The amount of money that can be saved by "gaming" the welfare system (food stamps, unemployment, Medicare) is nothing compared to the amount of money corporations save in taxes by hiring people like my dad.

Right. Ditto actually rich individuals.

I think the real benefit of Romney's 47% crap

Didn't he try to do damage control last night, saying it was a poor choice of words?

I'm dying to know how else you phrase "those fucking parasites don't deserve to eat."

Yeah, I realize this is self-serving, but I think gaming the Medicaid system to some extent is fine. My parents put their house just in my mother's name years ago on the assumption that my father might need to get Medicaid at some point, and if it was still in both of their names, they'd have to sell it before he qualified. But my mother still needs to live somewhere!

Uh huh. Years ago when my friends' mother had a catastrophic brain aneurism, their dad ended up divorcing her so that she could be declared indigent. Which, what an incredibly heartbreaking decision to have to make. But he had to raise his kids, and it kept them from losing their house and everything else when they'd just effectively lost their mom.

I'm dying to know how else you phrase "those fucking parasites don't deserve to eat."

Well obviously, without the swearing. He may be a condescending asshat with rich-guy blinders you can see from space, but he's still Mormon.

I'm dying to know how else you phrase "those fucking parasites don't deserve to eat."

They should die and decrease the surplus population? t /Scrooge

Uh huh. Years ago when my friends' mother had a catastrophic brain aneurism, their dad ended up divorcing her so that she could be declared indigent. Which, what an incredibly heartbreaking decision to have to make. But he had to raise his kids, and it kept them from losing their house and everything else when they'd just effectively lost their mom.

My mom and stepdad ended up getting long term care insurance that will cover them in case either need to be in a nursing home. I think it is definitely something for people to consider.

It's really bad for a campaign to loose control of its narrative, as they can't focus on what they want to due to all the damage control.

Agreed. Romney was never going to be likable (which I like to think is overrated, though perhaps less so in US elections); but he at least needs to be deemed capable.

The polls have been very stable - unusually so - more or less since Romney clinched the nomination. The only movement was due to the conventions, and favoured Obama. (It's settled back somewhat, but Nate Silver still estimates maybe a point of persistent gain.) Even at best, this is now another wasted week for Romney. They're running out of time to change the balance of power, and I think running out of people willing to listen. Not impossible, but looking more and more unlikely.

He has, I think, just three possibilities that are at all plausible.

1. He gains a clear advantage in the debates. (I find this unlikely, Obama's a capable debater.)
2. The economy takes a significant downturn over the next couple of months. On the cards, certainly, though the latest announcements by the Fed and the ECB make it less likely. before November at least.
3. A black swan event, like the Middle East unrest (but one where Romney is perceived to have handled it better than Obama).

All up, I'm pretty sanguine about Obama's chances.

I'd have thought last week's Libyan Ambassador murder was the best chance for a "black swan" event they're likely to get (I mean, I hope so, god forbid something worse), and Romney came out negative from that.

So negative that people from his own party were against him. It's very cheering.

Did you guys see Monday's Borowitz Report? It was hilarious.

I'd have thought last week's Libyan Ambassador murder was the best chance for a "black swan" event they're likely to get (I mean, I hope so, god forbid something worse), and Romney came out negative from that.

Yup, hence the caveat. Thing is, if he'd reacted as Reagan did to the Iranian hostage crisis, he could well have gained ground.

But yes, he needs another real life intrusion, and needs to do better with it (not just better than he did this time, but better than Obama). Such events are by their nature unpredictable, so I can't write that off - but by their nature, they are rare occurrences; Romney hasn't shown much feel for off-the-cuff gravitas; and these are just the sorts of situations where incumbency gives an advantage.

If things fell just right, Romney could gain the lead this way; but I doubt it'll happen.

I haven't been paying loads of attention to politics, but I can't help but think Mitt just lost the election. I don't think his 47% comments are going to swing a lot of votes, but I think they give democratic voters something to get worked up about which I think was Obama's biggest weakness in the election.