Mitt believes that financial success is a sign of good character and those that are poor are poor because they deserve it.

Mitt is Bain and Bain is Mitt.

The Nightman Cometh wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:It's such a controversial statement to note that Israeli culture is more conducive to economic success than Palestinian culture

Perhaps constantly being invaded is not conducive to economics success? You are reaching here.

He didn't claim it was the sole factor, and I'm more of an institutions guy than a culture guy, but there is some merit to the culture argument. He said in his book - where he makes a similar argument - that Jewish culture has a long history of persevering in difficult circumstances, and I think there's probably something to that. Also Israel has a commitment to gender equality, while there are cultural norms against female property ownership in Palestine, and most women require the permission of a male relative to get married. Stuff like that makes a difference.

jerseyhoya wrote:

The Nightman Cometh wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:It's such a controversial statement to note that Israeli culture is more conducive to economic success than Palestinian culture

Perhaps constantly being invaded is not conducive to economics success? You are reaching here.

He didn't claim it was the sole factor, and I'm more of an institutions guy than a culture guy, but there is some merit to the culture argument. He said in his book - where he makes a similar argument - that Jewish culture has a long history of persevering in difficult circumstances, and I think there's probably something to that. Also Israel has a commitment to gender equality, while there are cultural norms against female property ownership in Palestine, and most women require the permission of a male relative to get married. Stuff like that makes a difference.

So, liberalism makes you rich, conservatism makes you poor. And I'm not sure with the rising influence of the ultra orthodox in Israel squares with a commitment to gender equality.

I think the point is you don't say stuff like that when running for high political office and such things are taken as digestable soundbytes. Essentially, Romney's quote is open for two interpretations in the soundbyte world... Arabs are camel herders, Jews = money. One or the other (or both) is what a lot of people will decipher from his quote. Granted, it'll soon be forgotten in the 24 hour news cycle world, but it's another piece to the generic body of perception that is Mitt.

Phan In Phlorida wrote:I think the point is you don't say stuff like that

Bad because it's controversial or because it's inaccurate?

surprise. don't let a people do any commerce, suppress them, take over their lands, and they won't have a high gdp.

Also, insist that whenever they want to move goods or people around, they have to go through multiple and random checkpoints.

Senator Ted Cruz. That's one hell of an upset to beat Dewhurst, Perry's LG, when he had lots of monies and Perry's backing.

jerseyhoya wrote:Senator Ted Cruz. That's one hell of an upset to beat Dewhurst, Perry's LG, when he had lots of monies and Perry's backing.

in general, texans love them some crazy, and a quick look at this guy's profile - Beck & Palin endorsements, "ending" abortion, protecting textbook monopsony - er, ending the Dept of Education, repealing ACA - puts him on the short list

but I'm guessing this guy's voter mix is more complicated than that

Werthless wrote:

Phan In Phlorida wrote:I think the point is you don't say stuff like that

Bad because it's controversial or because it's inaccurate?

Because it's inaccurate (or at least certainly incomplete and misleading), and controversial. But mostly because it's unnecessary.Visiting countries and making nice with their leadership without unnecessarily stirring up resentment among other countries, or definitely your host country, should be one of the basic expectations of of a U.S. leader, I think.

Especially when you're not in the process of negotiating anything but simply courting the Jewish vote, in the case of his visit to Israel, or -well, I don't actually know what he was doing in England. Not courting the English voting bloc, that's for sure.

Werthless wrote:

Phan In Phlorida wrote:I think the point is you don't say stuff like that

Bad because it's controversial or because it's inaccurate?

You can't seriously imagine it's a "good idea" for a politician on a sort of busman's holiday to blurt out controversial remarks just to pass the time, so your query must center on whether or not Mitt's observations were "accurate". So, you're saying you feel the "accuracy" of a statement that "culture makes all the difference" can be definitively assessed?

now of course that's Mitt's paraphrase of Landes (he thought it was so nice, he repeated it twice). But Mitt followed that with this impenetrable mumbo jumbo:

I recognize the power of at least culture and a few other things...I'm told in a Sunday school class I attended - my son Tagg was teaching the class. He's not here. I look around to see. Of course he's not here. He was in London. He taught a class in which he was describing the concern on the part of some of the Jews that left Egypt to come to the promised land, that in the promised land was down the River Nile, which would provide the essential water they had enjoyed in Egypt. They came here recognizing they must be relied upon, themselves and the arm of God to provide rain from the sky.

No, you can't really mean that either utterance might be categorically affirmed or denied, either. That 2nd one is...I don't know what it is. they were providing rain from the sky, and god's arm was in on it, w.t.f?

As far as accuracy, then, all that the "culture makes all the difference" reference can really be is an accurate expression of Mitt's views on the matter. That it may be. That doesn't make it something you blithely say outside of "quiet rooms" if you're running for office.

ah, forget it. I stand by an earlier conviction: parsing transcripts of politicians' remarks is a fool's errand.

Whether or not he really shrugs the effects of the occupation on the Palestinian economy--both the day to day obstructions of people and resources and the structural impediments to financial and human capital development--ascribing it all to intrinsic individual or group merit seems like the sort of boorish idea that would yield a grunt of affirmation from many among "the base." So maybe this was all strategic on Mitt's part.

drsmooth wrote:in general, texans love them some crazy

Maybe it's the water

Mitt can't even make up his mind if he meant what he said before he disavowed it. Let's see: Went to England and offended our closest ally, then went to one of the world's most unstable areas and lobbed a PR grenade.

He's soooo not ready for primetime. He'd probably start a war with Canada after praising their healthcare system.

Also, there's the matter of those tax returns. It now appears that he didn't pay ANY taxes for 10 years, according to some of his Bain buddies. Pass the word, Mitt doesn't pay taxes even when he makes millions. He and his friends at Bain hide their money and force the middle class to help them make more money. Welfare for the rich is fine in Mitt's book.

Ross Douthat's implacable quest to write something, anything, that anyone will read - forget take seriously -, today makes his case that Mitt Romney's VP selection oughtta be....Bobby Jindal

dajafi wrote:Whether or not he really shrugs the effects of the occupation on the Palestinian economy--both the day to day obstructions of people and resources and the structural impediments to financial and human capital development--ascribing it all to intrinsic individual or group merit seems like the sort of boorish idea that would yield a grunt of affirmation from many among "the base." So maybe this was all strategic on Mitt's part.

Except that red states like Mississippi tend to be poorer than blue states. So, he's insulting his base. What people in West Virginia need to do is stop drinking Bud Light and clinging to their God and guns and get some Dog Fish Head Midas Touch and a fixed wheel bicycle.

Monkeyboy wrote:Mitt can't even make up his mind if he meant what he said before he disavowed it. Let's see: Went to England and offended our closest ally, then went to one of the world's most unstable areas and lobbed a PR grenade.

He's soooo not ready for primetime. He'd probably start a war with Canada after praising their healthcare system.

Also, there's the matter of those tax returns. It now appears that he didn't pay ANY taxes for 10 years, according to some of his Bain buddies. Pass the word, Mitt doesn't pay taxes even when he makes millions. He and his friends at Bain hide their money and force the middle class to help them make more money. Welfare for the rich is fine in Mitt's book.

Is the size/bold/underline because when you're writing something that is full of shit you prefer it to be as noticeable as possible

TenuredVulture wrote:

dajafi wrote:Whether or not he really shrugs the effects of the occupation on the Palestinian economy--both the day to day obstructions of people and resources and the structural impediments to financial and human capital development--ascribing it all to intrinsic individual or group merit seems like the sort of boorish idea that would yield a grunt of affirmation from many among "the base." So maybe this was all strategic on Mitt's part.

Except that red states like Mississippi tend to be poorer than blue states. So, he's insulting his base. What people in West Virginia need to do is stop drinking Bud Light and clinging to their God and guns and get some Dog Fish Head Midas Touch and a fixed wheel bicycle.

I'm guessing the average MS resident who votes Republican seems himself as more like an Israeli than a Palestinian.

I'm not sure who's dumber here ... The people who believe the birther shit or the people who believe that Mittens didn't pay taxes for 10 years and decided to run for elected office. The ultimate troll vs troll battle.

I think what Reid said was pretty irresponsible and almost certainly untrue, though it also was clearly designed to push Team Mitt toward disclosing more returns.

That said, there's the "didn't pay taxes" of simply not paying taxes, and the version in which he had a zero tax obligation because of deductions, etc, as was the case for GE one year recently.

My guess is that Romney paid an extraordinarily low rate in some years, entirely within the boundaries of the law but involving virtuosic reading of the tax code. He probably feels that disclosing will open a debate that won't reflect well on him at all. For their part, I'm sure the Obamans feel they win here either way: they can bash him on nondisclosure, which feeds into a larger narrative of things the guy is keeping hidden, or make hay with what the returns show.