GOP Nominee 2012 - Pt. 5

[Caleb8844]

Originally Posted by BVS

False. Caleb, do you honestly believe the entire 47% including the retirees spent all their lives "not paying in"?

All, certainly not. Some, probably.

[MrsSpringsteen]

Originally Posted by Caleb8844

Well, technically, the people he was talking about already don't "pay in".

That's not correct. My parents live on Social Security and VA benefits , which they certainly paid into. Even if it wasn't monetarily. Vets certainly earn it.

What about veterans? And people aren't entitled to food and shelter? That's being so religious and compassionate. Whatever happened to compassionate conservatism?

[BVS]

Originally Posted by Caleb8844

All, certainly not. Some, probably.

Then why even say they "don't pay in"?

Don't try and make up excuses for the excusable. Listen we all know politicians say things off the cuff that shouldn't have been said, but I think we do ourselves a disservice when we try and excuse what they say rather than admit it wasn't a smart or informed thing to say.

[anitram]

I've been in (socialist) Europe for the last couple of weeks and don't get back for a few more days but I have to say that it's a real delight to see that Mitt has lost the election while I was away.

I also find the shock/outrage at what he said to be a bit puzzling given that's exactly what the Republican views have been for years now. Mitt just said out loud what the rest of them are thinking.

[maycocksean]

And here all along the Republicans saw taxes as evil. The less the better right? But apparently taxes are bad for the rich but necessary for the poor? The rich person that finds a way to avoid paying taxes is a hero, the poor person who doesn't make enough to be required to pay income taxes is a "taker."

This statement of Mitt's is wrong on so many levels. If you don't make enough money to pay taxes how does that make you an entitled moocher?

NPR had a pretty good piece this morning on why so many WORKERS do not pay taxes. Some great clips from Hero of the Right Ronald Reagan among others:

Why Some Are Exempt From Federal Income Taxes : NPR

[MrsSpringsteen]

Originally Posted by anitram

I also find the shock/outrage at what he said to be a bit puzzling given that's exactly what the Republican views have been for years now. Mitt just said out loud what the rest of them are thinking.

I agree. He just said the dirty-little-not-so-secret out loud. During a meeting of rich, possibly like minded people.

The guy is known to have sex parties there. Pretty soon the 47 percent will feel entitled to govt subsidized sex parties.

[anitram]

If you don't make enough money to pay taxes, you should work harder. You're obviously not as industrious or as productive as Mitt.

[maycocksean]

Every Monday I have a current events round table discussion with my 7th and 8th grade social studies students. The election is always the first thing we discuss. I thought I'd share some of their impressions, which I found interesting. There were gaps in their knowledge and understanding to be sure (the kids had the prior week to research, watch the news and otherwise inform themselves before the discussion). The class is 100% in the tank for Obama, which is not a complete surprise as our school is predominantly African American--however the students recognized the pitfalls of voting just based on race and the reasons they gave for opposing Romney were not race based. Here's some highlights from our discussion:

Sources of information the kids used to learn about the candidates: campaign information available on the web, Facebook pages/postings, research they did on the candidates' past, their parents, CNN, articles in the paper, news, and TV commercials.

They like Obama because he seems more accessible, seems kind and confident. Romney strikes them as someone who just wants the title of president.

They felt that Romney does not speak in a way that they can understand, that he doesn't talk like "regular" people. This was a strongly reoccuring theme--that Obama seemed to be someone who understood the lives of normal people whereas Mitt seemed more removed from their experiences. They respected Mitt Romeny's experience as a businessman but didn't see that as making him a better president.

Their main criticism of Obama was that he was "too nice."

No students mentioned their gratitude for Obama's many government handouts and their excitement about they and their families getting to live on Obama Bucks for another four years if he is reelected.

[iron yuppie]

Originally Posted by anitram

I also find the shock/outrage at what he said to be a bit puzzling given that's exactly what the Republican views have been for years now. Mitt just said out loud what the rest of them are thinking.

I wouldn't go so far as to say that he is speaking for all Republican or Republican-leaning people. There have already been several Republicans disavow what he said in fairly strong terms. It does, however, seem to me like Mitt is gravitating more and more toward the Libertarian crowd, as his comments seem tailor-made for the big-money folks in that political group. Maybe he is shaken by the lingering support for Ron Paul - who knows.

[Diemen]

Andrew Sullivan breaks down the 47%'ers implications:

Romney called 47 percent of Americans self-described victims. And here's what he thinks his relationship to them should be in the context of this campaign:

They couldn't even be convinced to take care of themselves, as long as they can get government handouts. Romney thinks that applies to almost one in two Americans. Or to put it bluntly: the real crime of 47 percent of Americans is their laziness - and then they have the gall to whine about the One Percent. He is using the key argument of racists against African-Americans through the ages against 47 percent of the country. That's the equivalent of calling a lot of old white people the n-word.

Romney's Randian callousness also goes against the core American grain. Americans do not see themselves as victims, but as potential winners, even in rough times. Romney's contempt for the 47 percent violates a central tenet of the American dream: anyone can make it. Romney is saying that half the country can't make it, don't even want to make it, and are parasites on the rest. Asking for their vote would be like asking children to give up their toys. Why would they?

More to the point: this was a cynical man with a cynical tone different - and more convincing - than his usual stilted public speech. The best defense of it - morally - is that it was designed for an audience of super-rich donors who say these things all the time in private, listen to Rush Limbaugh, and needed to be ginned up. He is whatever he needs to be for each separate audience. He aims to please.

So there are two possibilities: this is the real Romney, a callous cynic with contempt for half the country, the weaker part; or that Romney is a man so empty of human qualities he even has to fake cynicism.

[deep]

I still think Romney will win














* over 200 electoral votes.

[MrsSpringsteen]

Poll shows voters' reaction to Romney tapes


(CNN) – The surreptitiously recorded video of Mitt Romney at a campaign fund-raiser has had a moderately negative effect on registered voters, a poll released Wednesday indicated.

The poll, taken Tuesday, showed 36% of registered voters indicating they would be less likely to vote for Romney after the tapes were released. Twenty percent said they were more likely to vote for Romney, and 43% said the tapes made no difference.

Among independents, 15% said they were more likely to vote for Romney in November, compared to 29% who were less likely and 53% who said the tapes made no difference.

The Gallup survey was taken by telephone from 885 registered voters, and the sampling error was plus or minus 4 percentage points. Among independents the sampling error was plus or minus 5.5 percentage points.

[MrsSpringsteen]

Someone should print this out for Mitt. Eye crossing numbers and math (makes me want to run away screaming), but I think he could handle it.

The one tax graph you really need to know

At the heart of the debate over “the 47 percent” is an awful abuse of tax data.

This entire conversation is the result of a (largely successful) effort to redefine the debate over taxes from “how much in taxes do you pay” to “how much in federal income taxes do you pay?” This is good framing if you want to cut taxes on the rich. It’s bad framing if you want to have even a basic understanding of who pays how much in taxes.

There’s a reason some would prefer that more limited conversation. For most Americans, payroll and state and local taxes make up the majority of their tax bill. The federal income tax, by contrast, is our most progressive tax — it’s the tax we’ve designed to place the heaviest burden on the rich while bypassing the poor. And we’ve done that, again, because the working class is already paying a fairly high tax bill through payroll and state and local taxes.

But most people don’t know very much about the tax code. And the federal income tax is still our most famous tax. So when they hear that half of Americans aren’t paying federal income taxes, they’re outraged — even if they’re among the folks who have a net negative tax burden! After all, they know they’re paying taxes, and there’s no reason for normal human beings to assume that the taxes getting taken out of their paycheck every week and some of the taxes they pay at the end of the year aren’t classified as “federal income taxes.”

Confining the discussion to the federal income tax plays another role, too: It makes the tax code look much more progressive than it actually is.

Take someone who makes $4 million dollars a year and someone who makes $40,000 a year. The person making $4 million dollars, assuming he’s not doing some Romney-esque planning, is paying a 35 percent tax on most of that money. The person making $40,000 is probably paying no income tax at all. So that makes the system look really unfair to the rich guy.

That’s the basic analysis of the 47 percent line. And it’s a basic analysis that serves a purpose: It makes further tax cuts for the rich sound more reasonable.

But what if we did the same thing for the payroll tax? Remember, the payroll tax only applies to first $110,100 or so, our rich friends is only paying payroll taxes on 2.7 percent of his income. The guy making $40,000? He’s paying payroll taxes on every dollar of his income. Now who’s not getting a fair shake?

Which is why, if you want to understand who’s paying what in taxes, you don’t want to just look at federal income taxes, or federal payroll taxes, or state sales taxes — you want to look at total taxes. And, luckily, the tax analysis group Citizens for Tax Justice keeps those numbers. So here is total taxes — which includes corporate taxes, income taxes, payroll taxes, state sales taxes, and more — paid by different income groups and broken into federal and state and local burdens:



As you can see, the poorer you are, the more state and local taxes bite into your income. As you get richer, those taxes recede, and you’re mainly getting hit be federal taxes. So that’s another lesson: When you omit state and local taxes from your analysis, you’re omitting the taxes that hit lower-income taxpayers hardest.

But here is really the only tax graph you need: It’s total tax burden by income group. And as you’ll see, every income group is paying something, and the rich aren’t paying much more, as a percentage of their incomes, then the middle class.



That’s really what the American tax system looks like: Not 47 percent paying nothing, but everybody paying something, and most Americans paying between 25 percent and 30 percent of their income — which is, by the way, a lot more the 13.9 percent Mitt Romney paid in 2011*.

When politicians try to convince you that half of Americans aren’t really paying taxes, it’s usually because the real data undermines their preferred policies. For instance, you wouldn’t look at these numbers and think tax cuts for the rich need to be a huge priority. And that’s one reason people who want more tax cuts for the rich don’t like to show you these numbers.

* Romney’s 13.9 percent rate only counts his federal taxes. He hasn’t released his state and local returns for 2011, so we can’t say how that would change his total tax rate. But given the state and local averages for someone in his income group, it’s likely to remain well below the 25-30 percent that is typical.

[Moonlit_Angel]

the poorer you are, the more state and local taxes bite into your income. As you get richer, those taxes recede, and you’re mainly getting hit be federal taxes. So that’s another lesson: When you omit state and local taxes from your analysis, you’re omitting the taxes that hit lower-income taxpayers hardest.

Bingo.

I love it when the actual data comes along to point out the complete lies in statements like Romney's.

Originally Posted by maycocksean

They like Obama because he seems more accessible, seems kind and confident. Romney strikes them as someone who just wants the title of president.

They felt that Romney does not speak in a way that they can understand, that he doesn't talk like "regular" people. This was a strongly reoccuring theme--that Obama seemed to be someone who understood the lives of normal people whereas Mitt seemed more removed from their experiences.

This is exactly how I feel. Watching him on Letterman last night, after seeing the clip with Romney, dear god, it wasn't even a contest as to who was the better person. Obama was measured, thoughtful, understanding, intelligent, funny...and yet he made a great pointed comment that when you are president, you serve EVERYBODY, not just some.

Originally Posted by maycocksean

Their main criticism of Obama was that he was "too nice."

He is. Definitely. There are times he certainly could stand to be more forceful and tough (though I tend to suspect he saves those moments for the stuff we don't get to see take place on TV). When he was at the Republican retreat a couple years back and he got them all deeply uncomfortable with his critique of their platform, I really, REALLY liked that, and I definitely want to see more of that from him. And who knows, maybe with a second term we'll see more of that side of him. I hope so.

But at the same time, I do like that he keeps his humanity and compassion and understanding as well. I don't want him to lose that, and I think there's a way he can be tougher and yet still balance that with the caring side. And I do respect his wish for compromise and working together-I wish the GOP was for that, too.

As I've said before, there are things about his administration I haven't agreed with. There are policies I think he could work more on, or things he could do that he hasn't done yet, and people he could fight harder against (hi, Wall Street people!). But I also know some of that is sort of a "hands tied" scenario-unfortunately the presidency doesn't seem to hold the same power now it once did, now everyone must answer to corporate and special interests, they're the ones who seem to be really running things and we can't seem to escape them. And I also know change doesn't happen overnight-believe me, I wasn't one of those people who felt that I'd wake up the day after the election in 2008 and everything would automatically be sunshine and rainbows.

Ultimately, though, I still feel like he genuinely cares about people, that he is actually interested in them and their lives and is trying his best, and trying to make people happy. I don't get that feeling from Romney, especially not after that recent video. His attitude is deeply insulting and patronizing.

Originally Posted by maycocksean

No students mentioned their gratitude for Obama's many government handouts and their excitement about they and their families getting to live on Obama Bucks for another four years if he is reelected.

Heh.

Thanks for the story about the kids, it's neat to hear their thoughts and see actual interest in politics at that age. Hopefully they continue to keep that interest and go on and do good things with it.

Originally Posted by anitram

I've been in (socialist) Europe for the last couple of weeks and don't get back for a few more days but I have to say that it's a real delight to see that Mitt has lost the election while I was away.

I also find the shock/outrage at what he said to be a bit puzzling given that's exactly what the Republican views have been for years now. Mitt just said out loud what the rest of them are thinking.

It's not a shock, really, at least, not to me. Rather, it's mainly just depressing to find another example of this sort of attitude out there. I'm just so tired of this. I would love for people like Romney to come live the life my family has lived the last few years for a certain amount of time. Maybe a year or something, I don't know. But I just want him and those who think like him to actually try living the way we do just once. Maybe then they'd finally shut the hell up.

Welcome back, by the way! Hope you had a good time in that evil socialist land .

[MrsSpringsteen]

abcnews.com

Sep 18, 2012 5:57pm
Republicans Hit Obama for ‘Redistribution’ Remark in 1998 Recording


Hoping to help Mitt Romney reframe the debate sparked by his comments on social class and taxes, Republicans are pointing to a newly resurfaced 14-year-old audio recording of Barack Obama appearing to endorse the redistribution of wealth.

“There is a tape that just came out today where the President is saying he likes redistribution. I disagree,” Romney said in an afternoon interview with Fox News.

The audio, posted to YouTube by an unidentified user and dated Oct. 19, 1998, appears to be of remarks by then-Illinois State Sen. Obama at a conference at Loyola University in Chicago.

“Let me just close by saying, as we think about the policy research surrounding the issues that I just named — policy research for the working poor, broadly defined — I think that what we’re going to have to do is resuscitate the notion that government action can be effective at all,” he says.

“There has been a systematic — I don’t think it’s too strong to call it a ‘propaganda campaign’ against the possibility of government action and its efficacy. And I think some of it has been deserved. The Chicago Housing Authority has not been a model of good policy making, and neither necessarily has been the Chicago Public Schools. What that means then is that as we try to resuscitate this notion that we’re all in this thing together, leave nobody behind, we do have to be innovative in thinking what are the delivery systems that are effective and meet people where they live.

“And my suggestion, I guess, would be that the trick — and this is one of the few areas where I think there are technical issues that have to be dealt with as opposed to just political issues — I think the trick is figuring out how do we structure government systems that pool resources and hence facilitate some redistribution,” he said, “because I actually believe in redistribution, at least at a certain level, to make sure everybody’s got a shot.”

The Romney campaign signaled that it plans to make the comments a focal point of its messaging in the coming days. It appeared to be an attempt in part to try and deflect criticism from Democrats over Romney’s surreptitiously-recorded comments referring to Obama supporters as people who are “dependent on the government” and feeling “entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it.”

Some Republicans outside the Romney campaign, including conservative talk host Rush Limbaugh, called on Romney Tuesday to “finally take the gloves off” and “start explaining liberty to people and what it means, and explain that they don’t have to be in that 47 percent.”

“I think a society based upon a government-centered nation where government plays a larger and larger role, redistributes money, that’s the wrong course for America,” Romney told Fox. “We believe in free people and free enterprise, not redistribution. The right course for America is to create growth, create wealth, not to redistribute wealth.”

Obama campaign spokesman Ben LaBolt said Romney’s attack on comments Obama made 14 years ago is a sign the Republican nominee is “so desperate to change the subject.”

“Fourteen years ago, then-Senator Obama was making an argument for a more efficient, more effective government — specifically citing city government agencies that he didn’t think were working effectively,” LaBolt said. ” He believed then, and believes now, that there are steps we can take to promote opportunity and ensure that all Americans have a fair shot if they work hard. Unlike Governor Romney, he doesn’t believe that if you’re a student who applies for a loan you’re looking for a handout.”

Apparently NBC obtained the entire video, which is more than the clip that has been discussed and shown

NBC News and Obama's 'redistribution' video - POLITICO.com

The full tape of then-state Sen. Obama's remarks left a far different impression from the clip posted to Drudge Report earlier this week. Far from championing the wholesale redistribution of wealth, Obama was seen advocating a competitive, free-market system in which "everybody's got a shot" -- no different from comments he made during the 2008 campaign. (As the Washington Post's Ezra Klein noted yesterday, Romney also "believes in redistribution," -- specifically, "a progressive tax code, the Medicare program, the Medicaid program, the food stamp program, the Social Security program and pretty much every other feature of the federal government that’s involved in redistributing income.")

[maycocksean]

Unbelievably lame of Mitt Romney to try to attack with this. Any thinking person can see there's no kind of comparison between what Romney and Obama said in their respective recordings. Romney is hanging all over one word that Obama used that taken in context isn't all that radical (though not "conservative" but that shouldn't surprise anyone. Ridiculous.

This election is clearly now a referendum not on the candidates but on the intelligence of the electorate.

[deep]

Originally Posted by maycocksean

This election is clearly now a referendum not on the candidates but on the intelligence of the electorate.

if that is the case, looking back at 2000* and 2004, Romney has a good shot at winning.




* it is amazing to me that people say W won in 2000, not only did he lose the national popular vote, he also got less votes from people in Florida that went to the polls to vote. But the intelligence of the electorate allowed it to be close enough for the Court to give it to W.

[Moonlit_Angel]

Yeah, I'm with Sean here, the two things aren't even remotely comparable. Especially since, unlike Romney, Obama didn't insult a good portion of the nation in his comments. I may be in that percentage that's going to vote for Obama, but one of the big reasons I'm voting for him is because he's not a condescending asshole to people who are struggling.

I didn't realize sharing and helping each other were such BAD concepts now.

[deep]

whatever stuggling people have, they need to pay something, it does not have to be a lot, they need to feel vested, that they have a part in paying in, not just recieving money from the one's that are paying in.


Kaine: 'I Would Be Open to a Proposal to Have Some Minimum Tax Level for Everyone' | The Weekly Standard

[BoMac]

Mitt Romney Out of Context - YouTube