Snips and Snails and Puppy Dog Tales

I know. HOW DARE THEY, expecting the government to help them in times of need!

And hey, Romney, do you know how many military families are on food stamps? Are they all leeches on society, too?

Sigh. If he wins, can I move in over there by you? (He can't win, this has to be the final nail in his coffin, right? I hope so...)

From:

wow-hazmat.livejournal.com

Over where? I live in the US. I live in the south, in fact! XD

From:

Hear hear! Thistle has at least two friends in the south!

From:

I know lots of online folks from the south! Apparently now wow_hazmat, too. :P

From:

... Oops, I thought you were over in England. I'll pass on moving to the south. ;)

From:

Transmetro reference? +1 sir/maam.

Though honestly, 47% is a conservative (heh) estimate. I'd go so far as to say Romney doesn't care about 99.9999% or so (I figure there's a hundred or so people he does actually care about).

For that matter, I doubt Obama cares for many more.

We elect lawyers, a class of people widely regarded as self-centered, greedy, and generally of a flexible morality, to political office and get politicians who are assholes. As my computer always used to say: Garbage In, Garbage Out.

From:

I could be mistaken, but I think Obama actually does want to help make the country (if not the world) a better place.

I have no idea why Romney is running, other than to improve conditions for himself and his rich friends.

From:

I could be mistaken too - I certainly hope I am. Unfortunately, I rarely find myself having overestimated the selfishness of people, my own included (I am an ultimately selfish bastard, though I try to keep it in check).

There was never much question about Romney...but I often find myself wondering if Obama is trying but unable to make much progress, or 'trying' and 'failing', y'know? I mean, if I was legitimately trying to make things better, my confidence in the system would wear down eventually and I'd probably march into congress with troops a la Caesar to have a serious conversation with the Senators about how we are a republic, but that everyone should seriously consider agreeing with me.

From:

Yeah. It's a wonder Obama even wants the job still. I think at least in the beginning he wanted to change and improve things, but now? Who knows. I could hardly fault the guy for giving up. (Could you imagine? Spending years trying to make the world better, only to have the other side's only goal be to stop you?)

Just typing this up makes me sad and tired. How can we have a country where one side of the political system's only goal is to keep the president from succeeding at anything?

From:

wow-hazmat.livejournal.com

It's ma'am, and thank you. :)

It was actually someone on Reddit who first made the Romney/Ryan -- Beast/Smiler comparison, though at the time I didn't see Romney as the Beast. That 47% quote though reminds me of the Beast's last interview with Spider Jerusalem.

Dangit, now I wanna reread that series. :)

From:

Closer to election time, I think I'll have to post one of Spider's articles on politics on facebook.

What's that, Chair Leg of Truth? Yea, I like her too.

From:

veloxe.livejournal.com

Meanwhile, in Canadian politics: The PQ makes attempts to separate again, an entire nation chuckles softly to itself.

It's nuts, I know that both ends of the spectrum have their issues and could probably chose better representatives but sometimes it feels like the major political figures in the states are vat grown and haven't had any unregulated human contact for the first 40 years of their lives...

From:

Seriously. But then, he's so rich, he probably hasn't had any "normal" human contact in forever. Watch the video, he's saying all that stuff in front of the waitstaff! He'll be lucky if none of them spit in his drink...

From:

Lucky? He probably associates the taste of saliva with a sign of good food, at this point.

My parents-in-law are like that. Moneyed, I mean. My wife remarks frequently on how interesting it has been to watch their decline. They didn't grow up with money, and didn't have it for most of their adult lives. At the end of her father's career, he finally reached the golden apple of corp Executive, and has been flush with cash ever since. Retiring with full pension for life, full benefits, free lease cars for life, etc. In their 70s now, their minds are declining too. 8 years ago, when I met them, they were sharp - still questioning, still skeptical, still very intelligent. This year they buy into the political bullshit. Eat it by the bucketful. Try to spout it at us.

And when we fight back? We cite statistics and personal anecdotes of people we interact with (including my sisterinlaw, a doctor - she sees the broadest spectrum of any of us), and they respond that we "don't see the real world" or that we "don't meet real people." As if they, in their country club waterfront community of entirely retired moneyed people, somehow see an expansive cross-section of the US population.

When you have money for long enough, I have been forced to conclude, you don't remember what life is like without it. I've seen the old guy tip $5 on a $150 meal (I slipped an extra $20 into the check on our exit). He doesn't understand why some peoples' lawns don't look very nice (while he pays 3 mexicans full time to maintain his). All this resulted in a personal policy - every 5 years, I must live in poverty. Seal away my savings and checking account so I can only access a tiny amount. Continue to go to work, but eat the cheapest thing I can find. Limit the luxuries I have access too (I can't help it, I need internet. Pretty sure if I was homeless, I'd be leeching off starbucks or something).

I'm currently 1 week into it, my last poverty run being 6 years ago (I'm a year late, due to a job change I needed to adjust to). I'm confined to a small bedroom, sharing a full size hand-me-down mattress with the wife, dog, and cat. I share a shower with 5 other people. I made a basic chicken tikka masala with vegetables I grew on a porch that should last most of the week (total cost: $23 - feeding 6 for 4 days at $1/day is pretty good, and avoiding scurvy w/ tomatoes!)

At the end of this month, I will be so grateful for everything I have and any luxury I can get, I will remember every day for the next 5 years how bad this sucks, and how much better I have it. Perspective is a powerful thing, and makes you very conscious of other people's needs.

Edited Date: 2012-09-18 07:22 pm (UTC)

From:

Lucky? He probably associates the taste of saliva with a sign of good food, at this point.

Ha!

And good comment, I think you're right. (And admire your poverty periods!)

From:

joisbishmyoga.livejournal.com

I just had to say I v. much admire your policy, and that I wish it was standard for politicians to do the same.

From:

loup_noir

Consider yourself hugged. Romney is a creepazoid and a terrifying glimpse into the moneyed class that doesn't get how most of the rest of the world lives. Plus, put his dog on the roof of his car? Bullied that poor kid and then tried to say he'd forgotten about the incident while people who went to school with him during a time when that sort of thing was overlooked and who were still creeped out? Wife got a tax break on her dancing horse?

Puh-leaze.

From:

Yep, to all that. I can only hope this ends up costing him the election -- done in by his own opinions.

From:

The scary thing though, as I mentioned above, is that the Moneyed seriously see that shit as normal. What do you mean you pay your 20% in taxes? Why don't you have your savings in an legally-grey offshore account? You mean you don't take these obscure tax breaks? Why on earth not?

Just like the bullying the poor gay kid - He thinks that harassment was appropriate, normal behavior.

I tend to think that he was right about it being normal -- I've heard so many cases of harassment from that generation. But then I found something else, just a little tidbit I found out the other day that kinda blew my mind. One of the main members of Monty Python was gay. Graham Chapman, main author of the Parrot sketch among others, was openly gay, and was committed to his partner for over 20 years.

Edited Date: 2012-09-18 08:44 pm (UTC)

From:

I hope, HOPE, that this will make non-rich independent (and even some right leaners) turn away from him.

How could you be poor and still vote for him? How could you be a woman, a person of color, someone who ever used food stamps (hi military families), anyone but rich, white, and male and still vote for him?

Moneyed people may see his actions as normal, but non-rich folks can't. Right? Right? *worries*

From:

As an upper middle class white male, I can assure you I won't be voting for the bastard. But then, I never would've - I'm familiar enough with the crazy-money people to recognize it quickly.

But agreed - it boggles the mind the people who will vocally support someone who obviously hates them. If he could, he would end all social-safety-net programs. You'd think the people on those f@#$ing programs would realize he wants to cut them off, but they don't. Anecdotal absurdities, but watch some of the interviews with tea partiers, or at the RNC (the daily show did a great job with this & abortion questions). The cognitive dissonance you see will cause real physical pain.

From:

pure-trance.livejournal.com

Those people are just too far gone. My father told me while I was on unemployment and he himself is on social security that Obama sucks because of unemployment and social security. I mean he said more than that of course, but that was the jist of it.

From:

lokyst.livejournal.com

I ran across an interesting comment about the statistic that 47% of people in the US do not pay taxes. Apparently it is being mis-cited. This 47% includes people who have overpaid taxes and who are therefore entitled to a refund. The irony being that Romney who only paid 13% in taxes might very well be part of the 47% he does not care about.

From:

Yep. It also includes middle-class families who get refunds instead of paying due to Bush tax cuts.

All in all, an ignorant hate-filled opinion.

The irony being that Romney who only paid 13% in taxes might very well be part of the 47% he does not care about.

And we're still waiting for him to release more than one year...

From:

Sept 28. Hackers claimed to have penetrated PriceWaterhouseCoopers (old school Sneakers style) and extracted Romney's tax history. Last I heard, they were holding it for ransom, $1M (in Bitcoins) to suppress it or release it (whoever could get the $1M in bitcoins first). But if noone had paid them by Sept 28, they'd mail the encryption key to everyone they mailed a USB drive with the data (supposedly, a bunch of major news networks + democrat HQ).

We'll see :)

From:

Oh hey, yay! I lost track of that story. Can't wait to see what happens on the 18th. Hope it's true and they're not just blowing smoke.

From:

Just because I like having all the facts behind anything before I start spouting opinions, please read this as well: http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2012/09/18/the-data-behind-romneys-47-comments/

Not all of it backs up what he said, but it explains where he got his number. And it's -mostly- true, people who get handouts are going to vote for the guy that gives them the handouts. That's why Detroit turned into a bloody mess in my lifetime. However, I have to state that all generalities are false. ;3

From:

And it's -mostly- true, people who get handouts are going to vote for the guy that gives them the handouts.

Romney said that the people who are certain to vote for Obama get handouts, feel like victims, and want the government to support them. Do you know how insulting that is? I vote for Obama because I support his ideas and believe in him. I have never gotten food stamps, I've always had health insurance, I've never been on welfare. His statement is not true.

Google search for "why do 47 not pay federal income tax". ABC News, CNN, every major site will have a result in there explaining that number. Know who are in that 47%? Military families. People BUSH tax cuts made not have to pay taxes. Retired people who no longer work. It is not, as Romney said, people who just want "handouts".

All this being said, I was thinking of you and one other person as I wrote this post. You're part of the 47% who Romney doesn't care about. Are you still voting for him?

From:

Actually, I'm not part of that 47%. I get refunds, yes, but my refunds are a FRACTION of the actual taxes I get chopped out of my income. I get maaaaaaybe ~$100 back at the end of the year, federal and state combined and I'm already at several times that taken out of my gross income. So people who get refunds are -not- automatically in that 47%, as someone up there attempted to claim. I don't get -any- government money aside from that tiny chunk in April. Just because you get a tax refund at the end of the year doesn't mean you pay no taxes.

Also Romney did NOT say that the people who are certain to vote for Obama get handouts. I quote from your link: "There are 47% of the people who will vote for the president no matter what." He didn't say ALL people who will vote for the president are included in that 47%. I think he overestimated, yes, but there is some truth to that: people who get handouts are going to keep voting for the person who gives them handouts. See my statement about Detroit, that's what happened in my hometown.

Also, he isn't saying he doesn't care. Keep context in mind: He's speaking in front of donors who want to know he's going to put their money to good use. He's stating that, from a financial and campaign standpoint, it's kind of stupid to try to win that 47% or whatever the actual number is over. He says their message of low taxes doesn't connect. Which is logically sound, if you pay no taxes, you don't care if taxes are lower or not.

He worded it poorly, but if you listen to what he says, it isn't that these people don't matter. He's saying that it's a waste of the donors' money to try to convince people he sees as not enough return for what's spent. It's a business model. It can be heartless, yes, I admit that, but it's not saying they don't matter, just that the funds he has is better spent elsewhere.

Kind of like the opposite of what I'm doing. It's really a waste of time to spell all this out, but I'm doing it anyway because I know you're a logical person and you can see outside opinions even if you don't agree with them. ;3

tl;dr - He's following the old saying 'don't try to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig'. Or, you know. Insert whatever animal. KITTENS. You don't want to annoy kittens. They have sharp claws. :C

Edited Date: 2012-09-19 09:42 pm (UTC)

From:

I hate to tell you, but I bet your health insurance situation puts you firmly into the camp of people Romney doesn't care about. (But no worries, *I'll* always care about you! ;) )

And woo getting back money! It's been eight or nine years since I got a refund back, usually I have to pay $700 to $800 when you add state and federal. CA taxes are HIGH. It sucks. :/

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 sounds to me like the two are hand in hand.

Also, I take issue with his "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". So he's all for letting people starve in the street? America is already so far behind in the care of its citizens, that anyone could have that opinion is just so embarrassing and sad.

Some people call America the greatest nation in the world. We're so very far from that, and it's because of thinking like Romney's. HOW DARE PEOPLE NEED HELP. Poor people should all just go get jobs! Why don't you (generic you) have health insurance! Go get a better job or buy it! No. We help the government, and the government should be there to help us. Is it an equal "I paid a thousand dollars to the government, so I should get a thousand of service back."? No. That's not how a fair, modern, mature society works.

I can't believe I'm reading that page again to respond to this. He's just so awful, it's making me mad again. "[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." How self righteous he is. Yes, anyone on welfare, anyone who gets food stamps, anyone who is poor and needs help has no personal responsibility and does not care for their own lives.

There's a quote that fits here. "If you want to know what a man's like, take a good look at how he treats his inferiors, not his equals."

Romney is a bully. He abuses animals. He doesn't care about the poor. Women's rights would be a laugh under him. He treats his "inferiors" like so much crap under his shoe.

If we're taking his words in the video to mean different things, what do you think about his character? Are you okay with him as a person?

(I have little time at work for personal webstuff anymore, so next reply will likely be tomorrow night.)

From:

Yep, I'm perfectly fine with him as a person. Because by and large, I agree with him. *shrugs* But you knew from the start how heartless and cruel I am. ;3

I'm also amused that you still harp on his 'animal abuse' when the president ATE dog. I don't get that. But we're not going to agree on that so I'll let it be.

Like Firebyrd said: Conservatives do NOT believe anyone is entitled to receive these things from the government. It isn't the government's job. Taxes are supposed to pay for upkeep of federal and state provided things like roads, police, firemen, emergency stuff. Not making sure everyone gets a 'set standard of living'. When that happens, no one cares to work anymore because they don't NEED to work because the government will give them things.

Romney isn't talking about people who legitimately need it. What's why no one wants to get RID of the things that help people, but they need to be scaled back. When food stamps and welfare are going to people who have cable, smoke, have celphones, etc etc etc... That's where I say hey wait a second. They can just not have those luxuries and have enough for food on their own until they can save up, get financial aid to go to school and have a better chance at getting a job.

I don't understand this black and white mentality I see in so many liberals. Just because conservatives want to see people be independent and financially responsible, to cut back the bloat so there will be money for people who actually need it, we want to see poor people die in the streets? o_O Where the heck is the logical step in that?

Romney is not a bully. He's a business man and frankly? America needs less heart and more head right now. We're spending way more than what we take in, the financial situation is on the edge of a cliff (which liberal economists have also agreed on), we won't have the money to help the people that need help if we keep going this way.

Let me put it this way: This isn't really about Romney to me. This isn't about social issues or how nice of a person he is, or the president is. If it were a republican in office spending this much (I flailed SO HARD at the Bush bail outs, mind you) and it was the democrat who was pro-choice, pro-gay, pro-feminism, but had the head on his shoulders to actually fix the budget? I would vote for the democrat.

Non-profit people will ALWAYS be there to help the poor. I work in a church. If people are being foreclosed on, we have means of connecting them with lawyers that work for free to help them work out a way to get around it. If they need food, we have a stockpile. What we won't do is repeatedly help families that have all these luxuries (cable TV/internet, cell phones, smokers, drinkers, etc) until they show they're willing to cut back to make ends meet and live within their means. THAT is the group Romney is talking about. He isn't talking about people who are in that situation by some disaster or something they literally could do nothing about.

Also: I so want all taxes abolished (income/death/capital/etc) and just put a flat sales tax on everything. It will eliminate this whole argument of 'oh these people don't pay taxes!' and whatever. Because everyone will, fairly, and they can't dodge it.

From:

I'm also amused that you still harp on his 'animal abuse' when the president ATE dog.

When Obama was 9 years old, he was given dog meat and he ate it.
When Romney was an adult, he strapped his dog to the top of his car, drove for hours, when the dog got sick he hosed it down and then drove on.

You seriously see no difference between the two? That a child doesn't have the power, maturity, or any number of other things an adult does?

Conservatives do NOT believe anyone is entitled to receive these things from the government.

Do you wonder why people see conservatives as heartless?

Not making sure everyone gets a 'set standard of living'. When that happens, no one cares to work anymore because they don't NEED to work because the government will give them things.

Bull. The government isn't paying for a nice apartment, cable TV, and a butler, it's paying to keep children from starving to death. (Do you realize that even now, with the programs we already have, kids are starving? In America? I don't mean they're not getting the brand of sugared breakfast cereal they like, I mean they're dying of not having enough food to eat.)

I don't understand this black and white mentality I see in so many liberals. Just because conservatives want to see people be independent and financially responsible, to cut back the bloat so there will be money for people who actually need it

Your/conservatives' view of "people who actually need it" is a worrying thing, that you get to judge who gets it and who does not.

Also, wanting "to see people be independent and financially responsible" doesn't jibe with cutting funding to education and other programs to get people back on their feet.

Romney is not a bully

Quote: "They [Romney and his friends] came upon Lauber, tackled him and pinned him to the ground. As Lauber, his eyes filling with tears, screamed for help, Romney repeatedly clipped his hair with a pair of scissors."
What would you call that? An innocent boyhood prank?

Your church may help everyone, but far from every church does. If you're not of their religion, if you're a "sinner", then you're up the creek. (And, to be honest, if I was homeless, I wouldn't even think of turning to a church for help -- one shouldn't have to. Churches are for religion, I shouldn't have to turn for one for anything.)

Also: I so want all taxes abolished (income/death/capital/etc) and just put a flat sales tax on everything. It will eliminate this whole argument of 'oh these people don't pay taxes!' and whatever.

We can agree on that. It would make everything a lot less complicated. It would be fair (rich people buying a yacht would automatically pay more).

From:

One, our church doesn't help everyone. We can't afford to. That's why we DO have a screening process for repeats and the initial help does have to pass our Board of Trustees. The majority of the time we will help, usually with church members offering half the cost in donations themselves and us matching that out of a fund we have set aside to help people, but we've had to turn some families away because they would not tighten their belts and cut back on luxuries they couldn't afford to keep. They left because we wouldn't enable them. The Government has a very lousy ability to filter who REALLY needs help and who just apply for and live off welfare.

Michigan tightened its restrictions on who could receive welfare, and people left the state to go live where they could still live on it. I'm still not saying EVERYONE who is on welfare is milking the system. The filter needs to be in place to prevent those who ARE milking it from getting money so the money can actually go to the people who are down on their luck or too old to work and make ends meet. We aren't disagreeing on the fact that the poor should have -some- sort of temporary safety net while they get back on their feet.

Key word: Temporary.

(And, to be honest, if I was homeless, I wouldn't even think of turning to a church for help -- one shouldn't have to. Churches are for religion, I shouldn't have to turn for one for anything.)

You have no idea how sad this statement makes me. Seriously. :/ We are -told- specifically in the bible to take care of the orphans and the widows. To help those sick or hungry or in prison. That's directly what we're supposed to do as TRUE religion, screw all the stupid doctrines, we're supposed to love and help people. (Voluntarily, not by being forced to through tax :P)

Quote: "They [Romney and his friends] came upon Lauber, tackled him and pinned him to the ground. As Lauber, his eyes filling with tears, screamed for help, Romney repeatedly clipped his hair with a pair of scissors."

Aside from the fact that not one of this kid's family members could corroborate this story, and some say he wasn't even openly gay at the time, we'll assume it's true: Have you seen the documentary '2016: Obama's America'? Or read 'Dreams From My Father'? If people never change from what they were and believe in when they were young, please hold both candidates accountable. Neither are spotless.

From:

firebyrd.livejournal.com

I just want to point out that your assumption seems to be that people are entitled to receive basic necessities from the government, whereas the fiscally conservative do not view that as a function of the government. That doesn't mean they want people to starve in the streets, it just means they don't think the government should be the one providing aid.

From:

Which sounds like a perfect way for people to not get help at all.

From:

Actually that's what non-profit organizations are supposed to be for. So people can willingly give of what they have to help people in need. People have shown repeatedly that they ARE willing to give, and have come through situations where needs were met with flying colors. Only government I would see in that is regulation of the non-profits to make sure they aren't keeping the money for themselves beyond basic function costs.

From:

Non-profit organizations. Like the Salvation Army and Goodwill? Who will only help people if they're straight and of SA/GW's chosen religion?

If all organizations were required to help all people, then that might be an option. But as it stands now? The government is the only way that there's a chance for everyone to get help. Even if it's someone you (generic you) don't like.

The government exists for a reason, and one of the biggest (if not the biggest) reason should be the wellbeing of its citizens. ALL of them, not just a hand-picked chosen few.

I boggle that this is even a point of debate. America is so far behind other first world countries when it comes to how it treats its citizens, and we're talking about making it worse?

From: