Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Don't be absurd. Romney was not referring to them, or the elderly on SS, or the recent high school grads trying to work their way up the ladder, or the people who are using social welfare programs for their intended purposes. He was referring to the dyed in the wool 0bama supporters, who leach off the system, and are only too willing to vote for 0bama to keep there gravy train of free stuff rolling in like wheels of government cheese.
Either way, this whole thing is a distraction by democrats, so that no one talks about the dreadful economy, and our disastrous foreign policy.
the thing that makes that such a hard sell is it's no where near 47% once you take out people on SS, people on disability, people without jobs, people serving in military, etc...when you only mean the abusers it's more like 30% which is still way too high but if he'd said 30% i would have agreed, the thing is he didn't and he didn't clarify later and not just the day after, many commentators on the right mostly political advisers said he needs to do that within a week really explain what he meant but he didn't...i would have really liked to have heard what he said...i'd still like to hear him explain since it wasn't the best situation he was in and i know that but i also know that if someone walks into a room and i was talking about them or they THOUGHT i was i clarify...he should too...i think it would actually help him unless he does think that about the people we just mentioned...i don't know that but neither does anyone else one way or the other...we still wouldn't know even if he clarified but i think i'm a good judge of character and would know if it hit me as truth or not...the thing is i do think he meant 47% and i do think it's vets and other people he was talking about...and i wish i didn't think that and i wish he would explain but so far that has happened.
So how do you want me to comment on your 'social contract'? It can't work when the top $$$$ makers are not creating jobs or raising wages with their lower taxes. It also cannot be, in any society, that all people make enough to contribute. You're link talks about a Utopian situation that has little to do with what actually happens in a free society.
You really don't understand why those wealthy people don't expand their businesses so they can employ more people, do you? How about the fact that they just don't trust a government that would pass something with as many taxes in the law as Obamacare has in it after being promised that no new taxes would be levied if you make less that $250,000. Can those small businesses take a chance that they won't be taxed even more in the future. How about the increased costs for electric power we will soon be seeing from the canceling of coal powered generation? On and on you can see why they are holding back to see who gets elected. I am sure that the money will start to flow if Obama gets fired.
Truth at a big donor fundraiser. Had this tape not been leaked would Romney have been speaking this truth?
He would have chosen his words differently if he was speaking before a wider audience, to make sure they did not take him out of context. That does not mean he would have changed his message, which was many Americans pay no income taxes, and some are leaches in our society, and will vote for 0bama so they can go on being leaches.
Soldiers fighting in the war overseas work full-time and don't pay federal income tax. They fall within 47%. Are you saying they aren't paying their fair share?
What in hell is that fair share you leaners keep talking about. I keep asking leaners about that and never seem to get an answer.
the thing that makes that such a hard sell is it's no where near 47% once you take out people on SS, people on disability, people without jobs, people serving in military, etc...when you only mean the abusers it's more like 30% which is still way too high but if he'd said 30% i would have agreed, the thing is he didn't and he didn't clarify later and not just the day after, many commentators on the right mostly political advisers said he needs to do that within a week really explain what he meant but he didn't...i would have really liked to have heard what he said...i'd still like to hear him explain since it wasn't the best situation he was in and i know that but i also know that if someone walks into a room and i was talking about them or they THOUGHT i was i clarify...he should too...i think it would actually help him unless he does think that about the people we just mentioned...i don't know that but neither does anyone else one way or the other...we still wouldn't know even if he clarified but i think i'm a good judge of character and would know if it hit me as truth or not...the thing is i do think he meant 47% and i do think it's vets and other people he was talking about...and i wish i didn't think that and i wish he would explain but so far that has happened.
He was referring to a recent article at the time, and i think the NYT even carried the story, which stated 47% of Americans are no longer on the income tax rolls, after filing their taxes. Depending on how you play around with that figure it can range from 40%-50%.
He would have chosen his words differently if he was speaking before a wider audience, to make sure they did not take him out of context. That does not mean he would have changed his message, which was many Americans pay no income taxes, and some are leaches in our society, and will vote for 0bama so they can go on being leaches.
Taken out of context? Calling 47% of Americans victims who don't take personal responsibility, what is the proper context of that sentiment?
You really don't understand why those wealthy people don't expand their businesses so they can employ more people, do you? How about the fact that they just don't trust a government that would pass something with as many taxes in the law as Obamacare has in it after being promised that no new taxes would be levied if you make less that $250,000. Can those small businesses take a chance that they won't be taxed even more in the future. How about the increased costs for electric power we will soon be seeing from the canceling of coal powered generation? On and on you can see why they are holding back to see who gets elected. I am sure that the money will start to flow if Obama gets fired.
Dingdingding, we have a winner!
(And believe me, I don't often say that about Roy. Matter of fact, this might be a first).
The only, and I do mean only, reason I didn't expand headcount in my company this year (or next year, for that matter) is because I've crunched the worst-possible scenario numbers and found that if I did and the Democrats get as far into my pocket as they're hoping to get, I would be forced to lay people off in order to maintain the status quote. It's something I've never done, and something I never will do, so I simply didn't hire anybody.
You really don't understand why those wealthy people don't expand their businesses so they can employ more people, do you? How about the fact that they just don't trust a government that would pass something with as many taxes in the law as Obamacare has in it after being promised that no new taxes would be levied if you make less that $250,000. Can those small businesses take a chance that they won't be taxed even more in the future. How about the increased costs for electric power we will soon be seeing from the canceling of coal powered generation? On and on you can see why they are holding back to see who gets elected. I am sure that the money will start to flow if Obama gets fired.
So how does that explain them not doing that from 2001 when the Bush tax cuts were started until 2009 when Obama was elected? If they did, was it Obama's policies that made them shy away or the complete collapse of the economy in 2008? Why is all of Romney's $$$ sitting in offshore bank accounts rather than creating jobs?
What in hell is that fair share you leaners keep talking about. I keep asking leaners about that and never seem to get an answer.
I'd like a definition of "fair share," too. Thanks!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
