Hear David Boze every weekday at 6am on 770 KTTH
 David Boze
Get David's Books
The Little Red Book of Obamunism: Quotations from The One
It's the must-have election resource of 2012! It's a pocket-sized collection that reveals not just what the president says, but what he means!
Buy it now on Amazon.com
Look inside: Read a sample

Kumar Joe, The Singing Crow
Kumar Joe, the Singing Crow is the tale of a little crow who was born with a heart for music, but not a voice for it.
Buy it now on Amazon.com
Look inside: Read a sample



ROMNEY SECRETS REVEALED!

September 18, 2012 @ 8:56 am (Updated: 9:39 am - 9/18/12 )

Mother Jones has released a video they apparently find "shocking"-- a video that some on the left believe may crush the Romney campaign by showing once and for all his contempt for the bottom 47 percent! What does Romney say in this awful video?

He basically says that when people do not pay federal income tax, that appeals to relieve that tax burden do not resonate. After all, they ARE NOT PAYING THEM. He then says that with about 47 percent of the public receiving something from government it will be more difficult for a smaller government message to appeal to them because they will, as any human being would respond to such incentives, become less amenable to something that may or may not change the specific benefit they receive. Romney says that a bigger government creates more dependency.

It is undeniably true. If anything, I think Romney is being too soft on saying he "could have phrased this better"-- the left-leaning media are now like sharks in the water-any sign of weakness on Romney's part is like blood in the water for them and they will go into a feeding frenzy on him. Thus Romney's Libya statement is a "disaster" while President Obama's missed intelligence briefings, the administration's assertion that it was a "spontaneous attack," the request for Google to review the content (free speech anyone?) of the offending video--those things amount to a collective yawn. Why? Obama is their guy.

Romney is saying what was proven true with welfare reform--that while a reform message may not appeal to those on the receiving end of benefits, in can improve their lives. Poverty went down, more people were able to take responsibility for their own lives. That's just one example obviously, but the point is true.

In Spain, Greece, France and elsewhere we have seen protests for the smallest "austerity measures." Protests even though it is painfully obvious there is no longer other people's money to burn on these measures. Imagine the Occupy! movement being a third of the electorate and you get the picture. Romney is warning of that future. It's not a message of "no safety net"--it's a message that in order to have the resources to provide the best net (along with defense, etc), you must grow the economy and free the creative energies of the people.

Mitch Daniels pointed out in his latest book that without economic growth even the big government program folks will lose out because eventually we won't have the money to pay for these things.

Romney shouldn't go on the defensive, he should be on the attack.

You might also be interested in:

Dave Ross: Secret remarks are obvious

More David Boze

MyNorthwest.com - Purpose of Comments statement
Bonneville Media encourages site users to express their opinions by posting comments. Our goal is to maintain a civil dialogue in which readers feel comfortable. At times, the comments can descend to personal attacks. Please do not engage in such behavior. We encourage your thoughtful comments which: have a positive and constructive tone, are on topic, are respectful toward others and their opinions. Bonneville reserves the right to remove comments which do not conform to these criteria.

Comments (112)


  • Add A Comment

  • It's me! Ha ha! wrote...
    49 days to go Parrots.
    September 18, 2012 8:12 am
    How are your Dear Leaders re immaculation chances today? In 48 days?
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • messiah101 wrote...
    Boze
    September 18, 2012 8:28 am
    You don't seem to be getting any better in you SPIN Job.The ONLY people you reach is the seriously uninformed far right glassy eyed voter who always votes GOP.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • messiah101 wrote...
    HAHA
    September 18, 2012 8:30 am
    Actually haha Obamas chances are looking better every day. Not because of what he is doing but because the GOP side keeps stepping in the deep dew do.Could you imagine them attempting to run the country
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • cigarfan wrote...
    @Lord Ha ha!
    September 18, 2012 11:31 am
    I'm not voting for Obama or Romney, but I'd say that Obama's chances are looking a hell of a lot better than Romney's!
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • jpetro wrote...
    Sometimes
    September 18, 2012 8:37 am
    the truth hurts.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Forrest wrote...
    Don't forget the corporate leeches that live off the government too.
    September 18, 2012 8:56 am
    like Halliburton, Blackwater, Boeing, Morton-Thiokol, Lockheed, Northrop Grumman, GE, GM and hundreds of others in this list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_defense_contractors. Also don't forget the Federal Reserve banks, the biggest leeches in the history of the US. If Romney would include these corporate leeches, he would have more credibility with the independents.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • kata wrote...
    I don't think
    September 18, 2012 10:42 am
    its a crime to want to keep more of the money you earn. I certainly try and hold onto every penny. (Legally, of course) Stacking the deck so that certain companies get "most favored" status and politicians can load their pockets is ridiculous, too. On the other hand what would happen to the PNW if Boeing stopped getting govt. contracts? What is it you'd like to see happen?
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Drool wrote...
    As if....
    September 18, 2012 9:01 am
    ...Mitt never went looking for a government handout.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Pair o'dimes wrote...
    He said "I don't care about them"
    September 18, 2012 9:04 am
    There is nothing wrong with welfare reform, and creating opportunities for the lower class. That is not the same as "I don't care about them". The real concern with this candidate is that he wants to create opportunities for the upper class re "job creators". But what we have seen during the last 2 decades is that the "job creators" did not use these opportunities to add jobs and build the middle and lowere classes, but instead used their influence to game the system and add to their wealth. The gap is growing between the lower and upper classes, the middle class is shrinking rapidly, and we have a candidate whose only real concern is those he will rub shoulders with at the country club. It appears his middle east policy will be somewhat similar, since he believes the Palestinians do not want peace, he probably doesn't care about them, since most of the soldiers that will serve in our new war in Iran are in the lower 47% he won't care about them either.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • kata wrote...
    the numbers are off
    September 18, 2012 9:04 am
    but its common knowledge the (D) party purposely trolls for people who need something from the Government and promises to ensure they'll get it. Life of Julia, anyone?

    I'll say something about this... it actually has some of my (L) friends smiling for the first time. Mr. Oatmeal earned a point. But I still don't think he's got a chance.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • SeattleNative wrote...
    @kata
    September 18, 2012 9:12 am
    There is a difference between income tax and social security tax. And there are millions of people over the years who never paid a dime into social security who receive benefits. So yes, it is an entitlement.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • kata wrote...
    @SN
    September 18, 2012 11:11 am
    so it should be fixed so that it works more like the "retirement program" it was sold to be. And by fixed, I don't mean further socializing losses the government spend decades creating. People should at least get what they put into it. That's what I was getting at.

    The whole argument will be moot if it goes bankrupt.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • SeattleNative wrote...
    The best social program...
    September 18, 2012 9:18 am
    ...is a strong economy.

    Not only have Obama and the democrats failed to provide an environment conducive to creating a strong economy, they are doing everything in their power to destroy it.

    Look at QE3 announced by Bernanke last week. It's going to bury seniors by moving the growth of their savings to near 0% while at the same time causing a new inflationary cycle. All to prop up Obama's failed economy.

    If you think Obama gives one rip about you or our country, you're delusional.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Drool wrote...
    Those "Moochers" in the 47 Percent
    September 18, 2012 9:18 am
    61 percent of them in 2011 paid payroll tax giving them an effective average tax rate of a bit over 15% which is a higher effective tax rate tan Mitt paid in 2010. Another 22% of them are elderly.

    I also presume that Mitt doesn't care about troops in combat zones because they pay no federal income tax.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • ron prevost wrote...
    Actually, Droll, with the Obama 'temporary' cut of the payroll tax, it was only about 3-4% (with employers anouth 7%)
    September 18, 2012 10:34 am
    Unless self employed. then you might get close to that 15%. ....... really should eliminate that top wage cap for SSI, however. Considering now and employee with a $115,000 income pays the same SSI as an employee with a $1M+ income.

    .

    BTW - if OBAMA cared about out troops in Afghanistan, he would bring them home - NOW.. .....Or at least get the targets off their backs.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Big Zipper wrote...
    @ron
    September 18, 2012 3:13 pm
    Ron, if obama brought home the troops from Aghanistan he'd be crucified as being soft on terriorism. he can't win. Hec Romney criticized him openly for the attacks recently...
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • ron prevost wrote...
    ZIP-
    September 18, 2012 4:15 pm
    At this point, I don't know anyone on the GOP who would bring the nails - let alone the crossbeams. ... The only thing we are still in Afghanistan for any more is a staging area for an assault on Iran -- .

    No matter WHO wind the election.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Drool wrote...
    More Video
    September 18, 2012 9:20 am
    Mitt's policy to deal with the Palestinian/Israel peace issue is precious. "Kick the can down the road". Now there's a great foreign policy.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • cigarfan wrote...
    @Drool
    September 18, 2012 11:42 am
    Thank gawd he said that now, so Americans will have no ambiguity in terms of whom to support.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }