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.
You are incorrect about our unemployment rate. It is realistically around 12%. The stock market has not reached a record high either. I ought to know as I lost a bundle when it crashed and my investments are still not up to where they were prior to that. Romney did not say that 47% of Americans want free stuff. He said that is the percentage that are on government programs which includes SS and many other things that aren't entitlement programs but were paid into by the taxpayer. It is the left that lives in a bubble and likes to spin things like you just did.
No, he said that 47% of americans pay no income tax, then that that 47% was mostly people who would never support him. Which is manifestly untrue, since plenty of people who supported him are on SS or are lower income (such as military) and pay no income tax.
He was using the percentage of non-income-taxpayers as a proxy to make a point, but since he has a tin ear, it came back on him. (Although to be fair, he didn't know there was a ringer in his audience - he might well have said it differently if he hadn't thought he was speaking to a "closed" audience.)
I don't dispute what I think was his larger point - that a huge chunk of lower/middle class americans would never support him, due to his economic class combined with his political stances. He's right.
No, he said that 47% of americans pay no income tax, then that that 47% was mostly people who would never support him. Which is manifestly untrue, since plenty of people who supported him are on SS or are lower income (such as military) and pay no income tax.
He was using the percentage of non-income-taxpayers as a proxy to make a point, but since he has a tin ear, it came back on him.
I don't dispute what I think was his larger point - that a huge chunk of lower/middle class americans would never support him, due to his economic class combined with his political stances. He's right.
Understandable why a large chunk of lower/middle class Americans would never support him. Romney and his cohorts made big money out of eviscerating companies that provided employment and benefits to people from those classes, loading them up with debt, etc. Many saw their pensions disappear. Essentially he is a parasite on productivity.
There are two types of wealthy people: the productive wealthy, who made their money providing decent goods and services, and they deserve every penny they made. And then there's the parasitic wealthy, most of whom made their money by functioning as leeches on productivity. Many "financial titans" are of this class of parasites and Romney is one of them, IMO. They don't create jobs, they destroy them. They don't exchange anything of value for the wealth they receive, no products, no services, heck, they can't even crack a decent joke. They put nothing of value into society, they extract it. At heart they're very much like a crackhead drawing welfare.
No, he said that 47% of americans pay no income tax, then that that 47% was mostly people who would never support him. Which is manifestly untrue, since plenty of people who supported him are on SS or are lower income (such as military) and pay no income tax.
He was using the percentage of non-income-taxpayers as a proxy to make a point, but since he has a tin ear, it came back on him. (Although to be fair, he didn't know there was a ringer in his audience - he might well have said it differently if he hadn't thought he was speaking to a "closed" audience.)
I don't dispute what I think was his larger point - that a huge chunk of lower/middle class americans would never support him, due to his economic class combined with his political stances. He's right.
The comment was that Romney said that 47% "want free stuff". Someone is back tracking now. It probably is true that 47% pay no income taxes. Why do you have a problem with the truth? There may be more people on welfare than there are those who are low income on SS and I know plenty of them that are Democrats. Again, why do you have a problem with the truth being spoken? All politicians have lots of money. So that kind of eliminates voting for any of them according to your claims, doesn't it? His political stances? Let's face it no liberal, lefty is going to vote for him based on the political stances of the Republican party. It's not just about him. I don't vote Democrat for the same reason. I don't like the political stances of that party.
I have been a registered Independent since 1990 so don't assume I am a Democrat. As for nefarious affairs regarding personal relationships? That is more of a human issue than a political one or shall we bring up Newt Gingrich as well?
As for great Corporations? Enron? Halliburton? AIG? (bailout) or Union Carbide and Bhopal,India?
Again regarding Romney's finances? I am sure he is compliant with the IRS but that isn't the case when it comes to politics! Romney will face the same scrutiny he did last time regarding his off shore bank accounts and in politics you need trust to win over a electorate.
1) You can bring up Newt Gingrich all you want, he was NEVER nominated for the W.H. by the GOP and he is not the party darling like the Clintons are for the Democrat party. Newt was outcast of holding a public office or leadership role in the GOP since he was kicked out of House Speaker in 1999 and is not welcome back with his baggage.
2) Abuse of power and sexual harassment and lying under oath when you are a governor and President is NOT a personal relationship or a "HUMAN ISSUE". Its against the law and a violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. If you don't see that, might as well declare yourself a Democrat and welcome back the Clintons in power again and treat them like royalty.
3) There are many U.S. corporations in the U.S.A.....to repeat the left non-sense and class warfare that the U.S. corporations are the problem for political divide is silly.
4) You mean Romney's has to be in compliant with the democrat/liberal agenda of class warfare?.......why is Romney's money an issue? he can put it under his pillow or gamble it in Las Vegas for all I care, that's his money, just like my money its MY MONEY, if I want to bury it in my backyard that's my choice, if I want to put it in a Bank in Hong Kong, its my choice, not liberals. Why do the left/liberals take issue with other people's money?.........We live in a GLOBAL economy, ITS PERFECTLY LEGAL to invest in foreign countries and banks for a better return. Many Americans including Democrats have investments in companies that do business around the world from Apple to Microsoft and the list is long......but they play the class warfare and hypocrisy for votes and divide and the low information voters drink the kool aid.
going back to the indiscretions of Bill and Hillary, I find what he did and Hillary covering it up and part of the machine of destroying anybody that spoke the truth dangerous and makes her UNFIT to be president. She should have dumped Bill Clinton and made a public apology to all the women Bill destroyed who spoke the truth (with the help of Hillary)........that to me is far more important than whatever Romney has in his bank account that the IR.S. has no problem or putting his dog in a cage on the roof of the station wagon back in 1983.
For democrats, Romney's dog in 1983 is more important and relevant in who is fit to be President than the sexual abuses while in power as governor and president by Bill Clinton and the cover ups and destroying all the women that spoke the truth that Hillary was a part of.
The comment was that Romney said that 47% "want free stuff". Someone is back tracking now. It probably is true that 47% pay no income taxes. Why do you have a problem with the truth? There may be more people on welfare than there are those who are low income on SS and I know plenty of them that are Democrats. Again, why do you have a problem with the truth being spoken? All politicians have lots of money. So that kind of eliminates voting for any of them according to your claims, doesn't it? His political stances? Let's face it no liberal, lefty is going to vote for him based on the political stances of the Republican party. It's not just about him. I don't vote Democrat for the same reason. I don't like the political stances of that party.
what Romney said about the 47%, it has been said by conservatives against the big welfare state since LBJ big society programs that have destroyed families and individuals and the expansion of the federal government from Barry Goldwater and Reagan
That speech was a private speech to a private conservative audience and it was not authorized to be recorded for the general public..........that's why I didn't have a problem.
Obame made a similar remark in 2008 during the primaries when he spoke about Religion and Guns (he was speaking about reoublicans from the south) and the national media didn't made a big deal about it, that shows the liberal bias in the media.
No, he said that 47% of americans pay no income tax, then that that 47% was mostly people who would never support him. Which is manifestly untrue, since plenty of people who supported him are on SS or are lower income (such as military) and pay no income tax.
He was using the percentage of non-income-taxpayers as a proxy to make a point, but since he has a tin ear, it came back on him. (Although to be fair, he didn't know there was a ringer in his audience - he might well have said it differently if he hadn't thought he was speaking to a "closed" audience.)
I don't dispute what I think was his larger point - that a huge chunk of lower/middle class americans would never support him, due to his economic class combined with his political stances. He's right.
1) Romney never mention people on Social Security. To get Social Security you have to pay Social Security tax and pay into the system. You are contributing to the system (bad system and badly managed by the federal government but that's another topic).
2) Military personnel of lower income do pay some kind of tax, little but they do pay and is not the same thing. Military personnel are serving their country in peace and war. In my opinion they should be TAX EXEMPT because of their service......Romney wasn't talking about them......He was talking about Americans who are in the entitlement crowd that demands that the government pays for almost everything and they don't give back to the country in any service.
3) He was talking about the 47% of the electorate that vote democrat NO matter what and refuse to listen to the conservative message of hard work, personal responsibility, low taxes, pro free market values and a limited federal government.....he said they won't listen or have an open mind. I agree with him and I'm middle class.
At first I considered Romney just a rich putz, but I've changed my mind. He's actually a major league a-hole. Rather than applying the time, talent and funds it will take to mount this campaign to actually do something like the work being done by the Gates Foundation and dozens of other world-class organizations tackling word-class problems, this jackhole is squandering resources (mostly not even his own) to preen his and his princess wife's ego on an effort that has failed spectacularly TWICE.
Go buy a f'n island Mitt where you and the misses and be king and queen of all you survey. It's not like you were making much a contribution to bettering people's lives other than your country club pals.
This is what happens if you have too much time, too much money and too little regard for humanity
The comment was that Romney said that 47% "want free stuff". Someone is back tracking now. It probably is true that 47% pay no income taxes. Why do you have a problem with the truth? There may be more people on welfare than there are those who are low income on SS and I know plenty of them that are Democrats. Again, why do you have a problem with the truth being spoken? All politicians have lots of money. So that kind of eliminates voting for any of them according to your claims, doesn't it? His political stances? Let's face it no liberal, lefty is going to vote for him based on the political stances of the Republican party. It's not just about him. I don't vote Democrat for the same reason. I don't like the political stances of that party.
And where did he get the 47% figure? That is the percent of americans who do not pay income taxes, which romney equated to people wanting free stuff. Well he is free to draw that conclusion, but it really isn't factually warranted, as many people have pointed out.
Not sure why you think I have a problem with the truth. It isn't me making the leap from "adjusted income too low to be subject to income taxes" to "want free stuff". If you have any data to support this segue, please present it. My gut reaction is that many people whose income is too low for income tax would prefer to have a job (those receiving unemployment benefits) or more better-paying jobs (those trying to make it on minimum wage) or a larger ss check. Again, if you have real data on the desires of those groups, feel free to cite it.
And as a side note, which is really not trivial, people who pay no income taxes do indeed pay plenty of other taxes. Including people on welfare - whatever welfare means to you, I dunno. If you could define what you mean by welfare in terms congruent with existing federal and state programs, more specific numbers are available.
It's true that you have to have a large amount of financial support to run for state and federal office. I think the more specific criticism leveled at romney is not so much that he is personally rich, but that he got rich by 1) inheritance and 2) liquidating companies in trouble, which is more associated with wall street shenanigans than, say, inventing a better mouse trap. Rightly or wrongly, it's a simple fact that many lower/middle class americans will not turn out for someone like that, unless, like fdr, s/he is labeled - and accepts the label - of "class traitor." Which romney manifestly did not. In fact, what he was explicitly telling the group of wealthy people listening to him was that he needed more money to overcome his lack of support among lower/middle class voters.
At first I considered Romney just a rich putz, but I've changed my mind. He's actually a major league a-hole. Rather than applying the time, talent and funds it will take to mount this campaign to actually do something like the work being done by the Gates Foundation and dozens of other world-class organizations tackling word-class problems, this jackhole is squandering resources (mostly not even his own) to preen his and his princess wife's ego on an effort that has failed spectacularly TWICE.
Go buy a f'n island Mitt where you and the misses and be king and queen of all you survey. It's not like you were making much a contribution to bettering people's lives other than your country club pals.
This is what happens if you have too much time, too much money and too little regard for humanity
I think you are mistaken Mitt Romney to the Clintons.
and Romney has donated millions to charity and humanitarian causes a lot more than the millionaires in the Democrat party who all talk a good game.
What better way to help others by creating jobs in the private sector....but for the left that is a sin....the rest of your post sounds like personal issues, envy on successful Americans and jealousy. Its common on the left.
No, he said that 47% of americans pay no income tax, then that that 47% was mostly people who would never support him. Which is manifestly untrue, since plenty of people who supported him are on SS or are lower income (such as military) and pay no income tax.
He was using the percentage of non-income-taxpayers as a proxy to make a point, but since he has a tin ear, it came back on him. (Although to be fair, he didn't know there was a ringer in his audience - he might well have said it differently if he hadn't thought he was speaking to a "closed" audience.)
I don't dispute what I think was his larger point - that a huge chunk of lower/middle class americans would never support him, due to his economic class combined with his political stances. He's right.
he was talking about MANY percentages
there is a percent (most estimates at 40%) that will only vote the party line of democrats
there is a percent that vote the party line for republicans
there is 47% who have a zero tax liability....factual from the IRS.....and many of those are receiving handouts and will always vote for the kitty that feeds them (ie welfare and the liberal nannystate)
what he was saying is he needed to earn the vote of the moderates..the people who don't vote the party line...the independents
he used a poor choice of words.... but most educated people understand what he meant, as opposed to those that only want to listen to the politicos who love to spin words
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.
