18
   

Romney comments- 47% freeloaders?

 
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Sep, 2012 08:39 am
@Foofie,
Quote:
Regardless, isn't it amazing that this country can live off of the taxes of just 53% of the citizens?

What is amazing is you can be shown facts that you then ignore.

The country doesn't live off taxes of just 53% of it's citizens. Income taxes make up only 50% of government revenues.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  0  
Reply Wed 19 Sep, 2012 09:31 am
@DrewDad,
What are you laughing about? Do you deny that no matter what Mitt does that 47% of the country is in Obama's pocket? It's a hard truth that just isn't politically correct to actually say. Isn't there a famous quote somewhere about people realizing that once they can vote to get themselves money, that the way they will vote?

Also, he is saying that his campaign is not to get those people to vote him. Not that as President he wouldn't take care of them. His job is to get elected. THEN his job is to be President of all the people.
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Sep, 2012 09:35 am
@McGentrix,
McGentrix wrote:

What are you laughing about? Do you deny that no matter what Mitt does that 47% of the country is in Obama's pocket? It's a hard truth that just isn't politically correct to actually say.


But where does that number come from? I mean, surely you realize that a great deal of the people who pay no income taxes are, in fact, Republican?

Quote:
Also, he is saying that his campaign is not to get those people to vote him. Not that as President he wouldn't take care of them. His job is to get elected. THEN his job is to be President of all the people.


Why should anyone be confident that he will give a **** about these people at all, if elected? He obviously views them with disdain and insults them when he thinks nobody is listening.

Cycloptichorn
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Sep, 2012 09:38 am
@Cycloptichorn,
Yeah, they probably won't vote for him. Isn't that what he said?
engineer
 
  4  
Reply Wed 19 Sep, 2012 09:41 am
@Foofie,
Foofie wrote:

Wasn't he talking in context of the percentage of Americans that will just vote for Obama, since they like the fact that they are in a category that does not pay taxes, and the fear being that a Republican might think that they should pay something?

Not quite. He said the 47% who do not pay federal income tax (as opposed to the many other taxes they do pay) are freeloaders and will never vote for him because "I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives." That particular line gets omitted in a lot of the articles I see about Romney's words. He thinks those who do not pay federal taxes do not take personal responsibility for their lives. Really? That is an amazing sentiment given that most of those people are working hard trying to make ends meet or are elderly and have spent their lives contributing to the American dream. It's just stunningly ignorant, especially for a guy at the top of a party ticket that is looking for 55 million votes in November. What's more ignorant is he doesn't understand his base. Many of the people in that 47% are people who would normally vote for him.

0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Sep, 2012 09:42 am
@McGentrix,
McGentrix wrote:
What are you laughing about?
Because a factually-challenged answer is a "good answer" to you.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Sep, 2012 09:45 am
@McGentrix,
McGentrix wrote:

Yeah, they probably won't vote for him. Isn't that what he said?


Uh, but a lot of them ARE going to vote for him. Specifically. Because Seniors are a huge part of that group.

And, in fact, the states with the highest percentage of people who pay no taxes are....

http://dailydish.typepad.com/.a/6a00d83451c45669e2017c31f0a947970b-550wi

... pretty much all states that are going to go to Romney this cycle.

So, I think that it's safe to say that you probably don't really understand what Romney said, or the implications of it, or just how inaccurate and insulting his comments were.

Cycloptichorn
IRFRANK
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Sep, 2012 10:15 am
@Cycloptichorn,
That map is interesting. Some of the lowest % states are strongly Democratic. Mass, Minn, Washington. The coastal states, DC. Maybe the red states should look to those states and see what they are doing to turn people in to taxpayers.

Of course it's easier to just insult and blame.
0 Replies
 
revelette
 
  2  
Reply Wed 19 Sep, 2012 11:29 am
@McGentrix,
If that was all he said, no one would have thought it was a big deal. What he said was "I’ll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives.”

Not only was it insulting but factually wrong. A good deal of those 47% who don't pay income taxes probably are his voters.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxtopics/images/Breakdown3-06-17-11.gif

It was just a stupid typical remark to make and inaccurate as well.

0 Replies
 
Foofie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Sep, 2012 01:23 pm
In my opinion, the emphasis was put on the wrong syl-la-ble, so to speak. A comparative small percentage of the country are entrepreneurs; however, an overwhelming majority are not. Therefore, if a capitalist society is ever to have true prosperity, it is that entrepreneurial class of people that government should be concerned. Sort of like caring for mothers, if they are to be the primary caretakers of the next generation of babies.

This concern about who gets taxed is just a red-herring, in my opinion. The real concern is who is part of the engine of the economy. Those people should be nurtured, not demotivated by telling them about all sorts of expenses upon hiring another worker.

But, there is a large demographic that would be very happy to just work for Uncle Sam. Then everyone can "skate" in their job, and hope one's children can rise to some level of government bureaucrat. Everyone can then have a "bad attitude" at work, yet feel assured that their job is safe.
revelette
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Sep, 2012 01:36 pm
Quote:
Luana Schneider is not a freeloader.

Bobby Henline isn't dependent on government either, even though he received free medical care after he was catastrophically burned in a bomb blast in Iraq and -- like other severely wounded combat veterans -- received a tax-free $100,000 insurance payout from Uncle Sam.

Few Americans receive as much from government as the combat wounded. Their military medical care, from treatment on the dusty battlefield to the exquisitely meticulous surgery and rehabilitation care, is given on a damn-the-cost basis. The Department of Veterans Affairs insurance program pays out a maximum of $100,000 for severe wounds, in addition to disability payments and other assistance.

Such largesse seems to be precisely the thing that bleeds away Americans' personal responsibility and "fosters government dependency," according to GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney.

But that view is out of whack with the reality of many of the severely wounded, and other veterans and their families.

Although Romney later asserted that he was not referring to veterans or the military, it seems wildly inaccurate to suggest, as he did in a video recorded at a fundraiser in May, that those who take from the government believe they are "victims" and "take no personal responsibility for their lives" because they pay no income taxes.

True, the 68,000 U.S. troops serving in Afghanistan today pay no taxes on their monthly pay (for officers, combat-zone pay is tax-exempt up to $7,834 per month). Troops at war also pay no taxes on the Family Separation Pay ($250 a month) and Imminent Danger Pay ($225 a month) they receive while in the war zone.

Romney's remarks "made me upset," said Tyler Fultz, 27, who served with the Air Force in Iraq in 2009 and 2010 and now lives in Fort Worth, Texas. "He's dismissing half the population as being dependent on the government and for essentially being lazy. I do not consider myself one of those. I think that when he made those comments he didn't realize the groups of people he was including in that 47 percent and veterans are one of those groups."

The notion that taking government handouts breeds sloth and dependence is belied by Bobby Henline. Like others who have narrowly escaped death, he has attacked his post-war life with energy and zeal, as if not to waste a second. He has struggled to overcome his severe burns, the loss of his left hand and other devastating injuries and has become a stand-up comic, working to raise awareness of burn victims.

"There are some I guess who just sit around," said Henline, the only one of five paratroopers who survived the flaming wreckage after their Humvee hit an IED in Iraq in 2007. Financially, given his disability payments, he could afford not to work for the rest of his life, Henline told The Huffington Post. "But the guys we lost out there, I felt like if I sat around and felt sorry for myself, they would have died in vain. It's important to keep going, for them, for my family.

"I've learned that no matter how bad life gets, you can continue on. I've learned that I can help others, inspire them to live their lives to the fullest -- even if you are disfigured."

That same ethic inspires many military families who, despite the support they receive from the government, hardly become craven dependents.

Six years ago, Luana Schneider learned in a phone call that her son Scott Stephenson, a paratrooper, had been blown up in a flaming bomb blast in Iraq and lay dying of massive wounds and extensive burns. Schneider's previous life as an interior decorator and mother of six evaporated. As doctors fought to save her son's life, she became fixed on a single goal: if he lived, she would dedicate her life to his care.

Miraculously, Stephenson lived. Schneider learned to change his dressings, an hours-long ordeal each day. For four years she managed his multiple medications, soothed him through dozens of surgeries. Wiped his bottom. Held him naked in the shower, gently soaping his scarred body.

Six years after he was critically wounded, Stephenson is doing well. He's walking on his prosthetic leg, and coping with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and Traumatic Brain Injury. He got his $100,000 insurance payment, meant to cover a lifetime of being unemployable. And he gets Social Security and $200 a month in combat disability payments from the VA.

And Schneider remains his primary, full-time caregiver, a role recently recognized by the Department of Veterans Affairs as an actual job. With prodding from Congress, the VA has begun training -- and paying -- caregivers.

In February, Schneider began receiving $1,600 a month from the VA, a salary based on a 40-hour work week which, she says, is ridiculous given that she spends easily twice that time caring for her son.

Does that make her hapless ward of the state? Hardly. "I would fight tooth and nail to the death to make sure my son is covered by the government," she told The Huffington Post. "He cannot function and that is not his fault."

In an interview with The Huffington Post last year, she explained her approach to the Pentagon and the VA this way:

"I am a bitch and that is my child and you owe my child respect. I gave him to the Army in the best physical condition of his life, and they gave him back to me in pieces. You will take care of him or I will know why and I will do something about it and I will be rude."

The VA doesn't disagree that veterans have earned their benefits, even if they don't pay taxes. This year veterans will get $76.3 billion in entitlement payments, including disability compensation and GI bill education assistance -- all tax-free.

More than 8.5 million veterans currently get health care through the VA -- an untaxed benefit -- and 3.5 million vets are receiving untaxed disability payments, according to VA budget documents. The VA is paying to house homeless veterans at a cost of $1.3 billion. Veterans are currently receiving mental health benefits worth $6.2 billion.

"I don't think anyone would consider that wasteful spending or that anyone is leeching off the system," said Paul Rieckhoff, who served in Iraq as an infantry platoon leader before founding the Iraq Afghanistan Veterans of America, a nonpartisan organization to support veterans.

Thanks to the GI bill, for instance, over 700,000 troops who served in Iraq or Afghanistan have gotten tax-free grants to help pay for tuition and books and go back to school, and thousands are entering college this month, he said. Far from creating a culture of relying on government hand-outs, "It's a really good return for the American taxpayers," he said.

"I don't know too many vets who are living in Beverly Hills on their VA benefits."


source
RABEL222
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Sep, 2012 02:42 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
I read yesterday that 3000 millionares paid no taxes.
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Sep, 2012 02:49 pm
@Foofie,
Sorry but I had not seen any indication that the super rich group have anything but a very small percent of the entrepreneurs class.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Sep, 2012 03:06 pm
Is there any such thing as taxes? Isn't it all the government's money?

"You didn't do that!"

Money is the oil that lubricates the machine. The squeaky wheels want more lube to stop squeaking.

A millionaire buys a yacht--right. It's taxed rigid from the digging in the dirt for the raw materials all the way up to the marina docks which were also taxed rigid all the way from the foundations to the control mechanisms which organise it.

It's a punishment/reward system.

Oh--I nearly forgot--and a job creation scheme.
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Sep, 2012 03:09 pm
@spendius,
You're paying taxes consuming the story of Mr Romney's private remarks. You really ought to be ashamed of yourselves for being interested in stuff listened to through a keyhole.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Sep, 2012 03:27 pm
@spendius,
Quote:
A millionaire buys a yacht--right. It's taxed rigid from the digging in the dirt for the raw materials all the way up to the marina docks which were also taxed rigid all the way from the foundations to the control mechanisms which organise it.

Clearly you don't have a clue about the tax structure.
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Sep, 2012 03:29 pm
@parados,
Clearly you have nothing to say that's worth a blow on a ragman's trumpet.
parados
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Sep, 2012 03:36 pm
@spendius,
There is nothing I can say that won't be drowned out by your cacophony of disharmonious caterwauling. The inability to be heard says nothing about the worth of my statement however.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Sep, 2012 05:20 pm
@parados,
The statement that --"Clearly you don't have a clue about the tax structure" is self evidently worthless.
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Sep, 2012 05:37 pm
@DrewDad,
I thought that McG was replying to Revelette's post # 5,111,052.

What I perceived as his honesty, given his background, shocked me.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/02/2024 at 12:46:32