Page 13 of 14 FirstFirst ... 311121314 LastLast
Results 121 to 130 of 135

Thread: SECRET VIDEO: Romney Tells Millionaire Donors What He REALLY Thinks of Obama Voters

  1. #121
    Administrator Bill Cosby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    State of Bliss
    Posts
    54,157
    Blog Entries
    41

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Col. Jessep View Post
    Then why is it the poor get more than they paid in but the rich get less?
    I dunnO if that is true or not...............

    romney gives more to mormon missions than to his country...........

    Since he will not show us his returns how can we prove~disprove??
    We judge ourselves by our ideals; others by their actions.
    Howard Zinn

    We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both.

    Louis D. Brandeis

  2. #122

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Col. Jessep View Post
    Then why is it the poor get more than they paid in but the rich get less?
    Do you have evidence to support that claim?

  3. #123

    Default

    Mitt-Witt was half right with his talking points.

    The number of 47% is close enough that it is not worth arguing over.
    However it is not a matter that these people think that they are victims, they actually are real victims. They are the victims of Reaganomics, and the other GOP/teabagger policies of the past thirty two years. They have seen their savings wiped out, their jobs eliminated, the careers ended, their houses taken away, etc. Pottery Barn Rules - “You break it, you buy it!!!

    And Mitt-Witt is absolutely right - he is never going to get their votes no matter how hard he tries. The policies that he is promoting are responsible for their current problems. More of the same is not going to do anything to help them at all. No one can ever clime out of a hole by digging it deeper!!!

    And Mitt-Witt, along with his running mate, are both right when they say that there are just way too many people who have become dependent on the government just to get by.


    However . . .
    Where they have managed to get it wrong is:
    1.) Refusing to accept responsibility: The government (or more to the point GOP policies forced onto these people by the government) is directly responsible for this condition. The government has created these problems and the government has the responsibility to repair the damage that is has caused.

    2.) Simply throwing these people to the sharks, it not any kind of a solution: These people have been victimized once already by GOP policies, and punishing them for being the victims is only going to victimize them again. Compounding one crime on top of another is not only wrong, but it will only make these problems even worse then they already are.
    EIA

  4. #124
    Senior Member Darmosiel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Between Here and There
    Posts
    20,445

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hotair View Post
    Mitt-Witt was half right with his talking points.

    The number of 47% is close enough that it is not worth arguing over.
    However it is not a matter that these people think that they are victims, they actually are real victims. They are the victims of Reaganomics, and the other GOP/teabagger policies of the past thirty two years. They have seen their savings wiped out, their jobs eliminated, the careers ended, their houses taken away, etc. Pottery Barn Rules - “You break it, you buy it!!!

    And Mitt-Witt is absolutely right - he is never going to get their votes no matter how hard he tries. The policies that he is promoting are responsible for their current problems. More of the same is not going to do anything to help them at all. No one can ever clime out of a hole by digging it deeper!!!

    And Mitt-Witt, along with his running mate, are both right when they say that there are just way too many people who have become dependent on the government just to get by.


    However . . .
    Where they have managed to get it wrong is:
    1.) Refusing to accept responsibility: The government (or more to the point GOP policies forced onto these people by the government) is directly responsible for this condition. The government has created these problems and the government has the responsibility to repair the damage that is has caused.

    2.) Simply throwing these people to the sharks, it not any kind of a solution: These people have been victimized once already by GOP policies, and punishing them for being the victims is only going to victimize them again. Compounding one crime on top of another is not only wrong, but it will only make these problems even worse then they already are.
    Here’s what we have: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...-those-people/

    — 53.6 percent of households pay the federal income tax. Presumably Romney is okay with these folks.

    — 28.3 percent of households pay no federal income tax, but they do pay the payroll taxes for Social Security and Medicare. That means they don’t need Mitt Romney to convince them to “take personal responsibility and care for their lives.” They already have jobs.

    Most of the households in this group don’t pay any federal income tax because they qualify for enough deductions that their income tax liability has shrunk to zero. See this Tax Policy Center report for more, which gives an example of “a couple with two children earning less than $26,400. They get an $11,600 standard deduction and four exemptions of $3,700, and that takes their liability to zero.” Indeed, it’s worth noting that many of these deductions and credits were part of the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts, which Romney wants to extend.

    — 10.3 percent of households pay no federal income tax because they’re retired and elderly. Many retirees aren’t taxed on their Social Security benefits, which they earned by paying into the system over many years. If Mitt Romney secretly thinks that these households are all irresponsible freeloaders, he has a weird way of showing it, as he keeps insisting that he doesn’t want to cut Medicare or Social Security benefits for those over the age of 65.

    — That leaves 6.9 percent of households which are non-elderly and have incomes less than $20,000 per year and aren’t paying the payroll tax. These poorer households pay neither income taxes nor payroll taxes. Perhaps Romney thinks that they should all pay more in federal taxes. It’s hard to say. But this is also a much smaller fraction of Americans.

    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    This coming from a man that refuses to turn over complete Tax Returns... AND shelters his money in off shore accounts to AVOID paying taxes.

    romney-believe-america-caymans.jpg
    Last edited by Darmosiel; 09-19-2012 at 04:23 PM.
    We are truly blessed with magnificent animals.. And cursed by ugly creatures disguised as humans that do them harm..

  5. #125
    Senior Member mcnulty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Down by da beach, boyee!
    Posts
    6,664
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Col. Jessep View Post
    Then why is it the poor get more than they paid in but the rich get less?
    That depends on if you count using actual dollars or percentage of income. SS has a cap on the amount of income it taxes, which means the very wealthy pay a VASTLY lower proportion of their income into SS than the working poor. As to who gets more out than they pay in, as the above posters have mentioned, the biggest 2 variables there are 1.) how long you live and 2.) how healthy you are. My grandpa worked in a sheet metal (SMWIA union lifer) from the day he got back from WWII until the day he retired at 65, and paid into SS the entire time. He had 1 heart attack on 59 which his own insurance covered. He had one gall bladder incident at 67 which Medicare covered. He died at 72 after a short spat in a nursing home. There is no way he collected more than he paid in, and he was not a rich man.

    The programs exist to insure a certain standard of life for even the elderly, the poor, and the disabled. In that sense, there is a social welfare aspect to them. However, calling them entitlements or welfare is really not accurate. For the vast majority of people who have paid in, it is not welfare but government subsidized healthcare and government subsidized retirement. The difference being that these programs ARE paid in to by anyone who works, and NOT via the federal income tax Romney thinks is of such paramount relation to use of these services. If his comments were meant to address those truly getting Medicare and SS having never paid in, I would agree you could call those people looking for entitlements, but there is NO WAY that is 47% of the population.

    Any way you slice it, Romney was just plain inaccurate and came off as angry and contemptuous of basically half the country... but good on you for attempting some semblance of a rational basis for his gaffe. Hopefully the GOP base buys that, because I doubt the independents that he was so worried about will.

  6. #126

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Independent Harry View Post
    Do you have evidence to support that claim?
    I've already posted it twice, but here it is for the third time: http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/fil...ssivity-ss.pdf

  7. #127

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mcnulty View Post
    For the vast majority of people who have paid in, it is not welfare but government subsidized healthcare and government subsidized retirement.
    LOL. You say tuh-may-toh, I say tuh-mah-toh.
    Last edited by Col. Jessep; 09-19-2012 at 04:31 PM.

  8. #128

    Default

    Teabaggers are so dumb, they believe this 47% of Americans are poor because they want to.

    T-Cat - "Conservation of momentum applies to a system closed in kinetic energy, not a thermodynamically closed system."

    T-Cat on Potential Energy: "Which means that you aren't converting it all at any point until you reach the ground."

  9. #129
    Senior Member mcnulty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Down by da beach, boyee!
    Posts
    6,664
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Col. Jessep View Post
    LOL. You say tuh-may-toh, I say tuh-mah-toh.
    You honestly do not see the difference between the government supplementing the original amount of money a taxpayer has paid in and the government handing totally "free" money out to someone who has paid nothing towards the program in question?

    What you are saying simply does not even make the most basic financial sense. If you pay in X per month over 40 years and you only receive X out at the end, you have actually lost money. There has to be some value added just accounting for plain time value of money and compound interest.

    Now if there were some kind of rule stating that ALL you got from paying into SS is the total of whatever you paid in plus the interest on that amount, then it would functionally be absolutely no different from a private retirement system. But lets look at it from the flip side using your "fairness" modem of input vs output. What if private insurance companies were required to pay out benefits on a 1:1 basis for every dollar they took in from premiums? Well there would be absolutely no profit and all insurance companies would go bankrupt. The only difference here is that the leftover amount when private companies do not pay 1:1 is extracted from their system as profit for the owners. With SS or medicare, the difference between what some pay and what they receive is (at least theoretically) reinvested into the system for every participant's benefit.

    But make no mistake, in any insurance or retirement system either public or private, there will always be people who pay more than they get back. I guess the TL;DR version of this is: life is not fair

  10. #130

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tutonic View Post
    I don't buy this.
    Thats okay. Not asking you to. I see a power struggle from whomever is working the strings. They give 8yrs dem/8yrs rep. Carter had four, bush1 had four. The others had 8 each. I see Barry getting 4 more because its "his time".

    Romney has dems from earlier obama campaigns on top of mccain handlers. Hes making stupid statements and cant be push one way or the other on topics as well as no emotion tied to anything. Hes notnfiring up his cheerleaders, i.e. republican base, and is being received as well As mccain. Ifnhe truly wanted to win, he would show some balls and act like a leader instead of political patsy.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •