And, what's really amazing, is that the reason why a lot of people who do work only pay payroll taxes and not federal income taxes is because of the tax cuts that Republicans passed. Republicans like Romney are outraged at the logical and predictable effect of their tax cutting policies and are using that to justify calling these folks "takers" to in turn justify further cuts on the tax rates on "teh mAkers" and slash services for the non-rich, such as the great programs that those folks pay into with their payroll taxes their whole life.

It is so ridiculous that he thinks the 47% of the people who will vote democrat and the 47% of the people who "don't pay taxes" are the same people and further that they can't hope to be personally responsible for their own lives when almost all of those folks pay payroll taxes (meaning they work) or that they're old and worked their whole life.

BoatShoes;1273876 wrote:Tell me more about all of those white m00cherz in teh south v0ting f0r Obamma to keep the gubmint gravy train rolling.

My response of Indeed it is was to this comment.

"Now, what I'm eagerly waiting for is for all of our Ohio Chatter conservatives to agree with him because we know this is what you all believe!"

If you are seeking information about "moochers" you'll have to find it on your own. I am not familiar with who the "moochers" are.

BoatShoes;1273972 wrote:And, what's really amazing, is that the reason why a lot of people who do work only pay payroll taxes and not federal income taxes is because of the tax cuts that Republicans passed. ...

I don't know why that's "amazing".

I don't like those tax cuts. I would rather see everyone paying something.

BoatShoes;1273684 wrote:Worth noting...

In the mind of Mitt Romney, the man the Grand Ole Party has nominated for President of the whole United States apparently thinks that;

A person who:

-makes $60k a year
-is married with three kids
-tithes 10% to the Assemblies of God Church
-pays $3,000 in state and property taxes
-spends $1,000 on job expenses and tax preparation fees
-spends $5,000 on childcare expenses

is a moocher who can't hope to be convinced to be personally responsible for himself.

Boat, what makes you think Mitt feels that is the definition of a moocher?

It was definitely a dumb thing to say. The quote is obviously referring to the election and not the 47% of people as a whole. But in a time where anything you say/do is easily taped, tweeted, etc you should choose your words a little better. He says something similar about those who are reliant on entitlements in his speeches at campaign stops albeit it's a little more elegant when he knows the cameras are on him.

FatHobbit;1274084 wrote:Boat, what makes you think Mitt feels that is the definition of a moocher?

Because he's getting the 47% number from the stat indicating that in our current economic downtown as many as 47% of american's have not incurred a federal income tax liability. Conservatives have seized on this number to say that "half of america doesn't pay taxes" and then take it further to suggest that half the country is a bunch of moochers leaching off of the productive job creators....straight out of Atlas Shrugged.

I used this example because such an individual using those various types of provisions in the tax code to lower his tax liability would incur no federal income tax under the current code (largely in part to tax provisions put into place by Republicans no less).

Such a person is clearly not a moocher but is hard worker who is nonetheless part of the 47% who don't pay federal income tax. Yet, it doesn't stop Romney and other Republicans from using the 47% number to frame this election as a battler between the tax paying producers against the non-tax-paying moochers.

BoatShoes;1274098 wrote:Because he's getting the 47% number from the stat indicating that in our current economic downtown as many as 47% of american's have not incurred a federal income tax liability. Conservatives have seized on this number to say that "half of america doesn't pay taxes" and then take it further to suggest that half the country is a bunch of moochers leaching off of the productive job creators....straight out of Atlas Shrugged.

I used this example because such an individual using those various types of provisions in the tax code to lower his tax liability would incur no federal income tax under the current code (largely in part to tax provisions put into place by Republicans no less).

Such a person is clearly not a moocher but is hard worker who is nonetheless part of the 47% who don't pay federal income tax. Yet, it doesn't stop Romney and other Republicans from using the 47% number to frame this election as a battler between the tax paying producers against the non-tax-paying moochers.

Gotcha. Thanks

Con_Alma;1274067 wrote:I don't know why that's "amazing".

I don't like those tax cuts. I would rather see everyone paying something.

I suppose it's not "amazing" but indeed, it is Republicans and Conservatives and their anti-tax orthodoxy which has created this world wherein so few folks incur federal income tax liability...and now they're railing against it.

So, let's just cut to the chase and Republicans can just come out with it and argue, flatly, without veiling their arguments that the poor, small business owners (the most of which are middle class) and middle income earners should pay more in taxes and the rich should pay less. Let's just get it on the table so the overwhelming majority of people in America who disagree with that will stop being duped into voting for Republicans. Sound good?

Con_Alma;1274066 wrote:My response of Indeed it is was to this comment.

"Now, what I'm eagerly waiting for is for all of our Ohio Chatter conservatives to agree with him because we know this is what you all believe!"

If you are seeking information about "moochers" you'll have to find it on your own. I am not familiar with who the "moochers" are.

Well, then you're suggesting that it's true that, as Romney said, Obama is guaranteed 47% of the country which he further suggests is the 47% of the country that doesn't pay federal income tax and ultimately are so dependent on the government they can't hope to possibly be responsible for their own lives.

You say that is "indeed true."

Well, I offer, in refutation, a stat that indicates that not to be true. A great majority of the people who do not pay income tax, elderly white southerners, are 1. Neither hopelessly dependent on the government because they've worked their whole lives in most cases and 2. Way more likely to vote for Romney.

So, although it is true in current terms that 47% of the country may not incur a federal income tax liability...It is not true that those folks are Obama's base....In fact, the converse is true.

well this is why i dont support either party as a divorced person w / no kids why do i get screwed on taxes? You reward people for having kids they cant afford, why not reward people who are responsible or choose not to have children? no wonder people keep popping out kids that keep popping out kids. i paid 25% tax rate last year.

Gblock;1274110 wrote:well this is why i dont support either party as a divorced person w / no kids why do i get screwed on taxes? You reward people for having kids they cant afford, why not reward people who are responsible or choose not to have children? no wonder people keep popping out kids that keep popping out kids. i paid 25% tax rate last year.

Once again we can thank Republicans who expanded provisions for children because they believe that things like child tax credits support the family unit and we need to encourage families because they are the foundation of our society. The Bush Tax Cuts of 2001 and 2003 expanded these credits for those reasons but ironically of course, they now make similar arguments that you're making here that they're abused by welfare queens spitting out babies and leeching on the productive class.

In reality, they're used by every middle class hard working family that has kids that nobody would consider moochers.

yea i mean i know hard working people who have several jobs who dont mind having another kid because heck its a pretty sweet deal

From Bill Kristol of the Weekly Standard (one of the most conservative publications out there), whose response to the quotes were that they were "arrogant and stupid".

“It’s worth recalling that a good chunk of the 47 percent who don’t pay income taxes are Romney supporters — especially of course seniors (who might well ‘believe they are entitled to heath care,’ a position Romney agrees with), as well as many lower-income Americans (including men and women serving in the military) who think conservative policies are better for the country even if they’re not getting a tax cut under the Romney plan,” Kristol wrote. “So Romney seems to have contempt not just for the Democrats who oppose him but for tens of millions who intend to vote for him.”

Willard really stepped in it on this one.

If he doesn't miraculously pull this out, I hope it is a lesson to both parties about the perils of allowing a candidate to buy the nomination as Willard did. He carpet bombed lesser funded primary opponents into submission, and everyone cheered along the way all the while knowing he was a deeply flawed candidate.
[LEFT]
[/LEFT]

BoatShoes;1274104 wrote:...
So, let's just cut to the chase and Republicans can just come out with it and argue, flatly, without veiling their arguments that the poor, small business owners (the most of which are middle class) and middle income earners should pay more in taxes and the rich should pay less. ...

Now that I agree with.

BoatShoes;1274109 wrote:Well, then you're suggesting that it's true that, as Romney said, Obama is guaranteed 47% of the country which he further suggests is the 47% of the country that doesn't pay federal income tax and ultimately are so dependent on the government they can't hope to possibly be responsible for their own lives.

You say that is "indeed true."

Well, I offer, in refutation, a stat that indicates that not to be true. A great majority of the people who do not pay income tax, elderly white southerners, are 1. Neither hopelessly dependent on the government because they've worked their whole lives in most cases and 2. Way more likely to vote for Romney.

So, although it is true in current terms that 47% of the country may not incur a federal income tax liability...It is not true that those folks are Obama's base....In fact, the converse is true.

What is* true is that a person who pays no tax would be more likely to favor a tax policy that keeps it that way as opposed to one that puts that respective person in a high tax liability. Mr. Romney even pointed that out.

believer;1273899 wrote:Gore were worse than Romney.

Gore won the popular vote and very nearly the election despite fighting against Clinton fatigue and the tech bubble. Far from a terrible candidate.

Romney is going to end up losing, possibly getting blown out, despite out-raising his opponent and a terrible economy. Both will be unprecedented if/when he loses.

Stick a fork in him he's done. Dumbest Dumbass thing he could have possibly said with so many undecideds already thinking the guy might be an "elitest" with absolutely no clue as to the struggles of the true Middle Class. I was leaning towards giving him a chance but he lost my vote yesterday over this gaffe. Now even if BHO doesn't deliver justice to someone or some country for last week's ambassador murder, he's still getting my vote.

this circulated the internet all summer im surprised people are just hearing it for the first time

I'm surprised this is that big of a deal. There are people who are going to vote for Obama no matter what because they are on the government teat. I don't know if the 47% number is correct and it seems they are not the people who don't pay taxes, but I think it's safe to say those people exist and if they vote, it will be democrat. Just like there are rich people who don't want to pay more taxes and they are going to vote republican no matter what.

The only thing I think you can take issue with is our the 47% who don't pay taxes the same people who benefit from all the social programs?

Limbaugh today was cautioning today that Willard needed to tread carefully in a sense because alot of that 47% is his core base of senior citizens, and that as a Republican he can't be seen as wanting to raise taxes on that 47% that doesn't pay them because it violates Grover's pledge as well as the party ideology.

As Rush said, the Republican party is largely responsible for the fact that 47% aren't paying taxes through the various credits and such they have advocated and passed while in power. It is a big catch 22.

BoatShoes;1274115 wrote:The Bush Tax Cuts of 2001 and 2003 expanded these credits for those reasons

The credits are phased out for upper-middle income earners and over, as you know.

The comment he made shows how little difference there is between the two sides. Mitt calls the 47% who don't pay taxes freeloaders, like the solution would be to tax them more to pay for the massive government he thinks we need. Obama wants to tax them too, he just does it quietly by borrowing at the Fed window who takes the value from our money to monetize the debt. The difference between the two is semantic. Tax the poor up front or tax them through inflation. I have to laugh at anyone who thinks we have a real choice.

FatHobbit;1274312 wrote:I'm surprised this is that big of a deal. There are people who are going to vote for Obama no matter what because they are on the government teat. I don't know if the 47% number is correct and it seems they are not the people who don't pay taxes, but I think it's safe to say those people exist and if they vote, it will be democrat. Just like there are rich people who don't want to pay more taxes and they are going to vote republican no matter what.

The only thing I think you can take issue with is our the 47% who don't pay taxes the same people who benefit from all the social programs?

It's a big deal because he suggested half of America, one of the hardest working nation's per capita in the industrialized world, doesn't want to take personal responsibility for their lives...a ridiculous belief to be held by the man desiring to be president. You can throw out everything else he said.

I honestly can't believe he could possibly say or believe that.

He was my favorite candidate in 08...I thought deep down he was a pragmatic, reasonable moderate with a lot of executive experience capable of diligent leadership...I increasingly got the feeling he was being cajoled by an increasingly deranged right-wing cavern of lunacy and was dissuaded from supporting him as he seemed to be a hollow man. Although I have been disappointed by Obama I felt the GOP, not so much Romney, must be repudiated.

Then, I see this video and he says, with the most passion I've seen him say anything, looking completely comfortable, the same nonsense that deranged Freepers say...as if he were John Galt personified.

It is the sneering contempt that comes off more real than anything he has said so far.

George W. Bush, love him or hate him; I am confident he didn't believe that half of America didn't want to take personal responsibility for their lives and I don't think he would ever give the impression that he did.

Nobody who believes that about the American people, or gives the impression that they do, even if they're an eminently talented politician or manager, deserves to preside over their government.

Cleveland Buck;1274374 wrote:The comment he made shows how little difference there is between the two sides. Mitt calls the 47% who don't pay taxes freeloaders, like the solution would be to tax them more to pay for the massive government he thinks we need. Obama wants to tax them too, he just does it quietly by borrowing at the Fed window who takes the value from our money to monetize the debt. The difference between the two is semantic. Tax the poor up front or tax them through inflation. I have to laugh at anyone who thinks we have a real choice.

Well let's see, your boy Peter Schiff predicted hyperinflation in 2011 or 2012. Ben Bernanke has finally done the right thing in trying to get inflation expectation's to rise by promising to delay raising rates once the economy rebounds to potential gdp. Yet, no signs of hyperinflation but instead inflation still being projected below the target rate.

I suppose you've still got 3 and a half months left though.

BoatShoes;1274397 wrote:It's a big deal because he suggested half of America, one of the hardest working nation's per capita in the industrialized world, doesn't want to take personal responsibility for their lives...a ridiculous belief to be held by the man desiring to be president. You can throw out everything else he said.

I honestly can't believe he could possibly say or believe that.

I'll watch it again when I'm not at work, but that was not my first impression. (I did think the number was ridiculously inflated, but I was thinking of it in terms of freeloaders and not people who did not pay taxes.)

BoatShoes;1274397 wrote:He was my favorite candidate in 08...I thought deep down he was a pragmatic, reasonable moderate with a lot of executive experience capable of diligent leadership...

Was he your favorite republican candidate, or favorite candidate overall? Meaning would you have voted for him over Obama? I'll take your word for it, because I do find you to be a very reasonable poster even when we disagree, but I get the impression you lean towards voting straight ticket democrat. (I could be wrong, but it just seems that way to me. Many people would seem to be very left/liberal compared to posters here.)

BoatShoes;1274397 wrote:Nobody who believes that about the American people, or gives the impression that they do, even if they're an eminently talented politician or manager, deserves to preside over their government.

Do you think Obama believes that more than 47% of Americans want to take personal responsibility for their lives, even if he would never say so in public?

I don't know what the number is, but I personally think there are many people who don't. They might say they do, but their actions speak louder. I'm including business people looking for a hand out as well as "poor" people who think health insurance should be paid for by someone else.