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
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.
. . . . .
“The optimist proclaims that we live in the best of all possible worlds, and the pessimist fears that this is true.”
. . . . .
— 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.
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..
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.
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."
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
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.