But not all current recipients are getting huge amounts for a long time. Some are going to be getting a small amount and/or for a limited duration. But those would be included in your 49% just as much as George Romney's family would be if they were contemporary.

(and yes, slander means a spoken defamatory lie. I should have written 'libel')

danivon wrote:But not all current recipients are getting huge amounts for a long time. Some are going to be getting a small amount and/or for a limited duration. But those would be included in your 49% just as much as George Romney's family would be if they were contemporary.

Right, except we might be able to measure a contemporary George Romney's benefit. Again, how much of that $100K did he get? $100? $20? Less? Even after adjusting for inflation, how far would that go?

(and yes, slander means a spoken defamatory lie. I should have written 'libel')

Gee, thanks for the clarification! Of course, I did neither, but suggesting I did was libelous.

Sue me.

Ah, I can feel the love here.

danivon wrote:Sue me.

My lawyers are on this.

Sorry, it was too easy to use that two-word come-back...

Steve, I have already said that I don't know how much George Romney's family got from the Federal government. All I know is what I've seen from a generic source like wikipedia and what Lenore Romney said. And it doesn't matter. It was 'some', and they got it for some time 'years', according to Mrs Romney).

That assistance helped the family (and the families of other Mormon refugees) to resettle in the USA, and to start over. Hoorah for that. If Mitt (and you) can conflate all those who receive any benefit (even if they make a net contribution, or don't even receive a benefit themselves and just live with someone else who does), then why do you have a beef with George Romney being included on the same basis?

Could it be that if you accept that not all people who got lumped into that 49% are getting all that much or for very long. Some of them may (particularly in the wake of the deepest recession for decades) simply need a bit of help to start over and, like Mitt's poppa, go on to better things.

Anyway, you accused me of lying about George Romney. I present what I know and how, and in what way I mean what I said. You still want to make me out a liar. And now I fully expect you to tell me it's all my fault anyway.

Meh.

danivon wrote:Anyway, you accused me of lying about George Romney. I present what I know and how, and in what way I mean what I said. You still want to make me out a liar. And now I fully expect you to tell me it's all my fault anyway.

Meh.

That you compare a one-time emergency program with the vast, Swiss-army knife-like welfare programs we have today is dishonest, particularly since you have no idea what it was he actually received. For all you know, it could have been $5 and a pack of Juicy Fruit.

I'm not comparing the programmes. I'm comparing the recipients. For the last time...

You have made a play of the fact that 49% of Americans live in a household that receives some form of assistance, but as I pointed out, that doesn't say much about what the form (or amount) of that assistance is.

Some may be in multiple benefits.
Others may be on very few.
Some may actually be putting more in than they are receiving.

Your single figure compared all of them to each other as one lump.

It certainly doesn't differentiate between those who get lots for a long time, and those who are on the equivalent of '$5 and a pack of Juicy Fruit', as you put it (although, if Lenore Romney is to believed, Gaskell Romney and family's would probably be more substantial than that, to have been given out over 'years').

Now, can you please stop with the name-calling?