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.And then he says he can't "worry about those people" as he tries to win votes, because they will never be convinced. He's not saying he doesn't care about them as citizens and human beings, just that he won't devote any attention to trying to cull some of their votes.
Compare the statements Obama made to donors in 2008, which were leaked out — the famous "bitter clingers" remarks.
You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them," Obama said. "And they fell through the Clinton Administration, and the Bush Administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."
Obama made a problematic judgment call in trying to explain working class culture to a much wealthier audience. He described blue collar Pennsylvanians with a series of what in the eyes of Californians might be considered pure negatives: guns, clinging to religion, antipathy, xenophobia.
Posts
312 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 312 of 312“Give me your tired...your poor...your temporarily unemployed...your elderly...your sick...your students...so that I may call them moochers"
Government programs make NO distinction between people who cannot help themselves and those that won't.
There are a lot of moochers out their. Of course they don't think of themselves that way - they've been taught that they are owed money - and that others have an obligation to fork it over.
The people who were gonna vote for Romney in that group still will. The only ones who won't are the ones who know they are moochers and expect to stay that way. In other words, the ones he described perfectly. No net effect on votes. Maybe he even shamed one of them into getting a job. That would put him at one more job created than Obama.
Amazing. Our embassies are being stormed daily in every country of the Levant, the President is arresting private citizens for making movies and blaming the First Amendment for the attacks, and is also not allowing the American military to slaughter the crowds and defend American territory...
And the press thinks this shit is an issue right now?
Jesus H. Christ. Maybe we should just let the Islamists take over. At least shit like Andy R., Garage, and Allie the Obama Whore would be taken out immediately.
He sounds like Rush.
Sloan -- That's utterly, completely false. There have been so many civil wars in Europe since 1861 that it is impossible to count them. Germany, Russia, Yugoslavia, virtually every single Eastern European country, Greece, Finland, Spain -- that's just off the top of my head. There are dozens upon dozens more.
Either your definition of civil war is woefully inaccurate or, like Reasonable, you have no knowledge of Europe or European history.
Romney has made no secret of his point of view. He took a very public stand months ago.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w6aLpf5OMKw
If you want government to hand out "free" goodies, vote for Obama. If you want freedom, vote for Romney.
"There are a lot of moochers out their."
Of course there are. Of every race, gender, and political affiliation.
What Romney said though, is so obviously false and insulting...without recognition of how lucky he has been in his life and how tough many non-dependent hard working Americans have it even in good economic times.
Keep selling the welfare queen argument there, Chiker. Americans move welfare almost as much as they hate Jacksonian warfare. Election after election proves it. Right?
You can go ahead and look up Jacksonian warfare. It's not like you have anything better to do.
According to the edited material, Romney is making the error of equating two distinct groups. Yes, half of Americans don't pay income tax, but I doubt the majority, or at least super majority, of those vote.
On the other hand, we are hearing edited material. The question is how edited?
Regardless, I saw a snippet of the comments at the gym and it struck me that Romney over explained. He seemed to combine multiple arguments into one without thinking. Not uncommon, but not a good thing to do on any political campaign.
"Keep selling the welfare queen argument there, Chiker. "
Nah I'll cede that stage to Romney. He's a Democrat's best friend.
bag,
So, the moochers who vote for an R aren't moochers even when they benefit from gov policies just like the certifiable moochers that vote D.
Do you ever think that your views may be overly partisan-centric?
Amazing - as I'm reading through this thread, Nightline comes on and leads with this story. Naturally, they are spinning it as Romney "disparaging nearly half the country." Sigh, what a crock!
As I said, the MSM are only going to get worse from here on out.
PbandJ,
Most of us mooch sooner or later off of our fellow citizens, even if it's just by enjoying the fruits of our people in the military, but the ones who see it as a temporary situation to either fix or pay off in advance, know he wasn't talking to them. They, by definition, have self-respect, and no self-respecting American would vote for an unaccomplished poseur, when an accomplished capable man is available. Only weak people get insulted that easily.
You could have answered more briefly.
"No."
The actual video footage isn't bad at all. You get the impression that Romney is smart guy who knows what he is doing. Of course, I've already heard the BBC twice in 30 minutes quote only the part where he says he doesn't care about the 47% who will vote for Obama, which, of course, has a totally different meaning in the context of the video.
7 Machos wrote: You can go ahead and look up Jacksonian warfare. It's not like you have anything better to do.
"One thing we should remember is that Jacksonians generally don’t start wars and generally don’t seek them out. Very few are ever in positions of power to do so to begin with (Jackson’s presidency itself was relatively peaceful. A Mexican incursion began the Mexican-American War under Polk. ) They simply fight them." link
I've been to the Imperial War Museum in London and I'm a recent visitor to DC's museums. We have nothing like that here. DC's history museums are full of PC revisionism--for example, the "Price Of Freedom" exhibition at the Smithsonian American History Museum on the Mall--especially their treatment of the wars circa 1830 to 1850. We need to change that back to reflect a balance.
I wrote back in May of 2011 that the election would be one between voters and taxpayers. It is now coming to that. See The Diplomad at http://thediplomad.blogspot.com/2011/05/modern-democracy-battle-between.html
AnUnreasonablePinhead,
Here's an education in demographics:
The military.
The Bronx.
Took less than two minutes on google. But please don't let facts stand in the way of your assumptions.
Well Romney just said what was on my mind, but it's political suicide.
RIP Romney.
Obama vs Romney is irrelevant. The real battle in America will be the taxpayers vs the moochers.
Civil War 2 - coming 2016?
What Romney said though, is so obviously false and insulting...
No what he said was absolutely 100% true and on the mark.
The problem is that a good chunk of the 53% of liberals who think that the 47% are just down on their luck, that it isn't a character flaw that they're on welfare. So Romney just offended THOSE people and lost the election. Good going their Romney, and you didn't do anything to advance the debate either.
"Maybe he even shamed one of them into getting a job. That would put him at one more job created than Obama."
And the new employee at one more real job held than Obama, ever.
“Give me your tired...your poor...your temporarily unemployed...your elderly...your sick...your students...so that I may call them moochers"
Ever wonder why the next line in that poem is "your huddled masses yearning to breathe free", not "your huddled masses yearning to go on the dole in a nation that controls their food, education, employment, and health care"?
Maybe you should. :)
What Romney said though, is so obviously false and insulting...without recognition of how lucky he has been in his life
It is amazing how many "lucky" people just coincidentally happen to be diligent and hard-working.
As a Romney supporter, I hope most of you are right. I, however, see my liberal friends high-fiving that this gives them the election. We can expect a media swarm that will provide a distraction and prevent us from discussing the imploding economy and the collapsing middle east.
Was the videotaping of Romney without his permission in a private setting a violation of Florida anti-wiretapping/anti-surveillance law?
Fla. Stat. ch. 934.03.
My only problem with it is the 47% number. He really shoudl have omitted that, becuase it makes the rest of his statement far too broad. Other than that, I have no problems with it, especially since in context he was explaining why his campaign was an uphill struggle.
DAD was right about half the 47% not wanting to be there, but a lot of them, who can be classed as nouveau poor. will nod their heads at what the Romster said and vote for him.
And Seven's right about civil wars in Europe. Consider what was Yugoslavia in the 90s.
PS The little animal links a couple of Lefty rags (Bloom berg News is objective) and we're all supposed to panic.
Try again.
DiploMad said...
As a Romney supporter, I hope most of you are right. I, however, see my liberal friends high-fiving that this gives them the election.
Maybe your liberal friends are as big a pack of idiots as the trolls here.
ROMNEY IS FINISHED. AT THE WH MORNING - CALL TO ALL REPORTERS, JACK L. SAID THAT IT IS IMPERATIVE THAT THE PRESS FOCUS ON ROMNEY AND HIS DIVERSITY VIEWS. THE NYT AND NPR SAID THAT THEY PLAN TO DO THIS EVERY HOUR, EVERY DAY, TILL THE ELECTION DAY. THE NYT SAID THAT THEY WILL NOT COVER THE LIBYAN CRISIS AS IT IS CLEAR THIS WAS ALL THE GOP FAULT. NPR AND PBS ALONG WITH MSNBC HAVE AGREED UPON THIS ASSERTION.
ROMENY, YOU ARE FINISHED. NO ONE LOVES YOU. IF THERE IS LIFE ON MARS, EVEN THEY ARE AGAINST YOU.
GO HOME, ROMNEY, GO BACK TO YOUR ELEVATOR GARAGE, YOUR LAKE HOUSE IN NH, YOUR CHURCH FRIENDS IN FRANCE, JUST GET OUT OF THIS PLANET.
THIS IS WHAT THE PRESS WANTS THE VOTERS TO FEEL LIKE.
I don't think this will have a bigger impact that Obama's bitter clingers remark...after all he was insulting everyone who did not support him.
Romney said the truth people do not want to hear...almost half the people in this country do not pay income taxes and his plan of lowering rates will not mean anything to them..Plus the people who vote for Obama tend to be people who believe that government should provide more and more to people and that they themselves should provide less..it is all around us, this sense of entitlement and it is bankrupting the country. And it does not help people to put more of them on food stamps and waive the work release requirements for welfare. Obama is creating an overgrowing group of poor and dependent people who vote Democrat. This is not really much of a future.
As for some of the remarks about the DOW..please people..all the money the Fed has been pumping into the economy to try and get it going have meant a cheaper dollar and higher commodity prices..it has also meant a rush to buy more stocks. That does not mean the economy is growing.
So, what's controversial about working hard and not relying on government?
Remember, you 'victims' out there (liberals in general), socialism is GREAT until you run out of other people's money.
And, you will. Make no mistake.
Then, you can be sure that you will be culpable for bankrupting your neighbors.
I hope you have a good hiding place!
George Stephanopolous sang this bit of news this morning.
America's Politico is getting desperate...screaming in all caps. The desperate measures aren't working. Obama releasing the Blind Sheikh to Egypt who will free him is going to piss off the public.
I watched all the videos and wish the treacherous waiter had posted the whole thing, uncut and uninterrupted.
What a rotten thing to do. I am reconsidering tipping waiters to punish them all for what this one has done.
Nothing controversial in MR's remarks. He was making commentary about voting patterns. It is obviously overblown to say he's expressing contempt for half the country. There wasn't one note of contempt in his tone at all.
*automatic ball return*
Didn't Obama's Julia ad pretty much validate what Romney said?
I'm not seeing the issue with what he said. Democrats have never been shy expressing why we need the government in our lives so why are they shocked that Romney simply pointed it out?
So they posted an edited clip of Romney's remarks? Remember how that was the worst sin in the history of journalism when Andrew Breitbart posted a clip of Shirley Sherrod's remarks?
Janmaxwell wrote:
“My job is not to worry about those people,” Romney said. “I’ll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives.”
So, the 47% of people who are going to vote for Obama "don't take personal responsibility and care for their lives"?
you're taki g it out of context. Add the words "and not expect govt to do it for them" and you're more on track. He had just gotten through talking about how a certain percentage of people are reliant on govt services and view them as entitlements. In other words, they are not taking personal responsibility for those things and instead are demanding that govt do it for them.
Think about the whole conversation with Sandra fluke and her demand that govt pay for her birth control pills. She's not takin personal responsibility for her own sexual life and instead is demanding that govt pay for it. You will never convince Sandra fluke that maybe she should be responsible for paying for her own birth control. For Romney that is a non vote, so he's not going to worry about trying to convince her otherwise.
Where he was Inartful is that, in her case, she does pay taxes. Not every democrat doesn't pay taxes, so he did lump in those who don't pay taxes and rely on programs and those who feel its govts role to provide ever more for people, like the Sandra's flukes, the occupy wall streeters and the universal health care advocates, all of whom ARE stressing govt action at the expense of personal responsibility.
This is the age old argument being had yet again over the role and size of govt.
By contrast, there is probably 47% of the electorate that will never vote for Romney, who would argue that he is out to destroy govt and the safety net completely and make people rely totally on themselves. It's not an accurate picture, but obama is to not going to worry about trying to appeal to hard core conservatives, and the "rich fat cats who have to pay their fair share."
I do think it was a mistaken statement by Romney.
He conflated two groups:
The percentage of Americans that pay no tax, and the percentage of people stupid enough to vote for Obama no matter what, regardless of any circumstances, logic, reason, etc.
Those are not necessarily the same groups.
For instance, I'm pretty sure that among shiloh, AReasonableMan, AllieOop, garage, ritmo, et al, there are at least 2-3 who pay taxes, if not all of them. But they wouldn't care if Obama raped and murdered their closest relative, declared martial law and threw all members of a minority group into prison and tortured them all to death, they would still vote for Obama.
Those are the people Mitt Romney has no chance of winning over.
Plus, Romney needs to stop saying "I don't care about". What he means is "I am prioritizing my concerns", but this is the 2nd time he's been "caught" saying he doesn't care about something. And the press will spin it into "completely disregards, if not detests".
So it was a gaffe in that it probably wasn't an accurate expression of his true thoughts to begin with. And even more of a gaffe in the explicitly Obama-supporting media environment that currently exists.
Colonel Angus, the issue is that Romney described what Democrats actually do -- teach people to be 'victicrats', entitled and dependent on government -- rather than use the positive words Democrats prefer -- "human rights", "community", "take responsibility for each other" etc.
Now Democrats are indignant. You're saying the 47% are moochers! Republicans are puzzled, because Democrats always said benefits were human rights. If it's a human right, how can you be a moocher to take it?
But Romney used the wrong words, you see. He removed the pretty cover.
Wow, there is a lot go denial going on here this morning. The problem for Romney is that he also pays a relatively low tax rate and he hasn't had a real job in years, putting him firmly in the moocher category. I pay a much higher tax rate, as do a lot of other people, and we all have real jobs that involve going to work each day. A lot of swing voters look like me and we don't see someone who thinks like us.
David Brooks is a putz but he get this this morning. An awful lot of that 47% are republican voters.
It also puts enormous pressure on Romney to release his own tax forms. Just how much tax did this guy pay when he was out of the spotlight? This question is now front and center in the campaign and Romney put it there not the press.
Sandra Fluke who gave a speech at the Democrat Convention believes the Federal Government owes her birth control.
This is the 30 year old Georgetown lawyer who needs assistance from the Federal government in acquiring contraception.
Seems Romney hit the bullseye with his remarks.
ARM. You pay a higher tax rate because you have little capital gains or dividend income. You should save more. Your rate will come down as this other income comes up. It is called planning ahead. It is also called knowing and using the tax code to your advantage. Then, when the lefties raise your capital gains tax you will know the clever trick of not selling until the rates come down. It is a game you play poorly.
Thing is, some poor people don't see themselves as poor and won't recognize themselves as being amongst the 47 percent Romney was talking about. When I was young, my husband was an army sergeant and we had a baby. Pay day I'd pay the bills, buy enough grocery's to last for two weeks, and as a treat I'd get a happy meal that I would split with my daughter and that was it until the next payday. We were most definitely poor, but we never saw ourselves as poor.
We always looked ahead and knew we wouldn't always be in that situation. My guess is, even some people on welfare don't really see themselves as poor or even as moochers. I wonder how people who live in run down trailers or in the inner city see themselves?? That's the question and could make all the difference.
Probably the people who will be most up in arms over Romneys statement are rich liberals and the media. Not because they particularly care about poor people, but because it is in their interest to keep these people in generational poverity, it's there most reliable voting block.
The problem for Romney is that he also pays a relatively low tax rate and he hasn't had a real job in years, putting him firmly in the moocher category.
This is nonsensical. How is he a moocher since living off his own money?
I don't think you know what that term means.
Michael said...
It is a game you play poorly.
I am glad you acknowledge that he is gaming the system. This is apparently going to come as news to some here, but the majority of Americans get most of their income as some form of salary compensation for performing an actual job. We all vote. Its bad enough that the tax system is rigged against us but now we have some arrogant fucker, who hasn't had a real job in years, telling us they he is not a moocher, we are. Political genius.
ARM. You pay a higher tax rate because you have little capital gains or dividend income.
Factor in your deductions and you likely pay about the same effective rate as Romney.
Its bad enough that the tax system is rigged against us but now we have some arrogant fucker, who hasn't had a real job in years, telling us they he is not a moocher
Remind me, did Obama ever have a real job?
Again, you can't be a moocher when you're living off your own earnings. Which is still being taxed.
Colonel Angus said...
This is nonsensical. How is he a moocher since living off his own money?
It's the tax rate. He is so full of his own sense of self entitlement that he routinely offends the majority of us who actually work for a living. By definition, the country can't simply run on people who have acquired sufficient capital to sit on their assets for the rest of their lives. A working economy requires that these people will always be a very small minority. Romney simply doesn't understand this. His views are fundamentally unpatriotic, with no real concern for the majority of the country's citizens.
I am more and more in favor of a VAT every year. If we are headed to single-payer, European style, we should be headed to a European style tax system, which is far more broad based than the most progressive tax system in the developed world that we enjoy here in the US.
Areasonableman wrote:
am glad you acknowledge that he is gaming the system. This is apparently going to come as news to some here, but the majority of Americans get most of their income as some form of salary compensation for performing an actual job.
how is using dividends and having capital gains an example of "gaming the system".? How is understanding investing "gaming the system"?
You should read a book like Rich Dad, Poor Dad because you're arguing Poor. dad's point. Which is why poor dad is still poor.
" By definition, the country can't simply run on people who have acquired sufficient capital to sit on their assets for the rest of their lives."
You hear that people, no saving for the future, it's "unpatriotic"! Now I get the sub 1% interest rates. it all makes sense "by definition"!
Areasonableman wrote:
By definition, the country can't simply run on people who have acquired sufficient capital to sit on their assets for the rest of their lives. A working economy requires that these people will always be a very small minority. Romney simply doesn't understand this. His views are fundamentally unpatriotic, with no real concern for the majority of the country's citizens.
funny, but that's exactly how libs expect the country to run. Tax the rich guys more. When in fact, you can't really get blood from a stone.
Look I think it is great that some people here have enough capital not to work, all power to you. I will do the same when I retire. There is, however, no reasonable justification for the non-working to pay a lower tax rate than the working, assuming that they have the same income. This is a disincentive to work, it is fundamentally bad for the economy and in Romney's case it puts a lot of distance between him and the average working Joe. He is proving to be a disastrous choice for the republicans, particularly in the current political environment.
jr565 said...
how is using dividends and having capital gains an example of "gaming the system".? How is understanding investing "gaming the system"?
The gaming of the system occurred when the tax codes were written to favor one group of moochers over the majority of hard working people with actual jobs.
It's the tax rate. He is so full of his own sense of self entitlement that he routinely offends the majority of us who actually work for a living.
Well I work for a living, have my own business, built it myself in fact and I'm not offended by Romney. What is his sense of self entitlement? That he should keep what he earns? Horrors..
By definition, the country can't simply run on people who have acquired sufficient capital to sit on their assets for the rest of their lives.
This may come as a shock to you but this is exactly what retired people do. Sit on their assets and live off them. I also see you don't understand investments. I'm pretty sure Romneys money isn't sitting under a mattress but is in investments, stocks, bonds, those things which provide business capital in which to operate.
A working economy requires that these people will always be a very small minority.
And they are. A very small minority that the Democrat party believes should shoulder the lions share of the tax burden.
Romney simply doesn't understand this. His views are fundamentally unpatriotic, with no real concern for the majority of the country's citizens.
I think Romney is far more patriotic than the guy who spent 20 years listening to Goddamn Amerikka sermons. YMMV.
Colonel Angus said...
This may come as a shock to you but this is exactly what retired people do. Sit on their assets and live off them.
And, as I said, this is entirely appropriate. I plan to do the same. I don't expect to pay less taxes than someone with a real job.
Can there possibly BE a bigger Goddam fool than ARM? His knowledge of how the economy and financial system works; his understanding of the philosophical rationale behind the differing tax-rate structure behind the different rates for capital gains and ordinary income--reveals a Lake Superior-sized vessel of abysmal ignorance. Is he really a moron or does he just masochistically work really hard to make people think he is?
And, as I said, this is entirely appropriate. I plan to do the same. I don't expect to pay less taxes than someone with a real job.
. Low capital gains tax provides a two fold benefit. 1) It encourages investment, I'm more likely to invest knowing that I'm not going to he hit with 30-40% cap gains. That's of course because I took the risk to invest in a startup.
2) Many retirees who saved and invested wisely aren't going to be gouged with high cap gains as they lives off their investments, thereby giving them longer use of their savings.
Neither of these are bad. Cap gains are nothing more than a punitive tax for saving and investing wisely.
As usual, the republicans are running against a mythical opponent and his mythical supporters.
He is so full of his own sense of self entitlement that he routinely offends the majority of us who actually work for a living.
Your envy is disgusting.
Romney worked for a living. He's at retirement age, and still wants to work for the betterment of the nation.
And you envy that he was a better worker than you.
If you hate being fat and lazy so much, get up and work harder, you pig.*
*metaphorical pig. I don't know if you are physically fat/lazy, but you certainly are mentally fat and lazy, and you are motivated by greed and envy. You come across as a fat pig, whining because someone else is getting more than you, in complete disregard that his greater and smarter effort earned more than you did.
You are disgusting. The envy and greed of pigs like you will ruin the nation if left unchecked.
AReasonableMan wrote:
The gaming of the system occurred when the tax codes were written to favor one group of moochers over the majority of hard working people with actual jobs.
You're talking about taxes on investments as if it was taxes on income. Clearly, as others have stated, you don't really have an understanding of investing.
But fundamental in this is, if you make investing too prohibitive then people don't invest in vehicles that are too prohibitive. If you get a Roth IRA you don't have to pay taxes, until you withdraw the money, so long as you hold onto the account for five years. Is that an example of gaming the system you're talking about? If you made it prohibitive to invest in a Roth Ira, why would someone do that?
Are you really going to argue that investing is somehow an evil now?
Nathan Alexander said...
Your envy is disgusting.
And you envy that he was a better worker than you.
If you hate being fat and lazy so much, get up and work harder, you pig.*
You come across as a fat pig, whining because someone else is getting more than you, in complete disregard that his greater and smarter effort earned more than you did.
You are disgusting. The envy and greed of pigs like you will ruin the nation if left unchecked.
Wow. I'm pretty happy with my life and anticipate a happy retirement, assuming I live to that age. That checking is called the political process, which is what is going on now. Romney seems comfortable with only a small slice of the electorate. Not surprisingly much of the electorate is feeling less and less comfortable with him.
The problem for Romney is that he also pays a relatively low tax rate and he hasn't had a real job in years, putting him firmly in the moocher category
So, you are saying Romney is a moocher because he's not handing over more of the money that he earned? Seriously?
You obviously come from the catagory of people who think that Romney's money (and therefore, my money) belongs more to the government that it does to me.
jr565 said...
Are you really going to argue that investing is somehow an evil now?
Not evil, just taxable. My sympathies lie with the majority of Americans that have to work for a living, who have no choice other than to go out each day and perform an actual job. As noted earlier, in a healthy economy this will always be the vast majority of people. Clearly the sympathies of the majority of people posting here are with people who live off capital and either don't work or don't need to work. Equally clearly, these people will always be a minority of the population. To be a successful politician Romney needs to attract support from more people than just one wealthy slice of the American electorate. He is clearly struggling to do that. Just maybe, instead of yelling at me, it might make sense to sit back and look at some of the structural inequalities in the system that are currently damaging his chances of election, even if that means reexamining some apparently very deeply held beliefs regarding the tax system.
AReasonableMan wrote:
And, as I said, this is entirely appropriate. I plan to do the same. I don't expect to pay less taxes than someone with a real job
so the govt should tax you (at what percentage?) simply for breathing?
There's really nothing that Romney can say, in front of any audience, that the Extended Obama Campaign (that is, the main-stream-media) won't spin to fit the current narrative, which is "Mitt Romney is a rich pig who is out of touch with the middle class and working Americans."
Whether he points out that we should not be having American ambassadors killed, or whether he points out that we have too many people depending on food stamps and welfare, the media will treat it all as an outrage. Everything will be spun to condemn Romney as a "heartless millionaire."
He could talk about how he personally saved 10,000 kittens, and somehow, the media would spin it into a tale of how Mitt released 10,000 feral cats into the wild that are now threatening bird species across North America.
AReasonableManwrote:
Wow. I'm pretty happy with my life and anticipate a happy retirement, assuming I live to that age
and once you retire you'll most likely be living on what you've acquired through savings and investments and not a salary. Meaning, you're a hypocrite.
it might make sense to sit back and look at some of the structural inequalities in the system that are currently damaging his chances of election, even if that means reexamining some apparently very deeply held beliefs regarding the tax system.
That's exactly what Romney is addressing in this recording.
ReasonableMan:
The only reason people would invest in things that would provide them with capitall gains is because there is an economic benefit. If you make taxes on capital gains too onerous it makes them less beneficial as investment vehicles and thus, fewer people will invest in them. Where do you plan on putting your money when you retire? In your mattress? If not, then you will pt it into vehicles that make economic sense and are at least potentially profitable. If taxes are too high on retirement investments, you won't sctually invest.
America's Politico said...
ROMNEY IS FINISHED. AT THE WH MORNING - CALL TO ALL REPORTERS, JACK L. SAID THAT IT IS IMPERATIVE THAT THE PRESS FOCUS ON ROMNEY AND HIS DIVERSITY VIEWS. THE NYT AND NPR SAID THAT THEY PLAN TO DO THIS EVERY HOUR, EVERY DAY, TILL THE ELECTION DAY. THE NYT SAID THAT THEY WILL NOT COVER THE LIBYAN CRISIS AS IT IS CLEAR THIS WAS ALL THE GOP FAULT. NPR AND PBS ALONG WITH MSNBC HAVE AGREED UPON THIS ASSERTION.
ROMENY, YOU ARE FINISHED. NO ONE LOVES YOU. IF THERE IS LIFE ON MARS, EVEN THEY ARE AGAINST YOU.
GO HOME, ROMNEY, GO BACK TO YOUR ELEVATOR GARAGE, YOUR LAKE HOUSE IN NH, YOUR CHURCH FRIENDS IN FRANCE, JUST GET OUT OF THIS PLANET.
THIS IS WHAT THE PRESS WANTS THE VOTERS TO FEEL LIKE.
Yeah.yeah.yeah. We know your schtick. Haha. Funny as hell, but quit yelling. That isn't funny.
That should say If taxes are too high on retirement vehicles, you won't actually invest.
MayBee said...
That's exactly what Romney is addressing in this recording.
No his is not. He is in full pander mode to a bunch of rich donors. The irony here being that he may not even believe everything he is saying.
In this respect, I have some sympathy for him and Obama. The most politically motivated people are rarely the most rational members of society.
AReasonableMan said...
Colonel Angus said...
This may come as a shock to you but this is exactly what retired people do. Sit on their assets and live off them.
And, as I said, this is entirely appropriate. I plan to do the same. I don't expect to pay less taxes than someone with a real job.
Then you didn't invest well.
"A Marxist begins with his prime truth that all evils are caused by the exploitation of the proletariat by the capitalists. From this he logically proceeds to the revolution to end capitalism, then into the third stage of reorganization into a new social order of the dictatorship of the proletariat, and finally the last stage -- the political paradise of communism."
Classic Alinsky tactics being used here. All these useful idiots rooting to for the "paradise of communism".
P.S. Shiloh you are still a HACK. And I'm glad you show up to once again reassure me that I'm happy to be anything other than a democrat.
r565 said...
and once you retire you'll most likely be living on what you've acquired through savings and investments and not a salary. Meaning, you're a hypocrite.
It is not hypocritical to suggest that there should be a more even balance in the tax code between the interests of labor and capital. It would be hypocritical if I changed my position having accrued sufficient capital to benefit from that imbalance, a situation that does not apply to me.
but I don't see anything bad in there at all.
Of course you don't. Then again, you're in denial about Mittens.
My paternal grandparents are now in their 80s and retired. They both worked into their late 70s, they own their home and they have substantial savings. For most of the past 5 years, they haven't needed to pay any federal income tax. They collect Social Security. They are part of Mittens' 47%.
Are they "dependent on government?"
No.
Do they "believe that they are victims?"
No.
Do they believe "they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it?
No.
Will they be offended that Mittens has characterized them this way?
Probably so.
My grandparents spent over 50 years working hard, paying for everything themselves, paying taxes and their Social Security contributions, etc... They will justifiably feel that they earned their Social Security benefits. Most importantly, they are not dependent upon government by anyone's standards.
Mittens' remarks show how out of touch he is with the lives that most Americans lead, and Althouse is delusional about how Mittens' comments will be received across America, especially by retired workers.
Jake- if your grandparents are none of those things Mitt described, why would they think he is talking about them?
He's talking about the people who will vote for Obama because they are satisfied with the government giving them more than they put in.
If that isn't your grandparents, then they can probably dial down their offense-o-meter.
Mr. Romney already announced this position publicly, off the cuff, at a public town hall meeting:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w6aLpf5OMKw
So Mr. Romney says in private the same thing he says in public? I am impressed with his consistency and integrity.
For those from Wisconsin, remember when Scott Walker was punked by a DJ into thinking he was talking to David Koch? Remember when he told the DJ that he wouldn't do any false flag operations to make the unions look bad? Remember when he said he thought he was doing the right thing for Wisconsin's future? Remember when Walker didn't say anything differently to the alleged Kingpin of Korporate Krime than he said many times publicly? Remember when the lefties thought they had a "gotcha" moment on Walker?
How did that work out them?
AReasonableMan wrote:
It is not hypocritical to suggest that there should be a more even balance in the tax code between the interests of labor and capital.
you'll have to explain what this means. Ae you talking about automatic wealth redistribution. Or higher taxes on income investments. Would that apply to middle class people t who are invested through pensions or with their 401ks? Won't that mean its harder for them to actuallyl earn enough through said investments to retire? What you're advocating would actually hurt the retirements of millions of non rich people.
They both worked into their late 70s, they own their home and they have substantial savings. For most of the past 5 years, they haven't needed to pay any federal income tax. They collect Social Security
Something in this statement simply is not true.
Of course you're a silly propagandist and are under the delusion readers aren't informed enough to spot your silly bullshit.
Mittens' remarks show how out of touch he is with the lives that most Americans lead, and Althouse is delusional about how Mittens' comments will be received across America, especially by retired workers.
Complete & utter projection.
Though wouldn't it be fun to ask your grandparents about the ObamaCare cuts to Medicare, which start on Jan 1, 2013?
Only in Obama's America could anyone regard a plain statement of fact as controversial.
@ARM,
You are pretty happy basing your political views on greed and vindictiveness that Romney risked more, worked harder, made better decisions, and now has his investment income taxed **twice** at a level you dont like, but you can't justify, explain, or defend why his double-taxed income should be taxed at a higher rate without falling back on the politics of greed, envy, vindictiveness, and abdication of personal responsibility.
Pig. (figuratively speaking)
ARM: "Are you familiar with todays military? It looks more like the Bronx than Manhattan."
Hardly. Whites, Blacks and especially Native Americans overrepresented, Hispanics underrepresented.
"Shiloh you are still a HACK. And I'm glad you show up to once again reassure me that I'm happy to be anything other than a democrat."
Another Althouse misinformed con as I'm a liberal independent, but you are welcome just the same.
And please, let the con whining re: Willard continue as that is what makes me smile!
you'll have to explain what this means. Ae you talking about automatic wealth redistribution. Or higher taxes on income investments. Would that apply to middle class people t who are invested through pensions or with their 401ks? Won't that mean its harder for them to actuallyl earn enough through said investments to retire? What you're advocating would actually hurt the retirements of millions of non rich people.
Perhaps surprisingly, I happen to agree with your boy Mitt that we need a much simpler tax code. In my view there are two main political impediments to acheiving this goal and this is one of them. The other is the mortgage deduction, which is just plain stupid, since it encourages debt to purchase a consumer good and also helps pump up the cost of that consumer good.
With respect to tax-defered retirement accounts, as much as I don't like them, on balance they probably should be kept. They force the government to take a financial hit for retirement costs in an ongoing fashion, in a way that social security doesn't. My main beef with them is that they can apparently be gamed to great advantage by a few at the expense of the rest of us. I can only contribute a very limited amount each year to these tax deferred accounts. I was amazed to learn that Romney had been able to sock away a literal fortune in the same kind of accounts. This is the kind of abuse of the tax code that really pisses me off. It's not illegal but it does not lead to much love for the Mittster either.
furious_a said...
Whites, Blacks and especially Native Americans overrepresented, Hispanics underrepresented.
As I noted, twice, I was really talking about the veterams I interact with in my local area, who are a surprisingly varied bunch both ethnically and politically. YMMV.
Nathan Alexander said...
You are pretty happy basing your political views on greed and vindictiveness .. but you can't justify, explain, or defend why his double-taxed income should be taxed at a higher rate without falling back on the politics of greed, envy, vindictiveness, and abdication of personal responsibility.
This is delusional nonsense. As stated previously, there is a balance between capital and labor than egenders conflict in every society. I think that we have tilted too far in favor of capital, which receives too much of an advantage from the tax code, effectively biasing the playing field. The tax code is not handed down to us from God, it is the product of men, and as such could plausibly be a pretty flawed product. Given the outsized influence of the most wealthy individuals in the political process it is not unreasonable to believe that it is biased in their favor. Romney limited release of his tax records attests to that fact pretty clearly.
Jake- if your grandparents are none of those things Mitt described, why would they think he is talking about them?
Mittens' statement refers to "people who pay no income tax." My paternal grandparents pay no federal income tax. Therefore, Mittens' comments apply to them.
As I said before, Mittens is out of touch with the lives most Americans lead.
It's amusing to watch Jay throw his little tantrums.
Romney:Forty-seven percent of Americans pay no income tax. So our message of low taxes doesn’t connect. So he’ll be out there talking about tax cuts for the rich. I mean that’s what they sell every four years. And so my job is not to worry about those people. I’ll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives. What I have to convince the five to ten percent in the center that are independents that are thoughtful, that look at voting one way or the other depending upon in some cases emotion, whether they like the guy or not.”
If your Grandparents are part of the 47% who don't pay taxes yet are thoughtful and don't want the government to take care of them, Romney isn't talking about them.
Romney is saying he can't win a large number of the votes of people who don't pay taxes with a message of low taxes. Why? Because they don't pay taxes.
Jake Diamond said...
It's amusing to watch Jay throw his little tantrums.
It is even funnier to watch you post silly things such as:
they have substantial savings... They collect Social Security; My paternal grandparents pay no federal income tax
And pretend they are all true.
They are not.
And as we see, income and how it is treated for tax purposes just becomes another topic on which you make up silly bullshit.
Carry on.
Everything he said was factually true. Nuff said.
Of course, Leftists can't see the truth that way.
Good to see that Jay's head is still firmly planted in the sand.
If Jay doesn't want to believe it, it can't be true!
If your Grandparents are part of the 47% who don't pay taxes yet are thoughtful and don't want the government to take care of them, Romney isn't talking about them.
Mittens was talking about people who don't pay federal income tax. He didn't make any exceptions.
Since we're on the topic of Jay's denial of reality, I still chuckle when I recall Jay's insistence that women can only become pregnant when they take a pregnancy test.
Jake Diamond said...
Good to see that Jay's head is still firmly planted in the sand.
Um, Social Security recipients who earn more than $25,000 (singly) or $32,000 (jointly) have to pay taxes on their Social Security income.
Don't worry, you don't understand these issues so it makes it easy for you to take to the Internet and pass off silly bullshit as fact.
Jake Diamond said...
I still chuckle when I recall Jay's insistence that women can only become pregnant when they take a pregnancy test.
Of course you do as I said no such thing.
Again, you're a fucking idiot and why you contiue to comment to demonstrate that to everyone isn't clear.
You'll continue to demonstrate, however.
Jake Diamond said...
If Jay doesn't want to believe it, it can't be true!
It is beyond comical you pretend to know the income & taxation level of your grandparents.
Idiot.
Romney dared whoever to release the whole tape? Then I guess he's not afraid. Media will jam it in and break it off at every chance till fully refuted, then slinking away, but I guess he knows and expects that.
Meanwhile, to whoever keeps fucking that chicken: my parents pay federal income tax on their social security, which is not high, so I wonder how whoever's parents don't pay.
Libs, Is it really worth it to you to sink so low, just to win a lousy election, and with such a lousy candidate?
...as Shiloh would say, "rhetorical."
As stated previously, there is a balance between capital and labor than egenders conflict in every society. I think that we have tilted too far in favor of capital, which receives too much of an advantage from the tax code, effectively biasing the playing field. The tax code is not handed down to us from God, it is the product of men, and as such could plausibly be a pretty flawed product. Given the outsized influence of the most wealthy individuals in the political process it is not unreasonable to believe that it is biased in their favor.
1) The balance of capital and labor does not engender conflict in every society. That is a debunked Marxist view. Are you saying Obama is Marxist? Or that the Democrat policy is dependent on Marxist viewpoints?
2) You assert things are "too biased" toward capital. What are you basing your opinion on? Do you not like a wealthy society? Do you not like poor being able to amass capital to become wealthy?
3) agreed, the tax code is not handed down from God, and may well be flawed. Why do you assume it can only be flawed in the direction of not paying enough taxes? Bottom line: why do you think people should not keep the money they earn?
4) "Given the outsized influence of the most wealthy." Asserted but not conceded. One man with courage makes a majority, right? While money can help someone get his message out, and while money may well cause some politicians to feel beholden to contributors, money is not the controlling influence you assert it to be. Money tends to flow toward the winner, rather than the winner being the one who gets the most money. And with money from many sources flowing to the winner, it dilutes the influence of any one (rich) individual. Fame and intellect are just as influential...what is your plan to lower the influence of Hollywood/celebrity support for Democrats? If you don't have one, then you are being a hypocrite.
I assert you have not given any good reason that capital gains rates should not be taxed at a lower rate than income. You also have failed to give even the most basic of support for why capital gains should be taxed at all.
Marxist philosophy is bunk.
Um, Social Security recipients who earn more than $25,000 (singly) or $32,000 (jointly) have to pay taxes on their Social Security income.
My grandparents don't pay federal income tax. I'll leave it to you to do the math. Yeah, I know, you don't understand math, but it will be hilarious to watch you try.
And speaking of Jay's stupidity again, he actually did insist that PP only offers pregnancy tests to women who aren't pregnant. Not much reason to take the test then, is there Jay?
Except of course for Jay's theory that women who are potentially pregnant only become "legitimately" pregnant when they take the pregnancy test. This is something he learned at the Todd Akin school of sex ed.
Jake Diamond: If your grandparents have "substantial savings" that are in a form other than cash under the mattress or solely in tax free bonds they pay income tax. Or they don't have "substantial savings." Perhaps you meant "adequate savings for their lifestyles?"
If your grandparents have "substantial savings" that are in a form other than cash under the mattress or solely in tax free bonds they pay income tax.
Yeah, obviously their savings aren't being used to produce taxable income.
What about the 47% with Romney?
"There are 47 percent of the people who will vote against the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are against him, who think they are independent from government, who believe that they are victims of government, who believe the government has a responsibility to get out of their way and clear other people out of the, who believe that they are entitled to health care others can't get, to food others can't get, to housing in gated communities away from who might live in government-built housing, to you-name-it. That that's an entitlement, too, but they call it 'an individual right.' And the government should give it to them, or get out of the way so they can take it from whoever. And they will vote against this president no matter what . . . These are people who pay no income tax, if they can help it, who think the world owes them a living, but doesn't owe anyone else the same thing, and they resent the government's working to level the playing field."
Fair now?
Post a Comment