Romney: 47% of Americans are victims

[dirk digler]

I guess this maybe the kill shot for his campaign. I know some of you believe you this and won't find a problem with what he said but as a person running for POTUS you probably shouldn't write off 1/2 the country especially in a disparaging way.

A hidden camera video of Mitt Romney at a fundraiser shows him talking disparagingly of people who will vote for President Obama.

Said Romney: "There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That that's an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what...These are people who pay no income tax."

He adds: "My job is is not to worry about those people. I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives."

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by J Diddy

and what difference does that make?

This is about Romney telling half the country to **** off. This has nothing to do with Obama except that he's assuming the half that he's telling to **** off will vote for Obama.


Another thing that it did is absolutely validate the Dem argument about class warfare.

Full of fail.

[J Diddy]

Originally Posted by patteeu

I am Full of a dude named chuck.

Your beautiful analysis needed some work, so I helped ya out. K?

[A Salt Weapon]

I stand corrected. It was $29 withheld for taxes and a refund of $4,301. It was also H&R block that year instead of turboTax.
The point is the same.
Posted via Mobile Device

[cosmo20002]

Originally Posted by A Salt Weapon

A friend of my wife asked me to do her taxes last year, I plugged it into turbotax and went through her info, I would have to verify the numbers which I will do tonight, the amount of the refund was outrageous.
I refused to actually file for her based off what I saw, it disgusted me knowing that our government was literally taking money from us (Family of 5, my wife and I both work, I work days and she works night to avoid paying childcare) and giving it to someone else that chooses to work part-time and grab every entitlement available.

Kind of being a dick

[Pawnmower]

It is probably true, heck I'd wager more than 47% of people look at themselves as victims, blame other people for THEIR mistakes, do not take responsibility for their actions..etc...

It is a fairly common trait , from my observations....

But I wouldn't go around saying it in that way if I were running for an office....

People need to take more responsibility. Period. Those who aren't paying anything into the system, yet reaping all of the benefits have no stake...no motivation to change anything...We (the ones paying the bills) have to fight to change the way things are if we do not want to see our money thrown down the toilet, wasted , and frittered away only to be guilted,shamed and forced into paying more.

There needs to be some reasonable checks and balances in this system....the ones on welfare, paying no taxes, taking all the freebies should have to feel a sting also - be it co-pays, drug testing, work programs, etc.....

This is a massive crisis and we ALL need to chip in, not just the top half.

[J Diddy]

Originally Posted by A Salt Weapon

I stand corrected. It was $29 withheld for taxes and a refund of $4,301. It was also H&R block that year instead of turboTax.
The point is the same.
Posted via Mobile Device

Has it every crossed your mind that she worked part time due to circumstance and not desire? Has it crossed your mind that she was working, although not enough for your standards, and not living totally dependent on welfare?

But hey, you do your thing, big guy.

[A Salt Weapon]

Originally Posted by cosmo20002

Kind of being a dick

Yeah, kind of, still nicer than what I wanted to do of filing it with her owing money. Figured that might be illegal too.
Posted via Mobile Device

[A Salt Weapon]

Originally Posted by J Diddy

Has it every crossed your mind that she worked part time due to circumstance and not desire? Has it crossed your mind that she was working, although not enough for your standards, and not living totally dependent on welfare?

But hey, you do your thing, big guy.

Has it crossed your mind that I knew her, her circumstances, and her actions. Hence the reason I have only 1 statistic that is my wife's friend. Has it crossed your mind that she has no desire to work more and also that she is not alone in this country, there are many more that do exactly the same thing.
Posted via Mobile Device

[J Diddy]

Originally Posted by A Salt Weapon

Has it crossed your mind that I knew her, her circumstances, and her actions. Hence the reason I have only 1 statistic that is my wife's friend. Has it crossed your mind that she has no desire to work more and also that she is not alone in this country, there are many more that do exactly the same thing.
Posted via Mobile Device

Your wife obviously has a poor choice of friends. You should divorce her immediately and turn her in to Romney for Devictimization.

[A Salt Weapon]

Originally Posted by J Diddy

Your wife obviously has a poor choice of friends.

Hey look we can agree on something.
Posted via Mobile Device

[J Diddy]

Originally Posted by A Salt Weapon

Hey look we can agree on something.
Posted via Mobile Device

Why yes, yes we can.

[dirk digler]

Conservative Rich Lowry (editor of the National Review) destroys Mittens and all his apologists like patty.

He makes the same arguments that many in this thread, like myself, have against Mittens degrading statement that shit on half the country.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0912/81420.html

The best defense of Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney’s instantly notorious “47 percent” remarks at a May fundraiser is that he made a bad point badly.

Romney mixed up three separate groups of people: the roughly half the country that will inevitably support President Barack Obama, the half that doesn’t pay federal income taxes and the half that receives government benefits. Then he declared them all a collective lost cause. He will never win them over, or convince them to take responsibility for their lives. Next question.

In reality, these are three distinct groups. Many Obama supporters are rich. Indeed, we can be fairly certain all the attendees at the president’s fundraiser with Beyoncé and Jay-Z in New York City the other day have hefty tax bills. Meanwhile, many of Romney’s supporters — especially the elderly — don’t pay federal income taxes and receive government benefits.

As a political scientist, Romney is an excellent former governor of Massachusetts.

Romney didn’t come up with this construct on his own, however. On taxes, he was repeating a conservative talking point about the perils of 47 percent of the people not paying federal income taxes — though to be precise, 46.4 percent of “tax units” don’t pay income taxes, according to the Tax Policy Center. Romney took this line of argument and blundered his way through it.

George Will says Romney speaks conservatism as a second language. At times, he sounds like the English-speaking German in a World War II movie who’s infiltrated American lines and is asked who won the World Series. Even if he memorized the answer, he sure as hell can’t tell you anything about Stan Musial.

But the point Romney messed up isn’t particularly convincing to begin with — though it has been made by serious conservatives, like Romney’s own running mate Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan . The argument is that if people aren’t paying federal income taxes, they are essentially freeloaders who will vote themselves more government benefits knowing that they don’t have to pay for them.

As my colleague Ramesh Ponnuru has pointed out, there’s no evidence for this dynamic. It is true that the number of people without a federal income tax liability is up — it was just 28 percent in 1950. It is mainly the poor, seniors and lower-income families with children who don’t owe income taxes. The poor lean heavily Democratic, but that’s always been so. Seniors, meanwhile, have been swinging Republican, and there’s no indication that families with children are becoming more liberal.

Many workers who don’t pay federal income tax pay other taxes, including the payroll tax. Just 18 percent of tax filers escape both the income and payroll tax. People who aren’t paying income tax don’t think of themselves as freeloading “takers.” An April Gallup Poll found more discontent with taxes among people making less than $30,000 than any other income group. Fifty percent said they pay too much, though the vast majority has no federal income-tax liability.

The deeper problem with the “47 percent” argument is that it is right-wing Elizabeth Warrenism. It reflects the belief that federal income taxes are an expression of our togetherness. If you aren’t paying them — or aren’t paying enough — you are a subcitizen.

Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) says everyone should pay federal taxes, even if it’s “the price of two Happy Meals a year, $10.” Texas Gov. Rick Perry has said it’s an “injustice” that more people don’t pay income taxes. Warren wants to tax rich people as a statement of our patriotic commitment to one another; some conservatives apparently want to tax poor people and seniors for the same reason.

How does this look in the real world? If a couple earning $35,000 with two kids has no income tax liability thanks to various exemptions, deductions and credits (the child tax credit has been especially important in removing families from the rolls), how much should we tax them to get them to shape up and fly right? How much do they have to fork over to the Internal Revenue Service to learn a lesson in basic civics?

This line of argument represents a backdoor return to Country Club Republicanism, with the approval of part of the Republican base. Fear of the creation of a class of “takers” can slide into disdain for people who are too poor — or have too many kids or are too old — to pay their damn taxes. For a whiff of how politically unattractive this point of view can be, just look at the Romney fundraising video.

There is a separate problem of the growth of government, since roughly half of all households now receive benefits. Unreconstructed entitlements risk tanking the economy. Welfare traps people in dependency. Means-tested benefits like food stamps are creeping up the income scale. And the work ethic is eroding — especially among men without college degrees.

An alternative vision, not just a recitation of the president’s economic failures, should be at the center of Romney’s campaign. He needs to make the case for it cogently and consistently, with the fundamental American value of aspiration always in mind.

We’re still waiting.

[A Salt Weapon]

If a couple with two kids is only making 35k a year, then they shouldn't of had the kids in the first place.
Posted via Mobile Device

[J Diddy]

Originally Posted by A Salt Weapon

If a couple with two kids is only making 35k a year, then they shouldn't of had the kids in the first place.
Posted via Mobile Device

That's a brilliant argument. Are you saying you didn't have sex before you could afford to have a child? Or are you saying that if they didn't have the money to have the children they should have had an abortion?

Please clarify, because one goes against the laws of nature and the other goes against the republican platform, even if it was illegitimate rape.

[A Salt Weapon]

Ah see there you go thinking I'm a republican. I'm not against abortion, my wife and I had one after our first child and before our last two. You know why, we slipped on the birth control and couldn't afford another one at the time. Our second child was not planned but we were in a financial position to afford him, our third was planned. If our finances improve again we will consider another.
I'd like to think that's us being responsible, however maybe we're being stupid as we can have more kids, reduce our workloads, and let other people pay our way.

Hmm, too bad we both have too much pride for that.
Posted via Mobile Device