Wednesday, September 19, 2012

Inside Romney's Head: The Dead Zone

According to Mitt Romney, I'm a freeloader with a victim mentality. I'm not alone; forty-seven percent of Americans, Obama supporters every one, are as trifling as I am.

Addressing guests at a private fundraiser earlier this year, Romney declared:
There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That that's an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what…These are people who pay no income tax. (Secret Video--Mother Jones)
As an Obama supporter, I think that Romney may be talking about me. I need to stop paying income tax and demand that the government hand over my entitlement. You should too, if you're an Obama supporter. According to Romney, Obama supporters in addition to being trifling, lazy folks with a victim mentality, have developed a notion that "...the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it."

Now, where would any of us get such a notion? Well, I'll be darned! Maybe it's from those socialist Founding Fathers.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,"--The Declaration of Independence (emphasis added)
Interesting concept that the purpose of government--the reason that "governments are instituted"-- is to ensure access to those unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that health care, food and housing are encompassed in life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness and that it is an appropriate goal for governments to implement laws and policies to further the goal of securing these basic rights for all of its citizens. 

A good friend offered the following observation that further illuminates the purpose of government under those founding documents that Romney and the conservative right purport to follow:  Look also at the words that appear in the Preamble to the Constitution. We, United, union, common, general, ourselves, our. "Us" is our thesis. Not an "I me mine" to be found.--S. Gordon 

Romney has refused to retreat from his disavowal of governmental responsibility to promote any efforts to mitigate financial inequity and economic injustice. Instead, as expected, Romney supporters have dragged out a 1998 video of President Obama in which Obama states:
The trick is figuring out how do we structure government systems that pool resources and hence facilitate some [wealth] redistribution -- because I actually believe in redistribution, at least at a certain level to make sure that everybody’s got a shot.--Barack Obama (Obama 1998 Loyola Speech)
Apparently, we are to be shocked by this statement and declare Obama a socialist. Oh the horror! President Obama thinks that it is important to ensure that every American has a shot at fulfilling the promise of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness noted in that most American of documents, The Declaration of Independence. Don't you? Or do you prefer the concentration of wealth in the hands of a few with little or no chance for the advancement of most?

It's about redistribution of opportunities. No one, least of all President Obama ever said that the plan is to take money from some to give it to others; the oft expressed paranoia of those who buy into Romney's vision of freeloading, do-nothing, Americans sitting around waiting for government handouts.

Redistribution of wealth is about providing grants for students to attend college, or low interest loans for small businesses. It is about providing food stamps to mothers and children who have insufficient funds to buy food.

A single parent of two who earns $10 per hour for 40 hours per week nets $1600 per month before taxes. Ten dollars per hour is more than minimum wage (federal minimum wage is $7.25) but it still isn't sufficient money for rent, childcare (if you are a working parent, you need childcare), food, health insurance, clothing, transportation, and food.

As a country are we really so heartless and stupid that we can't understand that trickle down economics is a grand pie in the sky lie perpetuated by the haves to insure that the have-nots waste their time worrying about nonexistent threats of impending socialism and don't notice class inequities?

Mitt Romney has made it clear as to what he thinks of nearly half of all Americans. In his own words: "[M]y job is is not to worry about those people. I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives." (Secret Video...)

In November, we have a chance to tell Mitt Romney what we think of him. What will that message be? Will we support his view that nearly half of Americans are shiftless, unwilling to work freeloaders, waiting on a government handout? Or will we take a look at ourselves, our family members, and our neighbors and recognize that demanding that all of us have fair and meaningful access to the opportunities that this nation provides is the rightful purpose of government? The answer is up to us, the governed.

Note: Romney stated that he wished that the entire video had been released to place his remarks in context. Mother Jones has obliged. Someone should have reminded Romney of the adage, "careful what you wish for." Link to the entire video.

13 comments:

  1. I watched that video last night. My oh my!! His remarks are no better "in context" than out.

    And I laugh everytime I hear Obama being called a socialist, because to this Canadian, Obama's right of centre! :)

    ReplyDelete
  2. The words "the pursuit of happiness" does not imply guaranteed happiness. Nor do they imply the government should or can guarantee happiness.

    The existence of ones life, and the liberty one possess in that life provides the opportunity for the pursuit of happiness.

    Now, as to Mittens, well, let's just say that even given all his business and management experience he isn't the brightest bulb in the string.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Rational, I did not state nor imply that there is any guarantee of happiness in the Declaration of Independence. It is about opportunities and the government's responsibility to provide a level playing field, free of discrimination and other obstructions so that everyone has an equal and equitable opportunity to achieve that happiness. It is to secure these unalienable rights that governments are instituted with the consent of the governed.

      Delete
  3. Those Randian cultists seem to forget a fundamental property of human nature - social organization, which enabled the species to survive the harsh and hostile conditions of the Great Rift Valley millions of years ago.

    Imagine what would have happened if the earliest hunter-gatherers had "Gone Galt." Entire tribes would have starved and perished.

    Imagine what would have happened if the first Mesopotamian farmers had "Gone Galt." Civilization would have been stillborn in the cradle of the Fertile Crescent.

    Imagine what would have happened if Egyptian scribes had "Gone Galt." Advancements in geometry would never have passed to future generations.

    Advancements in agriculture, science, technology, and trade are the products of social cooperation; and history has demonstrated - time and time again - that countries thrive in economic terms when they invest in "HUMAN CAPITAL" - not junk bonds, credit default swaps, and other trappings of casino capitalism.

    Rmoney and his cohorts are the dumbest, most character-disordered, most dangerous people on the planet. Enough of their stupid cartoon philosophy before it ruins us !!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Gone Galt" is the perfect descriptor for the lunatic beliefs espoused by Romney and his cohorts. I don't think that they are familiar with the concept of the social compact.

      Delete
  4. RN:

    No, the right to be able to pursue one's happiness without unnecessary interference is presumed to be innate and shouldn't be restricted without good reason. Happiness can't be guaranteed by anyone nor are liberals arguing that. The argument is about preventing some from depriving others of opportunity. Historically it's been liberals doing away with such bogus limitations on our rights, as I see it.

    The idea that being opposed to this is 'Liberal' is absurd and I think the modern Conservative movement has grown out of anger at allowing some people to pursue their own happiness even if it's by voting or eating at a lunch counter or using a public beach or attending a public school. Those people are only insisting that being a liberal is about providing for lazy freeloaders from sheer Greed and Romnibus is pandering to them for the votes. God only knows what he really believes in his plastic heart.

    I think it's the job of government to make sure opportunities are protected because without government people are notoriously bad at giving a damn about other people's rights and exploit the hell out of anyone they can until we wind up with the kind of feudal, aristocratic state we were supposed to be breaking away from. That's my argument with far right Libertarianism. It ignores human nature as exhibited in history.

    Octo:

    I'm still not convinced this bulwark of 'principle' they hide behind isn't just a cynical excuse or that they really have anything I would call a principle other than "I want more money and screw you." I was annoyed by Reagan's getting away with saying that government was never the answer, but I think it's evolved into a Scroogian "I'm from the government and I'm not going to do a damned thing" which may be a bit different, moving from largely baseless hyperbole to a conclusion based on it. Government always fucks up so Government shouldn't do anything and of course the only place you can go from there, is "let's not have a government" or at least not a government that is allowed to do anything but protect property of those what's got it.

    Actually it's all based on baseless hyperbole since tirades about how welfare makes people lazy and taxes stifle entrepreneurship are not born out by facts and our own history does not show any correlation between prediction and result. It isn't even an internally consistent argument, since those who have the most need the most protection from the government yet argue that they shouldn't have to pay more for the government services their existence and their wealth demand.


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Captain, I read and responded to Rational's comment before reading yours. I wish that had read your comment before I bothered to respond. Your response is right on target and makes mine unnecessary. Nice work, Captain.

      Delete
    2. Sheria,

      I'm grateful as usual for your recognition.

      Delete
  5. Sheria, I agree with you with respect to governments proper role in insuring there is no discriminatory practices towards any race, religion, ethnic group, sexual preference. Making sure the playing field of opportunity is in fact level.

    Beyond that please get the hell out of the way

    ReplyDelete
  6. I'm not yet convinced there conceptually any such thing as human nature. Still sorting out John Paul Sarte's arguments on the concept.

    I really have no major issue with accepting the need for government. The question to answer is just what it the proper amount of government. I happen to subscribe to the classical model liberalism. As defined by the Enlightenment and our founders.

    As for Rand and the reference to cultist, it is getting old, tiring, and is used as hyperbole to detract from those positive attributes of Objectivism that statist and collectivist find offensive.

    Freethinkets are among the most feared by statist and collectivists.

    If my comments offend I can only say it is what it is. And as Bill Clinton once said.... "It depends on what the meaning of the word is, is."

    This nation is in trouble. The two party duopoly is a big part of the problem. The ruling oligarchs are smiling. Rand is turning over in her grave, were that possible.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Health care, food and housing are indeed important. Whoever step on that position should never forget about these for the people's welfare. Thanks for this interesting post.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I am astounded that a man who wants to convince us he should be the next president thinks it is just fine to tell nearly half of the country to f**k off. It boggles the mind that he believes, really believes that we should let people starve, let children live in the streets, let people die from lack of health care. For those who are not as fortunate as to be able to buy healthcare and pay thier bills - Mitt would have us turn our backs on fellow human beings and let them suffer and die. I cannot imagine a world where I could be so dispassionate and arrogantly self centered as to believe that my life is worth more than the person next to me.

    ReplyDelete
  9. RN: "As for Rand and the reference to cultist, it is getting old, tiring, and is used as hyperbole to detract from those positive attributes of Objectivism that statist and collectivist find offensive."

    With regard to the benefits and efficiencies of social organization, I think ants, bees and termites represent an decided advancement over Randians and Romboids. Furthermore, I am sure ants, bees and termites will still be around long after the anticipated, and very welcome, Randian and Romboid Extinction.

    ReplyDelete

We welcome civil discourse from all people but express no obligation to allow contributors and readers to be trolled. Any comment that sinks to the level of bigotry, defamation, personal insults, off-topic rants, and profanity will be deleted without notice.