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."

[J Diddy]

Originally Posted by Backwards Masking

i wont speak for him, but that's what im saying.

assuming of course it wasn't a legitimate rape, in which case we all know an abortion wouldn't be necvessary

I guess that's one form of birth control. I prefer condoms myself.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by BigRedChief

Obama proposed tax cuts incentives to target small business this summer. Those small business would have created a million new jobs. But, the Republicans said no and the bill went no where. Why did the R's oppose a tax cut?

Teachers, cops and firemen are not the reason we are in this mess.

In other words, Obama wants to do the opposite of what the Bowles-Simpson commission recommended. He wants to keep tax rates high and make the tax code more complicated. That's also, not coincidentally, why Republicans opposed it.

[vailpass]

Kill shot1111!!!!!

[vailpass]

Originally Posted by BigRedChief

Obama proposed tax cuts incentives to target small business this summer. Those small business would have created a million new jobs. But, the Republicans said no and the bill went no where. Why did the R's oppose a tax cut?

Teachers, cops and firemen are not the reason we are in this mess.

Good lord dude.

[BIG_DADDY]

Originally Posted by BigRedChief

The stimulus was 1/2 tax cuts. 1/4 infrastructure and less than 12% money for teacher salaries.

I dont get your opposition to teachers. How is having a class size of 22 kids instead of 32 kids a bad thing?

I don't oppose teachers. My point was I don't see hiring more of them along with cops and fire fighters as stimulus for our economy or part of the answer like our commander and queef does. BTW, I have asked this question countless times in this forum and still have yet to get an answer and I see you avoided it as well.

Originally Posted by BIG_DADDY

Here is the hard part, I am far from pro Romney and will probably protest vote again. There is simply no way to justify what Obama has done and voting for his massive fiscal irresponability. Nobody expected him to get us out of this in 4 years. Stimulation of small business and reduced spending in so many areas we can cut back on (government employees as an example) is all that is going to bring us back, not deficit spending on more cops, firemen and teachers. Here is my question to you or anyone else that supports Obama. What is it that he is going to do to fix our financial problems that is different from the total failure of his first term and why do you think it is going to work. QE3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10 is not it BTW.

[BIG_DADDY]

Originally Posted by BigRedChief

Well I know of one Republican pizza owner that will be.

You own a pizza place? Perfect cash business with high margins. The world could go to hell in a handbasket and you would probably just do better. No wonder you are just throwing bricks at us while we are drowning.

[Cave Johnson]

Originally Posted by vailpass

Good lord dude.

So, the idea that tax cuts create jobs is laughable to you? Because that's basically Republican dogma.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by Pittsie

So, the idea that tax cuts create jobs is laughable to you? Because that's basically Republican dogma.

Some do. Some don't. You clearly don't understand what you call "Republican dogma".

[A Salt Weapon]

Originally Posted by BIG_DADDY

BTW, I have asked this question countless times in this forum and still have yet to get an answer and I see you avoided it as well.

They never do, ask him them anything outside of their talking points and they deflect to something else.

My favorite one to ask liberals is how much tax they think is fair for people. On and on they whine about the rich not paying their fair share, tax cuts to billionairs, etc etc etc, however when asked how much the rich should pay in their ideal world, they have no answer and dodge the question.

I truely believe that liberals know their shit doesn't make sense, however they depend on maintaining the current situation so they don't care.

[Swanman]

Originally Posted by A Salt Weapon

My favorite one to ask liberals is how much tax they think is fair for people. On and on they whine about the rich not paying their fair share, tax cuts to billionairs, etc etc etc, however when asked how much the rich should pay in their ideal world, they have no answer and dodge the question.

I can take a stab at it. I would advocate a tax structure similar to the one under Clinton. However, I would raise the floor on the top tax bracket. The idea that someone making $250,000 should be in the same marginal bracket as someone making $10 million a year doesn't make sense to me. It wouldn't be a huge difference in tax rates, maybe a top rate of 35% for those making between 250k and $2 million, then bump it to 38% for anything above $2 million. I am just spitballing, but that, in my mind, would be more "fair".

I would also couple those tax changes with sensible spending decreases, and you get the budget balance under control. You get a surplus going in the country (yes I know, a pipedream), then you can ratchet back the tax rates a little bit.

[Cave Johnson]

Noted Obama supporter Peggy Noonan:

"This week I called [the Romney campaign] incompetent, but only because I was being polite. I really meant "rolling calamity." A lot of people weighed in, in I suppose expected ways: "Glad you said this," "Mad you said this." But, some surprises. No one that I know of defended the campaign or argued "you're missing some of its quiet excellence,"

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...pinion_LEADTop

[Swanman]

Originally Posted by Pittsie

Noted Obama supporter Peggy Noonan:



http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...pinion_LEADTop

The campaign thus far has been nothing short of a dumpster fire.

[A Salt Weapon]

Originally Posted by Swanman

then bump it to 38%

So you really think that individuals should be forced to pay over 1/3rd of their income to federal income taxes? In addition to the state and local taxes as well as social security and medicaid/care whatever.
Really how can you justify that?
The percentage a person pays should be irregardless of income level. Could you also feel good telling a family of 3 making $35,000/yr that they should be forced to pay $13,300/yr in income taxes? How about a single mother making $24,000/yr, can you feel comfortable forcing her to pay $9,120/yr in federal taxes on top of what she pays for state and local?

[King_Chief_Fan]

Originally Posted by Swanman

I can take a stab at it. I would advocate a tax structure similar to the one under Clinton. However, I would raise the floor on the top tax bracket. The idea that someone making $250,000 should be in the same marginal bracket as someone making $10 million a year doesn't make sense to me. It wouldn't be a huge difference in tax rates, maybe a top rate of 35% for those making between 250k and $2 million, then bump it to 38% for anything above $2 million. I am just spitballing, but that, in my mind, would be more "fair".

I would also couple those tax changes with sensible spending decreases, and you get the budget balance under control. You get a surplus going in the country (yes I know, a pipedream), then you can ratchet back the tax rates a little bit.

what ever it is, make sure Biden pays as much tax as I do. I know that clown makes more than I do, but it seems he is benefitting from the "rich guys" loop holes as well.
Taxes he paid last year are less than I paid.

[A Salt Weapon]

Originally Posted by Swanman

The idea that someone making $250,000 should be in the same marginal bracket as someone making $10 million a year doesn't make sense to me. It wouldn't be a huge difference in tax rates, maybe a top rate of 35% for those making between 250k and $2 million, then bump it to 38% for anything above $2 million.

Okay, so under your idea a person who makes $2mil/yr would pay $700,000/yr in federal income taxes and if the same person instead makes $2mil+ 1 dollar/yr would pay $760,000/yr in federal income taxes.

Do you really believe that an extra dollar worth of income should equate to a penalty of $60,000 dollars? Even more extreme could be the difference between .49 and .50 at the end of the 2mil, 1 extra penny of earned income should penalize an individual $60,000, really?