Belly35;1274777 wrote:Facts and truth frighten the Democrat:

*49% of all Americans pay no fed income tax
*47% receive a check from the government of which more than half are means tested welfare checks (Medicaid, welfare, food stamps, etc.)
*36% of all Americans of working age are either not working or looking for work.




Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/09/18/mitt-romney-gets-it-right/#ixzz26ufnXH8r

sigh.

point 1: how many of those pay payroll taxes?
point 2: are you implying 100% of those 47% are lazy and that's why they're receiving gubmint checks?
point 3: What percentage of that 36 isn't looking for work (who isn't retired or physically/mentally unable to work)? Because that's your % that doesn't want to take personal responsibility.

Jesus man. That post sucked.

BoatShoes;1274617 wrote:Suppose Romney/Ryan took a Ron Paul style view on foreign affairs...you don't find anything they've said on fiscal/domestic matters attractive at all? Paul Ryan for instance has essentially supported the idea of going back to gold coins for money...not even a competing currency view but going back to gold coins. And, they've put out a pretty serious first step in getting rid of medicare. Surely even you might admit that a return to true limited government may have to happen incrementally, no???

Also, can there not be libertarians with a capital L and libertarians with a lower case l?

What do you mean "Ron Paul style view on foreign policy"? If they start talking like that, then I will call them out for pandering. If they actually had an epiphany and can somehow prove they really desire a foreign policy of nonintervention and free trade, then I would vote for them, despite their economic records. Of course there is no way that would happen.

As far as them talking about gold coins as money. Number one it is pandering. The people that they serve make a lot of money siphoning off our wealth via the printing press. Number two, I would rather have dollars compete with gold and silver than to have the government mandate which one is to be used as money.

As far as Medicare, I have yet to hear any of them claim they want to end it. I don't know their plan, and really don't care, but the only thing I have heard crying about is block granting it to the states. That certainly doesn't end it. The federal government would just be paying the states to administer it.

Yes a transition to a limited government would have to be gradual. Ron Paul pushed for a gradual transition. Electing guys that don't want to end anything they are doing now and support new military adventures and police state measures that are already planned only keeps us going in the wrong direction.

And yes there are libertarians, people that believe property rights and the non-aggression principle is the best way to order society (if you want to call it that), and you have Libertarians, members of the Libertarian party that nominated warmongering scum like Bob Barr and Wayne Allen Root for their ticket 4 years ago. Maybe Friedman was a Libertarian, I don't know. He wasn't a libertarian though.

derek bomar;1274802 wrote:sigh.

point 1: how many of those pay payroll taxes?
point 2: are you implying 100% of those 47% are lazy and that's why they're receiving gubmint checks?
point 3: What percentage of that 36 isn't looking for work (who isn't retired or physically/mentally unable to work)? Because that's your % that doesn't want to take personal responsibility.

Jesus man. That post sucked.

Actually it was a great post.

Only those working pay payroll taxes, so that would be those listed in first sentence. However, payroll taxes only fund social securty and medicare for that person. Payroll taxes do not pay for national defense, roads, bridges, highways, etc..etc... Thus, millions do not kick in even one dime toward their 'fair share' of tax revenue to provide even the basics for the country.

As to the second point, he did not say anything about anyone being lazy. But as any rational person knows, many are lazy, and they are taking advantage of a situation where you can get everything you need, and even that you don't need, i.e, cell phone, FOR NOTHING. So yes, it is high time we have this conversation.

And for the last point, millions and millions have given up looking for work because under the obama regime there is NO HOPE to find work. His anti-capitalist policies have stymied the economy. And so yes, it is time for that conversation also.

Thanks for the post Belly. Let's have the conversations, nationally.

QuakerOats;1274881 wrote:Actually it was a great post.

Only those working pay payroll taxes, so that would be those listed in first sentence. However, payroll taxes only fund social securty and medicare for that person. Payroll taxes do not pay for national defense, roads, bridges, highways, etc..etc... Thus, millions do not kick in even one dime toward their 'fair share' of tax revenue to provide even the basics for the country.

As to the second point, he did not say anything about anyone being lazy. But as any rational person knows, many are lazy, and they are taking advantage of a situation where you can get everything you need, and even that you don't need, i.e, cell phone, FOR NOTHING. So yes, it is high time we have this conversation.

And for the last point, millions and millions have given up looking for work because under the obama regime there is NO HOPE to find work. His anti-capitalist policies have stymied the economy. And so yes, it is time for that conversation also.

Thanks for the post Belly. Let's have the conversations, nationally.

Umm... no it wouldn't.

"And as Ezra Klein pointed out yesterday, more than 60% of the 47% pay payroll taxes. At 15.3%, the payroll tax rate represents a higher rate of tax than that paid by Mitt Romney himself.
Only about one-fifth of taxpayers are non-elderly people who pay no tax at all"
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/09/18/here-s-why-mitt-s-100-wrong-on-the-47.html

How convenient . . . a few minutes missing from the heinous secretive Romney tape:

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2012/09/19/Mother-Jones-Admits-Romney-Tape-Missing-One-or-Two-Minutes

However, payroll taxes only fund social securty and medicare for that person. Payroll taxes do not pay for national defense, roads, bridges, highways, etc..etc... Thus, millions do not kick in even one dime toward their 'fair share' of tax revenue to provide even the basics for the country.

The payroll "tax" is really your contribution towards your retirement. Your defined benefit entitlement is in relation to what you put in. This is tanamount to calling the amount your employer deducts from your paycheck for your 401(K) a tax.

believer;1274756 wrote:Do not make the naive assumption that Romney has already lost this election because he stepped on his dick while speaking the truth in front of some low-life's hidden camera.

He didn't lose because of this video. He will lose because he's completely unrelatable, a terrible political strategist, part of a creepy religion/cult, and has shamelessly changed everything he ever believed in to try and be President.

People don't like desperation, and Romney comes across as the clinger ex girlfriend leaving you crazy voicemails every weekend begging for a chance and wondering why you don't love him. He's all but got down on his knees and told the country he'd suck their dick for a chance to be President.

This race is still way to close to call.

It's over barring some insanely stupid gaffe on Obama's part, or some skeleton in his closet coming out. Obama is a far superior politician though, so I don't see that happening. I've been trying to tell you people Romney would be the nominee and eventually lose to Obama for 2 years now.

It's really best for the right to start preparing their excuses. My guess: "Voters are stupid," - "we should have never nominated Romney, Newt would have won!" - "THEY CHEATED!!!" - or some combination of the above 3.

derek bomar;1274802 wrote:sigh.

point 1: how many of those pay payroll taxes?
point 2: are you implying 100% of those 47% are lazy and that's why they're receiving gubmint checks?
point 3: What percentage of that 36 isn't looking for work (who isn't retired or physically/mentally unable to work)? Because that's your % that doesn't want to take personal responsibility.

Jesus man. That post sucked.

Just like all Democrat you did read the article did you. It not like present you the Obamacare document small article mofo

derek bomar;1275028 wrote:Umm... no it wouldn't.

"And as Ezra Klein pointed out yesterday, more than 60% of the 47% pay payroll taxes. At 15.3%, the payroll tax rate represents a higher rate of tax than that paid by Mitt Romney himself.
Only about one-fifth of taxpayers are non-elderly people who pay no tax at all"
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/09/18/here-s-why-mitt-s-100-wrong-on-the-47.html

OMG, tell me you don't understand payroll taxes. EVERY employee pays payroll taxes, that includes Mr. Romney and anyone who earns a wage. Individual employees are currently paying 5.65% in payroll taxes (4.2% for SS, and 1.45% for medicare), while their employer is paying 7.65% (6.2% for SS and 1.45% for medicare). For a liar like Ezra Klein to try and mix and match different taxes to fool the uninformed into thinking what you just wrote is a disgrace, but typical of a desperate left-wing media.

Half the country contributes nothing to national defense, interest, and other federal programs. That is a fact and it needs to be discussed.

BoatShoes;1274784 wrote:LOL

Can I help you?

2kool4skool;1275073 wrote:It's over barring some insanely stupid gaffe on Obama's part, or some skeleton in his closet coming out.

It is over ......... for obama. He was going to lose anyway, but sealed it with his "You didn't build it" quip. It is quite telling that in highly scientific polling in Ohio's 6th district, a poor district, if you will, obama is getting his arse kicked by very signficiant magins. Given that, there is simply no way he can win. He has lost votes from every single demographic.

But hey, believe what you want.

QuakerOats;1275130 wrote:It is over ......... for obama. He was going to lose anyway, but sealed it with his "You didn't build it" quip. It is quite telling that in highly scientific polling in Ohio's 6th district, a poor district, if you will, obama is getting his arse kicked by very signficiant magins. Given that, there is simply no way he can win. He has lost votes from every single demographic.

But hey, believe what you want.

I will make a wager with you. If Romney wins, I will PayPal you 1,000 USD. If Obama wins, you get a vasectomy so you can never reproduce again.

Deal. I will give you a 2% cash discount to wire the funds before month end - your chance to save $20.

2kool4skool;1275073 wrote:It's really best for the right to start preparing their excuses. My guess: "Voters are stupid," - "we should have never nominated Romney, Newt would have won!" - "THEY CHEATED!!!" - or some combination of the above 3.

I didn't know that AlGore was running again.

QuakerOats;1275112 wrote:OMG, tell me you don't understand payroll taxes. EVERY employee pays payroll taxes, that includes Mr. Romney and anyone who earns a wage. Individual employees are currently paying 5.65% in payroll taxes (4.2% for SS, and 1.45% for medicare), while their employer is paying 7.65% (6.2% for SS and 1.45% for medicare). For a liar like Ezra Klein to try and mix and match different taxes to fool the uninformed into thinking what you just wrote is a disgrace, but typical of a desperate left-wing media.

Half the country contributes nothing to national defense, interest, and other federal programs. That is a fact and it needs to be discussed.

Rombo implied that 47% of the Population of The USA doesn't have any personal responsibility. A good # of the people who are in that 47% have a job and pay payroll taxes, which fund SS and Medicare which you mentioned above. So, it would be logical to assume these people are taking personal responsibility for their own lives by working and paying into some sort of deferred benefit (ss/medicare).

Belly implied with his entire post, but specifically to his first point that 47% people paying no federal income tax equates to 47% of the population being lazy moochers. The facts say that it is not the case.

Also, just because an employer picks up a portion of the payroll tax, doesn't mean it's not earned by the employee. So I don't see why you couldn't make an argument for including it in that employee's tax contribution...if employees had to foot the entire payroll tax bill, salaries would just go up to compensate for it, would they not?

bases_loaded;1275119 wrote:Can I help you?

So two minutes are missing from the video and you ask why it's even news when the guy running for president of the United States suggested that Half of the Country Just Wants Handouts and Can't be Bothered to Take Personal Responsibility for their Lives

How is that not news?

2kool4skool;1275073 wrote:He didn't lose because of this video. He will lose because he's completely unrelatable, a terrible political strategist, part of a creepy religion/cult, and has shamelessly changed everything he ever believed in to try and be President.

People don't like desperation, and Romney comes across as the clinger ex girlfriend leaving you crazy voicemails every weekend begging for a chance and wondering why you don't love him. He's all but got down on his knees and told the country he'd suck their dick for a chance to be President.



It's over barring some insanely stupid gaffe on Obama's part, or some skeleton in his closet coming out. Obama is a far superior politician though, so I don't see that happening. I've been trying to tell you people Romney would be the nominee and eventually lose to Obama for 2 years now.

It's really best for the right to start preparing their excuses. My guess: "Voters are stupid," - "we should have never nominated Romney, Newt would have won!" - "THEY CHEATED!!!" - or some combination of the above 3.

It will surely include massive protests about voter fraud that they tried to stop but the Corrupt department of Justice wouldn't let them

BoatShoes;1275264 wrote:It will surely include massive protests about voter fraud that they tried to stop but the Corrupt department of Justice wouldn't let them

That's you people's schtick. That, and recount until you get the result you want.

The election will be close, but not close enough for any whining about "fraud" on either side to have any merit.

2kool4skool;1274730 wrote:Romney is going to lose. And at this point, I wouldn't be shocked if it's by 80+ electoral votes. Trying to say Obama is down in "nearly all" the swing states was the denial I was referring to.

Latest Gallup swing state poll had the gap less than 2% and within the margin of error. Like I said, Obama's numbers are overstated because the self-identified "likely voters" is going to fall well short. When you consider that, he's almost certainly trailing in swing states. It's not denial, it's just basic logic.

BoatShoes;1274779 wrote:No. He did not suggest that success is achieved by luck enabled by the government. That's what you think he really believes, despite countless statements to the contrary suggesting success requires hard work, etc.

Read the whole speech. The context of the rhetoric is unmistakable. The entire DNC was strongly themed about "the deck being stacked". There is no denying that Obama believes, or at least has been saying, that success is predicated on luck (because many people are educated and work hard, but not successful, according to Obama) meeting opportunity created by government. That is why the "you didn't build that" is 100% accurate within the entire context. It summarizes his philosophy very succinctly.

And the entire "your fair share" argument is bogus when 47% pay 0 share of the federal income tax.

gut;1275362 wrote:Read the whole speech. The context of the rhetoric is unmistakable. The entire DNC was strongly themed about "the deck being stacked". There is no denying that Obama believes, or at least has been saying, that success is predicated on luck (because many people are educated and work hard, but not successful, according to Obama) meeting opportunity created by government. That is why the "you didn't build that" is 100% accurate within the entire context. It summarizes his philosophy very succinctly.

And the entire "your fair share" argument is bogus when 47% pay 0 share of the federal income tax.

Like I said on this discussion the first time...when I first heard it in snippets on the radio, I thought he was indeed saying that a business owner didn't "build that" as in his business. When I did see the whole video, in context, it is clear that he was saying that business owners didn't build roads. He has said numerous times...almost countless times that hard work leads to success and not just luck.

The speech was just a good opportunity for folks like yourself to seize on words that you think reveal his true deep down philosophy that you're just sure he really believes....despite the innumerable other times he praises business people and hard work. More of the same attacking this ethereal version of Obama that doesn't exist.

BoatShoes;1275407 wrote: The speech was just a good opportunity for folks like yourself to seize on words that you think reveal his true deep down philosophy that you're just sure he really believes....despite the innumerable other times he praises business people and hard work. More of the same attacking this ethereal version of Obama that doesn't exist.

No, I realized it was taken out of context when I first heard it. However, upon hearing the rest of the speech it DOES pretty well capture him. It's no secret he's a far left liberal that believes in redistribution and HUGE gubmit. He basically says success is not only due to smarts and hard work, but primarily luck because it's not brains and work ethic that differentiates the successful but luck meeting opportunity, opportunity created by gubmit. The whole point - which ties very well with the whole "fair share" mantra, is the gubmit is entitled to whatever it needs because the gubmit created the environment for your success.

No, he didn't literally mean "you didn't build that [business]". What he CLEARLY means/believes the gubmit/society are more responsible for your success than you, enables your success and allows you to keep what you have....and as such is justified in taking whatever it needs. He's turning the axiom on its head that the people are for the government by the govt.

The "you didn't build that" meme is taken out of direct context, however fits the context of the whole speech very well.

Mitt is a classless piece of shit that should never get elected even for dog catcher. I earn my paycheck and pay my taxes and never had anything given to me like that silver spooned sun a bitch. I will take my chance with Obama.

Bigdogg;1275528 wrote:Mitt is a classless piece of shit that should never get elected even for dog catcher. I earn my paycheck and pay my taxes and never had anything given to me like that silver spooned sun a bitch. I will take my chance with Obama.

You do realize that Obama is a "silver spooned sun a bitch" as well right? He's just better at making you think he isn't.