't be wasting money on that rat hole.

The government should also spend more on the 99%, which would amount to the same thing as raising taxes on the wealthy except it would also help the economy and unemployment in the process.

Throwing money at something doesn't tend to solve the process. You offer no concrete ideas on how you can help besides spend money. The 99% lie is also wearing thin, to claim that you can generalize 99% of Americans of vast and diverse backgrounds is both stupid and insulting.

 

[Measley]

Interesting that study showed a drop in support for that in just one month. It's worth noting that article is already a few months old.

In fact the drop by Republicans and Dems was only different by 3% points.

In either case the majority is a slim one and I meant the overall package of crazy, not simply increase taxes for the rich, which is a fairly consistent Democratic theme in policy.

Read the poll right after the one you quoted. It showed another uptick in Republican support.

The point is that Obama is expressing the content of the majority of Americans, not pandering to a minority as you indicated.

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

Read the poll right after the one you quoted. It showed another uptick in Republican support.

Once again a bare majority that I'm pretty sure no longer exists.

The point is that Obama is expressing the content of the majority of Americans, not pandering to a minority as you indicated.

As I said tax the rich is a popular Democratic trope, I meant the overall package of crazy, not simply increase taxes for the rich.

 

[RDreamer]

The majority of Americans don't even actually know how unequal the wealth distribution actually is. And when asked about what their ideal setup is they tend to say something even more equal than that.

 

[Measley]

Once again a bare majority that I'm pretty sure no longer exists.

Based on what? The majority wanting tax cuts to end for the wealthy, or tax cuts to end entirely has been around for well over a year now.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/142940/americans-allowing-tax-cuts-wealthy-expire.aspx

 

[Gegz]

We (France) just lost our Triple A (Yeah it's US Poligaf, but i can't create a new topic)

 

[ReBurn]

The majority of Americans don't even actually know how unequal the wealth distribution actually is. And when asked about what their ideal setup is they tend to say something even more equal than that.

My guess is that they don't know who voted to extend Bush tax cuts that so many people are blaming for the ever-increasing gap in the distribution of wealth, either.

 

[empty vessel]

We (France) just lost our Triple A (Yeah it's US Poligaf, but i can't create a new topic)

Unfortunately, France doesn't have a fiat currency monetary system, so, unlike the US or UK, it is subject to attacks by bond vigilantes.

 

[Narpas Sword0]

He's merely stating that the discussion should happen in reasonable tones and not used as a rallying cry at campaign stops or other such fervent events.


I don't disagree with that. It is pretty disquieting to see someone compartmentalize a small segment of the population and then villainize them as 'the problem'. I get the same feeling when conservative people do it with illegals.

If only Romney was so disturbed by talk of our president palling around with terrorists, using terrorist fist java, being a secret Kenyan Muslim manchurian candidate with no school record or birth certificate, or being an anti American socialist fascist. For some reason he thinks that stuff is meant for the public to hear. Oh and trickle down economics.

 

[GhaleonEB]

The entire reason we are discussing wealth inequality, seeing so much reporting on it and why Obama is making it a central theme of the election cycle is because of the OWS movement. It is a central issue - fast on its way to being the central issue - of this election. That's a pretty remarkable success for the movement, given how early it is.

 

[ReBurn]

I tend to agree. People say that OWS didn't accomplish anything, but it did. People are talking about inequality. Hopefully something positive comes from it.

 

[ToxicAdam]

If only Romney was so disturbed by talk of our president palling around with terrorists, using terrorist fist java, being a secret Kenyan Muslim manchurian candidate with no school record or birth certificate, or being an anti American socialist fascist. For some reason he thinks that stuff is meant for the public to hear. Oh and trickle down economics.

I don't think Romney has said anything about those topics or used them used them during his campaign stops. Are you confusing him with Palin?

The entire reason we are discussing wealth inequality, seeing so much reporting on it and why Obama is making it a central theme of the election cycle is because of the OWS movement. It is a central issue - fast on its way to being the central issue - of this election. That's a pretty remarkable success for the movement, given how early it is.

But that's been a core talking point of the Democrats since Reagan was in office. Back then it was focused more along racial lines. Not saying that OWS has been insignificant, but rather they haven't really brought a new issue to the table. Maybe student loans?

 

[Narpas Sword0]

It will resonate with people, but it probably won't hurt Romney with republicans. It probably doesn't really matter to Romney what democrats think about Bain.

Good thing republicans and democrats account for 100% of voters

 

[Narpas Sword0]

I don't think Romney has said anything about those topics or used them used them during his campaign stops. Are you confusing him with Palin?

He definitely uses the socialist angle constantly. And if he is disturbed by incendiary language in public he sould always speak out against it, not just when it's politically convenient. He never disparaged plain or any of his other peers and supporters for far harsher language.

 

[Stinkles]

That can be fixed without taking away people's wealth.

Who wants to take away their wealth? Did I put some communist poster on ignore and missed all that?

 

[Narpas Sword0]

Before I go off on a major rant, is this intended to simply show that things are bad for the median household income? Or is the graph intended to assign some level of culpability to someone?

In either case, it's pretty dumb to just draw a straight line and say "Look! This is where we should be after ten years!" given that none of the straight lines lasted more than about five...

The slope of the dotted red line is less steep than the preceding five years, in order to account for the down period of the other five years of the decade in question.

 

[Particle Physicist]

I'm watching this Jim DeMint interview and he keeps talking about choice in health care. How come every politician talks about choice when it comes to health care? People don't get to choose their health care. I just switched jobs. I was on BlueCross Blue Shield before, now I"m on Cigna. That wasn't a choice. I have to change doctors because of this. Not a choice.

It seems like most people who keep touting this whole thing about choice are missing the fact that hardly any one in America chooses their health care provider if they have a job.

The wealthy can choose their healthcare!

 

[ReBurn]

Good thing republicans and democrats account for 100% of voters

Nobody is saying that they do. I don't get your point.

 

[maximum360]

Was this posted?

http://www.cheapinternet.com/free-internet-service-for-low-income-americans-says-fcc-chairman


Now America is becoming even more of a welfare state.

I think this is great. My wife works at a high school with the majority students from low income/poor families. The school system can't afford enough text books for kids to take them home so to expect the families to have to pay for pricey broadband service is tough. Hopefully with cheaper netbooks being an option this will give the kids a chance to have access to information and stay in the loop so to speak as they will be able to access information/notes from class that they would normally not be able to.

 

[ToxicAdam]

He definitely uses the socialist angle constantly. And if he is disturbed by incendiary language in public he sould always speak out against it, not just when it's politically convenient. He never disparaged plain or any of his other peers and supporters for far harsher language.

Romney has never called Obama a socialist. Even when aggressively cornered.

Yeah, but you gotta’ look at his economic plan, and that economic plan was top down, federal leadership getting us out of the recession — we spent trillions of dollars–and people say, ‘Listen, the guy’s a socialist!‘ It’s class warfare; that‘s what he’s going to wage against you if you get the nomination,” O’Reilly says, gesturing towards Romney.

“You’re a rich guy, you’re out of touch,” the host adds.

Concluding his prediction that Romney should prepare for “class warfare” should he earn the GOP nomination, Bill O’Reilly repeats the question.

“Is he a socialist?”

“You know, I consider him a ‘big government’ liberal democrat. I think as you look at his policies, you conclude that he thinks Europe got it right and we got it wrong,” Romney answered, again avoiding the question.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/no-spin-zone-oreilly-asks-romney-if-obama-is-a-socialist-he-says/

Why wouldn't he be disturbed by incendiary language that is (indirectly) directed towards him? You don't think it would catch his attention more?

 

[RDreamer]

Before I go off on a major rant, is this intended to simply show that things are bad for the median household income? Or is the graph intended to assign some level of culpability to someone?

In either case, it's pretty dumb to just draw a straight line and say "Look! This is where we should be after ten years!" given that none of the straight lines lasted more than about five...

That new red straight line isn't the same as the other "straight" lines that go up on the rest of the graph. If you look at a comparison if any 10 year period, even starting from a peak, before 1999, then you get growth equal to that red dotted line, even though it would have dipped a bit for a shorter period. Look at 1979-1989, and 1989-1999. Even though it dipped a bit, overall it shot back up and had that growth after 10 years.

Romney has never called Obama a socialist. Even when aggressively cornered.

But he has said that Obama "Draws his inspiration from the socialist welfare of Europe" and that he "Wants to make us an entitlement society where government takes from one and gives to the other." He's said Obama wants to make this an entitlement society. He also said, in comparison to Obama, that "America needs a President that believes in freedom."

So maybe the guy doesn't outright say it as much as some of the other candidates, but he's using a lot of fluff language that's meant to incite that sort of thing. And this language isn't "let's talk about this in quiet rooms" type of language, they're rallying cries. The guy's a hypocrite. The only thing he wants to talk about civilly and quietly is that which he believes is only an issue because of envy. He's out of touch with America.