Romney's America -- his "47%"

[Orange]

What's Romney's America? Well, according to his comments, 47% of the country "is dependent on government for food, housing....you name it." They are "victims." They cannot be convinced to "take responsibility for their own lives."

 

Interesting.

 

So "Romney's 47%" Is the America where a bunch of brown-skinned leaches beg for money from the white people. It's where people who aren't filing for a new business name with the secretary of state are losers who deserve to have their jobs shipped to Mexico or Indonesia. It's where single mothers who raise children alone with the assistance of TANF are "victims" who are lazy, shiftless, and dependent, while his own wife -- who was similarly unemployed and raised children with the help of several maids and nannies -- was a woman doing the "hardest job in the world." Romney's world is a world where the privileged few succeed, ignorant of their privilege, and spend leisure time ridiculing those who don't HAVE leisure time.

 

That's not my America. Perhaps Romney has lived in a closed circle, where the poor and middle class are discussed, but never seen. My America is quite different.

 

In my America, the one I've grown up in, people WANT to depend on themselves. They don't want to have to beg, to have to constantly display gratitude to others for a pillow, and a roof. They want to be self-sufficient, they want to have pride, and more often than not, they do. They scrap and claw, they drive forklifts, they answer phones, they dig ditches, they sweat, they break their backs, they spend 9 hours a day listening to complaints of customers with a smile, they re-stock inventory, they seek out customers, they wipe children's tears and bottoms, they get up at 3 am to console and feed a crying baby then show up to work on time at 7, they use their lunch break to pick up prescriptions for their kids or their spouse, they mow their own lawns, they can't afford movers so they bribe friends with lite beer, they kill a weekend cleaning the house and umpiring a ball game, they visit an uncle in the hospital or an aunt in jail, and use it as a teaching moment for their kids.

 

In my America, the 47% is the freaking BACKBONE of this country, not the dependent class. In my America, without that 47%, we're seriously fucked.

[KUGRDON]

What's Romney's America? Well, according to his comments, 47% of the country "is dependent on government for food, housing....you name it." They are "victims." They cannot be convinced to "take responsibility for their own lives."

 

Interesting.

 

So "Romney's 47%" Is the America where a bunch of brown-skinned leaches beg for money from the white people. It's where people who aren't filing for a new business name with the secretary of state are losers who deserve to have their jobs shipped to Mexico or Indonesia. It's where single mothers who raise children alone with the assistance of TANF are "victims" who are lazy, shiftless, and dependent, while his own wife -- who was similarly unemployed and raised children with the help of several maids and nannies -- was a woman doing the "hardest job in the world." Romney's world is a world where the privileged few succeed, ignorant of their privilege, and spend leisure time ridiculing those who don't HAVE leisure time.

 

That's not my America. Perhaps Romney has lived in a closed circle, where the poor and middle class are discussed, but never seen. My America is quite different.

 

In my America, the one I've grown up in, people WANT to depend on themselves. They don't want to have to beg, to have to constantly display gratitude to others for a pillow, and a roof. They want to be self-sufficient, they want to have pride, and more often than not, they do. They scrap and claw, they drive forklifts, they answer phones, they dig ditches, they sweat, they break their backs, they spend 9 hours a day listening to complaints of customers with a smile, they re-stock inventory, they seek out customers, they wipe children's tears and bottoms, they get up at 3 am to console and feed a crying baby then show up to work on time at 7, they use their lunch break to pick up prescriptions for their kids or their spouse, they mow their own lawns, they can't afford movers so they bribe friends with lite beer, they kill a weekend cleaning the house and umpiring a ball game, they visit an uncle in the hospital or an aunt in jail, and use it as a teaching moment for their kids.

 

In my America, the 47% is the freaking BACKBONE of this country, not the dependent class. In my America, without that 47%, we're seriously fucked.

 

Nothing from Romney about brown or black skin or even white people, but its always nice to throw in a racism charge.

 

If they want to depend on themselves, they don't have babies they can't afford. Its really that simple. You are right in that they don't want to display gratitude to anyone for helping them. That is why the vote for Democrats. The Democrats simply take the money that they need from somebody else, no gratitude required. . .they're entitled.

 

If by backbone you mean they're the one's with their hands out while they scratch their butts, light up a joint, chase a kid outside and check their food stamp balance, yeah, you nailed. it. For the record, the overwhelming number of them are white.

[Nakedmolerat]

The interesting thing I found about the 47% is where they are predominantly from.

 

Check it.

 

I'd bet most of those states stay red come November. Interesting, no?

[glduck]

mittens is on the cusp of becoming bob dole, circa fall 1996. what do you do when your own party never believed in you and it's painfully clear you're not going to win? here's to an awkward six weeks stumbling towards the finish line, big guy.

[Orange]

mittens is on the cusp of becoming bob dole, circa fall 1996. what do you do when your own party never believed in you and it's painfully clear you're not going to win? here's to an awkward six weeks stumbling towards the finish line, big guy.

It's as simple as this: His campaign is as inept as any campaign, ever. He's fighting an incumbent who is staring 8.1% unemployment in the face, and he's never seriously led in the polls. After this, Obama just needs to avoid being caught in bed with a live man or a dead woman.

 

Meanwhile, Romney's campaign is busy digging up fresh angles.

[Orange]

Nothing from Romney about brown or black skin or even white people, but its always nice to throw in a racism charge.

 

He was referring to a voting bloc that will "never vote for me." Which bloc is that? It's certainly not the 47% who pay no federal income tax, because probably half or more of those people will vote for Romney, because they are largely white, working class, retirees, and military. That's pure red state. So who will "never vote for" Romney? Well, a recent poll had blacks running at 0% for Romney. Hmmmmm.... Perhaps he just misspoke about the percentage. I know damned well that the 50,000-a-plate tycoons in the fundraiser sure weren't picturing white faces "dependent on government for food, housing, health care, you name it" and who are "victims."

 

If they want to depend on themselves, they don't have babies they can't afford. Its really that simple. You are right in that they don't want to display gratitude to anyone for helping them. That is why the vote for Democrats. The Democrats simply take the money that they need from somebody else, no gratitude required. . .they're entitled.

 

If you want to bitch about a class of people who don't pay income tax, then blame the Republicans who created the tax loopholes that made it possible. Do you deny the truth of this?

 

If Romney is referring to the 47% who pay no federal income tax, he is NOT, by and large, referring to people who have babies they cannot afford, or who "take money from somebody else". More than half of the 47% are (a) working people who pay payroll tax, but have deductions created by Republicans like the Mortgage Interest Deduction, Child Tax Credit and Earned Income Credit that reduce their federal liability to zero, ( B ) retirees who spent a lifetime working and are now collecting the SSI they paid into, or ( C ) military personnel, particularly men & women in combat zones who don't pay federal income tax on that combat pay.

 

So Romney is referring to working people, retirees, veterans and active-duty miltary personnel as leaches who want handouts, and you back him up on that? You think any of those Navy SEALS and such might stand next to you and consider themselves a bit more "responsible"? I do.

 

I don't want to misstate your stupid opinion, so please, by all means, clarify. If, as with Romney, you simply weren't "eloquent", then by all means, more articulately state why combat personnel, working citizens, and retirees are victims who cannot be persuaded by Mitt Romney to act like adults.

[jimjones]

Nothing from Romney about brown or black skin or even white people, but its always nice to throw in a racism charge.

 

If they want to depend on themselves, they don't have babies they can't afford. Its really that simple. You are right in that they don't want to display gratitude to anyone for helping them. That is why the vote for Democrats. The Democrats simply take the money that they need from somebody else, no gratitude required. . .they're entitled.

 

If by backbone you mean they're the one's with their hands out while they scratch their butts, light up a joint, chase a kid outside and check their food stamp balance, yeah, you nailed. it. For the record, the overwhelming number of them are white.

One of the stupdiist posts everr. Included in that 47% arfe people like myself who worked productively for over 47 years . Servedd in the military when called upon and saved for a retirement richly deservved and even though I get a fairly good SS checknadd Staatte retirement most years I get all taxes paid back on refund because the amount is too low. This stupid comment by Romney will cost him the election. I even believe Arizona will vote for Obama and Democrats have only carried Ariizona twice since 1948. Any time you group 47% of the people as dead beats and dependent on government you are telling a big lie. However republicans are good at that.

 

Jim

[Orange]

I think Key & Peele manage to sum all this up best.

[KUGRDON]

He was referring to a voting bloc that will "never vote for me." Which bloc is that? It's certainly not the 47% who pay no federal income tax, because probably half or more of those people will vote for Romney, because they are largely white, working class, retirees, and military. That's pure red state. So who will "never vote for" Romney? Well, a recent poll had blacks running at 0% for Romney. Hmmmmm.... Perhaps he just misspoke about the percentage. I know damned well that the 50,000-a-plate tycoons in the fundraiser sure weren't picturing white faces "dependent on government for food, housing, health care, you name it" and who are "victims."

 

 

 

If you want to bitch about a class of people who don't pay income tax, then blame the Republicans who created the tax loopholes that made it possible. Do you deny the truth of this?

 

If Romney is referring to the 47% who pay no federal income tax, he is NOT, by and large, referring to people who have babies they cannot afford, or who "take money from somebody else". More than half of the 47% are (a) working people who pay payroll tax, but have deductions created by Republicans like the Mortgage Interest Deduction, Child Tax Credit and Earned Income Credit that reduce their federal liability to zero, ( B ) retirees who spent a lifetime working and are now collecting the SSI they paid into, or ( C ) military personnel, particularly men & women in combat zones who don't pay federal income tax on that combat pay.

 

So Romney is referring to working people, retirees, veterans and active-duty miltary personnel as leaches who want handouts, and you back him up on that? You think any of those Navy SEALS and such might stand next to you and consider themselves a bit more "responsible"? I do.

 

I don't want to misstate your stupid opinion, so please, by all means, clarify. If, as with Romney, you simply weren't "eloquent", then by all means, more articulately state why combat personnel, working citizens, and retirees are victims who cannot be persuaded by Mitt Romney to act like adults.

 

The largest tax loopholes, are, in descending order:

 

1. tax exclusion for employer-provided health insurance.

 

2. the mortgage-interest deduction

 

3. the tax break (deferral) for 401(k) contributions.

 

Now, guess how many Democrats would vote for closing those loopholes. Answer: 0

 

Now, to specifically answer your charge that Republicans created those loopholes. . .its just not true. Democrats controlled the House of Representatives from 1948 until 1994 where all tax legislation originates. Accordingly, Democrats created and preserved those loopholes.

 

I'm not giving out any blue ribbons for paying payroll tax. It really isn't a tax at all, amounts are paid in exchange for a lifetime annuity payable in cash and medical benefits typically worth three times what an individual pays in. Now if you call paying $1.00 for something and getting $3.00 back paying a tax, you are kidding yourself.

 

Lets just say there are very few American who could honestly say, "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country." We're going broke because almost everybody but the "1%" has their hand out for more than they pay in. . .from social security and medicare down to food stamps and unemployment compensation. The chorus of "raise somebody else's taxes" is almost deafening.

[Orange]

The largest tax loopholes, are, in descending order:

 

1. tax exclusion for employer-provided health insurance.

 

2. the mortgage-interest deduction

 

3. the tax break (deferral) for 401(k) contributions.

 

Now, guess how many Democrats would vote for closing those loopholes. Answer: 0

 

Nice try. The major "47%" deduction, the MID, was proposed by the Reagan Treasury Department. Deflecting to whether or not the Democrats voted against it is not the point. Republicans built these deductions, and now they bitch about their results, calling those who take advantage of said deductions "victims" and not able to "take responsibility for their own lives."

 

The EIC is another one for low-income Americans, signed by a Republican president in 1975, and was massively expanded by Reagan in 1986.

 

All of this is beside the point; people who take advantage of these loopholes are, by definition, earning income. This means they're getting up for work in the morning, usually with kids and a home to return to. Every bit the opposite of "victims" who are "dependent on government." Romney's remarks were a vicious, unwarranted, ignorant attack on hardworking people.

 

Now, to specifically answer your charge that Republicans created those loopholes. . .its just not true.

 

Already debunked that with reference to the largest individual middle-class loophole there is.

 

Democrats controlled the House of Representatives from 1948 until 1994 where all tax legislation originates. Accordingly, Democrats created and preserved those loopholes.

 

Legislation, but not necessarily proposals. The MID was a proposal of the Reagan Administration.

 

I'm not giving out any blue ribbons for paying payroll tax. It really isn't a tax at all, amounts are paid in exchange for a lifetime annuity payable in cash and medical benefits typically worth three times what an individual pays in. Now if you call paying $1.00 for something and getting $3.00 back paying a tax, you are kidding yourself.

 

I don't care if you're giving out blue ribbons or throwing tomatoes; the fact remains that anyone paying this tax is a "WORKING PERSON". (Unlike Mitt Romney, who has let his well-born wealth do the working for him). Ergo, they are not lazy victims, living on the dole, waiting for a handout. (Like Bain Capital's $10 billion handout in the 90s that blocked free market capitalism from destroying his business, and protecting us from the danger of a disastrous Romney presidency).

 

As for seniors getting more than they put in, fine, I am certain Romney's message goes over just peachy with said seniors. I can actually hear the Florida vote swinging Obama's way.

 

Lets just say there are very few American who could honestly say, "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country." We're going broke because almost everybody but the "1%" has their hand out for more than they pay in. . .from social security and medicare down to food stamps and unemployment compensation. The chorus of "raise somebody else's taxes" is almost deafening.

 

This is simply a lie. You must get all your information from Breitbart or Daily Caller. I'm not even sure Fox News is audacious enough to insult their own old, typically middle class viewers in such a way. If anything, the top 1% pay the lowest in taxes after taking advantage of an extraordinarily low capital gains rate, hundreds of tax deductions typically available only to the rich (check out Romney's $77k deduction for a pet horse). Those putting the most in are probably 6-figure salaried workers who rent (like me), who throw in 35%, don't get the MID, and often pay the maximum payroll tax (up to the $108k cap, or whatever); meanwhile Romney pays the same payroll tax rate as me, would still get SSI from the government despite making $20 million a year, and paying a 13% tax rate (that we know of).

 

Shall we even discuss how the 1%'s wealth has octupled over the past decade or so, to the detriment of programs for the poor and middle class? They earn more, keep more, and pay in less every day. But thanks for defending them, Kugrdon.

[KUGRDON]

Nice try. The major "47%" deduction, the MID, was proposed by the Reagan Treasury Department. Deflecting to whether or not the Democrats voted against it is not the point. Republicans built these deductions, and now they bitch about their results, calling those who take advantage of said deductions "victims" and not able to "take responsibility for their own lives."

 

The EIC is another one for low-income Americans, signed by a Republican president in 1975, and was massively expanded by Reagan in 1986.

 

All of this is beside the point; people who take advantage of these loopholes are, by definition, earning income. This means they're getting up for work in the morning, usually with kids and a home to return to. Every bit the opposite of "victims" who are "dependent on government." Romney's remarks were a vicious, unwarranted, ignorant attack on hardworking people.

 

 

 

Already debunked that with reference to the largest individual middle-class loophole there is.

 

 

 

Legislation, but not necessarily proposals. The MID was a proposal of the Reagan Administration.

 

 

 

I don't care if you're giving out blue ribbons or throwing tomatoes; the fact remains that anyone paying this tax is a "WORKING PERSON". (Unlike Mitt Romney, who has let his well-born wealth do the working for him). Ergo, they are not lazy victims, living on the dole, waiting for a handout. (Like Bain Capital's $10 billion handout in the 90s that blocked free market capitalism from destroying his business, and protecting us from the danger of a disastrous Romney presidency).

 

As for seniors getting more than they put in, fine, I am certain Romney's message goes over just peachy with said seniors. I can actually hear the Florida vote swinging Obama's way.

 

 

 

This is simply a lie. You must get all your information from Breitbart or Daily Caller. I'm not even sure Fox News is audacious enough to insult their own old, typically middle class viewers in such a way. If anything, the top 1% pay the lowest in taxes after taking advantage of an extraordinarily low capital gains rate, hundreds of tax deductions typically available only to the rich (check out Romney's $77k deduction for a pet horse). Those putting the most in are probably 6-figure salaried workers who rent (like me), who throw in 35%, don't get the MID, and often pay the maximum payroll tax (up to the $108k cap, or whatever); meanwhile Romney pays the same payroll tax rate as me, would still get SSI from the government despite making $20 million a year, and paying a 13% tax rate (that we know of).

 

Shall we even discuss how the 1%'s wealth has octupled over the past decade or so, to the detriment of programs for the poor and middle class? They earn more, keep more, and pay in less every day. But thanks for defending them, Kugrdon.

 

Nice try again, but entertaining. A deduction for home mortgage interest existed long before Reagan was elected. Before the 1986 revision to the tax code, interest on all loans was deductible. Home loans, credit card debt, car loans, all consumer debt. So Reagan did not create the home interest deduction, it was preserved because the Democratic Congress would not go along with eliminating it along with the other personal interest deductions that Reagan eliminated. Reagan eliminated almost all of the loopholes for personal interest deductions and compromised with the Democrats by preserving the home interest deduction.

 

Again, Reagan was dealing with a Democratic Congress when the eic was expanded.

 

People who pay no federal income tax while earning income are freeloaders by definition, whether or not they work, raise families or teach sunday school, rescue lost cats from trees and put out forest fires. They pay nothing for national defense, federal investments in infrastructure, education, research that they personally benefit from and they pay nothing towards the direct aid that the federal government provides to them or the poor.

 

A reminder: The top 1% of this country shoulders 36.7% of the federal income tax burden while earning about 16% of the total income, according to the National Taxpayers Union. The top 5% pays 58.7%. Top 10% pays 70.5%. The bottom half pays just 2.25% while earning almost 14% of the total income (not including non-taxable income such as food stamps, welfare, medical benefits, etc.). Just facts. Moreover, those in the lower tax brackets were given net tax savings over a decade aggregating $1.4 trillion by the "Bush Tax Cuts for the wealthy" while the "wealthy" received less than half that much in tax cuts.

 

http://online.barrons.com/article/SB50001424053111904331904577321660464506838.html

 

Finally, your point about the likelihood of losing an election because of proposing changes to Social Security and Medicare makes my point. The freeloaders will hate it. Finally, I'll let you in on a dirty little secret. Our culture is so depraved that the political class, right and left, has to pander to it by offering more benefits than it collects in tax. We are a nation of whiners and complainers seeking something for nothing and more than willing to use government as the tool to achieve it.. As one who actually pays a significant amount of federal income tax, together with supplying my employees with health insurance, unemployment insurance and half of the contribution on behalf of my employees for their social security and medicare, I'm on the side of lowering taxes, cutting benefits and reducing dependency on government whether such proposals are made by Republicans or Democrats. For the record, I don't think anyone, including myself, should collect a dime of Social Security or Medicare while they have significant income or assets, such as a home or pension plan. Providing such benefits to people of means robs the treasury in order to allow the recipient to spend their income or assets on leisure or to pass it on to their heirs. It serves no legitimate public purpose. Government should provide for those who can not provide for themselves, it is immoral to deny benefits to those whose lives would otherwise be threatened. It is likewise immoral to take money from one person to give it to someone who can and should provide for themselves.

 

Entitlements now consume 62% of the federal budget and are choking out investment in infrastructure, education and research and development. So, the above-described freeloaders are not only robbing the taxpayer of his/her money, they are robbing the nation of its future.

[Orange]

Nice try again, but entertaining. A deduction for home mortgage interest existed long before Reagan was elected. Before the 1986 revision to the tax code, interest on all loans was deductible. Home loans, credit card debt, car loans, all consumer debt. So Reagan did not create the home interest deduction, it was preserved because the Democratic Congress would not go along with eliminating it along with the other personal interest deductions that Reagan eliminated. Reagan eliminated almost all of the loopholes for personal interest deductions and compromised with the Democrats by preserving the home interest deduction.

 

Again, Reagan was dealing with a Democratic Congress when the eic was expanded.

 

People who pay no federal income tax while earning income are freeloaders by definition, whether or not they work, raise families or teach sunday school, rescue lost cats from trees and put out forest fires. They pay nothing for national defense, federal investments in infrastructure, education, research that they personally benefit from and they pay nothing towards the direct aid that the federal government provides to them or the poor.

 

A reminder: The top 1% of this country shoulders 36.7% of the federal income tax burden while earning about 16% of the total income, according to the National Taxpayers Union. The top 5% pays 58.7%. Top 10% pays 70.5%. The bottom half pays just 2.25% while earning almost 14% of the total income (not including non-taxable income such as food stamps, welfare, medical benefits, etc.). Just facts. Moreover, those in the lower tax brackets were given net tax savings over a decade aggregating $1.4 trillion by the "Bush Tax Cuts for the wealthy" while the "wealthy" received less than half that much in tax cuts.

 

http://online.barrons.com/article/SB50001424053111904331904577321660464506838.html

 

Obfuscation. When you're talking $50k-per-plate tycoons, and the top 1%, you're talking about wealth, not income. In fact, "income tax" doesn't nearly get at the point. Most of the top 1% (and hell, most of the top 5%) make money on their investments, and capital gains, not income. (And because our tax code devalues work and overvalues investment, we get what we value: Hardly an jobs, but lots of gambling on wall street).

 

The top 1% actually controls 42% of the country's wealth. The top 5% controls 68% of the nation's wealth. The bottom 80% controls 7% of the wealth. If they're "freeloading", they're sure not living it up in the process; and if the Dem master plan in agreeing to dispense with generic interest deductions was intended to shore up our middle class, it failed miserably...

 

http://www.mybudget360.com/top-1-percent-control-42-percent-of-financial-wealth-in-the-us-how-average-americans-are-lured-into-debt-servitude-by-promises-of-mega-wealth/

 

Moreover, federal income tax is hardly the only tax there is, nor is it the only form of income tax that subsidizes federal payments that make our government run. Your assertion that the "freeloaders" don't pay for education, or infrastructure, or research is patently false, as the middle class pays state income tax, property tax, city tax, excise taxes on phones, and all other taxes too numerous to mention here. Matter of fact, when all taxes come out in the wash, the tax rate nationwide is virtually flat:

 

http://www.salon.com/2012/04/23/americas_true_tax_rate/

 

80% of all taxpayers pay somewhere between a 20% and 30% tax rate, with the bottom 20% paying about 17%, even though the bottom 20% has all the expendable income of Sudan. In other words, your numbers are a rabid distortion of the truth (to say nothing of the fact that you're calling combat infanty soldiers "feeloaders" even though many of them actually pay with their LIVES).

 

Finally, your point about the likelihood of losing an election because of proposing changes to Social Security and Medicare makes my point. The freeloaders will hate it.

 

They're not pissed about proposed changes to SSI and Medicare. The polling for Romney jumped when Ryan -- and his Medicare-slashing plan -- was added to the ticket. What they don't like is being referred to as a lazy, dependent, self-victimizing entitlement class that is not responsilble. We're talking about people who spent their lives defending our country, working for 50 years in some menial job, and collecting what they were promised by political parties of ALL stripes.

 

Finally, I'll let you in on a dirty little secret. Our culture is so depraved that the political class, right and left, has to pander to it by offering more benefits than it collects in tax. We are a nation of whiners and complainers seeking something for nothing and more than willing to use government as the tool to achieve it.. As one who actually pays a significant amount of federal income tax, together with supplying my employees with health insurance, unemployment insurance and half of the contribution on behalf of my employees for their social security and medicare, I'm on the side of lowering taxes, cutting benefits and reducing dependency on government whether such proposals are made by Republicans or Democrats. For the record, I don't think anyone, including myself, should collect a dime of Social Security or Medicare while they have significant income or assets, such as a home or pension plan. Providing such benefits to people of means robs the treasury in order to allow the recipient to spend their income or assets on leisure or to pass it on to their heirs. It serves no legitimate public purpose. Government should provide for those who can not provide for themselves, it is immoral to deny benefits to those whose lives would otherwise be threatened. It is likewise immoral to take money from one person to give it to someone who can and should provide for themselves.

 

Entitlements now consume 62% of the federal budget and are choking out investment in infrastructure, education and research and development. So, the above-described freeloaders are not only robbing the taxpayer of his/her money, they are robbing the nation of its future.

You have a clearly disdainful view of the American populace as a whole (except for yourself, apparently), which is pretty sad, and explains why Romney will get your vote. He's precisely like you. He cannot stand those who are not as lucky as him, and as rich as him. He confuses privilege with work, and he confuses struggle with giving up a yacht, but keeping your 3rd home.

 

As for means-testing SSI, I might agree with you on some of the details related to that. But it would be a political impossibility, for some of the reasons you stated. Yes, you have some merit to your remarks. That said, the Republicans are not the party that is willing to make hard choices, or expose us to hard truths -- their budget plan calls for more tax breaks for a rich class of people (who also receive massive entitlements in the form of corporate subsidies) and increased spending on defense.

 

If we value bombing other countries that we're not at war with to such a degree more than our own struggling citizens, then I'll agree with you on one other thing: Our culture IS depraved.

[KUGRDON]

Obfuscation. When you're talking $50k-per-plate tycoons, and the top 1%, you're talking about wealth, not income. In fact, "income tax" doesn't nearly get at the point. Most of the top 1% (and hell, most of the top 5%) make money on their investments, and capital gains, not income. (And because our tax code devalues work and overvalues investment, we get what we value: Hardly an jobs, but lots of gambling on wall street).

 

The top 1% actually controls 42% of the country's wealth. The top 5% controls 68% of the nation's wealth. The bottom 80% controls 7% of the wealth. If they're "freeloading", they're sure not living it up in the process; and if the Dem master plan in agreeing to dispense with generic interest deductions was intended to shore up our middle class, it failed miserably...

 

http://www.mybudget360.com/top-1-percent-control-42-percent-of-financial-wealth-in-the-us-how-average-americans-are-lured-into-debt-servitude-by-promises-of-mega-wealth/

 

Moreover, federal income tax is hardly the only tax there is, nor is it the only form of income tax that subsidizes federal payments that make our government run. Your assertion that the "freeloaders" don't pay for education, or infrastructure, or research is patently false, as the middle class pays state income tax, property tax, city tax, excise taxes on phones, and all other taxes too numerous to mention here. Matter of fact, when all taxes come out in the wash, the tax rate nationwide is virtually flat:

 

http://www.salon.com/2012/04/23/americas_true_tax_rate/

 

80% of all taxpayers pay somewhere between a 20% and 30% tax rate, with the bottom 20% paying about 17%, even though the bottom 20% has all the expendable income of Sudan. In other words, your numbers are a rabid distortion of the truth (to say nothing of the fact that you're calling combat infanty soldiers "feeloaders" even though many of them actually pay with their LIVES).

 

 

 

They're not pissed about proposed changes to SSI and Medicare. The polling for Romney jumped when Ryan -- and his Medicare-slashing plan -- was added to the ticket. What they don't like is being referred to as a lazy, dependent, self-victimizing entitlement class that is not responsilble. We're talking about people who spent their lives defending our country, working for 50 years in some menial job, and collecting what they were promised by political parties of ALL stripes.

 

 

You have a clearly disdainful view of the American populace as a whole (except for yourself, apparently), which is pretty sad, and explains why Romney will get your vote. He's precisely like you. He cannot stand those who are not as lucky as him, and as rich as him. He confuses privilege with work, and he confuses struggle with giving up a yacht, but keeping your 3rd home.

 

As for means-testing SSI, I might agree with you on some of the details related to that. But it would be a political impossibility, for some of the reasons you stated. Yes, you have some merit to your remarks. That said, the Republicans are not the party that is willing to make hard choices, or expose us to hard truths -- their budget plan calls for more tax breaks for a rich class of people (who also receive massive entitlements in the form of corporate subsidies) and increased spending on defense.

 

If we value bombing other countries that we're not at war with to such a degree more than our own struggling citizens, then I'll agree with you on one other thing: Our culture IS depraved.

 

I guess you want to go beyond taxing income to confiscating wealth. Not surprising.

 

Neither is it surprising that so many do not want to be told the truth, that the benefits they are receiving and did not pay for are driving the country toward bankruptcy and robbing our grandchildren of investment in education, infrastructure and technology. . .and that they are greedy, bloodsucking freeloaders who hold nothing but contempt for those both younger and poorer. They won't admit those characteristics, but reveal themselves in how they vote.

 

Most who vote for Romney are not now wealthy, most who vote for Romney were not wealthy at birth or otherwise lucky in any of the respects you imply. You can download the data here. The GOP and Democrats are pretty much evenly divided at all income levels except for the very poor, who, not surprisingly, vote Democratic in response to the benefits provided. As for me I was born to a single mother of 5 (who never collected a welfare check or received a food stamp) and never ate a steak until well after I left home. Indeed, I would wager that I did not drink 100 glasses of milk prior to going to college (no, we did not sign up for free school lunches), I went to a doctor twice and a dentist once before leaving home, usually ate pancakes made of flour and water together with pancake syrup made of nothing but sugar and water for breakfast and topped it off with "butter beans", fried potatoes and cornbread for dinner. I owned my own business by the time I was 25 and sold it to finance law school. I am not disdainful of the poor, I am disdainful of the middle class, right and left, with its hands out to government while it steadfastly refuses to pay for the benefits it demands.

 

I share your apparent contempt for Obama's needless and failed escalation of the war in Afghanistan.

[Orange]

I guess you want to go beyond taxing income to confiscating wealth. Not surprising.

 

Of course I do. That's how the very wealthy earn their income. The 2 are conflated, rightfully. Besides, turnabout is fair play. The wealthy have used their money and influence to fund subterfuge in transferring wealth from the working class to the rich for 30 years. If you can bitch about the poor taking from the rich, how can i not complain about the rich stealing from the poor? Besides, to repair our middle class is not merely justice in response to 3 decades of dishonest political influence that destroyed it, but it's helpful to the investor class to have a consumer class (to purchase from YOUR business).

 

Neither is it surprising that so many do not want to be told the truth, that the benefits they are receiving and did not pay for are driving the country toward bankruptcy and robbing our grandchildren of investment in education, infrastructure and technology. . .and that they are greedy, bloodsucking freeloaders who hold nothing but contempt for those both younger and poorer. They won't admit those characteristics, but reveal themselves in how they vote.

 

No, generally people don't like to be told blatant lies. Everything you said here is a lie.

 

Most who vote for Romney are not now wealthy, most who vote for Romney were not wealthy at birth or otherwise lucky in any of the respects you imply. You can download the data here. The GOP and Democrats are pretty much evenly divided at all income levels except for the very poor, who, not surprisingly, vote Democratic in response to the benefits provided.

 

Those who vote GOP have been mindfucked into believing that we're the "land of opportunity" where everyone can be their own boss. Romney has said as much on plenty of campaign stops, declaring in a stump speech that kids should borrow from their parents to start a business (why didn't YOU think of that?) and that entreprenurial spirits should abound all over the country. Problem with that is, mathematically, we can't all be rich business owners. Because business owners need employees. And those employees are the consumer class -- the very people who allow business to run, who allow roads to be built (by usually doing the physical building of them themselves) and who enable the rich. Again, you have a disdain for these people that borders on pathological. Between that seething contempt for people, and your pity-me story of bootstraps entitlement, I'd invest money in a shrink if I were you.

 

I share your apparent contempt for Obama's needless and failed escalation of the war in Afghanistan.

 

I think shooting bin Laden in the face should've been the point at which we left. We got the guy who brought the towers down. That much was necessary (and should've been accomplished by that criminal clown, GW Bush), and 100% of what was necessary. But I think we should also cut out the sweetheart contracts, stop policing the world, and cut defense in half or more. We already pay more to destroy dirt-worshipping middle easterners than the next 19 militaries combined (17 of them allies). Yet Romney and RYan want to ratchet that up again. Which party is the party of common sense?

[KUGRDON]

Of course I do. That's how the very wealthy earn their income. The 2 are conflated, rightfully. Besides, turnabout is fair play. The wealthy have used their money and influence to fund subterfuge in transferring wealth from the working class to the rich for 30 years. If you can bitch about the poor taking from the rich, how can i not complain about the rich stealing from the poor? Besides, to repair our middle class is not merely justice in response to 3 decades of dishonest political influence that destroyed it, but it's helpful to the investor class to have a consumer class (to purchase from YOUR business).

 

 

 

No, generally people don't like to be told blatant lies. Everything you said here is a lie.

 

 

 

Those who vote GOP have been mindfucked into believing that we're the "land of opportunity" where everyone can be their own boss. Romney has said as much on plenty of campaign stops, declaring in a stump speech that kids should borrow from their parents to start a business (why didn't YOU think of that?) and that entreprenurial spirits should abound all over the country. Problem with that is, mathematically, we can't all be rich business owners. Because business owners need employees. And those employees are the consumer class -- the very people who allow business to run, who allow roads to be built (by usually doing the physical building of them themselves) and who enable the rich. Again, you have a disdain for these people that borders on pathological. Between that seething contempt for people, and your pity-me story of bootstraps entitlement, I'd invest money in a shrink if I were you.

 

 

 

I think shooting bin Laden in the face should've been the point at which we left. We got the guy who brought the towers down. That much was necessary (and should've been accomplished by that criminal clown, GW Bush), and 100% of what was necessary. But I think we should also cut out the sweetheart contracts, stop policing the world, and cut defense in half or more. We already pay more to destroy dirt-worshipping middle easterners than the next 19 militaries combined (17 of them allies). Yet Romney and RYan want to ratchet that up again. Which party is the party of common sense?

 

I've had an enlightenment, everything you say is correct. Preach it Bro! It would have been easier to buy into your argument if tens of millions of Americans making $25.000 a year were arguing that 9/10ths of their income and wealth was a morally indefensible accident of birth and should be confiscated by government and transferred to kids wandering garbage dumps in Las Pinias, Tijuana, Guangzhou, Rason, Malamyaing, Maracaibo and like places. Until then, it sounds like self-interested morally bankrupt bitching by depraved members of a privileged class looking with poisonous envy at those with more and with haughty contempt or willful ignorance at those with less all while self-serving political figures cheer them on and volunteer to be their hero in return for power, wealth and sainthood. But hey, that's just me. I'm sure you are right.

 

On Afghanistan, I would have said that the escalation had nothing to do with the killing of Bin Laden and that you conflated the two entirely separable acts to justify the indefensible. But again, that's just me. You must be right!

 

I also would have thought that categorizing the "employee class" as consumers would be a recipe for government dependency. I would have thought that every American should be able to take advantage of the relatively high wages paid in America to save and retire with about $1,000,000 to his account. (investment of $100 per month at between 6 and 8% annual return from age 20 to age 67 plus the purchase of a home). But heck, I can see that American consumerism over the last 40 years has not created a huge trade deficit and a generation of clowns without any retirement savings. I stand corrected and humbled by your brilliant analysis. Preach the gospel Bro. . .your faith is amazing.

[glduck]

i've missed this you two.

[Orange]

I've had an enlightenment, everything you say is correct. Preach it Bro! It would have been easier to buy into your argument if tens of millions of Americans making $25.000 a year were arguing that 9/10ths of their income and wealth was a morally indefensible accident of birth and should be confiscated by government and transferred to kids wandering garbage dumps in Las Pinias, Tijuana, Guangzhou, Rason, Malamyaing, Maracaibo and like places. Until then, it sounds like self-interested morally bankrupt bitching by depraved members of a privileged class looking with poisonous envy at those with more and with haughty contempt or willful ignorance at those with less all while self-serving political figures cheer them on and volunteer to be their hero in return for power, wealth and sainthood. But hey, that's just me. I'm sure you are right.

 

On Afghanistan, I would have said that the escalation had nothing to do with the killing of Bin Laden and that you conflated the two entirely separable acts to justify the indefensible. But again, that's just me. You must be right!

 

I also would have thought that categorizing the "employee class" as consumers would be a recipe for government dependency. I would have thought that every American should be able to take advantage of the relatively high wages paid in America to save and retire with about $1,000,000 to his account. (investment of $100 per month at between 6 and 8% annual return from age 20 to age 67 plus the purchase of a home). But heck, I can see that American consumerism over the last 40 years has not created a huge trade deficit and a generation of clowns without any retirement savings. I stand corrected and humbled by your brilliant analysis. Preach the gospel Bro. . .your faith is amazing.

Are you done editing yet?

 

If you're going to bring in Guangzhou, Rason, Tijuana, Rangoon, Kabul, the South Pole and the Kalahri, then I'll concede, we're all a bunch of privileged pussies. But few more than Mitt Romney.

 

As for killing bin Laden, you have to have assets on the ground to support an operation like the one that took out bin Laden. Since then, it's ben a whack-a-mole for every al qaeda leader that dare show his face. It's the true vengeance that 9/11 families deserve, and on some level I love it. On another, it smacks of dangerous U.S. imperialism. Under a Romney presidency, however, we're sure to follow Israel into Iran and become even more indebted and bankrupt in the process.

 

The "employee class" is more than 47%, it's about 90%, but yes, they're the consumers; they're who YOU depend on. In that scenario, YOU'RE the dependant class, and no, faith has nothing to do with it.

[Orange]

Okay, so I guess Romney takes it all back:

 

http://www.cnbc.com/id/49299714?__source=yahoo%7Cstudentromneytshirt%7C&par=yahoo

 

Dude. Seriously. Any convictions? At all?

[KUGRDON]

Okay, so I guess Romney takes it all back:

 

http://www.cnbc.com/id/49299714?__source=yahoo%7Cstudentromneytshirt%7C&par=yahoo

 

Dude. Seriously. Any convictions? At all?

 

No individual mandate, raise taxes, close Guantanamo, no military trials, no rendition of prisoners, hold terrorist trials in New York City, rural white voters cling to guns, religion and antipathy to those unlike them, typical white person. Nothing new here. Bottom line, the real Romney, regrettably, is far more centrist than Obama. History demonstrates that Romney is just a little more conservative than the Massachusetts legislature while Obama, as a Senator, was the most liberal in the Senate and, as President, never moves an inch more to the center than is necessary to get Midwestern Democrats to go along. That's why the last two years have been a stalemate. Most Midwestern Democrats lost in 2010.

 

On another front, Obama is winning the coffee cup election at 7-Eleven. Not locally, but nationwide. It comes as no surprise since 1 of every 8 food stamp dollars is spent in a 7-Eleven or other convenience store. I heard there is a name change in the works. . .to 47-Eleven.

[Orange]

No individual mandate,

 

No personal responsibility you mean? Keep letting freeloaders run up an ER bill and file BK?

 

raise taxes,

 

Obama appreciates your vote.

 

close Guantanamo

 

Why do you hate freedom?

 

no military trials, no rendition of prisoners, hold terrorist trials in New York City, rural white voters cling to guns, religion and antipathy to those unlike them, typical white person.

 

You're like some kind of Fox News mosaic. It's beautiful. The difference in Obama's closed-door rhetoric and Romney's, is that Obama -- even in private -- says he wants to reach those Jesus freak rednecks who cling to guns. Romney admits to not giving a flying fuck about the 47% (even though half of them vote for him to get their free stuff, as you put it).

 

. Bottom line, the real Romney, regrettably, is far more centrist than Obama. History demonstrates that Romney is just a little more conservative than the Massachusetts legislature while Obama, as a Senator, was the most liberal in the Senate and, as President, never moves an inch more to the center than is necessary to get Midwestern Democrats to go along.

 

That's why he ramped up the war in Afghanistan, cut taxes further, extended the Bush tax cuts, and essentially resides in the pocket of wall street? Because he's so liberal and unmovingly leftist?

 

That's why the last two years have been a stalemate. Most Midwestern Democrats lost in 2010.

 

No, the last 2 years have been a stalemate because (a) Grover Norquist and Rush Limbaugh control your party and ( the masses among the Tea Party are more concerned about Obama's middle name than they are about whether or not sound tax and healthcare policy should be discussed.

 

On another front, Obama is winning the coffee cup election at 7-Eleven. Not locally, but nationwide. It comes as no surprise since 1 of every 8 food stamp dollars is spent in a 7-Eleven or other convenience store. I heard there is a name change in the works. . .to 47-Eleven.

 

Once again, Obama thanks you for your vote. Unless you think any funds in your pocket are wasted in terms of the economy. I happen to agree, but whatever.