Further Annals of the Passive Voice

Here we have the anatomy of some bullshit, laid out in such a manner as to make clear that it is bullshit, yet laid out nonetheless, despite being utter bullshit:

“The president’s view is one of larger government, there’s a tape that came out today where the president’s saying he likes redistribution,” said Romney during an interview with Fox News’ Neil Cavuto, the candidate’s first interview since the leaked videos showed Romney referring to 47 percent of the American people who feel “entitled” and who are “dependent” on government.

“I disagree,” said Romney on the issue of redistribution. “I think a society based upon a government centered nation where government plays a larger and larger role, redistributes money, that’s the wrong course for America.”

Romney was referring to an audio clip of then-Sen. Barack Obama’s speech at a conference at Loyola University in 1998. Obama said at the time that he thinks he does “believe in redistribution.”

“I think the trick is figuring out how do we structure government systems that pool resources and hence facilitate some redistribution, because I actually believe in redistribution, at least at a certain level, to make sure everybody’s got a shot,” Obama said at the time.

The audio file was posted on the conservative website The Drudge Report, which is run by Matt Drudge, a close friend of Romney campaign manager Matt Rhoades, under the headline “Revealed.”

In other words, we know that this is crap, we are aware that this video in no way implies what Romney and Drudge are trying to imply, and yet here is a story that leads with it, because otherwise bias.

(Pooling resources and redistributing them, natch, is the entire POINT of government, when it comes to things like roads, and schools, and armies, and other things for liberals and gays.)

Romney used the audio to try and paint Obama as someone who supports the government taking “from some” to “give to the others,” dubbing it an “entirely foreign concept.”

Foreign. Like with Kenyans and Muslims and French mimes in the faculty lounges and such.


8 thoughts on “Further Annals of the Passive Voice

  1. I don’t understand the discussion of “redistribution.” Or rather, I understand that it serves right-wing framing.
    If I were a politician. I would say, “it’s not about redistribution, it’s about how the rulesdistribute wealth in the economy. Right now, the rules distribute wealth upwards.”

  2. Carried interest, income as capital gains, and lord knows what else are all ways the government distributes wealth, in this case, upwards.
    The other day, I forget where — oh wait, I think it was Charles Pierce — finally pointed out that “government,” at least in theory, is self-government, i.e., when an asshole like Mitt says people are “dependent on government,” well, yeah, we depend on outselves.
    Yeah, yeah, I know that big money, lobbyists, and corporate personhood have made self-government almost a parody, but, again, at least in theory it’s still nominally ours.
    Finally, if Mitt and Drudge want to pull up videos from the 1990s, bring ’em on…and I’ll bet pro-choice isn’t the only policy position from Romney that’ll make the teabaggers retch.

  3. I enjoyed that you felt the need to explain who and what Drudge is.
    As for redistribution, the public resents the idea unless they are the ones receiving it. But they insist that it be stopped for any of those beneath them economically. Especially the brown folks.

  4. A foreign concept? I have trouble thinking of any economic transaction that actually invents wealth (with exception of South Park when?Farty McGeesacks? arrived on earth with a saucer full of Space Cash). Economics is how the wealth moves around.
    Bain Capital is a clear example of moving wealth from some people and areas and moving to others.

  5. Has Romney re-imbursed the govt (even without interest and inflation) for the money his Father got from welfare (per tape Jon Stewart had of Romney’s mother discussing the days when Romney’s father came back to USA soil)??

  6. Very good points in the comments. The whole notion of “taking” and “fairness” should be pushed back upon by liberals. Defending taxation by saying “we have to pay for stuff” is fighting on conservatives turf.
    We the people define what is “fair” and that changes over time. Is it fair that private equity firms exploit tax deductions on corporate debt when they hostilely take over a company and then saddle the company with the debt they used to take over management? Is it fair that we changed the rules for what can be traded on commodities market, leading directly to the global financial implosion?
    If the above are fair, then it is perfectly fair to raise the top marginal rates back up to 91% where they were for decades.

  7. Vince, of course they are fighting against even taking the taxes back to before the Bush rollbacks – which at the time were announced as being temporary. I’d think it a plus if we could even return to the rates of the 60s which were full short of the horrendous maximum tax rates that, for some reason, the conservatives think are still in effect. Partly because the conservs have been able to reframe letting the tax breaks expire as they were meant to do as being a tax hike (well, somehow I wonder if this wasn’t a plan to lower taxes on the rich, announce it as temporary, but we all know how hard it is to reinstate a previous tax rate).
    Also, I’ve mentioned before a point from the video version of Freakonomics. Namely that for the economy / Wall Street to work, the people have to believe that they have an equal chance – an equal chance at getting the information to get the good stock, an equal chance of realizing a return, an equal chance at getting any perks at ownership, an equal chance at appearing at the yearly stockholders meeting and setting the course, … Dare I say that my stocks give me an equal chance at getting a government bail out? That politician X will have a private meeting with me as readily as a meeting with one of the Dow Stock corporations (Corporations are people, after all), …
    Likewise for our Republic to work, even though we’re expanded the definition of “peer” far beyond the gentry of the early 1800s, the people have to believe that the government is looking out for them as much as it is others (a place where I would conceded the Tea Baggers have a valid point). I have an equal chance at voting (no voter caging), an equal chance of my vote counting, etc.

Comments are closed.