Romney's 47% comment, why the big deal?

Great Debates
101

My point was never a suggestion that Romney evaded serving in combat when he was draft age during the Vietnam era by ‘questionable means’. So can we get over rehashing something I did not say or insert some kind of hint about it.

You say, “it seems” that the term ‘war avoider’ is indistinguisable from ‘draft dodger’. Lets take your “it seems” to mean what “it seems” means. There is a huge difference and I request my use of ‘war avoider’ as author be respected.

I did not say Romney did some ‘shady things’ to stay out of the war. I said he ‘chose’ to stay out of the war that he supported the US Government waging, and he publicly favored ‘drafting others’ who could not get deferments the way the he legally could and it was the norm of the time for those who were able to do it.
If you stick to what I actually said, it appears that you agree with me about Romney.

Don’t blame me if some have incorrectly ‘accused’ those four of dodging the draft. They are wrong.

None of them dodged the draft that I know of.

But the four you cite brings us to my point about Romney. Bill Clinton did avoid serving in Vietnam, legally and of his own choosing. That is exactly the same as Romney and Dick Cheney. Bush is something different entirely. Many think he avoided war by joining the Air National Guard in Texas. The aircraft he learned to fly was not likely to be used in Vietnam.

But lets look at ‘war avoiders’ Clinton, Cheney and Limbaugh and Romney. What is different about Clinton? He publically spoke out in opposition to the war. Don’t know what Limbaugh said at the time, but Cheney was a pro-war/war avoider just like Mitt Romney. On Vietnam I see no difference between Dick Cheney and Mitt Romney.

102

Oh, FFS! Are we going to waste this whole thread on semantics? “War avoider” and “draft dodger” are much the same damn thing.

To be technical I was a war avoider because the draft had ended before I turned 19, plus that 273 thing, but I still neglected to RSVP when Uncle Sam invited me to join the festivities. Were I a year older with a lower number I would’ve done all that I could to dodge the draft, or if drafted find me a cushy berth in the Quartermaster Corps. I get it: I’m an unpatriotic scumbag who let other guys fight that war for me. I accepted that forty years ago. Romney was one, too, by taking every action he could to not be drafted, but his greater sins were that he worked against guys like him and me, and that he is too clueless to understand it.

But could we get past the stupid draft dodger thing?

103

I posted my original references to Mitt Romney the Vietnam War avoider above so we can compare to what tomndebb thinks he read:

You are correct I have much contempt for Mitt Romney. And for more than his protest in favor of the US Government drafting ‘other’ young men to fight in the Vietnam War when he did not want to himself by his obvious choice to take four deferments to stay out.

I have contempt for what he said about religion. I am not religious. I belong to no religious organization. But Romney said in his first go at becoming president that freedom cannot endure without religion. Freedom will perish without religion.

So where did I condemn Romney’s motivations during the Vietnam war?

Was it his line? “They apparently find it more important to serve the Mormon Church as Romney did during Vietnam.”

Bringing up a what is an obvious on the record fact is not condemning it. That’s fine that Romney chose to serve his church. But serve his church he should say is what he did. And I did not condemn Romney for this ‘motivation’ and choice during the Vietnam war. I condemn his standing up for the government and the University Administration when other students, some likely having deferments just like Romney. but were protesting the draft that they themselves were able to avoid - all legally by the way.

Is this what you think was condemning Romney’s motivations during the Vietnam war?

“Romney went to France to try to convince the French not to drink.”

Give me a break if you think that was condemning decision to do a Mormon Mission in France. Romney did spend his Mormon Missionary service in France. I don’t know many French were looking to convert to Mormonism. But who cares. That was a joke.

Or is this what you think was condemning Romney’s motivations during the Vietnam war to avoide it.

“He was all for drafting those that could not afford college, but of course he was not man enough to enlist, in fact he sought every way to avoid serving available at the time.”
I base that upon his appearance to protest the draft protesters. That is a documented fact. That appearance demonstrated his public agreement with the ‘establishment’ and opposition to the anti-war movement. Perhaps he just went to impress one of the nice looking girls that were there too, but it satisfies me, to what his opinion on the anti-draft/ anti-war movement was at that point in his life.

IF you have anything showing sympathy for the anti-draft/anti-war movement from that era or since, let me know. I would love to see it.

104

NFBW: A word to the wise… when everyone repeatedly “misunderstands” your posts, it’s probably your posts that are misleading rather than everyone else having a reading problem.

105

Nah. You made a claim that was not supported by anything you posted.
Marley pointed out that you had drawn unsupported conclusions.
You spent an inordinate number of electrons waving your figurative arms and failing to support your conclusion.
I pointed out the errors in your claims.
You went back to figuratively waving your arms and posting lengthy diatribes that failed to support your position.

You enjoy posting, interminably, to fail to support points that you feel need to be made.
I don’t.
This exchange is through.

106

That could be so, except that here the record shows that several parties are more interested in dissing me personally that in having a discussion. Just you have done on the V word thread. You revised the point of General Allen to mean victory only comes at the end of conventional warfare where the losing side formally surrenders and fighting stops.

General Allen and I are talking about defining victory in a counter-insurgency.

Here, i did not bring up the term draft dodger that was Marley. But since Marley had confessed to never having heard the phrase ‘war avoider’ so it was looked up and found to exist.

TomandDeb wants to keep the different phrases to be indistiguishable fom each other.That is not clarity in debate, that is nonsense.

Yet you continue to try and blame me for any confusion.

107

I understand him fine.

108

Please inform how it is ‘hilariously wrong’?

As I see things, if the number keeps growing then those people get to set policy and we keep spending money we don’t have (it’s already happening today but it will worsen)

109

Because “pay no net taxes” is different from “pay no net Federal Income Taxes” (FIT).

As stated, many times, there is quite a difference. If I were unemployed, not earning any benefits, I may not pay FIT but I still have to pay sales taxes, property taxes (if I rent, the rent just covers my share - I still pay, but the amount is hidden), vehicle registration taxes, etc. If I’m employed I still have to pay FICA, unemployment insurance (debatable as to whether this is a tax, but wanted to throw it in), and other taxes that may be applied by my state. In addition, I still have FIT deducted from my paycheck even if I get it all back on April 15th because of refunds, and the loss of capital is, in itself, a tax in that I lose more productive (for myself) uses of that money.

110

I beleve you get better than some around here what I was driving at about Mitt Romney. I too turned 18 at the peak of the fighting in Vietnam, however at sixteen years old and after, I spent many hours reading everything I could find about Vietnam, and why we were fighting a war there. I learned, much but one was that the government with which we were aligned was led by Catholics in a predominantly Buddhist country.

That and many other things caused me as a young kid to question the war on it’s merits or lack thereof. I forced a few of my high school teachers into impromptu debates, in which my attacks on the established view was not at all appreciated. They had a commie sympathizer in their school and were hearing none of it.

On that basis, however, I consider no one to be unpatriotic for neutrality on the war, or for opposing the war, or for fighting in the war whether drafted or whether enlisted.

The US military did not need that every fit male of military age be sent to Vietnam. So there should have been a way that the quota could be filled that was fair to all, and not based upon whether one was rich or poor or in between or smart or dumb.

From 1965 to 1969 there was a repugnant, unfair system in place that the military used to determine which American males would be selected to be used in the Army mostly as what were called grunts, many of which ended up in Vietnam.

There is nothing unpatriotic about opposing that assinine process in way that men were drafted. There was nothing unpatriotic about complying with that process and going to war if called to service.

But it was un-American to me to support and defend that unfair process.

The government’s standing enactment to have attending college as one justification for being excused from serving in the government’s war was an egregious endorsement of selecting recruits based upon the economic condition they find themselves in at 18 years of age, when life begins in earnest to make one’s way in the world.

I opposed that method of drafting young men as vehemently as I opposed the war itself.

That is why Romney’s actions to protest in favor of that draft method that was biased against the families of the working poor, is so important.
Romney never grew out of his draft age privileged class world view.

And the proof that he never grew up, was his 47% comment that is the topic if this thread.

I think my addition to the conversation of Romney’s draft age attitude is appropriate.

Those who attack me personally for things I did not say, should look within themselves to figure out what is going on.

111

JohnT covered it very nicely.

Indeed, we wouldn’t want “those people” to set policy. Sure, they’re half of the population of the country, but they shouldn’t have a say in policy. Since the tax policy of the nation, from Local to Federal, is setup so that they pay more in one jurisdiction and pay less in another jurisdiction, we’ll use the “pay less” angle to discredit their economic contribution to the funding of the country’s operation.

We definitely need the Republicans to keep us from spending money we don’t have, we all know that Republican administrations are the only ones that reduced our deficit during their terms. Well, except for the past 3 Republican administrations they’re total outliers and don’t reflect true Republican fiscal policy.

112

There is some non zero number of the people you keep trying to hammer into paying more taxes that will either:

  1. Find more loopholes to ensure they don’t get the hits you propose on them
  2. Leave the country
    Either ones leaves you with progressively less money to tax away, especially as that 47% number goes up…You can paint me as a realist, not an idealist.

I do find it funny that your response was basically, “well the Republicans did it too”

113

True, but that correction doesn’t really affect his point.

No argument.

Yes, I do believe that everyone should have skin in the game. As I said above, it would be a disaster if a majority of the country get to decide what we do with the funds contributed by a minority. I believe we need to raise the federal taxes on everyone, and that state taxes should be less regressive (the chart in the article you linked makes a good point.) But that is an issue for those states and localities.

If you read that into my reply, you’re inventing from whole cloth. Please pay attention to what I say and avoid making up stuff about what I think.

Is anyone arguing what you’re lampooning here? I certainly am not. Only a fool would think that this is the only alternative to the point of view that well over half the public should pay Federal taxes.

(Just FYI, I’ve voted for a few more R’s than D’s in my life, but latetly the R’s have alienated me. I voted for Obama. I didn’t vote for Clinton, but as a fiscal conservative, I thought he was a far, far better president than GWB.)

BTW, I’m curious what proportion of the population pays federal taxes, if we include payroll taxes. My understanding is that the 47% doesn’t include this. Yet those payroll taxes are effectively contributed by the worker, just paid by the employer. Also, as we fiscal conservatives love to point out, corporate taxes are paid by the consumers, so it would be interesting to see an estimate of taxes paid based on corporate taxes due to individual consumption. Add these effects, and I bet the 47% figure is reduced significantly.

But I still worry that people vote for how to allocate funds that they feel they’re not paying (even if they are in fact paying them). For example, people might think they’d benefit by increasing corporate taxes, as though that wouldn’t affect their bottom line.

In any case, I think 47% directly paying no federal taxes is too large a number, and I’m even more concerned if it grows. That doesn’t mean that I believe in “one dollar, one vote”, or even “one taxpayer, one vote.” It means that I think more people should pay federal taxes.

114

And what a dreadful loss that would be.

115

Maybe not the actual people but it would be a mortal wound to continue to lose their dollars.

116

The Republicans didn’t do it “too”.

Ronald Reagan began his presidency in 1981, the deficit that year (setup during the Carter admin.) was $79B. He left GHW Bush with a deficit in 1990, $221B

GHW Bush started with $221B Left Clinton with a deficit in 1993 of $255B (BTW, this is the closest thing to fiscal responsibility in the Rep. camp)

Clinton started with a deficit of $255B and left GW Bush with a SURPLUS of $127B in 2001

GWB started with a SURPLUS of $127B and left Obama with a deficit of $1,413B in 2009.

Obama started with a deficit of $1,413B in 2009 and has so far reduced it to $900B

The only post-war Republican president to generate a surplus and/or not significantly jack up the deficit was fucking Eisenhower, and his tax rates would give Boehner a heart attack. The only post-war Democrat that jacked up the deficit over his administration was Carter, he added about $25B over 4 years, about half of what Reagan added in his very first year. Yet we still perpetuate this fiction that Republicans are serious about deficit reduction.

117

Why do you keep knocking that strawman down? Not a single person has proposed Republican anything yet you keep hammering on it and have yet to refute anything.
Do you have a point you’d like to make?

118

That’s less a sin than to tax poor people for piddly amounts of money you can easily do without. Especially when those piddly amounts mean the difference between house and homelessness, death and life.

You keep advocating to make sure those who have money stay in power, rather than to try and reduce their power. Sure, a billionaire might leave. But then they’d go to a country where they’d make less money because the people are poorer, or to a country with higher taxes. It is against their own best interest to fight this sort of thing. It’s all an empty threat. And us not calling them on those threats is how they remain in power.

You’re not a realist. A realist would not like the situation but say that there’s nothing we can do. You aren’t doing that. You are actively championing change that would hurt more people. You are inventing reasons so you can avoid dealing with the pesky morality of the effects of your change. You want to believe really badly that we would lose these people, so you can justify taxing poor people.

Because the way our taxes are set up, that’s who the 47% are (other than the military people). People too poor to owe taxes.

119

What makes you think their money would go anywhere it hasn’t already gone? If their money had a warmer, more nurturing home in Latvia, it would already be there. If investing in Uruguay was more profitable and equally safe, hasta la vista, dinero!

And if their money means more to them than their country, well, OK, here’s your hat, there’s the door, oodles of toodles.

120

[QUOTE=Kearsen]
2. Leave the country
[/QUOTE]
And when their kids are kidnapped and killed or their bank account is suddenly seized (or “trimmed” by 10%), maybe they’ll understand what they left behind.

Except that they won’t actually leave because they get all this. They’ll just move their money (to the extent that they haven’t already). Fortunately, we, as a country, finally seem to be leaning toward “fuck that” and taxing that shit. I give it 5-10 years.