Plan B Forum

In a less-examined portion of the recently revealed remarks Mitt Romney made during a private fundraiser in May, the presidential candidate told donors that "95 percent of life is set up for you if you're born in this country."

Romney told the donors there are people who say to him, "'Oh, you were born with a silver spoon,' you know, 'You never had to earn anything,' and so forth. And, and frankly, I was born with a silver spoon, which is the greatest gift you could have, which is to get born in America. I'll tell ya, there is -- 95 percent of life is set up for you if you're born in this country."

Romney delivered his comments in the context of a story he told about observing miserable labor conditions in a Chinese factory he had visited. (Watch the remarks above, clipped from the full video courtesy of Mother Jones.)

If 95 percent of life is set up in this country, however, it certainly doesn't reach 95 percent of the people. The U.S. poverty rate has hovered at or near 15 percent for the past few years. Moreover, the same 15 percent of the population is not constantly poor. In fact, recent research suggests that only 15 percent of Americans will not experience some type of economic insecurity in their lives.

Fully 85 percent of Americans by age 60 will have experienced unemployment, sharply lower income, poverty or the use of welfare for at least a year of their adult lives, according to a 2012 longitudinal analysis by Mark R. Rank, the Herbert S. Hadley professor of social welfare at Washington University in St. Louis. For black people born in America, life is even less set up. Whites by age 60 were 43 percent less likely than blacks to have been poor and 42 percent more likely to have experienced affluence, according to Rank.

Rank examined social mobility in the U.S. and the likelihood that Americans would face economic fortune or misfortune. His research shows that a large percentage of Americans are poor at some point in their lives and that safety net programs don't eliminate the sting.

......

If Romney believes, as he said, that "95 percent of life is set up for you if you're born in this country," then people who fail to become successful have only themselves to blame, which helps explain why Romney feels he'll never be able to redeem such people. He said in February that he is "not concerned about the very poor" because the government's social programs take care of them.

Full article here:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/2 ... lp00000009

This man continues to demonstrate to the nation just how disconnected from reality he is (we already know this is Massachusetts, the President has a double digit lead here). This disconnect just underscores why he has no plan for the country. In his privileged view of the world, no one needs anything, and the Imperial office to which the Mittster is entitled, is just another in a long line of entitlements he expects.

Gag me with my silver-plated spoon.

Number of the poor dears (ag shame!) who would willing give up the 95% nation and go live the way poor dears do in (say) Rwanda or Indonesia or Peru or just down the road from me in JB Mfora?

zero (approximately)

What's wrong with Romney saying what is true - that to be born in the USA is a tremendous advantage compared to being born in so many other places? Probably 99% of US citizens are better off than the real poor of the world. Opportunities exist in the USA to improve one's life that are much more difficult to find in many other places.

And I guess I'm lucky to be one of the 15% (sounds like a bogus number) who have not "experienced unemployment, sharply lower income, poverty or the use of welfare for at least a year of their adult lives"? Unless of course one counts retirement which certainly does sharply lower income - and if that category was included then the statistic is even more bogus.

Tcha
Meade

Meade, I don't disagree with you that being born in the US compared to many other places is a wonderful advantage -- but that isn't what Romney said, so please don't try to hide the ball. His statement ignores the far too many Americans who are living in poverty, the people who have few if any opportunities and who are caught in the cycle of poverty because ignoramuses like Willard Mittens don't give a flying fuck about them. It also ignores those for whom circumstances have become difficult, sometimes through no fault of their own -- for example, but father intended to work until 70 or more, but was let go from his consulting gig in his late 60s during a downsizing, and 7 years later, no job (and now, because of his dementia, no one would hire him if he weren't in his 70s). No that's not everyone. But yes, it is, sadly, a broad swath of Americans and they deserve to be considered too.

Shame on you for clicking your tongue at me.

What Romney said was stupid and indefensible, and after two days of inexplicably trying to defend it, mercifully he stopped and finally yesterday gave the sort of speech he should have given three months ago...

I think John McCormack of The Weekly Standard had it exactly right in explaining the how and why of Romney's comments at that dinner:

The reason such remarks keep slipping out of Mitt Romney's mouth is not that Romney wants to wage a class war against lower-income Americans. The likely problem is that Mitt Romney is not a conservative--or at least wasn't a conservative until late in life--but he is running for president as the nominee of the conservative party on a conservative platform. So he has trouble defending conservative ideas. And when he sells himself to conservatives, he sometimes comes across as a right-wing caricature.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-hab ... 35970.html

In the speech he gave yesterday, for the first time, I saw something almost approximating passion in Romney...

And he wasn't trying to be Rush Limbaugh's boy toy....

If he can keep that up, he might be able to get back in this....

I got layed off during a downsizing at age 50. I went on unemployment and found new jobs. Sure I screwed up (being an alcoholic and all) but I have righted myself and now have a new job and thank the gov for tiding me over. But after 30+ years in the workforce paying (more than?) my share of county/state/federal taxes I think I deserved that hand up. And I don't think that Romney would deny me my hand up.

I worked in Bedford Stuyvesant where there was much poverty and I do have to say, while there were some hard workers who deserved more than they made/got (and I was successful in getting a couple of the guys raises from the boss who was the father of a friend of mine), the majority of the people I met were looking for more hand outs than hand ups.

I read/heard somewhere that 40% of whites and over 50% of blacks do not have a high school diploma. That is just unreal. If you allow yourself not to take advantage of free schooling til you graduate high school, how can you then complain that nobody will give you a chance? What chance would you like? You are not going to become an engineer a laywer even a ditch digger (not that there is anything worng with being a ditch digger). Employers are going to take one look and see you don't have the basic education needed to do just about anything and also don't have the responsibility.

I meet many of these "kids" in the basements of churches and once they are sober, they see that completing, at least high school, can lead to a better life (along with remaining sober). My group has started an alliance with people who offer (for free) classes to get these people their GED. The money comes form some gov program (don't know which level) but had these people stayed in school and at least given it half an effort they would have graduated. Now, we the rest of the citizens, get to pay for them trying to get their HS diploma again as we already paid once the first time they went through it. And we wonder why all levels of the gov have no money?!?!?

Lord Jim wrote:
In the speech he gave yesterday, for the first time, I saw something almost approximating passion in Romney...

I suppose in your political opinion 'approximating passion' trumps solar panels & windmills.

If only Romney had been president for the last four years. There would be no war going on or bad economy and nobody would need to receive government assistance.

And 95% of babies would have been given a gift of a silver spoon at birth.

I suppose in your political opinion 'approximating passion' trumps solar panels & windmills.

Be fair Joe...

windturbines...

I suppose in your political opinion 'approximating passion' trumps solar panels & windmills.

Well, it's a start....

As I've said before, from my point of view, it's not a really high bar....

it would be really nice to see the Governor meet that really low bar...

I think I've made pretty clear that my enthusiasm level for this election is about at the same level of enthusiasm I would have for having a root canal and a colostomy....

Simultaneously....

While having Leonard Cohen's Suzanne blasted into my head with a set of head phones, and being made to watch a three day cricket match while being force fed marmite....

In other words, if there is a Hell....

I expect it will be a lot like that....


(Edited to put in a less depressed emoticon)

As gaffes go--hell, as Romney's gaffes go*--this is not much of one, and I'm inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt and accept what he meant to say about the advantage of being born in the U.S.



*"Poor George Mitt, he can't help it. He was born with a silver foot in his mouth."

Romney's paid $1.94 million 2011 taxes

Romney is the common man. He was able to pay so much taxes because he was fortunate to be born in the U.S.A. He wants us all to know that anybody can have what he has if they're born here.

He's got that old 'approximated passion' going for him that allows him to convince the American people that he really cares about the little people.

Y'know the liberal media and Team Obama are trying portray the video from that fundraising dinner as some sort of "window into the Real Romney"....

I don't think that's fair or accurate....

I think what was going on there is pretty much as McCormack described it...

It was an example of Romney doing in private what he frequently does in public....

Trying to ingratiate himself to his audience by telling them what he thinks they want to hear....

That may be situationally effective, but when you're running for President, it's a poor substitute for leadership....

The time has come, (in fact it's way past time) for Romney to stop dancing to the music of others, and start calling the tune himself....

If he has it in him to do so....

This thing isn't over....

He's down about five points across the board, both nationally and in the swing states, based on two really horrendous weeks...

But there's still almost a month and a half left in this campaign, and three debates coming, and the incumbent is profoundly vulnerable based on the performance of the economy...

I share the consternation and frustration of "establishment" Republicans that I generally agree with and respect, (like George F. Will and Peggy Noonan, and Bill Kristol) who are basically aghast at the fact that we have a nominee, who seems at the moment at least to be fading when all the objective conditions should indicate that even a mediocre nominee would be comfortably ahead....

I've said it before and I'll say it again...even with the handicap of being W's brother, if Jeb Bush were the nominee, he'd probably be headed to a 350 electoral vote victory....

But hell, we don't even need Jeb to win this...

Even a non-entity like Tim Pawlenty would be performing better than Romney....

But at this point we can't wave a magic wand and replace Mitt with Jeb, or even Tim....

We are where we are, and we're just going to have to make the best of it....

But, it ain't over till it's over, and the votes that are now in the polling giving Obama the edge in the swing states are still soft, and Romney still has chance to pull them back...

But the hour is getting late, and it's time for the Mittster to man-up and show some testicular fortitude, and stop trying to be all things to all people, and demonstrate the leadership that shows that he can be the one in charge, rather than a marshmallow pulled in a hundred different directions....

He is the nominee of one of the two great major parties in this country for President Of The United States...That makes him the party's leader....

It's time for him to start acting like it....

If he has it in him.....

I think that you have inadvertently nailed it, Lord Jim: "Trying to ingratiate himself to his audience by telling them what he thinks they want to hear" is "the Real Romney."

Anyone who doesn't think they are at some kind of an advantage being born in the USA is free to go live elsewhere. just remember to leave here any money made here

I get tired of people kicking this country in it's ass. I know we need it sometimes, but come on! Millions of people are trying to legally immigrate here, tens (hundreds) of thousands brave misery and worse to come here illegally. We can't be that bad, are we?

Yes we have guns. I'm a hunter and do own guns. They are locked in a safe (at my cousins house and I don't have the combo) and I would not hesitate to use them in protecting me and mine, but that is problematic however, I would beat to a pulp anyone going after me and mine, and if it came to him shooting me if he had a gun and I did not, then I would be dead if he could shoot staight, and he would be dead if he couldn't.

Windmills/windturbines whatever. Get over what they are called. If the turbine creates electricity that then goes to an electric motor that mills the corn, is it then back to being a windmill? As far as I know, they cost more then any coal fired, deisel fired, natural gas fired or nuclear plant to make the same amount of electricity. That doesn't mean we shouldn't persue alternative energy, just that there needs to be a cost vs benefits analysis. After all, who gets to pay for all this? WE DO. Be it subsidies from the feds, the state the county or customer or the utility. We all pay. Now maybe others are in the position or don't mind paying more for their electricity, but here in NYC and Long Island we pay the highest utility costs and if the "green" alternative can't underprice the regular way of generating electricty here, where can it? Then we have the Nimby's here on LI who don't even want the wind turbines located 5 miles off the south coast as it spoils their view. At 5 miles the costs have increased as the maintenance and power cables needed become much more costly. But they want them even further as the view of the horizon might be blotted by the little bumps the windmills might look like that far out.

I have thought about putting solar on my roof many times, and many times I have priced it out. Right now it's about $40K to get enough to feed my house daily so I pay zero dollars. That means that I put back into the system my extra during the day and pull from teh system at night when solar makes zero watts. But much of that is only during the summer (sun being lower in the winter means less time the sun is on the panels plus the angle of the sun means less power from the panels) so there is another "factor" to calculate. Even if we just go with zero dollars to the utility means my $100 monthly bill is eliminated. That's $12K a year so it's almost 4 years to see any kind of positive on my balance sheet. Now some may say well solar panels last longer than 10 years, but I'll wait to see how long these things last. If I have to start replacing things before I start making money, well then the "break even point" goes out even further. I am especially concerned with the plexiglass they use to cover the panels. If it's anything like the stuff they use on many headlights, the yellowing will cause serious degredation of the panels efficiency (which sucks to begin with) and constant maintenance. (There goes that low cost)

I don't know where this country is headed, but I am scared of the way it is headed. I don't think either candidate nor party has a clue on how to right the ship either. To me it is not so simple but the fighting between teh parties has to stop. To me (I know LordJim has brought this up before) we need to complete the pipeline from Canada, drill more, get more coal, more natural gas, get off the mid-east teat and at the same time develope the renewable technologies and get them to mainstream. Damn, we put a man on the moon in less than 10 years with computers less powerful than a first generation cell phone. Don't tell me we can't make real, cheap renewable energy.

Right now it's about $40K to get enough to feed my house daily so I pay zero dollars. T* * * Even if we just go with zero dollars to the utility means my $100 monthly bill is eliminated. That's $12K a year so it's almost 4 years to see any kind of positive on my balance sheet.

Isn't that 1.2K per year, so it's 40 years before the initial investment is paid for? Which just highlights that the cost-benefit is not there yet. You can justify the pursuit of alternative energy on the basis of environmental need and national security, but subsidizing a net-negative industry is way to lose national wealth at a much faster rate than paying for foreign oil, which means it is not a way to revive the economy.

Andrew D wrote:I think that you have inadvertently nailed it, Lord Jim: "Trying to ingratiate himself to his audience by telling them what he thinks they want to hear" is "the Real Romney."

Well, we'll see Andrew, you may very well be right...

Maybe there's just "no there there"....

We'll certainly know for sure one way or the other over the next few weeks....

One thing Romney must understand by now, given the numbers, is that he can't coast into the Presidency on the back of Obama's failures alone...(that'll get him 48% of the popular vote, and maybe 220 Electoral votes, but it won't win him the Presidency)

If he wants to win, he's going to have to show something...

If he has something to show....

que with the: ....

que with the: ....

Gee Long Run, that's always been part of my signature posting style...

You mean in all these years you haven't noticed that...?

(It started out as a sort of homage to the late great Herb Caen....but it's become sort of second nature... )

oldr_n_wsr wrote:I have thought about putting solar on my roof many times, and many times I have priced it out. Right now it's about $40K to get enough to feed my house daily so I pay zero dollars. That means that I put back into the system my extra during the day and pull from teh system at night when solar makes zero watts. But much of that is only during the summer (sun being lower in the winter means less time the sun is on the panels plus the angle of the sun means less power from the panels) so there is another "factor" to calculate. Even if we just go with zero dollars to the utility means my $100 monthly bill is eliminated. That's $12K a year so it's almost 4 years to see any kind of positive on my balance sheet. Now some may say well solar panels last longer than 10 years, but I'll wait to see how long these things last. If I have to start replacing things before I start making money, well then the "break even point" goes out even further. I am especially concerned with the plexiglass they use to cover the panels. If it's anything like the stuff they use on many headlights, the yellowing will cause serious degredation of the panels efficiency (which sucks to begin with) and constant maintenance. (There goes that low cost)

I put solar panels on my house, oldr. When we ran the numbers, between the NJ state subsidy (now phased out), the federal tax credit, the savings on the electric bill and the income from selling the SRECs ( we get one SREC for every 1000 kwh generated), the break-even point was about 6-7 years, with no actual money out-of-pocket (we used a mortgage re-fi to cover the rest, and got a lower mortgage rate in the process, resulting in a negligible increase in monthly payments). Since then, though, the bottom has fallen out of the NJ SREC market, largely because Christie has stalled the new legislation regulating electricity production, so our payoff time has now increased to about 10 years or so. But that's okay; think of the advantage of selling a house that has no electric bill. There is no maintenance on the panels, other than blowing leaves off them if the wind doesn't do it for us.