How do you get elected in a two horse race if you write off 47% of the electorate? Someone do the maths and tell me how much of the remaining 53% he has to get?

I thought I’d read a different ‘version’ of that speech that implied Mitt was talking about 47% of Obama voters so that equates to 25% of the electorate (assuming 50/50ish split between Obama and Romney.

You think the right wing are more empathetic than the left wing ?

I seem to recall something about people becoming more left wing on most issues when questioned specifically about those individual issues, but voting to the right when elections come round. I think the conclusion was the way electioneering tends to create fear as the greatest vote winner.

Politics.. Its all very confusing.

for example.. most of the hippy, right on surfer dude/dudets or supposed socialists I know follow the lefty line to the hilt. Yet in any one to one conversation, the vast majority offer opinions far more to the right than even me (and I’m pretty right wing). They show no empathy to anyone. The only exception being a couple of Christians (who the left bizarrely seem to despise).

On the other hand.. most of the people at my sailing club are Tories, yet they spend a great deal of time doing social deeds with the disabled/less well off (something the supposed lefties I know don’t appear do at all). For supposed selfish, greedy tories, they seem to show much greater empathy that the ‘caring’ left.

What it all means I have no idea..

Politics.. Its all very confusing.

Indeed, I’ve worked on elections and voting stations. A lot of the Labour supporters I’ve dealt with would have been kicked out of NF meetings for being too extreme. They just vote Labour because their fathers did, etc. etc.

breatheasy – like you, I thought/assumed that this was what he said (hence my edited post earlier!) as even by US political standards his actual words seemed too stupid to be true. Surely, he meant 47% of Obama’s supporters – but no!

The difference between political rhetoric and political/economic reality always amuses me especially in the UK eg, who are the parties who actually cut spending, who are the true Keynesians and/or monetarists, who does what with taxes etc.

But the UK’s confusion on these matters is nothing compared with the US. So last night Stephanie Flanders suggested that Obama was responsible for a Keynesian style response to the crisis. And this is a widely held view. But is it correct? Well not exactly, since most of the Keynesian policies (eg bailing our US autos etc) were pushed through by Bush. As in the UK, there is a striking sense of continuity in policy between parties whose rhetoric suggests major differences.

The irony is highlighted when someone like Paul Krugman writes, “In short, if you want to see government responding to economic hard times with the “tax and spend” policies conservatives always denounce, you should look to the Reagan era — not the Obama years….

…As many economists have pointed out, America is currently suffering from a classic case of debt deflation: all across the economy people are trying to pay down debt by slashing spending, but, in so doing, they are causing a depression that makes their debt problems even worse. This is exactly the situation in which government spending should temporarily rise to offset the slump in private spending and give the private sector time to repair its finances. Yet that’s not happening.

The point, then, is that we’d be in much better shape if we were following Reagan-style Keynesianism. Reagan may have preached small government, but in practice he presided over a lot of spending growth — and right now that’s exactly what America needs.”

Funny old world!

what it means elzorillo is you are a lazy troll who spends their time dengrating the labour party /lefties whilst presenting this preposeterous/fanciful view that the right wing are the real givers in our society

By all means be right wing, by all means hate lefties but at least presnet it as either just your opinion or with at least a semblance of it being based in reality

Every political post by you is just some rehashing of that view Tories lovely, lefties are lying hypocrits

Every political post by you is just some rehashing of that view Tories lovely, lefties are lying hypocrits

Exactly..

And now he’s had a bash at the Palestinians too…..

yet they spend a great deal of time doing social deeds with the disabled/less well off

why is there this assumption that the disabled somehow need ‘good deeds’ done for them by all and sundry.

Just ‘cos someone’s lost a leg or has cerebral palsy doesn’t mean they want well meaning rightwing bigots turning up and profering cups of tea at them so they can say ‘I did a good thing’ next time they’re at the yacht club.

What disabled people is not to have to fight the state for every £ that they need to live and not to have their benefits cut because they’ve finished chemo now and really ought to start looking for a job ‘dontchaknow’. It’s this sort of basic, state funded care that the same people who do ‘good deeds’ spend the rest of their lives voting and speaking out against. And yet ask them and they’d be saying ‘well I do my bit!’ and get all indignant.

*and breathe*

Some Tories empathising earlier….

Could you write us a list of the ‘deserving’ causes supported at the yacht club. We can probably fill the ‘undeserving’ ones in ourselves

The Tories want to return us to a victorian ethic, where the welfare state is replaced by charity. Charity at the behest of the rich, with their moral mores attached

*doffs cap*

getting back to the original point: Its always struck me that for Americans who aren’t in the top bracket of wage-earners, voting Republican is the absolute epitome of Turkeys voting for Christmas. What they think they, or anyone like them, will get out of the arrangement I have no idea

It gets better. BBC reporting on Twitter that a second video has come out, this time he is stating that Paletinians have ‘no interest in peace.’

this time he is stating that Paletinians have ‘no interest in peace.’

Who cares about the Palestinians? Not as if they can vote in the US elections.

breatheeasy – Member

Politics.. Its all very confusing.

Indeed, I’ve worked on elections and voting stations. A lot of the Labour supporters I’ve dealt with would have been kicked out of NF meetings for being too extreme. They just vote Labour because their fathers did, etc. etc.
Exactly. Or on religious/sectarian grounds in some areas.

Most people vote (if they bother…) for the same party every time, no matter what the parties say or do (How many people read manifestos?).

The floating voters in marginal constituencies are the people who decide the election. Occasionally there is a ‘big’ swing, but it is not often that it is big a swing in the number of votes.

It appears from the news coverage that the Republican party have become more extreme. I once heard the phrase “God, Guns & Gays” to describe the issues that divided the parties.
-I’m an atheist with no interest in carrying a hand-gun to the shops and have no problem with homosexuals.

If I was a US citizen there is no way I’d vote for the Republicans -as currently portrayed by the UK media.

One thing that amuses me:
In the USA, not believing in a traditional, Judeo-Christian interpretation of God would be an issue for a potential president. In the UK, believing in God (well, talking about it and about praying for guidance) is an issue for a potential leader.

I’m sorry if the judgements I make on people are based on fact rather than some clouded political position.

We were discussing politics and empathy.

Most of the tories I know do a great deal for charity, spending a substantian amount of their free time volunteering and appear to show great empathy.

All the lefties (excluding the couple with religeous conviction) I know, do nothing other than consistently look to blame others and demand something be done. Usually using someone elses time & money.

There’s a difference between helping people you know and care about, and can meet; and helping the nameless throng.

Left wing politics are about forced redistribution through taxation and government; the right wing may well be concerned with helping others but they want to do it through charity. This is high on everyone’s agenda regardless, when it’s someone you know.

Maybe it’s not about empathy, but about abstract empathy: the ability to put yourself in the position of someone you don’t actually know.

The biggest issue with charity as far as I can see is that it is capricious. For example, there are large charities operating to help dogs out of miserable lives, when there are human beings dealing with worse. The right wing agenda favours your personal choice, so you can choose to put all your money into helping dogs if you wish.

All the lefties (excluding the couple with religeous conviction) I know, do nothing other than consistently look to blame others

That seals it then. If only they could be helping disabled people go sailing, the whole world would be much better off wouldn’t it?

Well Binners, perhaps they understand the irony of US politics? * Which US governments tend to spend more and which tend to cut spending. Obama is cutting spending at a rate that hasn’t been seen since the end of the Korean war, state and local giv employees are being laid off, UN benefits have been reduced….And he’s a Democrat!!! And the last Republican administration did what for the US auto industry?

* not very likely mind as US Today/Fox news might struggle with this!

Who cares about the Palestinians?

Anyone who cares about peace inthe Middle East. 🙄

Unless of course if you being sarcastic. In which case 😀

thm – isn’t a lot of the monumentally sized US deficit the result of Bush giving mahoooosive tax cuts to the top 10%, that were wantonly unfunded?

Then doing what most republicans surely ideologically regard as heresy, and spending squillions bailing out private enterprise. That, surely more than Healthcare, is the epitome of the Socialism that they regard as the greatest threat to American society?

Jamie – Member

Who cares about the Palestinians?

American jews?

Binners – there are so many contradictions in US economics and politics that I get lost TBH. It’s bad enough trying to follow the UK and we live here. The impact of tax cuts in the US is a topic of much heated discussion and we know where those lead to on STW, so best avoided!!! 😉

Edit: but the deficit under Bush was volatile and resulted from (among other things I am sure!) tax cuts AND and increase in government spending that was double that of Obama – hence the irony. On top of this, the economy went into decline – so try and work out true cause and effect among that lot and the next Noble prize is yours.

Did he not recently state that the average salary for an American is IRO $200,000 😀

I’m sorry if the judgements I make on people are based on fact rather than some clouded political position.

I am not sure i made myself clear so let me try.

It is a ridicuolous charade to suggest that all right wing folk are givers who spend a tireless amount of time doing charity and helping the needy. to susggest this whilst also suggesting that all left wingers [except the christian devout]are self serving vultures who think only of themselves.
Now this indeed may be your experience but that but ionly if you live in cloud cuckoo land 😉

Nice post molly

for Americans British who aren’t in the top bracket of wage-earners, voting Republican Tory is the absolute epitome of Turkeys voting for Christmas. What they think they, or anyone like them, will get out of the arrangement I have no idea

Most of the tories I know do a great deal for charity, spending a substantian amount of their free time volunteering and appear to show great empathy.

I suspect there is no correlation between empathy and charity v.s. conservatism and wealth. I suspect what you are seeing is Philanthropy (conscientious wealth). I’m not knocking it as there are plenty of selfish wealth.

There was a political debate earlier this year, about tax-exemption for philanthropy which highlighted this.

Emotions in mammals are fuelled by the brain’s evolutionarily ancient “appetitive” (desire for food and attachment) and “aversive” (defensive) systems. The appetitive system promotes social cohesion whereas aversive mechanisms drive autonomous survival. These mechanisms can be categorised as approach or avoidant responses: we approach what gives us pleasure (such as food or social contact) and we avoid things we know will harm us (such as faeces or predators).

We are all found somewhere on the approach-avoidant spectrum. Highly social people enjoy novel experiences and meeting strangers and will have a higher than average approach score, whereas others may feel aggression, suspicion and anxiety when confronted with surprises and strangers.

The new research suggests that these physiological and cognitive variations are likely to correlate with political preference. The study found that people at the appetitive end of the spectrum are more likely to vote for left-wing parties and want money spent on free public art events, whereas those at the aversive end of the spectrum are more likely to vote conservative and want tighter border controls.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/blog/2012/jan/31/socialists-conservatives-born-not-made

Most of the tories I know do a great deal for charity, spending a substantian amount of their free time volunteering and appear to show great empathy.

All the lefties (excluding the couple with religeous conviction) I know, do nothing other than consistently look to blame others and demand something be done. Usually using someone elses time & money.

I really shouldn’t even bother replying to this, but it’s just such utter, utter rubbish. ‘Most of the lefties’ I know work in relatively badly paid jobs as carers, in youth work, charity work etc – most of them could have done something much more financially rewarding but chose not to as they wanted to help society (or do things that they found more personally rewarding, if you really want to look at it more cynically).

Doing the odd charity skydive for Help for Heroes isn’t really the same as committing your life to making society a better place.

By the way I’m not suggesting all Tories are bastards by any means – but it is fundamentally a less empathetic outlook. I really don’t see how you can argue otherwise, and I have more respect for people who can be honest about that.

Eg ‘I only really care about my family and friends and don’t have much time/energy to care too much about wider society’. I have friends that think like that and I don’t agree but I respect their viewpoint. This bollocks about ‘oh we’re so caring, but really the best way to help these awful scummy people is to take away their benefits’ is disingenuous nonsense and it really winds me up.

Who cares about the Palestinians? Not as if they can vote in the US elections.

Well there are 1.5M Arabs and close to 3M muslims (from the 2010 census) in the US. It might only be, say 1% of the US population (if you assume a majority of the arabs will also be muslims) but if you mobilise them effectively, it could tip a swing state.

Yes, but those 3M Muslims won’t be bankrolling your election campaign, so they might as well be martians. The Jewish lobby on the other hand….

Did he not recently state that the average salary for an American is IRO $200,000

Yeah I think he was asked what constituted ‘middle income’ and he said those earning $200-250,000 a year and under.

Earning $180,000 a year puts you in the top 5% of earners in America – Willard really has no clue whatsoever about life for ordinary people.

The majority of politicians left or right have NO idea about the life of ordinary people.

thankfully we have you to put them straight eh
I mean who does not go sailing and then do some charity work for the needy/disabled of an evening 😉

Something I gave up on long ago was trying to persuade the left that it was possible to be of the right for exactly the same reason that many people identify as socialists. Lots of people think that free markets are good for everyone, starting with Adam Smith.

Yes trickle down economics and lower taxes for the rich is not about maximising your personal wealth but it is just the best way to help the poor rather than themselves.
I cannot believe you failed to persuade people of this argument it seems so robust.

Bit long Sorry

The Great Money Trick (Robert Tressell, ‘The Ragged Trousered Philanthropists’)
2007-07-11
‘Money is the cause of poverty because it is the device by which those who are too lazy to work are enabled to rob the workers of the fruits of their labour.’

‘Prove it,’ said Crass.

Owen slowly folded up the piece of newspaper he had been reading and put it into his pocket.

‘All right,’ he replied. ‘I’ll show you how the Great Money Trick is worked.’

Owen opened his dinner basket and took from it two slices of bread but as these were not sufficient, he requested that anyone who had some bread left would give it to him. They gave him several pieces, which he placed in a heap on a clean piece of paper, and, having borrowed the pocket knives they used to cut and eat their dinners with from Easton, Harlow and Philpot, he addressed them as follows:

‘These pieces of bread represent the raw materials which exist naturally in and on the earth for the use of mankind; they were not made by any human being, but were created by the Great Spirit for the benefit and sustenance of all, the same as were the air and the light of the sun.’

… ‘Now,’ continued Owen, ‘I am a capitalist; or, rather, I represent the landlord and capitalist class. That is to say, all these raw materials belong to me. It does not matter for our present argument how I obtained possession of them, or whether I have any real right to them; the only thing that matters now is the admitted fact that all the raw materials which are necessary for the production of the necessaries of life are now the property of the Landlord and Capitalist class. I am that class: all these raw materials belong to me.’

… ‘Now you three represent the Working Class: you have nothing – and for my part, although I have all these raw materials, they are of no use to me – what I need is – the things that can be made out of these raw materials by Work: but as I am too lazy to work myself, I have invented the Money Trick to make you work for me. But first I must explain that I possess something else beside the raw materials. These three knives represent – all the machinery of production; the factories, tools, railways, and so forth, without which the necessaries of life cannot be produced in abundance. And these three coins’ – taking three halfpennies from his pocket – ‘represent my Money Capital.’

‘But before we go any further,’ said Owen, interrupting himself, ‘it is most important that you remember that I am not supposed to be merely “a” capitalist. I represent the whole Capitalist Class. You are not supposed to be just three workers – you represent the whole Working Class.’

… Owen proceeded to cut up one of the slices of bread into a number of little square blocks.

‘These represent the things which are produced by labour, aided by machinery, from the raw materials. We will suppose that three of these blocks represent – a week’s work. We will suppose that a week’s work is worth – one pound: and we will suppose that each of these ha’pennies is a sovereign. …

‘Now this is the way the trick works -’

… Owen now addressed himself to the working classes as represented by Philpot, Harlow and Easton.

‘You say that you are all in need of employment, and as I am the kind-hearted capitalist class I am going to invest all my money in various industries, so as to give you Plenty of Work. I shall pay each of you one pound per week, and a week’s work is – you must each produce three of these square blocks. For doing this work you will each receive your wages; the money will be your own, to do as you like with, and the things you produce will of course be mine, to do as I like with. You will each take one of these machines and as soon as you have done a week’s work, you shall have your money.’

The Working Classes accordingly set to work, and the Capitalist class sat down and watched them. As soon as they had finished, they passed the nine little blocks to Owen, who placed them on a piece of paper by his side and paid the workers their wages.

‘These blocks represent the necessaries of life. You can’t live without some of these things, but as they belong to me, you will have to buy them from me: my price for these blocks is – one pound each.’

As the working classes were in need of the necessaries of life and as they could not eat, drink or wear the useless money, they were compelled to agree to the kind Capitalist’s terms. They each bought back and at once consumed one-third of the produce of their labour. The capitalist class also devoured two of the square blocks, and so the net result of the week’s work was that the kind capitalist had consumed two pounds worth of the things produced by the labour of the others, and reckoning the squares at their market value of one pound each, he had more than doubled his capital, for he still possessed the three pounds in money and in addition four pounds worth of goods. As for the working classes, Philpot, Harlow and Easton, having each consumed the pound’s worth of necessaries they had bought with their wages, they were again in precisely the same condition as when they started work – they had nothing.

This process was repeated several times: for each week’s work the producers were paid their wages. They kept on working and spending all their earnings. The kind-hearted capitalist consumed twice as much as any one of them and his pile of wealth continually increased. In a little while – reckoning the little squares at their market value of one pound each – he was worth about one hundred pounds, and the working classes were still in the same condition as when they began, and were still tearing into their work as if their lives depended upon it.

After a while the rest of the crowd began to laugh, and their merriment increased when the kind-hearted capitalist, just after having sold a pound’s worth of necessaries to each of his workers, suddenly took their tools – the Machinery of Production – the knives away from them, and informed them that as owing to Over Production all his store-houses were glutted with the necessaries of life, he had decided to close down the works.

‘Well, and what the bloody ‘ell are we to do now?’ demanded Philpot.

‘That’s not my business,’ replied the kind-hearted capitalist. ‘I’ve paid you your wages, and provided you with Plenty of Work for a long time past. I have no more work for you to do at present. Come round again in a few months’ time and I’ll see what I can do for you.’

‘But what about the necessaries of life?’ demanded Harlow. ‘We must have something to eat.’

‘Of course you must,’ replied the capitalist, affably; ‘and I shall be very pleased to sell you some.’

‘But we ain’t got no bloody money!’

‘Well, you can’t expect me to give you my goods for nothing! You didn’t work for me for nothing, you know. I paid you for your work and you should have saved something: you should have been thrifty like me. Look how I have got on by being thrifty!’

The unemployed looked blankly at each other, but the rest of the crowd only laughed; and then the three unemployed began to abuse the kind-hearted Capitalist, demanding that he should give them some of the necessaries of life that he had piled up in his warehouses, or to be allowed to work and produce some more for their own needs; and even threatened to take some of the things by force if he did not comply with their demands. But the kind-hearted Capitalist told them not to be insolent, and spoke to them about honesty, and said if they were not careful he would have their faces battered in for them by the police, or if necessary he would call out the military and have them shot down like dogs, the same as he had done before at Featherstone and Belfast.

[Robert Tressell, ‘The Ragged Trousered Philanthropists’]

Lots of people think that free markets are good for everyone, starting with Adam Smith.

Oh dear.

Something I gave up on long ago was trying to persuade the left that it was possible to be of the right for exactly the same reason that many people identify as socialists.

I’m sure it’s possible – not very common though.

Lots of people think that free markets are good for everyone, starting with Adam Smith.

I guess it depends how you define ‘good for everyone’ but 😕

who does not go sailing and then do some charity work for the needy/disabled of an evening

Not me fella.. my sailing is usually followed by copious amounts of alcohol. What do you do exactly besides insult everyone online who doesnt fit into your highly blinkered view of politics?

What do you do exactly besides insult everyone online who doesnt fit into your highly blinkered view of politics?

You really think you can start calling other people out on having a blinkered view of politics? 😆

Ahaa another leftie clone I assume? This board certainly is infested with them. Thank god real life isnt so.

Indeed, to have a political view is to be somewhat blinkered, but there are none with their eyes and ears so firmly shut tight as those that lean to the left..

Are the good old RTP!! This is not the first time you have used this, is it JY? So it’s relevance today? Is it like Dickens and a well written and classic portrait of past conditions or is it a manual for tackling the evils of society today?

So Frank Owen’s core message is the system doesn’t work but collective action and unions are pointless to address this. So how do we reach the “co-operative commonwealth” then? If RTP is true, there is no strategy to achieve this apart from handing over to middle-class socialists like Barrington (foreshadowing – the initial seems appropriate?) whose big idea is that the state is neutral. Hmmmm…..!!

So I wonder if Tressell had lived in a purely command economy, would he have been able to replace the kind-hearted capitalist with kind hearted statist with the same conclusions (individual workers are powerless against bosses) or would he be in utopia? Just an idea?

Interesting that neither Marx nor Keynes share the view that money was/ is the cause of poverty. I wonder if Stephanie Flanders will continue this message when she gets to Marx in two weeks time (BBC2)

What do you do exactly besides insult everyone online who doesnt fit into your highly blinkered view of politics?

but there are none with their eyes and ears so firmly shut tight as those that lean to the left..

Aspire to be as open minded as you mainly

breatheeasy – Member
Indeed, I’ve worked on elections and voting stations. A lot of the Labour supporters I’ve dealt with would have been kicked out of NF meetings for being too extreme. They just vote Labour because their fathers did, etc. etc.

Much of the BNP’s vote comes from former Labour voters who think that said party aren’t doing enough for whites. The BNP play a similar (though electorally less damaging) role in relation to Labour that UKIP does to the Conservatives, that is to say tempting away former stalwarts who believe that their views are no longer represented.

Amazing.
On a thread entitled “Mitt Romney you utter plank”, STW can still find an argument. 🙂
This thread should have just read
+1
+1
+1
+1
+1
+1
…
etc.