Has Romney bobbed it? A question to Americans.

[Mr Mystery]

How do!

So there's rather candid videos of Romney doing the rounds, showing some rather robust opinions he may have rather kept private.

But just how much damage have they done? I mean, US Political support for Israel is hardly a secret, nor to my knowledge limited to the right wing. And indeed, his opinions about the unemployed aren't exactly revelatory. I ask because I want honest bias, rather than the more....invested bias of political commentators.

So what is your experience and opinion on this dudes? Do try to keep it clean!

[Wildeybeast]

He's already insulted half the world, why not half of America? Besides, the other 53% will probably agree with him, so he's onto a winner.

[Sean_OBrien]

May well actually help him in the end.

I know that there is a healthy portion of the tax paying population who actually feels the same way, and many of them have been waiting for someone to say as much. While it is a generally controversial subject (and one which is not very well understood) the majority of Federal and State programs are paid for by a small portion. Those who tend to receive the most, pay little or nothing into the system. He fairly well stated that it will be hard to sell himself to those who are not paying in by trying to get everyone into the tax base to some degree (the proverbial skin in the game statement) - so he has to work on the 6% or so in the middle who are paying taxes but are not yet fed up with the other 47% who are getting their stuff paid for.

If I could, I would fire them all and not replace anyone. However, my libertarian positions put me at odds with both sides of the US political spectrum. I could care less if you want to marry a guy, girl, four guys, three girls, a goat...and do it all while stoned on some good Jamaican Red Hair tripping on shrooms. However, I also don't want you to come with your hand out for a damned thing. Have kids...pay for them yourself. Drive on roads...use tax or toll roads. Got fired...find a new job, or start your own (which would be a heck of a lot easier were it not for the road blocks set up by the G-men).

As it is, Romney is likely the lesser of two evils.

[Kirsten]

well we all know Romney is a practicing moron. A republican victory would be pretty catastrophic for the US and the rest of the world, his 'values' would see significant repression at home, and violence abroad with his shoot first, then shoot some more ideology.

[ElectricPaladin]

I suppose it depends on how much charity and decency is left in the American population.

Look, I don't want to get into a fight with, say, Sean_OBrien above, but the point of view that America is a place where anyone can "get a job" is completely wrong-headed. It just doesn't work that way. If you have the misfortune to be born poor, Black, Latino, or the wrong kind of Asian, female, Native American, or any of the other permanent underclasses that have sharply limited access to education, are forced out of certain careers by social pressure - and sometimes violence - and are regularly paid less for the same work. The idea that people are poor because they don't want a job, because they want to wander around with their hands out, is insane.

I'm a middle school science teacher in Oakland, CA. I work in one of America's poorest communities, if you compare income to cost of living, and I know these people, this 47%. First of all, I know that living on handouts - or partly on handouts - is incredibly stressful. There isn't a single family I work with that wouldn't pay their own way if they could. You never know when some government cutback or bureaucratic screw-up is going to delay or possibly even obliterate a portion of your livelihood. And, to be honest, living on handouts isn't exactly comfortable. We're talking about families that struggle to make ends meet.

There's also this perception that America's poor don't work. This is completely incorrect. In most of the families I work with, each adult either works several jobs or has some compelling reason - physical injury, physical or mental illness - that they can't. Of course, because they never had access to education or the money for education, the jobs they can get are often hard in one of many ways and pay very little.

So, in reality you've got people working several jobs to keep their families afloat and still not making ends meet, people who don't have the credentials to land the high-paying jobs that could extract them from this situation because of institutionalized racism, sexism, and classism. And then this multibillionaire who was born with a Sterling silver spoon in his smug mouth - this man who has never known real fear about where his next meal will come from, how he's going to pay the rent, what he's going to do if that lump is cancer, how he's going to send his kids to college - he comes along and derides them, mocks their struggles and their sacrifices?

It's enough to make me sick.

So, yes, I hope this costs him the election, because if it doesn't then America isn't a place that I want to live in anymore. Romney isn't the lesser evil - he is the evil. If he believes in what he says, then he hasn't got the compassion that God gave a walnut. If he doesn't, then he's a pandering, spineless worm with no principles except the need for power.

If you want to hear someone talk about this with more patience than I can muster, read this (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeremiah-goulka/ex-republican_b_1870534.html). As for me, I'm done. I have nothing more to say about this execrable husk of a human being.

[Iyandagar]

He's only a practicing moron? I thought he was way beyond the practicing stage....

[Mr Mystery]

Careful on the hyperbole! I'm not looking to start a political mud slinging thread!

Sean. I'm guessing you're American, so in extension to your post, do you feel that the statement in question has cost Romney voters as much as it has likely gained him support? On a personal note, I find his off-the-record comments abhorrent, but I do see where he's coming from. If I was a US floating voter, I'd not being marking him on my ballot!

[lattd]

Not an American but i feel it is a rather costly comment, i do agree that some people on benefits may be on it due to laziness but maybe 3% not 47%, it really doesn't help when that 47% he discusses is probably the minorities that are already victimized enough, but hey this is the man that came to England and said we couldn't do the Olympics and people are saying how brilliant they were.

[Sean_OBrien]

Careful on the hyperbole! I'm not looking to start a political mud slinging thread!

Sean. I'm guessing you're American, so in extension to your post, do you feel that the statement in question has cost Romney voters as much as it has likely gained him support? On a personal note, I find his off-the-record comments abhorrent, but I do see where he's coming from. If I was a US floating voter, I'd not being marking him on my ballot!

I am.

I would guess that it has definitely made the left of our political spectrum dislike him more and the right like him more. The ones who are remaining in the middle it will largely depend on whether or not they feel it is a personal attack against them or if they tend to agree with the general sentiment. In light of things like the continuing Teacher's strike in Chicago where you have well paid teachers not working and parents who are footing the bill continuing to pay them while they are on strike and having to pick up extra day care costs (or otherwise dealing with the issue) - there isn't a lot of good sentiment towards the takers in our country.

While there has been a definite shift over my lifetime from the "pick yourself up" mentality to where we are now - it isn't the same as it is over in Europe (or even our neighbors in the Great White North...though they maintain a strong independent streak that is more common in the colonies). When someone says something like he said - there is an audible outrage, but there are a lot of people who are nodding in silent agreement to avoid being demonized or depending on their background ostracized.

You can well see some of that sentiment here. I will avoid going further down that path though.


If he believes in what he says, then he hasn't got the compassion that God gave a walnut. If he doesn't, then he's a pandering, spineless worm with no principles except the need for power.

One thing which a lot of people miss is that while I don't want the government involved in anything which I do - I have no problem giving back. I just prefer to do so directly. I work with a local no kill animal shelter. I provide roughly half of their annual food expenses and pay for a vet to drive up and do onsite care twice a year. I also have a scholarship fund set up for workers in my company which gives $10K a year to any child who goes to a 4 year school for a BS degree (no BAs allowed). I work with the local DAV, helping to provide guidance and direction for veterans who are looking to start their own businesses and are having trouble navigating the process. 5 years ago, when one of my employees lost their house in Katrina and their insurance didn't cover it - we bought them a new house and furnished it for them. I don't want to get into a measuring contest of who cares more...but there is a big difference between thinking that the government doesn't do crap all that is useful and actually giving back.

[Mr Mystery]

Sorry Sean, wasn't meaning yourself with the hyperbole thing! More a general thing for the thread.

[Sean_OBrien]

I am...I am an American. I tend to watch the hyperbole anyway. Wouldn't want to have Mormons rioting in the streets...wait - they don't do that...so much for hyperbole.

[ElectricPaladin]

One thing which a lot of people miss is that while I don't want the government involved in anything which I do - I have no problem giving back...


I respect that a lot of individuals on the right end of the political spectrum do a lot to give back to their communities. It's true. However, I'd argue that if you want to end institutional injustice you need institutional action. All the charity you give won't change the fact that three quarters of America's black men have spent time in prison, many of them for crimes that don't get white men sent to prison. It won't change the fact that poor communities have underfunded schools and less experienced teachers. Only institutional change can do that.

[Nabterayl]

To give another American viewpoint, Mystery, I'd be surprised if this really hurt Romney's chances much. Perhaps it will shift things just enough to make a difference, but I can't imagine it will be a LARGE shift regardless. I don't think the opinions Romney has made gaffes about are a surprise to anybody, so in my view, what this really boils down to is how much people like Romney. At the same time, I don't think many of my countrymen are going to vote for Romney because they like him. Whatever his virtues, likeability just isn't one of them (not one of his public virtues, anyway).

American political discourse still hasn't wrapped its head around the concept of government assistance. I think there's enough of a philosophical split on that point that previous posters are right - plenty of people will agree with Romney, even though plenty of people will find his comments compassionless (when you come right down to it, American political discourse as a whole can't even decide what government assistance is). And I can't imagine that most of our swing voters are really terribly concerned about either candidate's views on government assistance. Certainly to me that issue seems like a meaningless sideshow.

[Bean]

Re: the OP:

I think it will not help him, but, at this point, it probably won't hurt him much either. It's pretty clear that Romney himself has virtually nothing to offer anyone. I think when the election rolls around, we're basically going to see people voting Republican to vote Republican--not to vote for Romney. Given that, I very much doubt it matters what he says. He's obviously not that bright, and he's just as obviously not responsible for pretty much any of his own political positions.

[Nabterayl]

I think when the election rolls around, we're basically going to see people voting Republican to vote Republican--not to vote for Romney. Given that, I very much doubt it matters what he says.
Ditto. Political commentators may pretend that this is a race between Romney and Obama for symmetry's sake, but it ain't so. Obama is the sort of man - or at least the sort of public figure - people can vote for without feeling like they're "voting Democrat." Maybe less so today than four years ago, but he still has some existence in the American public mind independent of his party. Romney doesn't, not enough to be politically relevant.

[Sean_OBrien]

Ditto. Political commentators may pretend that this is a race between Romney and Obama for symmetry's sake, but it ain't so. Obama is the sort of man - or at least the sort of public figure - people can vote for without feeling like they're "voting Democrat." Maybe less so today than four years ago, but he still has some existence in the American public mind independent of his party. Romney doesn't, not enough to be politically relevant.

I would tend to disagree with your characterization of how Obama is viewed...though I tend to agree it is more a race of Obama verus not-Obama.

I don't think there are many people who could say with a straight face that Obama is not the embodiment of the Democrat Party.

[wittdooley]

I respect that a lot of individuals on the right end of the political spectrum do a lot to give back to their communities. It's true. However, I'd argue that if you want to end institutional injustice you need institutional action. All the charity you give won't change the fact that three quarters of America's black men have spent time in prison, many of them for crimes that don't get white men sent to prison. It won't change the fact that poor communities have underfunded schools and less experienced teachers. Only institutional change can do that.

Ahhh. So it's the "institutions" fault that black male on black male crime is substantially more prevalent than any other demo in America. Got it. Makes perfect sense. It's that sort of "blame someone else" attitude that is a fundamental problem with our country right now.

Obama, BTW, is the epitome of a "Democratic" candidate in our country. Try to remind yourself that there were plenty of people four years ago that were claiming if you didn't vote for Obama, you were a racist. Being a democrat in the US is substantially more "popular" than being a republican. The perception is that democrats are more "compassionate" or humanist than republicans, but the fact remains that republicans in the US donate over twice as much to charity. Guess what? Much like Sean Obrien, they simply don't wag their Johnson's about it in the media.

[Nabterayl]

Hey, let's all try to stay on topic. Mystery didn't ask for an exhibition of American political views; he asked for thoughts on Romney.

[Hewhohowls]

I am.

I would guess that it has definitely made the left of our political spectrum dislike him more and the right like him more. The ones who are remaining in the middle it will largely depend on whether or not they feel it is a personal attack against them or if they tend to agree with the general sentiment. In light of things like the continuing Teacher's strike in Chicago where you have well paid teachers not working and parents who are footing the bill continuing to pay them while they are on strike and having to pick up extra day care costs (or otherwise dealing with the issue) - there isn't a lot of good sentiment towards the takers in our country.

While there has been a definite shift over my lifetime from the "pick yourself up" mentality to where we are now - it isn't the same as it is over in Europe (or even our neighbors in the Great White North...though they maintain a strong independent streak that is more common in the colonies). When someone says something like he said - there is an audible outrage, but there are a lot of people who are nodding in silent agreement to avoid being demonized or depending on their background ostracized.

You can well see some of that sentiment here. I will avoid going further down that path though.



One thing which a lot of people miss is that while I don't want the government involved in anything which I do - I have no problem giving back. I just prefer to do so directly. I work with a local no kill animal shelter. I provide roughly half of their annual food expenses and pay for a vet to drive up and do onsite care twice a year. I also have a scholarship fund set up for workers in my company which gives $10K a year to any child who goes to a 4 year school for a BS degree (no BAs allowed). I work with the local DAV, helping to provide guidance and direction for veterans who are looking to start their own businesses and are having trouble navigating the process. 5 years ago, when one of my employees lost their house in Katrina and their insurance didn't cover it - we bought them a new house and furnished it for them. I don't want to get into a measuring contest of who cares more...but there is a big difference between thinking that the government doesn't do crap all that is useful and actually giving back.

Don't look to Canada, we've got our own idealogical war going on quietly out of sight. In the true Canadian fashion if I might say so myself. Our 3 party system that has seen us through basically our entire existence is failing because the middle men "liberals" can't walk the fine line any more. Unions and business have been deamonized and championed in equal measure, and nobody really knows what's going on, or if we know what being Canadian means any more. Very interesting times though :confused:

I would be remiss if I didn't let you know that we're all scratching our heads at what seems from the outside to be resistance to change for resistance sake.

[ElectricPaladin]

Ahhh. So it's the "institutions" fault that black male on black male crime is substantially more prevalent than any other demo in America. Got it. Makes perfect sense. It's that sort of "blame someone else" attitude that is a fundamental problem with our country right now.


I never said that it was the institution's fault. That's a straw man argument, which you have very cleverly inserted into my mouth. I will absolutely agree that all the crime - and, in fact, all the life mistakes made by the hard-core poor communities - are the responsibility of the people who get themselves into trouble. For me, that goes without saying.

What I think is true, however, is that institutional issues place undue stress on people. The same person who might otherwise not turn to crime is made more likely to turn to crime by unfair social and economic hardship. The same is true of drugs, alcohol, and abusive relationships. Make people's lives better and they will find it easier to be good people.

Now, if I were arguing in a world with narrower gap between the rich and the poor - and a commensurately narrow gap between their quality of life and the difficulties they have in making good life choices - then I could see the hole sin my argument. What I think a lot of people fail to understand is the massive weight of the inequities we're talking about. Almost 90% of the kids I teach come from homes that receive some degree of public assistance. About 75% of them come from single-parent homes (some proportion of those have two involved parents who are no longer or never were married - as a teacher it's sometimes hard to tell what's going on). Drugs, gangs, and alcohol are rampant.

Here's the thing - my kids are 11.

You want to tell me that an adult who didn't get a college education, who stumbled down the hole of drugs, alcohol, or premature pregnancy deserves to live in squalor? I think you're wrong, but I won't argue it right now. But does an 11 year old deserve to live in squalor, learn from under-trained teachers in an under-funded school, and end up with all kinds of trauma because of mistakes her parents made?

I don't think anyone can argue that.

[Sean_OBrien]

Don't look to Canada, we've got our own idealogical war going on quietly out of sight. In the true Canadian fashion if I might say so myself. Our 3 party system that has seen us through basically our entire existence is failing because the middle men "liberals" can't walk the fine line any more. Unions and business have been deamonized and championed in equal measure, and nobody really knows what's going on, or if we know what being Canadian means any more. Very interesting times though :confused:

I would be remiss if I didn't let you know that we're all scratching our heads at what seems from the outside to be resistance to change for resistance sake.

I actually have a house up in Canada - so I am familiar with what is going on up there to some extent (though to be fair - I am just a visitor). My point regarding Canada (and Australia as well from what I have seen there as well) is that they take a different view in general than Europe in general. Although there are significant differences between the governments and courses which we three have taken in the past 200 some odd years, the pioneering mentality remains more so it seems. The average response to things like government involvement tend to favor smaller local responses as opposed to the central engineered systems of Europe.

[Drunkencorgimaster]

I'm a middle school science teacher Romney isn't the lesser evil - he is the evil.



Really? An educated person and you believe this moderate Republican from Massachusetts (hardly a bastion of national socialism) is "EVIL?" For real? EVIL? Does Mitt run around in a black cape or something? Does he have an underground secret lair? Facial scar with a Persian Cat?

I expect this level of discourse from the Bible-thumping hillbillies that live around me. "Obama is the Devil! He's a Muslim Socialist!" (I actually heard that once)

I don't plan to vote for Our Savior Obama a second time so does that make me EVIL too? On the other hand I don't plan to vote for Romney either so does that get me demoted to the Diet Coke of Evil? Like Mini-Me?

[Sean_OBrien]

You want to tell me that an adult who didn't get a college education, who stumbled down the hole of drugs, alcohol, or premature pregnancy deserves to live in squalor? I think you're wrong, but I won't argue it right now. But does an 11 year old deserve to live in squalor, learn from under-trained teachers in an under-funded school, and end up with all kinds of trauma because of mistakes her parents made?

I don't think anyone can argue that.

Chicken or Egg?

Here is the thing. My family's farm was lost in the late 1970s as a result of circumstances outside of their control (between the ban on selling grains to the USSR due to their invasion of Afghanistan and the oil embargoes...a lot of farms failed during that period of time). Grew up probably poorer than any poor person you have ever met. For several years I spent winters in a 100 year old farm house that had no central heat and used old Franklin stoves to heat it. The schools which I went to generally had 2 or 3 grades per room with one little old lady school teacher dealing with 60 some odd kids.

You know what that taught me? I didn't like to be poor. I started working as soon as I could ride my bike to the nearest neighbor's farm and offer to stack hay bails, mucking stalls and doing whatever else I could. Soon as I was able to leave, I did. Didn't take much at all - other than the desire to leave.

It isn't like this is a new phenomenon. You say blacks, hispanics, indigenous people... It isn't new. However, I have yet to see a historical record which supports government intervention as opposed to people deciding to do it for themselves. When the Chinese immigrants were first coming to America - they were not well treated, many things were stacked against them - yet they do not seem to suffer. Many communities of hispanics are also standing on their own just fine.

I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. -- I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it.

http://www.historycarper.com/resources/twobf3/price.htm

[ElectricPaladin]

Really? An educated person and you believe this moderate Republican from Massachusetts (hardly a bastion of national socialism) is "EVIL?" For real? EVIL? Does Mitt run around in a black cape or something? Does he have an underground secret lair? Facial scar with a Persian Cat?

I expect this level of discourse from the Bible-thumping hillbillies that live around me. "Obama is the Devil! He's a Muslim Socialist!" (I actually heard that once)

I don't plan to vote for Our Savior Obama a second time so does that make me EVIL too? On the other hand I don't plan to vote for Romney either so does that get me demoted to the Diet Coke of Evil? Like Mini-Me?

Can't a man get carried away on his own wargames forums? :p

Yes, he's not evil. Possibly stupid, definitely misguided, but not evil. It was not my intention to distress anyone, and I apologize if my hyperbole distressed you.

[ElectricPaladin]

Chicken or Egg?

Here is the thing. My family's farm was lost in the late 1970s as a result of circumstances outside of their control (between the ban on selling grains to the USSR due to their invasion of Afghanistan and the oil embargoes...a lot of farms failed during that period of time). Grew up probably poorer than any poor person you have ever met. For several years I spent winters in a 100 year old farm house that had no central heat and used old Franklin stoves to heat it. The schools which I went to generally had 2 or 3 grades per room with one little old lady school teacher dealing with 60 some odd kids.

You know what that taught me? I didn't like to be poor. I started working as soon as I could ride my bike to the nearest neighbor's farm and offer to stack hay bails, mucking stalls and doing whatever else I could. Soon as I was able to leave, I did. Didn't take much at all - other than the desire to leave.

It isn't like this is a new phenomenon. You say blacks, hispanics, indigenous people... It isn't new. However, I have yet to see a historical record which supports government intervention as opposed to people deciding to do it for themselves. When the Chinese immigrants were first coming to America - they were not well treated, many things were stacked against them - yet they do not seem to suffer. Many communities of hispanics are also standing on their own just fine.

I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. -- I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it.

http://www.historycarper.com/resources/twobf3/price.htm

I'm going to respectfully bow out of this conversation. I think I've given the OP enough insight into my side of the issue - and frankly, with the job I work every day, I don't need this. Sean_OBrien, I think you are a very intelligent, very thoughtful person with whom I have only the barest commonality on this issue.

Here is my last point:

I'm not going to argue with you that the government does a great job of intervening in these situations. I don't have a huge amount of faith in this government. How can I? I'm a teacher. The government meddles in my job every single day, forcing me to fill my classroom with preparation for meaningless assessments that serve only to reward or punish teachers and school districts - and therefore, students - for their achievement or lack thereof.

That said, I don't know who else to turn to.

I don't think that the free market has any interest in helping my kids. I just don't. If there were money in education poor black kids, if there were money in giving healthcare to the teenage children of poor latino immigrants, if there were money in bringing good food and nutritional education to Oakland, then God damn it, someone would have done it already. I don't believe there's money in these highly necessary enterprises, which means that if I want to see change, I have to turn to a segment that isn't interested in making money. Again, if private charities could have handled this, well, then why is there still a problem?

So, I don't have a lot of faith in the government, except for one thing: they work for me. I can't make the corporations invest in East Oakland. I can't make private charities pay enough attention, or make people give them enough money to make a difference here, and goodness knows I can't make people just give money to the families in this neighborhood so they can afford to change their lives themselves. But I can damn well change the government. Them, I can control. And as long as I have a vote, I will.

If you have a better idea - a real idea, backed up by facts, not some free market "if the wealthy get wealthier than somehow, magically, so will the poor" voodoo - then I'm eager to hear it.

Finally, I want to say that until you've walked a mile in the shoes of the urban poor, you really shouldn't pretend you understand what it's like for them. From your story - absolutely true, I have no doubt - it sounds like your experience of poverty was very different. Your family lost a farm, which means that you were rural poor, which is an entirely different situation. Frankly, it probably also means that you are white - probably, you know, on the Internet no one knows you're a dog and all that - which again is an entirely different world.

I don't want to denigrate your remarkable story. Neither can I denigrate the story of other minority and immigrant communities - my own poor-Jewish-tailor ancestors included - because if someone can succeed it does mean that theoretically anyone can succeed.

But... come to Oakland some time. You've got to see it to believe it. It's rough out here. It's a different world. They're trying, but they can't do it on their own. More to the point, if we make these people do it on their own, it's going to take some time. A lot of time. And how many kids are you willing to see die of lung-related illnesses because they live next to a truck shipping corridor? How many dumb teens are you willing to see bleed their lives out on the streets thanks to gang violence, or rot in prison for a pot conviction that a rich white kid would shrug off? How many kids are you willing to see struggle through an overburdened education system staffed by the underpaid and inexperienced? How much blood needs to be shed while we wait?

Changes need to be made, on an institutional level, and Romney isn't going to be the one to do it.

He's just made it clear that he doesn't care.

[Denzark]

Well this is all amusing isn't it?

I don't know if there is universal free access to libraries in the US. Our libraires are free if somewhat scarce in some areas. Most have internet access. This means people with no money at all can access all the education they want into criminality, nutrition, yadda yadda - much life enrihing information.

What can't be engendered is a desire to better one's self through learning or aspiration. These are the spoon fed people. People whose self discipline to learn in the classroom, and to not commit crimes in wider society, is lacking.

I feel this is what Romney was referring to. Will it affect his chances? Well I doubt it. the Republican voters just want Obama out - remember a lot of politics is about the alternative. Will there be a massive swing of undecided, well educated liberals who take umbrage with his blunt comments - I doubt it.

The only thing that will make a difference is people deciding he is an absolute barm-pot whose religion happens to reckon the BVM, or baby Jesus or possibly some angels, appeared in a backwater US state in the 1800s and gave 7 golden plates to a fellow named Wedgewood. This means as a result you can't drink coke or have alcohol but you can if I get it right, have multiple marriages. Taken with his comments has he demonstrated he is about as un-presidential (not to mention unsuitable to have his finger on the world's biggest atomic button) as Wayne Rooney?

[Psychosplodge]

A fundamentalist with his finger on the button? :eek:

Edit, I'm assuming an american posted this on tumblr

http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m087h0XK651ron6r7o8_1280.jpg
2825 <^Same for those that can't see

[wittdooley]

Finally, I want to say that until you've walked a mile in the shoes of the urban poor, you really shouldn't pretend you understand what it's like for them. From your story - absolutely true, I have no doubt - it sounds like your experience of poverty was very different. Your family lost a farm, which means that you were rural poor, which is an entirely different situation. Frankly, it probably also means that you are white - probably, you know, on the Internet no one knows you're a dog and all that - which again is an entirely different world.


Ahh. There it is. The White poor is different than the minority Poor. Got it. That White Guilt (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=white%20guilt&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&sqi=2&ved=0CB8QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FWhite_g uilt&ei=679ZUITOA4LrqAG-7YGgAg&usg=AFQjCNGs1-0nQ9M_8HvcsJXtlxYwu4-M4A)must be hitting you HARD in Oakland.

I used to teach in a poor urban environment as well (though I don't know that Springfield, Ohio is as poor as Oakland, I can attest the single parent numbers, parent in incarceration numbers, etc are similar) and you absolutely feel for the kids. But come on. You and I both know the number of your parents that really care isn't as high as you say. And it certainly is not every one. Nothing is more reflective of that lack of concern than how they treat school. As soon as parent-teacher meetings are no longer mandatory, it becomes pretty apparent which ones care, which ones only 'pretened' to care to appear like 'good' parents to the school system, and which ones don't care at all. For every family that wants to rise out of their poverty, another one or two are popping out more kids to collect larger checks. And that, sir, isn't limited to race. It's about an 'impoverished' class (I say this, of course, with the most sincere irony, as our 'poor' live better than the middle class in a large percentage of the rest of the world) that lives far too comfortably and doesn't have significant motivation to move beyond that.

[eldargal]

Well, rural and urban poor are different, and rural poor tend to be whiter. Rural poor often live in worse poverty but they have less access to drugs and similar things which can completely screw them up. Generational poverty is a huge concern too, frankly it is a cop-out to say 'they should just pull themselved up' because when your parents and grandparents were poorly educated, drug addicted/alcoholic etc. they don't know how and they don't know any better. I'm not saying government intervention is the solution (it hasn't worked exceptionally well in Britain, but then you could argue that it was catastrophically mismanaged by successive governments) but it isn't to say it doesn't have a place.

[Psychosplodge]

Well, rural and urban poor are different. Rural poor often live in worse poverty but they have less access to drugs and similar things which can completely screw them up. Generational poverty is a huge concern too, frankly it is a cop-out to say 'they should just pull themselved up' because when your parents and grandparents were poorly educated, drug addicted/alcoholic etc. they don't know how and they don't know any better. I'm not saying government intervention is the solution (it hasn't worked exceptionally well in Britain, but then you could argue that it was catastrophically mismanaged by successive governments) but it isn't to say it doesn't have a place.

You only have to look at the average drug riddled crime infested pit village where they're already queuing to dance on thatchers grave to see the results of generational poverty where little seems to have worked in Britain...

[eldargal]

Yup.

Oh and I should say the differences between rural and urban poor have largely evaporated over the last couple of decades, Sean O'Brian was probably one of the last 'lucky' ones given the dates mentioned. At least in Britain, drugs and crime are everywhere but then distances are small.

[Sean_OBrien]

But... come to Oakland some time.

Been. Many times. One of my first regular jobs required me to make trips once a month or so to pick up supplies from a chemical warehouse on the Alameda side of town...off of Grand IIRC. That was back in the 80s when it was a real cess pool too.


I don't think that the free market has any interest in helping my kids.

It doesn't - nor should it, otherwise it wouldn't be free. Your kids have to decide to use it, after that - there isn't anything to get in their way other than the government because the free market doesn't care about skin color or background.


urban poor versus rural poor

That is one of the largest cop outs which come up over and over again in these discussions. If anything it is easier for someone in an urban environment to pull themselves up should they choose to. The tools are right next door. Whether it is libraries and other resources to learn from or a market with which to sell their goods. That they choose not to has nothing to do with an institution attempting to keep them down, rather it can be directed back to their culture.

Compare if you would the two sides of pop culture for the stereo typical poor in each group - music. On the one side, it emphasizes hard work, religion*, family and friends...while the other emphasizes keeping your hoes in line, rolling with the homies, popping a cap in someone and getting high. All the money taken from my pocket wouldn't impact that.

Even your opinion of institutionalized problems leads to the issue you seem to see. It creates a fatalistic position that prevents many from getting out on their own...after all, the system is rigged against them so they have no chance of success. Drive that into a kid every day as soon as they enter the education system and by the time they are in high school, is it any wonder that they switch to criminal activity? After all - they were going to end up in jail anyway just for being black (hispanic...wrong kind of asian - pick your cause celeb).

*Just to be clear though, for me - religion is irrelevant. What it does do though is provide a certain compass which can often be lacking. For a lot of people - this is a good thing...depending on the religion in question.

[Sean_OBrien]

Yup.

Oh and I should say the differences between rural and urban poor have largely evaporated over the last couple of decades, Sean O'Brian was probably one of the last 'lucky' ones given the dates mentioned. At least in Britain, drugs and crime are everywhere but then distances are small.

Drugs were there in full force. I know several of the farms around where I grew up switched to alternative "cash crops" when the markets for things like corn and wheat went tits up due to export restrictions. I recall a few times when the local and federal police performed night raids...helicopters and all and burned acres of pot. Cocaine, crack and heroine was regularly trafficked on the roads which I road my bike (and later car) on to go back and forth to work. Several classmates were involved at different levels of that as well and have done time for transporting them.

[eldargal]

What about drug use though? I saw statistics on rural drug use in the 70s and 80s and it was a lot lower than in urban areas.

This actually handily illustrates the problem with politics in general

There is a problem, generational poverty.

One group say the government needs to intervene.
One group says people need to pull themselves up on their own.

Both policies are implemented over time. Problem remains and deepens, crime increases, spreads as they also breed faster and poor areas expand.

[Psychosplodge]

There is a problem, generational poverty.

One group say the government needs to intervene.
One group says people need to pull themselves up on their own.

Both policies are implemented over time. Problem remains and deepens, crime increases, spreads as they also breed faster and poor areas expand.

I suggest a cull we'll start with chavs, they're not quite as fast as foxes, but less people complain when you shoot them...

[eldargal]

Their pelts aren't as pretty though. Similar shade of orange on the females though.

[Psychosplodge]

Some of the males too...
Maybe their pelts could be put to use for overpriced books and the like instead? I mean obviously you'd have to scrape the chemicals off first but then it might work?

[Wolfshade]

Test people with fire, to see if they are pure enough to live.

[Psychosplodge]

That's barbaric, at least when you hunt them they have a chance to escape...

[Sean_OBrien]

What about drug use though? I saw statistics on rural drug use in the 70s and 80s and it was a lot lower than in urban areas.

This actually handily illustrates the problem with politics in general

There is a problem, generational poverty.

One group say the government needs to intervene.
One group says people need to pull themselves up on their own.

Both policies are implemented over time. Problem remains and deepens, crime increases, spreads as they also breed faster and poor areas expand.

Lower, but not insignificant. I remembered plenty of users and abusers growing up...but really wasn't in the position to make an objective analysis - so I checked to see if I could find a number:

http://www.carseyinstitute.unh.edu/publications/Report_SubstanceAbuse.pdf

Figure 1 on page 13 shows the rural/urban drug use graph over time (1979-2003 period). It wouldn't have been difficult for me to get access to pretty much anything I would have wanted during my teenage years, however the drugs of choice at the time tended to be pot, alcohol, hallucinogenics and whippits for the ones who were in my immediate community. PCP was the hard drug of choice if my memory is correct (was generally too busy trying to get out to pay that much attention to those who had given up).

The two pronged approach...or compromise that you mention is true as well - and it tends to be present in every "problem". One of the things which I tire of hearing calls for is compromise on issues as more often then not, when you compromise on the issue you don't do either possible solution well and the problem you are trying to address only becomes worse (poverty in this case...but pick your cause and the same generally rings true).

The thing is though is that quite often the group which says people need to pull themselves up on their own isn't really saying that...rather they are saying we will handle it ourselves now stay the hell out of the way. We just recently hired on the daughter of an installer (largely unskilled laborer) who works for us. She took advantage of our scholarship program and got a CS degree as a result. She is a minority, and far from the only one which we work with.

I actually like to give them a hand up...I don't like the government to get involved though as they tend to muck it up quite well. I know a lot of other people run similar programs in their own businesses as well - and I would guess they, like me would do more if it weren't for the government taking large chunks of money to fund offices and committees to study the problem as opposed to fixing it. For me, the problem wasn't hispanics not getting a fair shake. The problem was Julio couldn't send his daughter to college and she likely would not have been able to finish without a bit of help. I solved that problem and put tools in place to solve other problems as well. However, I think our accountants have said that the compliance paperwork and what not costs us about $5K a year on that program...that would be enough to send another kid to college - if the government were to get out of the way.

[Nabterayl]

Somewhat back on topic, I think we have here a neat little illustration of why Romney's "gaffes" don't seem very likely to hurt him much. The notion that however unfair your circumstances are, success is still possible if you try hard enough and failure is still your fault, actually resonates pretty well across America's political spectrum. c.f. this post (http://www.lounge.belloflostsouls.net/showthread.php?24855-Has-Romney-bobbed-it-A-question-to-Americans&p=242619&viewfull=1#post242619). Also cross-resonant is the idea that making circumstances fairer is a good thing. c.f. this post (http://www.lounge.belloflostsouls.net/showthread.php?24855-Has-Romney-bobbed-it-A-question-to-Americans&p=242625&viewfull=1#post242625). What isn't cross-resonant (and therefore what you tend to hear the most about) is the notion that government assistance is the body politic working to make circumstances fairer. c.f. this post (http://www.lounge.belloflostsouls.net/showthread.php?24855-Has-Romney-bobbed-it-A-question-to-Americans&p=242592&viewfull=1#post242592) and this response (http://www.lounge.belloflostsouls.net/showthread.php?24855-Has-Romney-bobbed-it-A-question-to-Americans&p=242614&viewfull=1#post242614). Some Americans view government assistance as the body politic expressing its will through action. Others view it as the government (or, alternatively, a discrete body of voters) coercing charitable action (usually incompetently to boot, the argument goes).

Broadly speaking, America doesn't have a notion of the body politic anymore - the notion that the electorate's actions and consequences are my actions and consequences simply does not have widespread traction here. Rather than say, "We the People made President Obama our president, and insofar as I remain a member of the People, I made him my president too," you're much more likely to hear, "Don't blame me; I didn't vote for Obama" (or Bush, or whomever). I would argue that you see this in the popular press surrounding our jurisprudence, too: courts are not spoken of as having been instituted by the People; judges are either appointed by individuals ("Justice Smith, a Clinton appointee") or voted in by discrete bodies of voters ("Don't blame me; I didn't vote for Judge Smith").

One consequence of this anemic notion of collective political action is that plenty of Americans, even those who agree that making circumstances fairer is a good thing, are not at all repulsed by the notion that government assistance is a bad thing - both to give and, to some degree, to receive. If government assistance is not We the People deciding to give to our neighbors but state-sponsored robbery, then knowingly taking government assistance essentially makes the recipient culpable in the crime. This is a view that resonates not only in what is now the heart of the Republican party, but also with plenty of moderates and "swing voters" as well. Consequently, I don't think Romney's recent "gaffes" are actually viewed as ideologically incorrect by enough swing voters to matter. They might (maybe) be viewed as insensitive. But if a swing voter is going to vote for Romney, it's going to be on the basis of (i) the fact that he isn't the incumbent or (ii) the fact that they agree with his ideology more than they agree with that of the incumbent.

[Necron2.0]

Will Romney's comments hurt him? In a word, "No." That is because fundamentally, he's not really all that wrong. He's confabulated some disparate things together and exaggerated the realities a bit, but in the end there ARE people who will vote against him no matter what, just as there are those who will vote for him no matter what. Similarly, there ARE those on the entitlement dole who will vote for whomever will keep the pork coming.

To the latter, I've seen that with my own eyes. Before I became an "automaton for the machine", I was an anarchist. I worked in a welfare office, trying to subvert the system from the inside (yeah, I was one of those). What I saw was a bunch of people with massive chips on their shoulders, who believed society and everyone in it "owed" them something. I really grew to utterly despise these people, not because they were poor and not because they needed help, but because they were the single most self-centered, self-righteous and egotistical pieces of dung I have ever met, who would literally not lift a finger to help anyone.

For myself, I'm not keen to vote for Romney, but there is absolutely no way in flaming Hell that I'd ever vote for Obama. Four years ago it was plain as day that he was completely unqualified to be President. Today, after four years of OJT, he is still completely unqualified.

[Psychosplodge]

so do you not vote, or vote for someone you're not fussed about to keep the other guy out?

[wittdooley]

And therein lies the rub. I think there are few things that convolute how people vote in the United States:

1. Putting precedence on 'non-important' issues over 'important issues' -- Allow me to explain: there are way, way, way too many people in the US that vote for for social issues that, when it comes down to it, are small issues when it comes to the success of our country. Right and Left. Stuff like Abortion and Gay Marriage. Who cares? Those issues prevent progress for the real problems (and ironically, are often contradictory. With Abortion, Repubs that don't want more gov't control are perfectly fine with the gov't mandating what you can and can't do to your body, etc.) because candidates know there are hardliners that, effectively, only vote on these issues and not other issues.

2. We vote for Not-A-Candidate -- It's a huge problem and it's reflected in all the campaign ads. More focus is placed on why you SHOULDN'T vote for one candidate rather than why you should vote for another.

3. We have two parties -- Huge problem. Having a bipartisan system makes candidates like John McCain, who were closer to moderate (and I actually believe Obama may have been, originally) polarize themselves. For some republicans, McCain "wasn't republican enough." WTF does that even mean? I think you'd find that a lot of young, working "Republicans" are actually closer to Libertarian. I am. I dont care about Gay Marriage. Sort of at all. If scientists say a fetus isn't 'techincally' alive, then maybe it isn't murder, so who cares about Abortion. I realize many of things are wholly moral issues, but, to me, they dont impact how our country should be run. But then again, I'm a Catholic that lived with my spouse before we were married and certainly fornicated before so (with protection). Additionally, being a Republican when you're young simply "isn't cool." And there are young people voting because of that.

Those are just some root issues. But you'll find more than not that, despite the fact that I'd prefer to vote for Ron Paul or someoen more moderate, I, like many others, know it's a wasted vote. So we're left with the other options, or not voting at all.

[Necron2.0]

so do you not vote, or vote for someone you're not fussed about to keep the other guy out?

Romney is going to win my state whether I vote or not, so the point is somewhat moot. However, chances are I'll either not vote for President (I'll vote on other issues/races however) or I'll write in Ron Paul, knowing full well he won't win, and the media (all of which is HEAVILY politically polarized to one side or another) probably won't report any figures for him regardless of what percent of the vote he gets. The media is not only in bed with the power elite, but they've strapped on the ball gags, handcuffed themselves to the bedposts and thrown out any concept of a "safety word." That actually is a big reason why we're still just a two party system. Only Democrats and Republicans get any serious press at all.

[Drunkencorgimaster]

Nope. Obama has miserably failed to meet his many '08 promises in my opinion and I won't vote for that hot-air-filled douche-bag again. But I have a pretty low opinion of Romney so I'll probably vote third party for the first time in my life. I am sick and tired of following the two-party lemming herd. Why should I have to throw my personal integrity out the window to vote for a mediocre candidate? No chance of a third party them winning an election, but at least I can feel good about my vote.

[Psychosplodge]

Sorta like destroying your ballet paper in protest? Or do you agree with the third parties position on stuff?

Interesting post (http://theremina.tumblr.com/post/32015457329)

[DrLove42]

https://i.chzbgr.com/completestore/12/9/20/gurqTeJmvkuaRhzvHhJqHg2.jpg

There is nothing more sad than an old politician trying to be "young" and "hip"

[Drunkencorgimaster]

Sorta like destroying your ballet paper in protest? Or do you agree with the third parties position on stuff?

Interesting post (http://theremina.tumblr.com/post/32015457329)

Kind of a protest vote I admit, but I actually agree with the Libertarians on some stuff. I've voted Dem and Rep so why not give someone else a try, right?

[Uncle Nutsy]

If I were an american (and this is based off what I've heard of romney recently), I'd vote for obama.

because I'd vote for someone who actually realized how beneficial stem-cell research is, rather than vote for someone who doesn't know why aircraft windows can't be opened.

seriously.. there's something very wrong with that man.

[Sean_OBrien]

If I were an american (and this is based off what I've heard of romney recently), I'd vote for obama.

because I'd vote for someone who actually realized how beneficial stem-cell research is, rather than vote for someone who doesn't know why aircraft windows can't be opened.

seriously.. there's something very wrong with that man.

In all fairness - the vast majority of people (including those who are having a laugh at Romney) don't understand aircraft pressures, decompression and how "rolling down the windows" on an aircraft would be problematic. Over the years I have been in several aircraft which opened doors and windows without any problems at all. From small private aircraft with sliders to large military aircraft that drop the back ramp and kick your butt out. I've even been on a polar in a 135 from Mildenhall to Kadeena when we had an electrical fire in the racks...had to do a halon dump to put it out and pop open the side doors to avoid asphyxiation since the nearest runway was still a good 4 hours of flight time.

So, yes - while it isn't something that would be the best of ideas for normal flight, the ability to take on fresh air in the event of a fire or other incident...it wouldn't actually be a bad idea and it wouldn't cause the plane to explode. Explosive decompression normally only hapen as a result of significant impact events (mid air collisions), terrorist attacks or gross structural failures.

The other junk is just that...junk. He was asked "Honey Boo Boo or Snooki" - likely should have said neither, or what the hell...but he gave an answer. Far from an endorsement of Snooki though. Many people actually agreed with Clint Eastwoods opinions, rambling though they may have been - especially amongst the base who Mitt will need to do the campaign work in coming months. We have well covered the 47% issue here already. Most the overseas "hickups" were non starters...the Olympic security was a concern, both for someone on the outside looking in and for those in the UK apparently:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/jul/12/london-2012-g4s-security-crisis

Pretty much anything which is said about Israel will inflame the Palestinians - that is sort of their schtick. Get inflamed and burn someone's flag. The comment by the press aide in Poland...hardly the worst thing to have happen:

http://www.buzzfeed.com/buzzfeedpolitics/hillary-clinton-aide-tells-reporter-to-****-off

Read the exchange and keep in mind that this is a top level staffer in the State Department, hand selected by the Secretary of State to deal with media inquiries and approved by the POTUS.

Plenty of other mess to go around.

BTW - Romney actually is in support of stem cell research:

http://2012.republican-candidates.org/Romney/Stem-Cell.php

I would even be willing to bet that a good chunk of the charitable donations which he gives out each year go to organizations who are working with stem cells - especially considering the implications they have towards finding a cure for MS which his wife happens to have.

[Psychosplodge]

seriously.. there's something very wrong with that man.

He's waving his particular imaginary friend round in public...

http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m8p30mKoct1r17ogqo1_500.jpg

[Uncle Nutsy]

his position on stem cells is like other repub's positions. harvesting from adults, and (just on a hunch I checked) against abortion.

exact same as his predecessors. [god, I hope this thread doesn't turn into an anti/pro-abortion trainwreck. if it does, i'm out]


So, yes - while it isn't something that would be the best of ideas for normal flight, the ability to take on fresh air in the event of a fire or other incident...it wouldn't actually be a bad idea and it wouldn't cause the plane to explode. Thing is (and this isn't directed at you in the least), emergency doors provide ample ventilation. I'm sure if the engineers thought it would be a good idea to open windows, it would have been implemented already.