^^ later on that page

Quote :

"— 28.3 percent of households pay no federal income tax, but they do pay the payroll taxes for Social Security and Medicare. That means they don’t need Mitt Romney to convince them to “take personal responsibility and care for their lives.” They already have jobs. Most of the households in this group don’t pay any federal income tax because they qualify for enough deductions that their income tax liability has shrunk to zero. See this Tax Policy Center report for more, which gives an example of “a couple with two children earning less than $26,400. They get an $11,600 standard deduction and four exemptions of $3,700, and that takes their liability to zero.” Indeed, it’s worth noting that many of these deductions and credits were part of the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts, which Romney wants to extend."

I'm really curious what people are insinuating about the deductions of this 28%. I mean, really, what the fuck are you saying? The deduction obviously have to be:

- very common
- not extremely sophisticated or education related, since these people don't have much income
- amount to a lot, pushing the standard deduction up equal to their income

I'm don't think that Bubba, living in a trailer, making $20k a year managed to get the tax credit for installing solar panels or buying a hybrid. So the majority of this probably comes down to children-related tax credits. Again, unless Romney is proposing throwing seniors off a cliff or taxing the income of the unemployed (?), this bit about the "47%" (which isn't 47%) comes down to throwing parents off a cliff.

But again, as the description points out, those deductions for parents are Republican policies. Again, I'm arguing the "talking points" are incoherent. There's not a shred of sense in it.

[Edited on September 18, 2012 at 1:25 PM. Reason : ]

9/18/2012 1:22:32 PM

Quote :

"Freeloaders are what Romney implied when he said at his millionaire's dinner that 47% of the country votes for Obama because they depend on government assistance.""

No, he was simply saying they are likely to vote for Obama and the party of govt.

^He wasnt proposing anything. HE was talking about what needs to happen for him to win the election. He was saying there isnt anything he can do about 47% of the people who will likely vote for Obama. His talk of tax cuts doesnt really resonate with them bc they dont pay them anyway. And so he doesnt need to spend resources on that group, he needs to focus on the 10% of indys that would swing the election his way. I dont really understand what is so shocking.

[Edited on September 18, 2012 at 1:54 PM. Reason : .]

9/18/2012 1:50:55 PM

can't believe people are defending him. Hardworking Americans are the construction workers, restauraunt workers and laborers. They need govt assistance because they simply don't make enough to cover health insurance for a whole family or to have some huge, grandiose retirement plan. Most lower income working americans have no disposable income, so what are they supposed to do when they are in need?


And then Mitt just goes and lumps them in as lazy slouches that want to live off of the government. Totally crazy that people can't see through this guy.

9/18/2012 2:00:24 PM

Quote :

" He was saying there isnt anything he can do about 47% of the people who will likely vote for Obama. His talk of tax cuts doesnt really resonate with them bc they dont pay them anyway."

...is flagrantly, ridiculously, hilariously, wrong.

It's not clear that the 47% even leans to Obama, much less that they all vote for him. It's the kind of statement where it would be difficult to be more wrong if you tried.

9/18/2012 2:04:47 PM

Most of the 47% is prolly his loyal base. Again, it's that Reagan ideology that "all people on welfare are black women with too many kids" which is inherently incorrect and racist. He is basically spitting in the eye of the voting base that would potentially elect him, and they are too caught up on the bible to even care.



[Edited on September 18, 2012 at 2:11 PM. Reason : z]

9/18/2012 2:10:32 PM

Are we even all on the same page when we talk about the 47% figure? It seems like there's the 47% of voters that are very likely to vote for Obama, and then the 47% of people that don't pay income tax.

9/18/2012 2:16:01 PM

9/18/2012 2:16:33 PM

yes it is really hard to believe that people that rely on govt would vote for the party of big government.


http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2012/09/18/the-data-behind-romneys-47-comments/


There was a gallup poll out yesterday on the role of govt. I think it was 18% of republicans thought the govt should do more, while 67% of dems believed it should do more.

9/18/2012 2:20:39 PM

Quote :

"I mean, really, what the fuck are you saying?"

I'm not really sure what I'm arguing with you since I agree with everything you said after that?

Quote :

"he was simply saying they are likely to vote for Obama"

That, and that they are "dependent on government, who believe that, that they are victims, who believe that government has the responsibility to care for them" -- which is not true at all.

9/18/2012 2:20:57 PM

Quote :

""There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what," Romney says in one clip first posted on Monday afternoon. "There are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent on government, who believe that, that they are victims, who believe that government has the responsibility to care for them. Who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing.""

So is he gonna just continue to lie about America, to America?

9/18/2012 2:34:48 PM

^ Let me ask you this. If he hadnt used a percentage and said this instead. Would you think that was an accurate statement?

"People who will always vote for Obama vs Me are people who are dependent on government, who believe that, that they are victims, who believe that government has the responsibility to care for them. Who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing.""

9/18/2012 2:39:13 PM

Quote :

"^He wasnt proposing anything. HE was talking about what needs to happen for him to win the election. He was saying there isnt anything he can do about 47% of the people who will likely vote for Obama. His talk of tax cuts doesnt really resonate with them bc they dont pay them anyway. And so he doesnt need to spend resources on that group, he needs to focus on the 10% of indys that would swing the election his way. I dont really understand what is so shocking. "

Maybe, but as has already been pointed out, he also equated them all to lazy, freeloading scumbags, which is entirely untrue. Either he actually believes that to be true (likely, IMO) or he's an incredibly horrible off-the-cuff speaker (also likely, IMO). Either way, it's another blow to his chances.

[Edited on September 18, 2012 at 2:40 PM. Reason : And his credibility]

9/18/2012 2:39:38 PM

9/18/2012 2:40:37 PM

Quote :

"Are we even all on the same page when we talk about the 47% figure? It seems like there's the 47% of voters that are very likely to vote for Obama, and then the 47% of people that don't pay income tax."

It's hard to say; Mitt Romney seems to have conflated the two.

9/18/2012 2:46:14 PM

Precisely. And that's a problem.

9/18/2012 2:47:53 PM

Quote :

""People who will always vote for Obama vs Me are people who are dependent on government, who believe that, that they are victims, who believe that government has the responsibility to care for them. Who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing.""

Still vastly incorrect. Have you never met a poor person on welfare/unemployment anymore? I'm starting to think that everyone defending him is either a) a victim of some seriously biased propaganda or b) a victim of being sheltered by wealth their whole life.

You really think that all of the poor govt assisted people vote for the dems? HAVE YOU EVER BEEN OUT TO THE COUNTRY BEFORE? you know, towns like Badin, Denton, Albemarle?

[Edited on September 18, 2012 at 3:03 PM. Reason : z]

9/18/2012 3:01:17 PM

9/18/2012 3:01:33 PM

Quote :

"Let me ask you this. If he hadnt used a percentage and said this instead. Would you think that was an accurate statement? "People who will always vote for Obama vs Me are people who are dependent on government, who believe that, that they are victims, who believe that government has the responsibility to care for them. Who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing."""

no, it's not an accurate statement. it's an assumption borne out of contempt for people that are poor. And in Romney's defense, it's easy for a guy to arrive at that conclusion when he has literally zero contact with people that aren't wealthy.

9/18/2012 3:03:11 PM

Quote :

"^ Let me ask you this. If he hadnt used a percentage and said this instead. Would you think that was an accurate statement? "People who will always vote for Obama vs Me are people who are dependent on government, who believe that, that they are victims, who believe that government has the responsibility to care for them. Who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing."""

Not accurate, nope. There are many other reasons why people might vote for Obama vs. Romney and not every person who believes these things would necessarily vote for Obama. For the statement to be accurate, every voter would need to be making their decision 1) based on only those things, and 2) in a way that benefits their situation. If you are making the claim that those things are always true, you will need to support that.

9/18/2012 3:03:48 PM

Quote :

""Let me ask you this. If he hadnt used a percentage and said this instead. Would you think that was an accurate statement? "People who will always vote for Obama vs Me are people who are dependent on government, who believe that, that they are victims, who believe that government has the responsibility to care for them. Who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing."""

No, that's not an accurate statement. There is plenty of poor white-trash that accepts govt handouts that still would never vote democratic, (especially a black democrat!). sorry for the "race-card" and generalizations, but i'm just saying.

9/18/2012 3:05:50 PM

When I worked at whole foods I knew a lot of people who lived in government housing and/or had food stamps. They worked the same as those who didn't.

As a whole it is terrifying how many babies people have in general who can't afford it. I blame Catholicism.

9/18/2012 3:14:13 PM

Fun Fact: When you apply for a job at Wal-Mart (the nations largest private employer), you're also given a form to fill out to apply for food stamps.











American tax dollars: subsidizing the financial wealth of the Walton family. Fuck, yeah.



[Edited on September 18, 2012 at 3:28 PM. Reason : ]

9/18/2012 3:26:31 PM

fair enough

Now to you guys that answered, do you think more of the people he described would vote Republican or Democrat?

9/18/2012 3:28:17 PM

It is pretty obvious that most of those people would vote for republican bro. If you don't know that by now, you need to look into and not just listen to the BS that reagan started saying and propagated.

[Edited on September 18, 2012 at 3:31 PM. Reason : j]

9/18/2012 3:31:11 PM

I really don't know, I would prefer to see the numbers instead of guessing. what are you getting at?

9/18/2012 3:32:16 PM

I would say the vast majority of old people on government assistant vote republican.

It also seems like from my own observations half of West Virginia is on food stamps.

[Edited on September 18, 2012 at 3:35 PM. Reason : I'll guess!]

9/18/2012 3:35:09 PM

Quote :

"Now to you guys that answered, do you think more of the people he described would vote Republican or Democrat? "

Quote :

" the New York Times reported earlier this year that the greater a county's dependence on government benefits, the more likely it was to vote Republican in 2008. "

http://blogs.hbr.org/fox/2012/09/mitt-romneys-47-percent.html

Basically, Romney's statement wasn't accurate in any way, shape, or form.

If this wasn't obvious to you from the get go, you are grasping at straws, if you don't see this now, you're delusional.

Assuming there's nothing that exonerates Romney in the rest of the video (and it doesn't seem like it, considering Romney isn't making this allegation), there's no valid point Romney could have possibly been making.

more info:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/09/17/romney-my-job-is-not-to-worry-about-those-people/

[Edited on September 18, 2012 at 4:02 PM. Reason : ]

9/18/2012 4:00:22 PM

Quote :

"I really don't know, I would prefer to see the numbers instead of guessing. what are you getting at?"

Reagan started and perpetuated this false idea that basically claims that lower income minorities are pulling too much money from the government in the form of assistance programs and that this is why the country is going further in debt. Now, not only do the numbers not add up (meaning that the majority of people on government assistance are NOT black, in fact they are white americans), but this sort of ideology detracts from all of the unnecessary spending on defense and tax cuts that he enjoyed and propagated during his presidency.

9/18/2012 4:03:52 PM

That wasnt my question. Do you feel more republicans or democrats believe "who believe that, that they are victims, who believe that government has the responsibility to care for them. Who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing."

In my opinion the faith in the govt providing all is more of a left trait. I think this board illustrates some of this with some expressing their "right" to health care and other things.

^I dont recall Reagan pulling race into it. The fact that entitlements make up the largest share of our spending and is about to get worse with the boomers isnt debatable. I dont know why people love to argue this. It is basic math, just look at the numbers.

Moron, help me with Kleins numbers. He likes to shift his percentages. So 47% dont pay income taxes. Of those who dont pay 28% pay payroll. And 10% are retired. He seems to be shifting the numbers. There are 300M and only 150M taxpayers. (roughly) So we are talking half of a half paying income taxes. Correct?
[Edited on September 18, 2012 at 4:11 PM. Reason : .]

[Edited on September 18, 2012 at 4:19 PM. Reason : ..]

9/18/2012 4:06:50 PM

BREAKING NEWS: Romney hates 47% of Americans and tells them to go fuck themselves cuz he's rich.

9/18/2012 4:08:32 PM

^actually, yes:

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/greed-and-debt-the-true-story-of-mitt-romney-and-bain-capital-20120829


Mitt Romney's financial "genius" essentially revolves around his ability to tell anyone and everyone, "fuck you, pay me."



You know, one day, some of the neighborhood kids carried his mom's groceries all the way home for her. You wanna know why? It was out of respect.

9/18/2012 4:14:42 PM

^^^

That's a strawman question.

No one in the US believes the gov. should be providing all.

As the link posted earlier shows, the 47% of people who don't pay income taxes still pay a substantial amount of taxes (similar percentage bracket Romney is in), and are mostly very poor families, or the elderly.

They aren't able-bodied people relishing the idea of the government supporting them.

So to answer your question, NO SIDE believes the government should provide all.

Liberals might believe more in helping the poor and needy more, whilst Conservatives would focus on giving money to businesses and corporations. Both are entitlements targeted in different areas.

Romney wasn't trying to make an insightful depiction of American politics. BobbyDigital nailed it in saying that Romney's statement was born out of contempt for the poor. This is crystal clear in the tone and context of what he said.

I imagine we'll see more failed attempts to graft some deeper meaning to what Romney was saying, but the data is pretty straight-forward in this case.

[Edited on September 18, 2012 at 4:20 PM. Reason : ]

9/18/2012 4:17:38 PM

You cant tell me that somebody working manual labor, 50+ hours a week, paying taxes, is not entitled to health care. That is just backwords thinking. The country should be able to take care of its middle class, because a thriving middle class is what separates us from Mexico

9/18/2012 4:19:25 PM

Quote :

"Liberals might believe more in helping the poor and needy more, whilst Conservatives would focus on giving money to businesses and corporations. Both are entitlements targeted in different areas. "

I disagree with that. I think the idea of "help" is what differs. I think Conservatives favor letting people keep more of what they earn. And Conservatives favor giving money to corps and businesses? GM, Solyndra?

^Banjo thanks for helping prove my point. No he isnt entitled to health care. You arent entitled to anything someone else has to provide. That is exactly my point on the different way of thinking.

9/18/2012 4:27:05 PM

There is a word for someone who works 50+ hours a week yet can't afford basic necessities like food and health care: a slave.

9/18/2012 4:30:15 PM

What would you call the person who is forced to provide health care for him at no cost to the consumer?

I dont think you understand the defintion of a slave.

But again, thanks for helping me prove my point.

[Edited on September 18, 2012 at 4:35 PM. Reason : .]

9/18/2012 4:31:46 PM

Quote :

"What would you call the person who is forced to provide health care for him at no cost to the consumer?"

A unicorn?

9/18/2012 4:36:05 PM

lol, Obama and the liberal media must be really desperate if they're blowing up this non-story into headlines. Anything to steer coverage away from Obama's record over the past 4 years.

9/18/2012 4:39:30 PM

There is a word for someone who works 50+ hours a week and is forced to buy health care: a slave.

9/18/2012 4:41:41 PM

9/18/2012 4:42:34 PM

I think it's so funny when conservatives keep saying "they must be getting desperate..." it's kinda like when mom's say to their children "the reason that other kids pick on you is because they're jealous".

[Edited on September 18, 2012 at 4:49 PM. Reason : oh, and i understand you banjo, i was asking what eye was getting at]

9/18/2012 4:43:54 PM

I don't have a problem with government taking money from the rich and buying health care for poor people. Not the slightest problem. The problem is that's not how the world works. In reality, the poor pay for the health care through a myriad of siphoning methods. Taxes of every shape and color that can't be avoided by the poor are rampant. Then when they're provided with this "health care", it's done through corrupt companies that have a government mandated monopoly, inflate costs, and underwrite it with all the companies that caused our financial crash.

Government say it takes from the rich and gives from the poor and does the reverse. You can't fix it by asking them to stop it. It will get worse.

It's generosity that kills.

9/18/2012 4:47:32 PM

Quote :

"I don't have a problem with government taking money from the rich and buying health care for poor people."

Again, another one proving my point. To hell with their rights!!! hahah

Please tell me how poor people pay for health care through "siphoning methods". You can explain those too while you are at it.

9/18/2012 4:53:34 PM

Everyone on this board I assume went to nc state.

9/18/2012 4:53:37 PM

Quote :

"I think it's so funny when conservatives keep saying "they must be getting desperate..." it's kinda like when people mom's say to their children "the reason that other kids pick on you is because they're jealous"."

Both sides do it, and it's equally as ignorant.

If Obama had a major case of foot in mouth it'd be all over Fox News and Rush and likely CNN and NPR. It's the way it is. Why would they not use gaffes to their advantage.

Granted, this little sound bite was from May but the people who had it sat on it until they could get the most exposure.

9/18/2012 4:54:42 PM

oh yeah, both sides do do it. I've just been seeing it a lot recently about the dems being desperate.

9/18/2012 5:01:46 PM

Quote :

"Please tell me how poor people pay for health care through "siphoning methods"."

Every dollar the government borrows to fund itself favors capital over labor in the market. Our government borrows a hell of a lot of dollars.

That factor alone is sufficient to at minimum cast doubt on any redistribution scheme someone claims us to have. It's overtly biased to benefit the poor at the cost of the rich, but all of the subvert factors favor the rich. By how much? By this very concept we can never know.

9/18/2012 5:25:21 PM

Quote :

"Every dollar the government borrows to fund itself favors capital over labor in the market. Our government borrows a hell of a lot of dollars. "

I agree, but when you see the majority of democrats wanting MORE govt.. you have to shake your head. Esp when you figure out that the hole in the ship is entitlements and caused by the fed going outside of its job.

But that still doesnt explain how poor people are paying for their healthcare.

9/18/2012 5:56:55 PM

We could entertain the concept of poor people getting free health care in the form of medicare. So that's one distinct population, as a subset of poor people. We could talk about that, but for the most part no one advocates this for all poor people, which can't be fully discriminated from the set of all people, so...

When someone advocates that employers pay for health care (which they do), that's just... making employees pay for it. anyone who maintains otherwise just isn't exercising simple economics.

Are poor people on the whole paying more for health care than if there was no intervention? yes.
Are poor people getting more health services as a result? probably.
Is there an overt wealth transfer to the health care of poor people. sure.
Do poo people get more value out of life because of this? unclear. probably not.

9/18/2012 6:17:09 PM

people who originate from the mythical island of poo.

9/18/2012 6:34:05 PM