[Tin-Man]

Originally Posted by TheSilentAssassin

LOL what "you would say" is irrelevant. Let's talk with facts please...



47% is actually much closer to 5% when you eliminate the elderly and the extremely poor.

Just thought this graph beared repeating, as it seems that people are not getting that 82-83% of people are paying taxes in the form of Federal Income Tax or Payroll Tax. For Romney to say that "47% pay no tax" is blatantly false.

And as for Romney to pledge to eliminating entitlements, my spouse did a tour and uses the educational programs currently to cover her costs of university. You're going to eliminate these? Really?

[barrel roll]

To get the real answer - how many of those people get back as much or more than they pay at the end of the year?

[barrel roll]

Originally Posted by Tin-Man

...

And as for Romney to pledge to eliminating entitlements, my spouse did a tour and uses the educational programs currently to cover her costs of university. You're going to eliminate these? Really?

That isn't an "entitlement". So, no.

[StellarKnight]

Originally Posted by barrel roll

That isn't an "entitlement". So, no.

How is it not an entitlement? Is social security an entitlement?

[barrel roll]

Originally Posted by StellarKnight

How is it not an entitlement? Is social security an entitlement?

It isn't an entitlement because you only get it if you enter into contract with the general government to become part of the military. It is payment for services rendered, if you will.


Social Security is... something.

Am I entitled to the benefits of that program, just for being alive and a US citizen?

[StellarKnight]

Originally Posted by barrel roll

It isn't an entitlement because you only get it if you enter into contract with the general government to become part of the military. It is payment for services rendered, if you will.

Fair enough.

[barrel roll]

I'd like to see the whole unedted video, that everyone is talking about. I'm waiting for it to be released.

[Swerve22]

Originally Posted by Tin-Man

Just thought this graph beared repeating, as it seems that people are not getting that 82-83% of people are paying taxes in the form of Federal Income Tax or Payroll Tax. For Romney to say that "47% pay no tax" is blatantly false.

No, he said income tax.

The video is really something to get riled up over if you're already an obama supporter. Everybody else understands that Romney is saying 1) There is a large portion of people who feel entitled to things at the expense of their fellow countrymen which is true and, 2) die hard fans of one side won't switch sides, so there's no point in wasting your political resources trying to win them over which is also true.

[Tin-Man]

Originally Posted by Swerve22

No, he said income tax.

The video is really something to get riled up over if you're already an obama supporter. Everybody else understands that Romney is saying 1) There is a large portion of people who feel entitled to things at the expense of their fellow countrymen which is true and, 2) die hard fans of one side won't switch sides, so there's no point in wasting your political resources trying to win them over which is also true.

I'm not at all an Obama supporter, in fact if Paul had been the nominee I'd probably be canvassing for him. Probably be true for Cain as well. However, I really believe that Romney is too out of touch with the common man. I base that on the following:

- 250,000 of household is not close to the "middle class". The median household income in the US in 2011 was 49,000-51,500. 250,000+ is top 2%

- Painting 47% of the population as leeches dependent on government handouts is disingenuous at best, after stating that he wasn't worried about the poor as there is a safety net.

- corporations are not people. Corporations employ people and are run by people, but they are not independent entities with will or purpose.

[AlphaNeo36]

Originally Posted by BodyCount81

I was thinking something along those lines but I guess I needed someone to explain his stupidity out to me. I've been paying those taxes since I was 16.

L2k, where do you come up with this stuff that you post?

I take that as a yes.

[The Inflicted]

Originally Posted by Tin-Man

- 250,000 of household is not close to the "middle class". The median household income in the US in 2011 was 49,000-51,500. 250,000+ is top 2%

Not saying you should vote for either one, but both Romney and Obama use the same definition of "middle class."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1891814.html

[barrel roll]

So where are we getting "leech" from? Did he say it or is the media and opposing political groups insinuating he said it?

[Tin-Man]

Originally Posted by The Inflicted

Not saying you should vote for either one, but both Romney and Obama use the same definition of "middle class."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1891814.html

Not to argue, but the Obama campaign states that the cuts should extend up to 250,000 of household income. Romney has not said the same

From your article:
But for months, Obama has been urging Congress to extend the "middle-class" Bush-era tax cuts on the first $250,000 of people's income.

[Tin-Man]

Originally Posted by barrel roll

So where are we getting "leech" from? Did he say it or is the media and opposing political groups insinuating he said it?

No, but it's my impression of what he's saying when he said that 47% of the population do not contribute.

Sometimes Republicans say that half of *households* pay no income tax. But that is misleading, too. Only 18% of households pay no payroll tax *and* no Federal income tax, and most of those are, again, elderly retirees, youth or make less than $20,000 a year.

Actually the question is how many ‘tax units’ pay income tax. But if you have a household with a father, a stay-at-home mom, a 23-year-old unemployed son, and a retired senior, you have three tax units living in a ‘household’ and the married couple is the only ‘tax unit’ paying Federal income tax, with the working spouse the only real income earner. Romney seems to be upset by this household. But why? Sounds perfectly normal to me. The retiree is living off social security and/or a pension that he paid for all his life. The unemployed son borrowed money to gain a university education that gives him skills for a job that Republican economic policies under Bush robbed him of by throwing the country into a near-depression. But he likely will find a job when Obama’s policies produce results over the medium term. And, Romney says he doesn’t want homemakers to have to work outside the home (and so earn an independent income on which to pay taxes.)

Only by not looking too closely into all taxes and who exactly pays them and why, – can Romney create this phantom of the non-tax-paying leech. Well there is some truth in it. All he has to do is look in the mirror to see it.

I

[AlphaNeo36]

Originally Posted by barrel roll

So where are we getting "leech" from? Did he say it or is the media and opposing political groups insinuating he said it?

His rhetoric of linking not paying income tax and dependence upon government entitlements insinuates leech, does it not? Why else would you join a lack of revenue involvement with a demand for service unless you wished to perpetuate the concept of leeching?

[The Inflicted]

Originally Posted by Tin-Man

Not to argue, but the Obama campaign states that the cuts should extend up to 250,000 of household income. Romney has not said the same

From your article:
But for months, Obama has been urging Congress to extend the "middle-class" Bush-era tax cuts on the first $250,000 of people's income.

If he wants to apply middle-class tax cuts to people with up to $250,000 of household income, does this not imply that he considers these people to be middle class?

Romney said, “middle income is $200,000 to $250,000 and less."
Biden, and a lot of other people are pretending that he didn't say the "and less" part.

Of course, you can make people say all sorts of interesting things if you start cutting off the end of their sentences.

Also, with regards to,

- Painting 47% of the population as leeches dependent on government handouts is disingenuous at best, after stating that he wasn't worried about the poor as there is a safety net.

...wasn't Romney talking about his election strategy, in terms of who he can win over?
Just because a candidate isn't focusing his campaign on a certain group of people doesn't mean he doesn't care about them.

Similarly, I don't think that Obama's campaign strategy is focused on winning over "bitter" rural people who "cling to guns or religion."
That doesn't mean Obama isn't worried about these people, right...?

[Umami]

Originally Posted by barrel roll

I'd like to see the whole unedted video, that everyone is talking about. I'm waiting for it to be released.

Ask and you shall receive.





And because it was ****ing hilarious, Stewart's take:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tu...ire-gaffemaker

[licence2kill]

Originally Posted by BodyCount81

I was thinking something along those lines but I guess I needed someone to explain his stupidity out to me. I've been paying those taxes since I was 16.

L2k, where do you come up with this stuff that you post?

huh? custar was explaining my position to you...you really are ****ing clueless...

And no, you have NOT been paying federal income tax since you were sixteen

[The Inflicted]

Two minutes of the tape are missing.

[licence2kill]

Originally Posted by The Inflicted

...wasn't Romney talking about his election strategy, in terms of who he can win over?
Just because a candidate isn't focusing his campaign on a certain group of people doesn't mean he doesn't care about them.

Similarly, I don't think that Obama's campaign strategy is focused on winning over "bitter" rural people who "cling to guns or religion."
That doesn't mean Obama isn't worried about these people, right...?

http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2012/09/18/the_difference_between_bitter_clingers_and_47_perc ent.html

While Obama's remark was condescending, his message was that he hoped to win these voters over. Romney, on the other hand, completely wrote off those he was talking about.

[Eric the Fish]

Originally Posted by StellarKnight

How is it not an entitlement? Is social security an entitlement?

No its an earned benefit.