logo 
spacer
  

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

If you have an opinion, you should share it! Register Now!

America's Debate hosts the best in news, government, and political debate. Register now to take part in the most civil and constructive debate on the Internet. Join the community, and get ready to be challenged!

Click here to start

> Sponsored Links

Register to remove these ads!
> What Mitt Romney Thinks of Americans, Are You Part of the 47 Percent?
nighttimer
post Sep 18 2012, 02:24 AM
Post #1


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Sponsor
February 2007

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 4,660
Member No.: 504
Joined: February-16-03

Gender: Undisclosed
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: Undisclosed



Mother Jones magazine has a tape of Mitt Romney speaking to a room full of donors and he makes it pretty clear what he thinks about a good sized chunk of the American population:

QUOTE
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.

Romney went on: "[M]y job is is not to worry about those people. I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives."


Questions for debate:

1. Will Romney's remarks impact the campaign in a positive or negative way or have no effect at all?

2. Should Romney apologize for his remarks? Explain what he meant? Totally ignore the remarks and focus on the campaign?

Bonus question: Are you part of the 47 percent Romney isn't worried about or the 53 percent he is?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
9 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 > »   
Start new topic
Replies (20 - 39)
Paladin Elspeth
post Sep 18 2012, 06:11 PM
Post #21


*********
I want the 10th Doctor for President!

Sponsor
August 1, 2003

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 4,987
Member No.: 721
Joined: May-10-03

From: Between 2 Great Lakes
Gender: Female
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



QUOTE(Aquilla @ Sep 18 2012, 02:01 PM) *
I think it can have a positive impact if anything with people who honestly haven't made up their mind. Like it or not, we do all see some people who abuse the system from time to time and that kind of ticks people off.


But forty-seven percent of people? I'll agree with Romney: he could have put it a little more "elegantly." Interesting that he didn't mention the wealthiest people who abuse the system and tick people off. Oh, wait...that's his base! rolleyes.gif
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/romney-...--election.html

QUOTE
Still Romney ignored a question about whether he really believes what he was saying. Asked if his words were reflective of his "core convictions," Romney simply walked away.

And so Romney writes off 47% of the voting population (his figure).

This post has been edited by Paladin Elspeth: Sep 18 2012, 06:19 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nighttimer
post Sep 18 2012, 06:18 PM
Post #22


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Sponsor
February 2007

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 4,660
Member No.: 504
Joined: February-16-03

Gender: Undisclosed
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: Undisclosed



QUOTE(Aquilla @ Sep 18 2012, 02:01 PM) *
rolleyes.gif It is heartening in a way that even though the Church of Obama has essentially declared victory here and in the lapdog media, they still feel it necessary to run around in the gutter. I dunno, maybe they like the gutter. Oh well, if nothing else it makes for entertaining reading and a nice distraction from time to time.


Methinks thou dost protest too much. Nobody here has declared an Obama victory and you can take a whiz on the "lapdog media" if that blows your skirt up. It doesn't invalidate Romney's brain-dead remarks. dry.gif

QUOTE(Aquilla)
1. Will Romney's remarks impact the campaign in a positive or negative way or have no effect at all?

I think it can have a positive impact if anything with people who honestly haven't made up their mind. Like it or not, we do all see some people who abuse the system from time to time and that kind of ticks people off. I don't have a problem with someone who has a family to feed and house getting a helping hand be it from the government or a private charity, that's what the system is for. I do have a problem with people who don't want to contribute to society taking advantage of the system, and yes, believe it or not, there are people out there who do that, and are encouraged to do that. I would think people who genuinely need the system would resent abuse of it as well. But, apparently not, not as long as they get what they need. Those people are going to support Obama, regardless. That's what Romney was talking about. It's not that he doesn't care about them and their lives, he does and his contributions over the years to private charities proves that, rather he knows he can't possibly get them to vote for him. So, why try?


There is probably a natural predilection to support a candidate that supports and promotes a program that has value to them personally and oppose a candidate that does not. However, that doesn't mean they are "victims" or lack a sense of personal responsibility. My neighbor is an Iraq war veteran who regularly travels to the V.A. hospital in Dayton for treatment of the cancer he developed while he was in the Army. This is a guy who served his country. He's nobody's damn "victim" and for somr elitist, plutocrat, country-club Republican idiot to suggest otherwise demonstrates Romney's unfitness for the office of the presidency.

QUOTE(Aquilla)
2. Should Romney apologize for his remarks? Explain what he meant? Totally ignore the remarks and focus on the campaign?


No apology necesary. He's explained his remarks, the context in which they were delivered and sottd by them. Go back to the real issues.


A candidate for the White House who is contemptuous of nearly half the country IS a real issue. Mitt's campaign motto is "Believe In America." He should change it to "Believe In Half of America. The Rest Can Drop Dead."

QUOTE
Bonus question: Are you part of the 47 percent Romney isn't worried about or the 53 percent he is?

laugh.gif Have you beat your wife lately, NT? laugh.gif

Romney doesn't have to worry about me or my vote.


He never did. He could beat Ann's butt every night and would still have your vote. It's not a pro-Romney vote. It's an anti-Obama vote. Bit of a difference between the two.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Raptavio
post Sep 18 2012, 06:30 PM
Post #23


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 3,515
Member No.: 10,458
Joined: April-27-09

From: Rosemount, MN
Gender: Male
Politics: Very Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



QUOTE(Amlord @ Sep 18 2012, 09:05 AM) *
1. Will Romney's remarks impact the campaign in a positive or negative way or have no effect at all?

I don't think they will have much of an effect.

These comments are reflective of how the race is actually going. There is a group of people in this country that don't pay taxes and so are not persuaded by a "keep taxes low" platform. Does anyone doubt this? I'm talking about working people and this same group is persuaded by the "tax the rich" divisiveness of the Obama campaign. There are people that believe that the rich don't pay their "fair share" despite the fact that the top 1% pays 36.7% of all federal income tax and the bottom 95% pays 41.3% of all federal income taxes. The rich pay a higher share of the total tax, a higher percentage of their income and generally more than most people think.


Only if you count federal income taxes, which is deeply misleading. Total tax burden is way beyond federal income tax (which is, I remind everyone, the only federal tax that's actually progressive).

QUOTE
At the same time, there is a group of people who are dependent on the government and the Obama campaign is doing its best to scare these people into believing that Republicans want to end every safety net program that exists, which is patently false. The Republican message is that it is better to have a job than to not have a job.


Your claim is patently false. The Democrats are saying the Republicans want to end Medicare and replace it with a voucher system that will shift costs onto seniors (true) and want to privatize Social Security (true) and make the case that both will cut the bottom out of the safety net (true). The Democratic and Republican messages are that it's better to have a job than not have a job, so your statement about the GOP message is essentially meaningless.

QUOTE
That's pretty much it. The message is that if we can help business owners, then these business owners will expand and give people jobs. It isn't convincing to some people.


This is true -- because "some people" understand that business owners can't expand if there's no market into which to expand, even if we subsidize each of them with the entire federal budget.

QUOTE
Let's not forget that this "47%" are people WITH jobs that pay NO federal income taxes. It isn't unemployed people.


It's also retirees living off of Social Security, which they paid into their entire lives. Romney seems to hold them in great disdain. And those that are working are paying plenty of taxes other than the federal income tax, don't kid yourself. I've been the working poor; I remember.

QUOTE
Apologize for what? For saying out loud that there are free loaders in this country who have a job and pay no income tax?


Yes -- because he said 47% of this country are freeloaders rather than hard-working contributors to our economy. Which reflects on Romney's entitled attitude, but is inflammatory and false.

QUOTE
To admit that there are people that won't vote for him under any circumstances? To admit that not everyone has the same vision for this country?


Certainly no argument there, but your efforts at distraction are facile.

QUOTE
People vote in their self interest. Give them stuff ("free" healthcare, extended unemployment benefits, less contributions to their retirement plan for the same benefits) and they will vote for you.


If that were the case and Democratic policy was what you imagine, 90% of the population would vote Democratic.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Paladin Elspeth
post Sep 18 2012, 06:36 PM
Post #24


*********
I want the 10th Doctor for President!

Sponsor
August 1, 2003

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 4,987
Member No.: 721
Joined: May-10-03

From: Between 2 Great Lakes
Gender: Female
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



QUOTE(Aquilla)
It is heartening in a way that even though the Church of Obama has essentially declared victory here and in the lapdog media, they still feel it necessary to run around in the gutter. I dunno, maybe they like the gutter. Oh well, if nothing else it makes for entertaining reading and a nice distraction from time to time.

Aquilla! A couple of things I meant to mention:

1) I guess I'm not part of your alleged Church of Obama, because I think I know the power of money and nasty campaign commercials brought to you by the Brothers Koch and Sheldon Adelson, under a different name, of course. "Citizens for [Something]," no doubt. Sounds like wishful thinking on your part when you assume that Democrats have written off Mr. Bankroll.

2) It's interesting that you characterize the publicizing of Romney's remarks during a campaign fundraiser as running around "in the gutter." I somehow think that your characterization cannot be compared with paparazzi tailing the candidate to some tryst at a cheap hotel (Hyatt Regency would probably be cheap in his eyes--Oh, what DO the simple folk do?!). Of course, that didn't happen, nor would it, I suspect. But THAT would be "in the gutter." And his parading around in a Michigan State trooper's uniform as a teenager? Well, that's teenage hijinks! Doesn't everybody have a state trooper's uniform and impersonate a police officer memory? But that's not what we're talking about either, even though it DID happen. THAT might be characterized as running in the gutter. But not this. This is what Romney was saying to a bunch of political high rollers at a private campaign event. Too bad. Maybe Romney's never been told that whatever he says, he shouldn't say it if he doesn't want it on the front page of the newspaper.

And it didn't take a Swift Boat commercial to reveal what Romney really thinks about nearly half of the population. If he holds such a number in contempt, I don't think he would make such a great President, vaunted business acumen aside.

Romney can't "fire" the American population, as much as he might like to.

This post has been edited by Paladin Elspeth: Sep 18 2012, 06:40 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nighttimer
post Sep 18 2012, 07:04 PM
Post #25


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Sponsor
February 2007

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 4,660
Member No.: 504
Joined: February-16-03

Gender: Undisclosed
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: Undisclosed



QUOTE(Paladin Elspeth @ Sep 18 2012, 02:36 PM) *
And it didn't take a Swift Boat commercial to reveal what Romney really thinks about nearly half of the population. If he holds such a number in contempt, I don't think he would make such a great President, vaunted business acumen aside.

Romney can't "fire" the American population, as much as he might like to.


Romney Swift-Boated himself. His defenders can blame the media as if it was their fault. He said it. He meant it. Now he owns it.

You can't claim to believe in American exceptionalism when you are saying half of Americans are leeches, bums and parasites. That isn't leadership. That's snobby pretentiousness.

Romney can't fire the American population, but they can sure not make the mistake of hiring him as president. dry.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
akaCG
post Sep 18 2012, 07:07 PM
Post #26


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Sponsor
August 2012

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 4,846
Member No.: 10,787
Joined: November-25-09

Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE(nighttimer @ Sep 18 2012, 01:47 PM) *

No, that's not what that map shows.

In order to determine the answer to the question of whether the majority of non-taxpayers reside in Blue states (i.e. states that Obama won) or Red states (i.e. states that McCain won), you have to:

1. Multiply the percentages for each state shown on said map by that state's number of tax-filers.

2. Add up the Blue state results.

3. Add up the Red state results.

4. Compare 2 and 3.

Unfortunately, I don't have "Number of tax filers by state" data. In the absence thereof, however, a state's population is a very good proxy, since I don't imagine that there's very much inter-state variation in the Population/Tax Filers ratio.

And if you do that, ...

Number of non-tax payers in Blue states: about 73 million

Number of non-tax payers in Red states: about 37 million.

IOW, the claim that the majority of non-tax payers live in Red states is false. About 2/3rds of them actually live in Blue states.

Sources (if you want to do your own number-crunching):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States...on,_2008#Result
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._...and_territories

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Aquilla
post Sep 18 2012, 07:08 PM
Post #27


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 3,148
Member No.: 421
Joined: February-3-03

From: Missouri
Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Republican



Nice Jennifer Granholm impression, PE. thumbsup.gif

I am heartened by the "release" of this video at this time, edited and out of context as it may be, because it indicates something intriguing to me that the Obama people might not be telling us about what their internals are telling them concerning this election. I just wonder what it might be. hmmm.gif

As far as your latest rant against all things evil (meaning rich guys and not so rich Republicans) is concerned, you're getting better at it. Keep it up and you'll be giving Bouncing Barbie Boxer a run for her money!

Aquilla
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
aevans176
post Sep 18 2012, 07:10 PM
Post #28


********
Millennium Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 1,931
Member No.: 3,607
Joined: September-13-04

From: Plano, TX. Sweater vest and Volvo hell.
Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: None



QUOTE(nighttimer @ Sep 18 2012, 12:18 PM) *
QUOTE
Bonus question: Are you part of the 47 percent Romney isn't worried about or the 53 percent he is?

laugh.gif Have you beat your wife lately, NT? laugh.gif

Romney doesn't have to worry about me or my vote.


He never did. He could beat Ann's butt every night and would still have your vote. It's not a pro-Romney vote. It's an anti-Obama vote. Bit of a difference between the two.


I actually plan to vote for the Christopher Walken "More Cowbell" ticket... seriously, is there a way to meaningfully vote against Obama and Romney at the same time?

I don't have the time to read the entire thread, but I do see it prudent to address a couple of the recent posts.

QUOTE(NT)
There is probably a natural predilection to support a candidate that supports and promotes a program that has value to them personally and oppose a candidate that does not. However, that doesn't mean they are "victims" or lack a sense of personal responsibility. My neighbor is an Iraq war veteran who regularly travels to the V.A. hospital in Dayton for treatment of the cancer he developed while he was in the Army. This is a guy who served his country. He's nobody's damn "victim" and for somr elitist, plutocrat, country-club Republican idiot to suggest otherwise demonstrates Romney's unfitness for the office of the presidency.


What makes this guy even one of the 47% Romney's referring to? If I'm not lost here, Romney's talking about those who don't pay taxes. Am I crazy to think that everyone should pay their fair share? Because someone goes to the VA doesn't mean that the person doesn't have a federal tax burden. I have a 60-something year old vet (and Air Force retiree) working for me who goes all the time, but makes in the $75-80K range. He just likes it (and I think the fact that it's 100% free is appealing).

QUOTE(PE)
But forty-seven percent of people? I'll agree with Romney: he could have put it a little more "elegantly." Interesting that he didn't mention the wealthiest people who abuse the system and tick people off. Oh, wait...that's his base!


Again, it's the figure of those who don't pay taxes. Honestly, it will be interesting to me to see what happens. Will this galvenize his base? (Who is his base?)

My wife and I are basically (except for some creative itemizing) in the tax bracket that Obama deemed "wealthy", but I still don't care for Romney. He comes off as weak, he flip flops on policy, and probably has no idea what it's like to worry about keeping a job and paying your mortgage (feeding kids, etc). I'm not sure where he'll put us on foreign policy, and I don't think he's the strong leader America needs in a time of crisis.

QUOTE(NE again...)
It's not a positive for Romney to declare he's not interested in being the president for 47 percent of the country. He is saying these people are moochers. That is an outrageous slander and an egregious insult.


But... isn't it just the truth? If someone pays NO federal income tax, aren't they moochers? Again- I'm not a Romney fan, but if it walks like a duck...
QUOTE(NT)
You can't claim to believe in American exceptionalism when you are saying half of Americans are leeches, bums and parasites. That isn't leadership. That's snobby pretentiousness.


What all does the Federal Government pay for? If someone pays no federal taxes, should they get to partake in those portions of society?


QUOTE(Raptavio)
It's also retirees living off of Social Security, which they paid into their entire lives. Romney seems to hold them in great disdain. And those that are working are paying plenty of taxes other than the federal income tax, don't kid yourself. I've been the working poor; I remember.


The point about Social Security is actually valid (ish). Retirees who have income below the taxable mark shouldn't be lumped into this category, as shouldn't those handicapped, etc.

HOWEVER... paying sales tax or property tax doesn't go to the federal government. We all enjoy federal funding, the luxury of a strong defense, etc. Everyone in America earning an income should have some federal tax burden, even if it's $1/week (or something...). What if the 47% not paying taxes paid $1/week? How would that change our federal budget?

QUOTE(Nighttimer once again)
I work a 40 hour job. I do not receive food stamps, welfare, unemployment compensation, Medicare, Medicaid or any other government aid.

I have a daughter in college. She does not receive Pell Grants or any other government cash for college students.

I do not consider myself a "victim" and I am not a freeloader. I pay my axes and take personal responsibility for myself and my family.

I am not part of Romney's 53 percent and I never want to be.


You only have to work 40 hrs to get by?
Seriously, but... if you have a federal tax burden, aren't you part of what he's referring to in the 53%?


Ok- my summary thought.
The truth is that this election and this board have become like rabid sports fans. It seems that many people blindly support their candidate based upon party, race, or some other inane idea that has nothing to do with record or ability. I'm not sure that it's easy to sort truth from fiction, and I find it very difficult to understand what this President has actually done (or not).

What I do know is that taxation and the economy are horrible, and they will most likely get worse with another Obama administration. I also know that we still have troops abroad (out the wazoo), that we are still getting attacked, and that America's tough stance on terrorism seems to be flacid at best. Heck, our UN (an Obama crony) Ambassador literally apologized for a video that "supposedly caused" terror attacks (like these were planned over night?). To be fair, GW got us mired down in two wars and the economy began to crumble on his watch. But the fact is... Obama has had nearly 4 years to do something. At this point, I'd vote for an Armadillo over what we have...

Is it possible to bring back Reagan and prop him up in the oval office like weekend at Bernie's?

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Paladin Elspeth
post Sep 18 2012, 07:16 PM
Post #29


*********
I want the 10th Doctor for President!

Sponsor
August 1, 2003

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 4,987
Member No.: 721
Joined: May-10-03

From: Between 2 Great Lakes
Gender: Female
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



QUOTE(Aquilla @ Sep 18 2012, 03:08 PM) *
Nice Jennifer Granholm impression, PE. thumbsup.gif

I am heartened by the "release" of this video at this time, edited and out of context as it may be, because it indicates something intriguing to me that the Obama people might not be telling us about what their internals are telling them concerning this election. I just wonder what it might be. hmmm.gif

As far as your latest rant against all things evil (meaning rich guys and not so rich Republicans) is concerned, you're getting better at it. Keep it up and you'll be giving Bouncing Barbie Boxer a run for her money!

Aquilla

Oh Aquilla, it was nothing personal. I didn't see your name all over what I was saying...Did you? No. You don't despise and discount 47% of the population, do you? You aren't donating millions of dollars to break the backs of unions and finally make collective bargaining a thing of the past, are you? You're not working to disenfranchise people who typically vote Democratic, are you?

But thank you for the compliment. thumbsup.gif

This post has been edited by Paladin Elspeth: Sep 18 2012, 07:17 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Amlord
post Sep 18 2012, 08:00 PM
Post #30


Group Icon

**********
The Roaring Lion

Sponsor

Group: Moderators
Posts: 5,884
Member No.: 572
Joined: March-4-03

From: Cleveland suburbs, OH
Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Republican



QUOTE(Raptavio @ Sep 18 2012, 02:30 PM) *
QUOTE(Amlord @ Sep 18 2012, 09:05 AM) *
1. Will Romney's remarks impact the campaign in a positive or negative way or have no effect at all?

I don't think they will have much of an effect.

These comments are reflective of how the race is actually going. There is a group of people in this country that don't pay taxes and so are not persuaded by a "keep taxes low" platform. Does anyone doubt this? I'm talking about working people and this same group is persuaded by the "tax the rich" divisiveness of the Obama campaign. There are people that believe that the rich don't pay their "fair share" despite the fact that the top 1% pays 36.7% of all federal income tax and the bottom 95% pays 41.3% of all federal income taxes. The rich pay a higher share of the total tax, a higher percentage of their income and generally more than most people think.


Only if you count federal income taxes, which is deeply misleading. Total tax burden is way beyond federal income tax (which is, I remind everyone, the only federal tax that's actually progressive).


Social Security and Medicare payroll taxes are targeted taxes. "Contributions" come back to lower income bracket tax payers in spades. They collect more than they pay in. Isn't that progressive enough?

QUOTE(Raptavio @ Sep 18 2012, 02:30 PM) *
QUOTE
At the same time, there is a group of people who are dependent on the government and the Obama campaign is doing its best to scare these people into believing that Republicans want to end every safety net program that exists, which is patently false. The Republican message is that it is better to have a job than to not have a job.


Your claim is patently false. The Democrats are saying the Republicans want to end Medicare and replace it with a voucher system that will shift costs onto seniors (true)


That's spin. The system is not sustainable and something needs to give in order to keep its solvency. Keeping "Medicare as we know it" is a route to financial armageddon. The Romney plan cuts benefits for upper income seniors while protecting the lower income ones.

QUOTE(Raptavio @ Sep 18 2012, 02:30 PM) *
and want to privatize Social Security (true)


You forgot the "NOT" in front of the word true. While unscrupulous political pundits say this because Romney once favored that course, it is not what he is proposing now. What he is proposing is raising the eligibility age and reducing the rate of growth of Social Security benefits. Please stop with misleading statements about things that Romney is not proposing. You're better than that.

QUOTE(Raptavio @ Sep 18 2012, 02:30 PM) *
and make the case that both will cut the bottom out of the safety net (true).


I'll allow you to read my response above and let you judge whether a "NOT" also belongs in this sentence of yours.

QUOTE(Raptavio @ Sep 18 2012, 02:30 PM) *
The Democratic and Republican messages are that it's better to have a job than not have a job, so your statement about the GOP message is essentially meaningless.


Yes, but one Party seems clueless on how to create an environment which will lead to job growth. One Party believes we should raise taxes in this sluggish economy against the common sense of most economists.

QUOTE(Raptavio @ Sep 18 2012, 02:30 PM) *
This is true -- because "some people" understand that business owners can't expand if there's no market into which to expand, even if we subsidize each of them with the entire federal budget.


There's the "woe is me" attitude that you've learned from this President. We can't do anything! We aren't in control. No policies would have allowed us to recover from this "worst situation since the Great Depression".

Okay, next...

QUOTE
Let's not forget that this "47%" are people WITH jobs that pay NO federal income taxes. It isn't unemployed people.


It's also retirees living off of Social Security, which they paid into their entire lives. Romney seems to hold them in great disdain. And those that are working are paying plenty of taxes other than the federal income tax, don't kid yourself. I've been the working poor; I remember.

QUOTE(Raptavio @ Sep 18 2012, 02:30 PM) *
QUOTE
Apologize for what? For saying out loud that there are free loaders in this country who have a job and pay no income tax?


Yes -- because he said 47% of this country are freeloaders rather than hard-working contributors to our economy. Which reflects on Romney's entitled attitude, but is inflammatory and false.


What he said was dumb. Of course, not all 47% are freeloaders but the fact remains that these people have income and pay ZERO federal income taxes. This is due to a combination of Republican and Democratic tax policies. The Bush tax cuts took millions off the federal income tax rolls via the increased child tax credit.

QUOTE(Raptavio @ Sep 18 2012, 02:30 PM) *
QUOTE
To admit that there are people that won't vote for him under any circumstances? To admit that not everyone has the same vision for this country?


Certainly no argument there, but your efforts at distraction are facile.


I'm trying to explain why his statements aren't as terrible as Alex Wagner, Rachel Maddow, and Ed Schultz seem to think.

QUOTE(Raptavio @ Sep 18 2012, 02:30 PM) *
QUOTE
People vote in their self interest. Give them stuff ("free" healthcare, extended unemployment benefits, less contributions to their retirement plan for the same benefits) and they will vote for you.


If that were the case and Democratic policy was what you imagine, 90% of the population would vote Democratic.


This was a general statement. A reference to the quote made (perhaps) by de Tocqueville:

QUOTE
“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years.”
― Alexis de Tocqueville


Not all people are motivated by the government giving them stuff, but some are. Some people are motivated by freedom and more particularly freedom from government. That includes a fair number of working class people that don't agree with Democratic policies.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
vsrenard
post Sep 18 2012, 08:03 PM
Post #31


********
vsrenard

Sponsor
September 2008

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 1,065
Member No.: 5,438
Joined: September-6-05

From: SF Bay Area
Gender: Female
Politics: Slightly Liberal
Party affiliation: Other



I would like to see how candidate Romney intends to reach out as President Romney <shudder> to the disdained 47% he doesn't care about. I would also like to see someone (the media, the President in debates, other?) get an answer out of him on how he intends to govern if he doesn't care about half of the population.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
trumpetplayer
post Sep 18 2012, 08:17 PM
Post #32


******
Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 438
Member No.: 7,739
Joined: May-22-07

Gender: Male
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: Undisclosed



QUOTE(vsrenard @ Sep 18 2012, 03:03 PM) *
I would like to see how candidate Romney intends to reach out as President Romney <shudder> to the disdained 47% he doesn't care about. I would also like to see someone (the media, the President in debates, other?) get an answer out of him on how he intends to govern if he doesn't care about half of the population.


Well we have already seen how well Obama has(n't). ANYTHING would be better.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Raptavio
post Sep 18 2012, 08:39 PM
Post #33


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 3,515
Member No.: 10,458
Joined: April-27-09

From: Rosemount, MN
Gender: Male
Politics: Very Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



QUOTE(Amlord @ Sep 18 2012, 03:00 PM) *
QUOTE
Only if you count federal income taxes, which is deeply misleading. Total tax burden is way beyond federal income tax (which is, I remind everyone, the only federal tax that's actually progressive).


Social Security and Medicare payroll taxes are targeted taxes. "Contributions" come back to lower income bracket tax payers in spades. They collect more than they pay in. Isn't that progressive enough?


Then let's compare apples to apples and see who gets the most of our income tax dollars.

QUOTE
That's spin. The system is not sustainable and something needs to give in order to keep its solvency. Keeping "Medicare as we know it" is a route to financial armageddon. The Romney plan cuts benefits for upper income seniors while protecting the lower income ones.


Your bare assertions about the sustainability of Medicare are just that. Not everyone agrees.

QUOTE
QUOTE(Raptavio @ Sep 18 2012, 02:30 PM) *
and want to privatize Social Security (true)


You forgot the "NOT" in front of the word true. While unscrupulous political pundits say this because Romney once favored that course, it is not what he is proposing now. What he is proposing is raising the eligibility age and reducing the rate of growth of Social Security benefits. Please stop with misleading statements about things that Romney is not proposing. You're better than that.


Don't condescend to me, Amlord. When I said "Republicans" and you replaced that word with "Romney" and then cluck your tongue at me, you're misrepresenting my words, and are the one who should be better than that.

QUOTE
QUOTE(Raptavio @ Sep 18 2012, 02:30 PM) *
and make the case that both will cut the bottom out of the safety net (true).


I'll allow you to read my response above and let you judge whether a "NOT" also belongs in this sentence of yours.


Judged, based on the above, that it doesn't.

QUOTE
QUOTE(Raptavio @ Sep 18 2012, 02:30 PM) *
The Democratic and Republican messages are that it's better to have a job than not have a job, so your statement about the GOP message is essentially meaningless.


Yes, but one Party seems clueless on how to create an environment which will lead to job growth. One Party believes we should raise taxes in this sluggish economy against the common sense of most economists.


Most economists? Most economists think modest tax increases on the richest Americans won't have a significant effect on the economy.

Boy are we agreed on the rest though -- though boy are we not in agreement on which party is clueless. (Actually, they seem to be worse than clueless, but deliberately keeping their foot on the brake pedal.)

QUOTE
QUOTE(Raptavio @ Sep 18 2012, 02:30 PM) *
This is true -- because "some people" understand that business owners can't expand if there's no market into which to expand, even if we subsidize each of them with the entire federal budget.


There's the "woe is me" attitude that you've learned from this President. We can't do anything! We aren't in control. No policies would have allowed us to recover from this "worst situation since the Great Depression".


Road apples, Amlord. Both the President and I understand that pumping money into business won't have nearly the effect that pumping money into consumers will. The only "woe is me" is in that we're dealing with a pack of Randian cultists in Congress who would rather sink the ship of state than try anything so Keynesian. So again, don't condescend to me. And especially don't fundamentally misrepresent my statements in order to condescend to me.

QUOTE
What he said was dumb. Of course, not all 47% are freeloaders but the fact remains that these people have income and pay ZERO federal income taxes. This is due to a combination of Republican and Democratic tax policies. The Bush tax cuts took millions off the federal income tax rolls via the increased child tax credit.


Glad you finally admitted what he said is dumb.

So the next point is -- so what if they pay no federal income taxes? They still pay federal payroll taxes, gas taxes, self-employment taxes, excise taxes, and other fees portions of their state taxes flow into federal coffers, and a very large chunk of those who pay no income taxes are Social Security and pension recipients, meaning they paid into their programs their entire lives.

QUOTE
QUOTE(Raptavio @ Sep 18 2012, 02:30 PM) *
QUOTE
To admit that there are people that won't vote for him under any circumstances? To admit that not everyone has the same vision for this country?


Certainly no argument there, but your efforts at distraction are facile.


I'm trying to explain why his statements aren't as terrible as Alex Wagner, Rachel Maddow, and Ed Schultz seem to think.


By focusing on the obviously true parts of his statement and ignoring the inflammatory and false parts of his statement? That's not an explanation, it's dissembling.

This was a general statement. A reference to the quote made (perhaps) by de Tocqueville:

QUOTE
Not all people are motivated by the government giving them stuff, but some are. Some people are motivated by freedom and more particularly freedom from government. That includes a fair number of working class people that don't agree with Democratic policies.


And certainly a great deal of people who are motivated by the government giving them stuff are the wealthy corporatists who lobby Congress for lucrative contracts and pump lots of money into our elections knowing if they win, they'll have politicians sloshing federal money back at them. And opposed to that are a fair number of working class people don't agree with Republican policies.

Your flaw is you think the people seeking 'free stuff', and indeed the recipients of the bulk of the 'free stuff' coming from our federal coffers, are the working or non-working poor. And you think that Democratic policies, therefore, are to blame. When in fact, the reverse is true.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Dingo
post Sep 18 2012, 08:58 PM
Post #34


**********
Elite Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 5,065
Member No.: 225
Joined: November-3-02

From: Monterey Bay, Calif.
Gender: Male
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: Private



QUOTE(vsrenard @ Sep 18 2012, 01:03 PM) *
I would like to see how candidate Romney intends to reach out as President Romney <shudder> to the disdained 47% he doesn't care about. I would also like to see someone (the media, the President in debates, other?) get an answer out of him on how he intends to govern if he doesn't care about half of the population.

You start by limiting the vote, unleashing the political influence of money and then terrorizing and/or seducing into silence and acquiescence anyone who doesn't initially "get with it." There is plenty of historical precedent and always plenty of collaborators.

Overpopulation and the depredations of Mother Nature and a serious disconnect with so many realities are going to require some additional high stepping by Romney and co. hmmm.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DaytonRocker
post Sep 18 2012, 09:22 PM
Post #35


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 2,520
Member No.: 547
Joined: February-26-03

From: Dayton, Ohio
Gender: Male
Politics: Moderate
Party affiliation: Republican



QUOTE(Amlord @ Sep 18 2012, 01:37 PM) *
Is this really relevant? Because Romney doesn't manage his money. It's in a blind trust, which is meant to shield him from conflicts of interest. What this should really tell us is that there is a problem with the tax structure in the United States.


Maybe that's true. But shouldn't that 47% get the same benefit of the doubt? And if Romney is not managing his money, why should we believe he can manage ours?

QUOTE(Amlord @ Sep 18 2012, 01:37 PM) *
Well, the cast of that new series "MSNBC News" agrees with you. At lunch today they were yucking it up about Republicans abandoning Romney. I find that difficult to believe given the state of the race (pretty much dead heat) and the poor state of the economy.


I believe you are wrong about a "dead heat". Unless you're relying on Rasmussen which is almost always an outlier when compared to most polls. But Romney should be killing Obama in the polls. Given the state of the economy, this shouldn't even be a contest. The reality is, bullcrap rhetoric and being lied to as a matter of policy is not going to win an election - especially after 14 years of republicans running this country into the ground.

I hate 'em all - I'm not defending Obama. And I certainly am not looking forward to 4 more years of democratic rule. But it's the least stinkiest turd right now because I care more about the truth than defending my party or my position(s). I wouldn't trust the republican party with a library card. They are reckless and untrustworthy. The same argument can be made for the dems, but the dems didn't start wars of choice, promote torture by redefining torture, out CIA agents, expand Medicare, bloat the size of government by a third, and bankrupt us. If you want to "pin" this on the dems, knock yourself out. But the reality is, the republicans got elected to do a job and there were no qualifiers when they made their promises. When they had control of the house, senate, and White House, they made things worse.

Now we have Romney - a man that nobody knows what his actual positions are because he changes them daily and or has an "etch-a-sketch" moment - showing what he really means. And he still has plenty of supporters because no matter how bad our team is, they are not the Pittsburg Steelers (no offense to Steelers fans).
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Raptavio
post Sep 18 2012, 09:29 PM
Post #36


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 3,515
Member No.: 10,458
Joined: April-27-09

From: Rosemount, MN
Gender: Male
Politics: Very Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



QUOTE(DaytonRocker @ Sep 18 2012, 04:22 PM) *
I believe you are wrong about a "dead heat". Unless you're relying on Rasmussen which is almost always an outlier when compared to most polls. But Romney should be killing Obama in the polls. Given the state of the economy, this shouldn't even be a contest. The reality is, bullcrap rhetoric and being lied to as a matter of policy is not going to win an election - especially after 14 years of republicans running this country into the ground.

I hate 'em all - I'm not defending Obama. And I certainly am not looking forward to 4 more years of democratic rule. But it's the least stinkiest turd right now because I care more about the truth than defending my party or my position(s). I wouldn't trust the republican party with a library card. They are reckless and untrustworthy. The same argument can be made for the dems, but the dems didn't start wars of choice, promote torture by redefining torture, out CIA agents, expand Medicare, bloat the size of government by a third, and bankrupt us. If you want to "pin" this on the dems, knock yourself out. But the reality is, the republicans got elected to do a job and there were no qualifiers when they made their promises. When they had control of the house, senate, and White House, they made things worse.

Now we have Romney - a man that nobody knows what his actual positions are because he changes them daily and or has an "etch-a-sketch" moment - showing what he really means. And he still has plenty of supporters because no matter how bad our team is, they are not the Pittsburg Steelers (no offense to Steelers fans).


DaytonRocker, I got a message from Diogenes, he said he was looking for you.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Eeyore
post Sep 18 2012, 10:13 PM
Post #37


Group Icon

********
Thaaaaanks for noticin' me

Sponsor
February 2003

Group: Moderators
Posts: 2,483
Member No.: 365
Joined: December-28-02

From: Nashville
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



1. Will Romney's remarks impact the campaign in a positive or negative way or have no effect at all?

This will have a significant negative impact. It is starting to look Biden-like and it will be his big gaffe like Obama's You Didn't Build That gaffe. This time the context catches Romney in a problem area. It hits him at his weakest, his distance from the average American. It makes him elitist, dismissing 47% of the American population as parasites. The 47% number is one to look at more closely and come away with the message that not paying an income tax is very different than not paying taxes.
It let's us look at payroll taxes and how regressive that system is and how it taxes every wage earner at least 15% on dollar one. It let's us look at how that burned disappears very early for a high income earner like Mitt Romney.

He does not want to run against the 47% he wants to look at the class warfare he can try to accentuate in the 99% number on the other side.

It was an unintended slight on the military and retirees that he expects to vote for him who fall in that 47%.
2. Should Romney apologize for his remarks? Explain what he meant? Totally ignore the remarks and focus on the campaign?


Well he is already clarifying. He is telling retirees and military people they should not have to pay income taxes. He could emphasize their contribution to the system in prior work and existing property and sales taxes.
Bonus question: Are you part of the 47 percent Romney isn't worried about or the 53 percent he is?
I'm a 53%er and I am struggling to pay the bills in relatively good times for our family. I do not think Romney's vague supply side economics are now or ever were a viable solution.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Amlord
post Sep 18 2012, 10:46 PM
Post #38


Group Icon

**********
The Roaring Lion

Sponsor

Group: Moderators
Posts: 5,884
Member No.: 572
Joined: March-4-03

From: Cleveland suburbs, OH
Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Republican



QUOTE(Raptavio @ Sep 18 2012, 04:39 PM) *
Don't condescend to me, Amlord. When I said "Republicans" and you replaced that word with "Romney" and then cluck your tongue at me, you're misrepresenting my words, and are the one who should be better than that.


Okay so you were talking about "Republicans" but not Republicans named Romney. And not Republican "plans" that are actually on the table in this election.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
vsrenard
post Sep 19 2012, 02:15 AM
Post #39


********
vsrenard

Sponsor
September 2008

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 1,065
Member No.: 5,438
Joined: September-6-05

From: SF Bay Area
Gender: Female
Politics: Slightly Liberal
Party affiliation: Other



QUOTE(trumpetplayer @ Sep 18 2012, 01:17 PM) *
QUOTE(vsrenard @ Sep 18 2012, 03:03 PM) *
I would like to see how candidate Romney intends to reach out as President Romney <shudder> to the disdained 47% he doesn't care about. I would also like to see someone (the media, the President in debates, other?) get an answer out of him on how he intends to govern if he doesn't care about half of the population.


Well we have already seen how well Obama has(n't). ANYTHING would be better.


What does Obama have to do with anything Romney said about 47% of the country being victims who don't take responsibility for their lives? Regardless, I'm not sure how a presidential candidate be earnest about caring about all Americans when these kind of remarks are revealed. As trite as it sounds, we really don't need any more divisive politics.

And perhaps your imagination is limited, but I can think of a plethora of alternative to Obama that would be much worse. All caps notwithstanding.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Raptavio
post Sep 19 2012, 03:23 AM
Post #40


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 3,515
Member No.: 10,458
Joined: April-27-09

From: Rosemount, MN
Gender: Male
Politics: Very Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



QUOTE(Amlord @ Sep 18 2012, 05:46 PM) *
QUOTE(Raptavio @ Sep 18 2012, 04:39 PM) *
Don't condescend to me, Amlord. When I said "Republicans" and you replaced that word with "Romney" and then cluck your tongue at me, you're misrepresenting my words, and are the one who should be better than that.


Okay so you were talking about "Republicans" but not Republicans named Romney. And not Republican "plans" that are actually on the table in this election.


Uh, wrong, wrong and wrong.

Romney, as you admitted, is amenable to privatizing Social Security. A number of GOP Congressmen want to do just that, even if it's not on Romney's agenda. Which means if they have the votes to do it (i.e. if they hold the house, win the Senate and neuter the filibuster) it is, in fact, a real possibility.

BTW, real classy way to admit your error.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

9 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 > » 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

  
Go to the top of the page - Simple Version Time is now: October 15th, 2018 - 10:19 AM
©2002-2010 America's Debate, Inc.  All rights reserved.