Romney: Obama won by giving "gifts" to voter blocs
In a phone call with his presidential campaign's financial backers, Mitt Romney today said he lost the election to President Obama because of the "gifts" Mr. Obama gave to certain constituencies, like young voters and Hispanics, the Los Angeles Times reports.
"The president's campaign," he said, "focused on giving targeted groups a big gift -- so he made a big effort on small things. Those small things, by the way, add up to trillions of dollars."
Romney reportedly said that college-age women, for instance, were motivated to vote for the president since his health care plan includes full coverage of birth control costs. Lower income voters, as well as Hispanic and African-American voters, were motivated by Mr. Obama's promise of providing them with health insurance "in perpetuity." Additionally, he reportedly said Hispanics turned out to vote for Mr. Obama's promise of "amnesty" for certain undocumented youth.
Mr. Obama had been "very generous" to young voters and minorities, Romney reportedly said. Of course, not all of Mr. Obama's policies have targeted specific constituencies -- for instance, the president has passed several tax breaks for small business owners and in 2010 extended the Bush tax cuts for all income groups, as Republicans wanted.
Romney was notoriously similarly candid with his donors about Mr. Obama's base of support back in May, when he said the president's supporters are "dependent on government" and "believe that they are victims."
Popular in Politics
- Immigration reform would cut deficit, analysis shows 73 Comments
- House Republicans pass 20-week limit on abortions 144 Comments
- Senators: U.S. must take "more decisive" military action in Syria
- Obama and Berlin: Faded echoes meet new realities
- Snowden: U.S. gov't destroyed my chance for fair trial
- Bill Ayers: Obama should be tried for war crimes
- FBI: Surveillance info helped reveal subway, stock exchange bombings 213 Comments
- Treasury secretary's loopy signature is now less loopy
Even Clinton admitted he screwed up in 1995 (I provided you with an exact quote too), then in 1996 he lowered taxes and in 1997, the economy took off, not due to the tax increase, it was due to the internet boom, for which the 1996 tax cut was a catalyst.
+++++++++++++++++++++
This is a simplification of history. You are leaving out a lot of factors. First, deregulation, then the Wall Street Bubble of Internet-base companies and Telecoms. You forgot to mention that the Y2K bug stimulated a lot of tech growth, too. That's not because taxes were reduced.
We drastically cut the military budget in the 90s under Clinton, we raised top tax rates, and we spent more on social programs. All of these things, including the tech boom bubble (which burst in 2000), lead to affluence. But, responsible spending policies and revenues, balanced budgets at the request of Clinton, all had a lot to do with it.
We all know what happened when the other guy got in and started giving the surplus away. Then the stock market busto, so Greenspan stimulated the economy by lowering interest rates. That started the bubble blowing. The attack on 9/11 halted any progress the economy was making from the stock market lull. Interest rates went even lower, and increased spending on military, in addition to tax cuts offer short-term relief to economy. Finally, deregulating banks and wall street, the final piece to get the bubble blown up to a pop.
See, tax cuts, especially those for the middle class are a good way to stimulate growth short-term. They are not a long-term solution. Tax cuts for the wealthy have been proven to be a detriment to growth. They should be raised to historic, healthy norms. That is not because I don't want somebody to succeed, or I am jealous they have material wealth. I could care less. I just think it is high-time to get back to norms. The way we are doing it now, with record spending, record low taxes, record low interest rates, and a bloated military budget, is not normal, it is not healthy, it is why we have a ballooning debt. Typically, we could use a number of these tools to stimulate the economy, but alas all of our tools are already used.
We cannot start a war to stimulate, through deficit spending.
We cannot lower interest rates, essentially infusing the economy with tons of liquid cash.
We cannot spend a ton of deficit dollars on rebuilding projects, because we are already so far in debt.
We cannot give out a huge tax cut, again infusing the economy with cash, because we don't have enough revenue as it is.
We are fracked! Hate to be so doom and gloom, but we may not really be able to get out of this by any of our traditional techniques. But, what we are doing is not working. Time to at least get back to traditional norms. Which includes cutting spending, especially in military. Reforming Medicare and Social Security. Raising top marginal tax rates about 60%, where they were before the 80s. All of these things may offer some hope to dig out.
Plus, the 60% in 1980 was for taxable income over 215,000. The top 5% had an AGI of $43, 792. So, really, we're talking about the top 1%. Guess how many 1%'ers filed a return in 1980? 932,000
murdoch, there's just not enough of them to justify all the hullabaloo over taxing the rich. It's just not enough.
a heated kidney shaped pool,
a microwave oven--don't watch the food cook,
a Dyna-Gym--I'll personally demonstrate it in the privacy of your own home,
a kingsize Titanic unsinkable Molly Brown waterbed with polybendum,
a foolproof plan and an airtight alibi,
real simulated Indian jewelry,
a Gucci shoetree,
a year's supply of antibiotics,
a personally autographed picture of Randy Mantooth
and Bob Dylan's new unlisted phone number,
a beautifully restored 3rd Reich swizzle stick,
Rosemary's baby,
a dream date in kneepads with Paul Williams,
a new Matador,
a new mastadon,
a Maverick,
a Mustang,
a Montego,
a Merc Montclair,
a Mark IV,
a meteor,
a Mercedes,
an MG,
or a Malibu,
a Mort Moriarty,
a Maserati,
a Mac truck,
a Mazda,
a new Monza,
or a moped,
a Winnebago--Hell, a herd of Winnebago's we're giving 'em away,
or how about a McCulloch chainsaw,
a Las Vegas wedding,
a Mexican divorce,
a solid gold Kama Sutra coffee pot,
or a baby's arm holding an apple?
linkicon reporticon emailicon
"Saying a fact is not a fact, doesn't make it not a fact, it makes you a fool."
---
Obviously, you're the highly-partisan fool, without any facts!
In 1990, President George H. W. Bush raised taxes, and GDP growth increased over the next five years. In 1993, President Bill Clinton raised the top marginal tax rate, and GDP growth increased over the next five years.
_____________________________________
Prove a direct connection between raising the top marginal tax rate and economic growth.
Here's some facts: According to the January 2001 Economic Report of the President economic growth was 2.7 in 93, 4.0 in 94, 2.7 in 95, 3.6 in 96, 4.4 in 97 and 98.
Was it a result of the top marginal tax rate going from 36 to 39.6? No you idiot, what happened right about then? It was the onset of a completely new technology - Information Technology, which dramatically transformed the idea of productivity forever. And was follow closely by the Tech Boom.
That's why the economy grew you idiot - dramatically enhanced productivity and an economic event - the Tech Boom. Prove me wrong.
You morons take one little insignificant, irrelevant factor and make it more important than information technology? There is just no cure for stupid ciggle - you're terminal. And that's a fact.
All of the BS reasons I've heard so far - fair share, moral obligation, patriotism - hold no water. The real reason is class resentment and wealth envy, nothing more. I can't support that. I hold myself accountable for where I'm at. I don't expect others to get me there.
That's not wealth envy. You are projecting your arrogance on others.
I'm going to see if I can cut off Mitt's "gift" as soon as possible because he got more than enough money from sending OUR jobs to China.
Maerzie
I guess not.
At least it looks as if Romney`s claim may be based in truth.
remember the story (only yesterday) of Romney getting 0...ZERO votes in one area?
If that was how Democrats fiddle things, you would think they would use a little more grey matter! No-one, but No-one EVER, EVER gets ZERO votes. Not even democrats! Shows the Fixers were of low ability IQ!! Musta been Lib Democrats!
Shame about the USA. Still food stamps and welfare secured as Republicans will pay for all the anti freedom bozos who milk the system til it hurts.
Well having a president like Obama for another 4 yrs is SURE GONNA HURT!!! (And not only republicans)!!
---
The End of the Middle Class Century: How the 1% Won the Last 30 Years
Between 1971 and 2008, real income declined for the bottom 90%. All the growth went to the top 10%, and more than half went to the top percentile.
The remarkable gains of the (broadly-defined) "middle class" in the middle of the century stopped cold in the last quarter of the 1900s.
http://stateofworkingamerica.org/who-gains/#/?start=1921&end=1971
Dear Mitt,
Why you lost
1. Lack of Intergity. You waffled on practically everything.
2. The 47% Gaffe.
3. Female Reproductive Issues/Gaffe- Gee I think you were a political dunce for that one.
4. The rabid Austrian school of economics talking points, Everyone knows government has to run on a Keynesian school (even Reagan knew that).
5. You had to many of the old Nixon/Ford/Bush era Staffers & Advisors... Not good.
6. You didn't serve in Vietnam, and it was obvious you where pro Defense contractor not pro servicemen/veterans (that 47% gaffe again).
7. Your pathetic understanding to the realpolitik in foreign policy.
8. You were compromised by the Rove donation and campaign machine. Learn to fight like a guerilla warrior in the political spectrum and psy ops.
9. Basically you are a dork with zero personality.
10. Last and best you live in glass bubble, it would behove you to go to goodwill pick up some ratty clothes and move among the lowest class of our society walk in there shoes. Understand the problems and needs then craft a policy.
For the disclaimer:
I am a blue dog democrat who is also a thrice wounded 100% P&T disabled veteran of Afghanistan. I completely disagree with the president on the issues of Gun Control, the LGBT -DOMA issue, and his idea of Immigration Reform. But I voted for my children ( especially my daughters).
Mitt, cowboy up you lost because of your prejudice due to your upbringing and the advisors who snowed you with BS.
Sua Sponte MFers.
---
The writing was very clear on the wall back in the 1980s, after Prop 13 passed in 1978, and saint ronnie's 1986 illegal alien AMNESTY.
It is estimated that Prop 13 has shorted the state of CA over $500 Billion over the past 3 decades, and contributes to an inefficient housing market because it provides disincentives for selling property in favor of remaining at the current property and modifying or transferring to family members to avoid a new, higher assessment. More detailed evidence of this is provided in the book, Property Taxes and Tax Revolts: The Legacy of Proposition 13.
The Immigration Reform and Control Act, enacted November 6, 1986, brought 4 million illegal immigrants out of the shadows, and opened the flood gates of illegal immigration in the U.S.
I left CA in 1987, and know that was the best move in my lifetime!