Ann Romney: ‘I don’t even consider myself wealthy’

Day wasted

Democratic pundit Hilary Rosen, a political consultant who advises the Democratic National Committee, said on CNN Wednesday night that Ann Romney “never worked a day in her life.” “She’s never really dealt with the kinds of economic issues that a majority of the women in this country are facing,” Rosen charged.

Cue the outrage! Mrs. Romney says that she can too sympathize with working women. “My career choice was to be a mother,” Ann Romney told Fox News host Martha MacCallum.

“Look, I know what it’s like to struggle,” Ann Romney insisted, possibly referring to her battle with multiple sclerosis. “And if maybe I haven’t struggled as much financially as some people have, I can tell you and promise you that I’ve had struggles in my life. And I would love to have people understand that Mitt and I have compassion for people that are struggling and that’s why we’re running. We care about those people that are struggling.”

Ann Romney said last month that she didn’t think of herself as wealthy even though she is worth hundreds of millions of dollars.

“I don’t even consider myself wealthy, which is an interesting thing,” she told Fox News host Neil Cavuto.

Apparently Mrs. Romney thinks average non-wealthy Americans just like her typically maintain a stable of dressage horses, which cost hundreds of thousands of dollars each. Dressage is very competitive horse riding in which the animal’s mane is often braided and the riders wear top hats and long coats. From a 2007 New York Times article:

Dressage is a sport of seven-figure horses and four-figure saddles. The monthly boarding costs are more than most people’s rent. Asked how many dressage horses she owns, Mrs. Romney laughed. “Mitt doesn’t even know the answer to that,” she said. “I’m not going to tell you!”

A video on Gawker shows Willard talking to Sean Hannity about the animals he owns with his wife:

“She has Austrian Warmbloods, which are – yeah, it’s a dressage horse, it’s a kind of horse for the sport that she’s in. Me, I have a Missouri Fox Trotter. So mine is like a quarter horse, but just a much better gait. It moves very fast, and doesn’t tire, and it’s easy to ride, meaning it’s not boom-boom-boom, it’s just smooth, very smooth.”

Just to clarify, this is not about the mere fact that the Romneys are incredibly wealthy. The issue is, they are totally out of touch with average Americans. This is clear enough from the policies Romney advocates, but sometimes it helps to demonstrate it on a personal level. Romney is the candidate of the 1 Percent.

UPDATE: Hilary Rosen vs. Ann Romney: why the dust-up is fake

It’s clear from the context that Rosen wasn’t criticizing Ann Romney for staying home. She was criticizing the Romney campaign for presenting Ann Romney as an expert on the economic concerns of women, when Romney’s own economic circumstances (including the fact that she was able to stay home with all five of her sons) are not those that most women have.

UPDATE: Rep. Pete Stark has introduced his bill called the Women’s Option to Raise Kids (WORK) Act, which would allow low-income mothers with children up to 3 years old to classify their child-rearing responsibilities as work, just the way Ann Romney did.

  1. #2 by Richard Warnick on April 12, 2012 - 4:16 pm

    brewski–

    Missing the point is your core competency. None of the politicians you listed ever said “I don’t even consider myself wealthy.”

  2. #3 by cav on April 12, 2012 - 5:21 pm

    They won’t be satisfied til Anne gets another massive tax-cut.

  3. #4 by brewski on April 12, 2012 - 5:27 pm

    John Kerry said he grew up on a farm.
    Al Gore told stories of how he was a tobacco farmer.
    John Edwards waxed on and on about his father working in the mill.
    They all stretched their stories to make themselves sound less .0001% than they really were.

  4. #5 by cav on April 12, 2012 - 5:56 pm

    Put a salary cap on the plutarchs!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  5. #6 by Cliff Lyon on April 12, 2012 - 6:09 pm

    Hey Brewski,

    Show a little love and donate something to my gal Deb.

  6. #7 by brewski on April 12, 2012 - 6:15 pm

    Who is Deb?

    Gal? Isn’t that a sexist term that went the way of Dame, Broad, Tootsie and Sweetie?

  7. #8 by Richard Warnick on April 12, 2012 - 6:49 pm

    John Edwards’ father owned the mill, I seemed to recall. ;-)

    Unlike Romney, Edwards was in favor of helping the 99 Percent. Romney seems to relish his “No soup for you!!” rhetoric. If you want help, vote for the other guy, he always says. In every state, the people who make more than $100,000 a year have gone for Romney.

  8. #9 by cav on April 12, 2012 - 7:03 pm

    Perceptive readers of the ‘OneuTah Blog’ would know the Deb referred to by Mr. Lyon is none other than Deb Henry, running for county council.

    And are we not supporting the present mayor in a reelection bid?

  9. #10 by brewski on April 12, 2012 - 7:40 pm

    Edwards was in favor of helping the 99 Percent.

    And you bought that shit he was selling? Ha!

  10. #11 by Larry Bergan on April 12, 2012 - 7:48 pm

    One of the funniest moments I remember seeing from the “Rosanne” television series was an episode where John Goodman had just lost his job. He and Rosanne were going over the books and things were going to be getting really rough for the family.

    Their young daughter comes bouncing in the kitchen and sincerely asks, “Daddy, can I have a pony?”

    The idea Rosanne had of doing a sitcom based around a lower middle class family was brilliant. If the series came out now, it would have a MUCH larger audience.

  11. #12 by brewski on April 12, 2012 - 8:17 pm

    She was beat by 20 years by Good Times

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S3nXyxIz7Gs&feature=related

    and Sanford and Son

  12. #13 by Shane on April 12, 2012 - 8:27 pm

    brewski–

    Missing the point is your core competency. None of the politicians you listed ever said “I don’t even consider myself wealthy.”

    If we were smart, we would write a script that posted that every time brewski posted…

  13. #14 by brewski on April 12, 2012 - 8:50 pm

    Ann Romney never said she committed war crimes.

  14. #15 by Larry Bergan on April 12, 2012 - 10:01 pm

    brewski:

    Maybe I should rephrase and add a word:

    The idea Rosanne had of doing a sitcom based around a lower middle class white family was brilliant. If the series came out now, it would have a MUCH larger audience.

    It wasn’t until 1984 that – beloved comedian – Bill Cosby was able to have a sitcom based on an affluent black family. Rosanne’s comedy wasn’t aired until 1988 and probably wouldn’t have been allowed to be on before then. I don’t know how she convinced them to do it.

    Before Cosby, only one successful black family was allowed to have a sitcom on television because it was fathered by an ethically challenged man named after two of our forefathers. Rush Limbaugh made fun of the series.

  15. #16 by Larry Bergan on April 12, 2012 - 10:15 pm

    I don’t envy Romney for his money, other then the fact that you can cause a lot of trouble for your enemies with it in America, I would love to have a horse. Riding a horse is a wonderful experience.

  16. #17 by jjohnsen on April 12, 2012 - 10:19 pm

    The whole Hilary Rosen thing is nothing more than Republicans trying to convince the female voters running away from Romney that “see, Democrats hate you as much as we do”.

  17. #18 by cav on April 12, 2012 - 10:57 pm

    “We’ll be right back after these commercials from oil, insurance, and banking companies.”

  18. #19 by cav on April 12, 2012 - 11:22 pm

    Alyona of RT had an interesting take on the Mitt Romney-Ann Romney-Hilary Rosen non-event of today. The kerfuffle began over Mitt Romney’s statement that 92% of the jobs lost on Obama’s watch have been women.

    It turns out it’s true: these are the teachers and healthcare workers laid off by Republican governors. Before Obama took office, a whole lot more men lost their jobs.

    So, what Hilary Rosen said is not only true, but it is plainly being used by the media to avoid seeing what Romney actually said, which is that Obama did not stop Republican governors from waging a war on women.

  19. #20 by brewski on April 13, 2012 - 7:06 am

    The whole Hilary Rosen kertuffle is really about class.

    What Ms. Rosen said confirmed to a lot of what middle America silently suspects. They suspect that a lot of Democrats are lesbian East Coast college educated activists who look down on the rest of America culturally, and don’t respect the role of anyone not woking in an activist PR firm, consulting firm, or law firm.

    Hilary B. Rosen is a Managing Director of the Public Affairs and Communications Practice of SKDKnickerbocker. A nationally recognized strategist who skillfully navigates the intersection of communications, media and politics in Washington DC . Prior to joining SKDKnickerbocker, Rosen was Managing Partner of the DC office of the Brunswick Group.

    During the 2008 election Rosen served as Political Director and Washington Editor-at Large for the Huffington Post as well as a regular on-air commentator for CNN. She remains an on-air political contributor at CNN. Rosen is the former Chairman and chief executive officer of the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), the trade group representing the U.S. sound recording industry where she served for 17 years before retiring in June 2003.

    Rosen is profiled in a recent book Pennsylvania Avenue, Profiles in Backroom Power by John Harwood and Gerald Seib for her ability to lead issue campaigns in Washington. She is an accomplished writer of commentary as well. Her articles on business, politics and media appear in publications such as CNN.com, The Huffingtonpost.com, The Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, Wired Magazine, Billboard, Business 2.0, Variety and Capitol File Magazine.

    At RIAA, Rosen was widely regarded as one of the most influential executives in the entertainment industry. Her name appeared regularly on influential year-end power lists including Entertainment Weekly’s “Annual Power List,” The Hollywood Reporter’s Power 50 Women, and National Journal’s “Washington’s Powerful Insiders.” She was named as one of 10 “Ladies who Launch Entertainment Trends” by The New York Post.

    A veteran of Washington and Capitol Hill, Rosen is an expert on the legislative and public affairs process and was instrumental in the passage of numerous public laws. She is a sought-after advisor to many Democratic candidates for federal and local offices. Hilary also has an admired 25-year pro bono history of lobbying for civil rights laws. She was a founder of Rock the Vote, the organization that promotes youth political involvement. She currently serves on several non-profit boards including the Center for American Progress, the Creative Coalition and The Human Rights Campaign Foundation.

    Earlier in her career, Rosen worked for former Governor Brendan Byrne (D-NJ) and US Senator Bill Bradley (D-NJ), US Senator Dianne Feinstein and was a lobbyist with Liz Robbins Associates. She is a graduate of George Washington University and lives in Washington DC with her family.

    What’s not to hate about her?

  20. #21 by Richard Warnick on April 13, 2012 - 9:22 am

    After this week, Ms. Rosen might want to change the part of her resume where it says she “skillfully navigates the intersection of communications, media and politics.”

    The minute she said Ann Romney “never worked a day in her life,” alarm bells rang in the White House. Panicky Dems could already imagine the GOP “War on Motherhood” bumper stickers. Oh, and they have mugs, too.

    Rosen had a good point, which is that Ann Romney is just as out of touch with average Americans as her husband — who says he relies on her for advice about women. She said it ineptly, considering her job is political communication.

    I would be grateful if all these “skillful” communicators in both major parties would knock it off with the “war on [fill in the blank]” rhetoric. It only serves to underscore their lack of good ideas.

    Finally, if the GOP wants women to vote for their candidates, it might be a good idea for them to stop trying to roll back every policy that has to do with women’s rights. For example:

    Republican Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer on Thursday signed one of the most controversial and restrictive abortion bans in the country, which experts say effectively bans abortions after 18 weeks and declares that a woman could be pregnant 2 weeks before she even had sex.

  21. #22 by cav on April 13, 2012 - 9:48 am

    so… according to fox news polling, 10 words out of the mouth of hillary rosen just made the race a f*cking toss up.

  22. #23 by Richard Warnick on April 13, 2012 - 10:25 am

    Dictionary definition of kerfuffle: “a lot of talk, activity, or worry about something that is not important.”

    Actions speak louder than words, and unless the GOP stops trying to control women by taking away their rights, the gender gap is going to hurt their candidates.

  23. #24 by Larry Bergan on April 13, 2012 - 7:18 pm

    A Republican mom mug. Oh brother!

  24. #25 by cav on April 13, 2012 - 7:50 pm

    And Hil’s missed memo.

    What a tangled web’s been woven

  25. #26 by Larry Bergan on April 13, 2012 - 8:42 pm

    cav:

    I’m afraid to ask, but what did Hillary say?

  26. #27 by Shane on April 13, 2012 - 9:42 pm

    I am still trying to figure out the problem. If the claim is that mrs mittens has worked because she is a mom, isn’t that somewhat misleading based on her staff of caretakers for the kids? Is the worry about the “not understanding the Economic issues most women are facing”? Is there anyone stupid enough to think that someone worth $280 million who spends her time trying to figure out which house to summer in does know what most women are facing in the current economy? Or at least anyone who wasn’t already voting GOP straight ticket before this happened?

    I am sorry Richard, it could have been said better perhaps, but it wasn’t said as poorly as everyone is making it sound. Ann doesn’t have a clue. Hell Obama doesn’t have a clue about this, but he is light years closer to getting it than any professional GOPer you can find.

    Side note on TV shows. I wonder if we could have a show like Raising Hope without the shows you mention as forerunners.

    On the other hand, what does that mean Jearsy Shore will lead us to?

  27. #28 by cav on April 13, 2012 - 10:00 pm

    Hilary Rosen, like everybody else in, near or sympathetic to the Obama campaign, ought to have cut the Rmoney women and children infinite slack – since Barrack’s already so far in the lead. Her stupid response to the apparent blue-team’s new lady-like economic advisor, in contravention of proper, thoughtful responses re’ Rove’s directive to attack Obama’s strength, seems to have had the direct result of narrowing the margin, making it easier for the Diebold monster to ‘work its Magic’.

  28. #29 by cav on April 13, 2012 - 10:05 pm

    er, that’s red-team’s new lady-like economic advisor…(that would be Anne Romney).

  29. #30 by Larry Bergan on April 13, 2012 - 11:19 pm

    This would be a good time to reflect on Karl Rove’s “Soccer moms”, “NASCAR Dads”, soldiers and moral Christians who swung elections towards a party who wouldn’t give them a dime.

    Diebold/Premiere/Dominion will change it’s name as many times as needed to confuse the subject of election fraud.

    There’s no money in fighting it, so why try. :(

  30. #32 by Larry Bergan on April 15, 2012 - 1:33 am

    Moms with maids.

    A new revolution!

  31. #33 by cav on April 15, 2012 - 9:23 am

    “…a lot of Democrats are lesbian East Coast college educated activists who look down on the rest of America culturally, and don’t respect the role of anyone not woking in an activist PR firm, consulting firm, or law firm

    brewski

    Whereas there’s more than a well founded suspicion that an even greater slice of the Republican Party are either misogynistic, dim-wits or the ‘smartest people in the ‘think-tank’ who herd them. All of whom are either unable to see the masses they might be looking down upon – such is the lofty heights they’ve stolen themselves to, or are set up by those very same people to aspire to the great wealth they envy but will likely never attain. To all of whom, ‘Respect’ is a laughable, quaint, counterproductive notion.

  32. #34 by brewski on April 15, 2012 - 9:35 am

    Most people don’t identify with being Republicans or Democrats. They just think of themselves as being part of middle America. They don’t like the activists of either side.

    They suspect that Republican activists are corporate shills who think of middle America as being useful pawns. Romney is basically confirming this.

    They suspect that Democratic activists think that middle Americans are too stupid to think for themselves. That they need wise lesbian activists to do their central planning for them. They think that Democratic activists are arrogant and believe that any stay at home mom doesn’t actually do any work. Rosen just confirmed that.

  33. #35 by cav on April 15, 2012 - 10:00 am

    That’s not all Rosen confirmed:

    “Even if you have a child two years of age you need to go to work.,” Romney said in a campaign stop in Manchester, N.H. in January. “And people said, ‘Well that’s heartless.’ And I said, ‘No, no, I’m willing to spend more giving day care to allow those parents to go back to work. It’ll cost the state more providing that daycare, but I want the individuals to have the dignity of work.’” Anne excepted, of course.

    http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-romneys-past-views-unearthed-on-working-women-stayathome-moms-20120415,0,611519.story

    Rosen on the other hand is a veteran of Washington and Capitol Hill, an expert on the legislative and public affairs process and was instrumental in the passage of numerous public laws. She is a sought-after advisor to many Democratic candidates for federal and local offices. Hilary also has an admired 25-year pro bono history of lobbying for civil rights laws. She was a founder of Rock the Vote, the organization that promotes youth political involvement. She currently serves on several non-profit boards including the Center for American Progress, the Creative Coalition and The Human Rights Campaign Foundation.

    Really nothing much to see here.

  34. #36 by brewski on April 15, 2012 - 12:46 pm

    Rosen doesn’t undertand the math of her own point. She implied that lots of mothers don’t have the choice not to work. That they have to work to feed their families. That only rich moms have the luxury of staying at home. But in fact, the opposite is true. Lower wage moms are more likely not to work and to choose to be stay at home moms than affluent moms. The explanation is simple math. A low income mom who goes to work makes less money for that sacrifice. So the marginal utility of working vs staying home is lower for a low wage mom than some PR consultant or lawyer mom.

    I am actually in favor of free preschool starting at age 3. But this should not be seen as a benefit for the mothers so that they can work as much as it should be an actual benefit for the children. I can see how much my daughter learned in a good preschool and not just “daycare”. So she knew her ABCs by 2. Started to read at 3. And ended up starting kindergarten a full year before the state regulations would allow. This early learning is even more crucial for kids in non English speaking homes. I would be happy to pay to get all kids starting at age 3 in a good, educational, English immersion, preschool program. It isn’t all about the moms. It is about the kids and giving them a chance.

  35. #37 by cav on April 15, 2012 - 1:21 pm

    Promote the dignity of work, lay guilt on those who don’t have it, scrap safety nets for the ‘downsized’ – then destroy jobs by the millions and pursue elected office on the bogus notion you’re going to create even more of them.

    I get it.

  36. #38 by Becky Stauffer on April 15, 2012 - 1:36 pm

    “Lower wage moms are more likely not to work and to choose to be stay at home moms than affluent moms.”

    Brewski, can you provide some actual statistics supporting this claim?

    It’s an old strategy to pit working moms and stay-at-home moms against each other to divide the female vote. And it has worked well because we all readily believe someone else has life a whole lot easier than we do. Each side reaps what benefit it can. Still, it seems funny to me that Ann Romney is the spokesperson for women who have it rough. Bottom line for Mitt is that this has nothing to do with ideals–it’s all about political gamesmanship.

    Brewski, I’ll go you one better on the free preschool at 3 idea, which, as you may know, was provided in the old Soviet Union under communism. My friend who had her first child in an eastern European country during that time says women were PAID to stay home and not work until the child was three years of age, at which time, the mother returned to her job and the child began school. Yes, regular reading, writing, arithmetic school and not just daycare.

    I never thought I’d hear Brewski touting socialist ideas. But a good idea is a good idea, so thanks, Brewski.

  37. #39 by cav on April 15, 2012 - 6:26 pm

    The Socializt maid that takes care of the soshilist kids is the sociallest invisible sociulist hand.

  38. #40 by cav on April 15, 2012 - 6:27 pm

    Socialist.

  39. #41 by cav on April 15, 2012 - 6:29 pm

    Comment #39 is playing by itself in the moderation playpen.

    What’s up with that?

  40. #42 by Becky Stauffer on April 15, 2012 - 7:48 pm

    My comment languished for hours in moderation because I used that “social—” word, I think. I couldn’t figure out how to free myself. Must remember not to use that word.

  41. #43 by brewski on April 15, 2012 - 8:00 pm

    Becky:
    Here is a link:
    http://www.newamerica.net/blog/early-ed-watch/2009/closer-look-stay-home-moms-15067

    I don’t see the idea of free preschool as being the s-word at all. It is no more s-word than free elementary school or high school.

    One does not need to look to officially s-word countries at all to find this. Plenty of western european countries have this.

    Separately, it is interesting on a website which calls itself “Utah’s Favorite Public Square for Loud Political Debate” that it censors use of the s-word, and causes posters to censor themselves. Bitter irony.

  42. #44 by Becky Stauffer on April 15, 2012 - 8:36 pm

    This year’s report is especially interesting because it zeroes in on America’s parents, taking an extra close look at stay-at-home moms. About 5.6 million American women — about one out of every four mothers with children under age 15 — were stay-at-home moms in 2007. Not surprisingly, stay-at-home moms were more likely to have younger children—and to be younger themselves — than non-stay-at home moms. They are also disproportionately Hispanic, foreign-born, and have less education, compared to all mothers.

    I don’t draw the same conclusion as you, Brewski. The report did not suggest a reason, except to point out that fewer well-off women were choosing to stay at home than was expected. That last sentence I quoted here implies that many stay-at-home moms may be unemployable–especially in the job market at the time. In fact, there’s not enough information in that article for us to draw any conclusion about why mothers do or don’t stay at home. But one thing is certain, many women do not have the choice.

    Btw, Brewsk, are we talking about the same western European countries that have superior healthcare systems to ours?

  43. #45 by brewski on April 15, 2012 - 9:03 pm

    All countries have superior healthcare systems to ours. I have never defended our system, if it could even be called a system.

  44. #46 by Becky Stauffer on April 16, 2012 - 8:39 am

    An interesting wrinkle:

    One can be righteously indignant over the Rosen comment, and one also can do fist pumps over the great political opening you were handed. But expressing such glee in the later casts some doubt on the sincerity of the former.

  45. #47 by brewski on April 16, 2012 - 9:01 am

    Yes. It’s all theatre. Just like how the Dems were able to successfully profit from Rush’s stupid remarks. Offensiveness on one side is always a fundraising bonanza for the other side.

  46. #48 by cav on April 16, 2012 - 9:41 am

    Somebody’s always’ jonesing’ for something. Why else would leaders slather for a fiscal pact that effectively locks in fiscal austerity as the response to any and all problems.

  47. #50 by cav on April 16, 2012 - 9:50 am

    I guess birthday wishes are in order. Anne, live long and prosper.

  48. #51 by cav on April 16, 2012 - 9:55 am

    Just not as the First Lady.

  49. #52 by brewski on April 16, 2012 - 10:27 am

    As opposed to getting stuff for free?

  50. #53 by cav on April 16, 2012 - 12:26 pm

    brewski, if by ‘free’ you mean:

    Workers have TRIPLED their productivity over 30 years while the richest 1% have TRIPLED their share of income.

    93% of post-recession income (pdf) is going to the 1% “job-creators” with no appreciable increase in jobs.

    The very rich have made their fortunes in good part because of taxpayer-funded research.

    For every dollar of workers’ payroll tax paid in the 1950s, corporations paid three dollars. Now it’s 16 cents.

    They’ve Contributed Little to Society.

    The richest individuals and corporations have shown little regard for the majority of Americans who depend on sound financial management for their economic security.

    I trust that’s not the ‘free’ you’re referring to.

  51. #54 by brewski on April 16, 2012 - 12:35 pm

    I don’t see how any of that is relevant to Richard’s link.

  52. #55 by Richard Warnick on April 16, 2012 - 2:41 pm

    brewski–

    Nothing is “free.” Not even unemployment insurance, which we pay into when we’re employed. They make you work for it. In Utah, you have to apply for four new job openings a week, and they have to be in your specialty or they don’t count. If you can’t document four new job applications a week, you don’t get any money.

    Under the rules of so-called “welfare reform,” the Depression-era Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) was replaced by the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program that has strict work requirements (PDF).

    The Chris Christie myth of “a bunch of people sittin’ on a couch waiting for their next government check” is not the reality of being poor in America.

  53. #56 by cav on April 16, 2012 - 2:58 pm

    Not even tangentially?

  54. #57 by Becky Stauffer on April 16, 2012 - 3:02 pm

    While we’re on the subject of free, here (in case you haven’t seen it already) is how Mitt makes millions of dollars without risking any of his own, and then gets a lower tax rate than those who have actual job jobs.
    [youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rodifJlis2c&w=560&h=315

  55. #58 by cav on April 16, 2012 - 3:03 pm

    Perhaps the wanking class has a tiny blind-spot.

  56. #59 by brewski on April 16, 2012 - 3:15 pm

    I just looked at my paystub. There is no employee deduction portion for unemployment insurance. So what do you mean by “we pay into it”.

    Becky, I agree. That is why I have been jumping up about reforming the whole tax system before arguing about rates. Under the current system 35% x $0 = $0.

  57. #60 by Richard Warnick on April 16, 2012 - 3:32 pm

    Unemployment insurance comes from the pool of state and federal unemployment taxes collected from employers, based on their number of employees and their turnover history.

    Money is fungible. From the employer’s standpoint, unemployment insurance is part of the total compensation for employees. It is inseparable from wages, for example.

    Right-wing Republican politicians claiming that Americans are getting something for nothing can’t back up that claim with respect to the poor or the middle class. It might be true for the top of the heap, for example Wall Street financiers who borrow money at zero percent interest.

  58. #61 by brewski on April 16, 2012 - 4:12 pm

    Money is fungible. From the employer’s standpoint, unemployment insurance is part of the total compensation for employees. It is inseparable from wages, for example.

    I am glad to said this. So I guess you now admit the the employer portion of SS and Medicare is really paid by the employee and is inseparable from wages. You now admit that taxes matter and affect wages and investment, since money is fungible.

    You also now admit that even though the excise tax on medical devices which is paid by the manufacturer is really paid by the patient. After all the excise tax and manufacturing cost is inseparable and money is fungible.

    By the way, MItt’s comment was not about unemployment insurance. You just did your usual switcheroo when you can’t defend the issue at hand.

  59. #62 by Richard Warnick on April 16, 2012 - 4:44 pm

    I have always included the “employer-paid” portion of Social Security, since it comes from the same pot of money.

    There is no manufacturer’s excise tax on medical devices. Under current law, it will take effect after December 31, 2012. Whether the consumer pays will of course depend on whether the tax results in higher prices to consumers – something we don’t know.

    My main point was the work requirement of TANF. However I also threw in the stuff you have to do to collect on unemployment insurance, because it’s something I know first-hand. TANF has failed the test of Bush’s Great Recession BTW because the increased need for assistance has been met with budget cuts.

    If Romney had any knowledge of how TANF operates, he would understand that the rules already force women to put their kids in child care and get a job. There are very few stay-at-home moms under TANF, and there is no option to make a “career choice” to be a stay-at-home mom as Ann Romney so grandly put it. Of course, now her kids are grown up, so what’s her new excuse? Is dressage her career now? Are those expensive horses her new “children”?

  60. #63 by cav on April 16, 2012 - 5:20 pm

    There’ll be no criticism of Mother Horses, thankyou very much!

  61. #64 by brewski on April 16, 2012 - 8:42 pm

    Social Security is the same pot as welfare? I thought Social Security was in a dedicated Trust Fund which the was separate from the rest of the government. If you are now telling me that it is one pot, then how is it that the liabilities of that one pot are also the assets of the same pot. Hmmm. I will take that as a retraction of everything you have ever said on this subject.

    Yes, the excise tax on medical devices will go into effect shortly. So how is it that a tax on medical devices won’t certainly increase the cost to patients, but yet you tell me that unemployment insurance is inseparable from all costs of employment? I will take that as a retraction.

    So are you saying that welfare recipients are getting their money from what they paid from proceeds from the tax on medical devices, so in fact they have paid for their welfare? After all, money is fungible. So the high price they paid on their pacemaker which paid for the medical device tax paid for their welfare. I see how it works now.

    Are you now starting a war on people who own horses? Any other groups you want to demonize? You and Ms. Rosen can have fun with that.

  62. #65 by cav on April 16, 2012 - 10:08 pm

    Where to begin? Demonize the demonizers?

    How about the definition of overhead? Will there still be enough left for the Yachts? Not without the staff relinquishing their retirement. Oh well.

    This IS so much fun!

  63. #66 by Richard Warnick on April 17, 2012 - 8:49 am

    No, the taxes paid into Social Security come from the same pot of money as wages.

    I think I explained that it is unknown at this time how much of the 2 percent medical devices excise tax is going to be passed on to consumers. Assuming this tax is ever collected.

    Romney is already in trouble with dog owners. In an interview I saw this morning on MSNBC, Ann Romney mentioned that the story about their family going on vacation with the dog on the roof of the station wagon wasn’t an isolated incident – they did it all the time!

  64. #67 by cav on April 18, 2012 - 12:30 pm

  65. #68 by Richard Warnick on April 18, 2012 - 9:07 pm

    UPDATE: Rep. Pete Stark has introduced his bill called the Women’s Option to Raise Kids (WORK) Act, which would allow low-income mothers with children up to 3 years old to classify their child-rearing responsibilities as work, just the way Ann Romney did.

  66. #69 by brewski on April 18, 2012 - 11:46 pm

    UPDATE: Rep. Pete Stark has introduced his bill called the Women’s Option to Raise Kids (WORK) Act, which would allow low-income mothers with children up to 3 years old to classify their child-rearing responsibilities as work, just the way Ann Romney did.

    Why not men?

  67. #70 by Richard Warnick on April 19, 2012 - 9:14 am

    Why not men is a good question, but Rep. Stark is a Dem so this bill is political kabuki theater anyway.

  68. #71 by Larry Bergan on April 20, 2012 - 7:46 pm

    It’s definitely kabuki theater, but you have to admit the Democrats bills are adorable. Like the one about drug testing for congresspeople.

  69. #72 by cav on April 20, 2012 - 11:17 pm

    Theater for the ignorant and gullible. And granted, too many of us are that, or at least preoccupied. But Many are not, and those who see behind the scenes clearly enough to understand the differences, will booo the silly actors off of the stage. It’s already happening. Just as a plane crash, bullet or two – took out conscious, progressive, activists, similar misfortunes (Dog forbid) could easily begin crippling the crooked-that-be.

    Then there’s always pikes and guillotines.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: