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.
I wouldn't ask for anything from 'the government' if they didn't take so damn much in the first place. I'm sure most people will agree. However, this current 47% issue is a pointless argument all around. The individual Americans being helped, even the fraction of those who abuse the system (and get and extra $100 or whatever) pale in comparison the the corporate welfare our country supports. It's easier to point to a person and tell yourself it's all their fault..they and people like them...when really they aren't a problem for a healthy country and economy. Our is sick, and the little scrapes and scabs are being blamed for the cancer. Weird.
This is in fact the problem...this right here......even people in work place lunchrooms, walking down the street on internet....everyone on internet instead of getting something constructive done. People are programmed to work and get something done. The family unit breaks down , relationships in life sour out and everyone goes on the social internet all day to group, get confirmation in their thinking, be part of something...
CUT OFF ALL WHO DON"T PAY FOR THEIR INTERNET AND THINGS WILL IMPROVE....Romney is right, the takers want to keep taking , live like socialites all day on internet...of course nothing gets done. Go to the library for the half hour job related search only...plain and simple.
I'm especially astounded by the simple minded republicans like my niece who, would never vote for Obama bacause he is "all about giving welfare to people too lazy to work" while she gets Medicaid because she is pregnant and her job doesn't provide health insurance, her child attends Head Start, and her husband is getting government assistance to refinance a house they are 6 months behind in mortgage payments!
This is exactly why Romney's comment isn't damaging in the least. NO ONE thinks they are a leech on society, even when in fact they are. They think Romney is talking about someone else.
You sound like you know what the fair share is. Could you tell me what it is? I keep hearing politicians from the Democrat side talking about fair share and just haven't been able to find out from anybody here what it is and I have been asking informed sounding people for many months. If you know what that is please let me know what it is.
Actually, I've heard enough conservatives ask the same question that I have a stock answer prepared.
First, I would support some nominal minimum tax ($100 - $500 per person) to ensure everybody pays something. (Say goodbye to the 47%.)
Then I would create an exemption for income necessary to meet the obligations we expect Americans to meet under the principle of personal responsibility.
Examples of what we (generally) expect Americans to provide for themselves are food, basic shelter, adequate savings for future needs (emergency funds, retirement, children's education), and insurance adequate to meet risks (health, life, auto, home/renters, umbrella).
Income above what is agreed to be necessary for personal responsibility should be taxed at a flat rate.
Everybody pays something, there is no penalty for being poor or rich.
I wouldn't ask for anything from 'the government' if they didn't take so damn much in the first place. I'm sure most people will agree. However, this current 47% issue is a pointless argument all around. The individual Americans being helped, even the fraction of those who abuse the system (and get and extra $100 or whatever) pale in comparison the the corporate welfare our country supports. It's easier to point to a person and tell yourself it's all their fault..they and people like them...when really they aren't a problem for a healthy country and economy. Our is sick, and the little scrapes and scabs are being blamed for the cancer. Weird.
Do you know that Mother Jones has been found to have lied about anything being cut out of that sound tape? Ah, yes it seems that nearly 2 minutes were cut out and about 1 1/2 of the editing was done to the part immediately preceding the 47% comment. Yes, that part is purely ridiculous since it was never what the media claimed it was.
Actually, I've heard enough conservatives ask the same question that I have a stock answer prepared.
First, I would support some nominal minimum tax ($100 - $500 per person) to ensure everybody pays something. (Say goodbye to the 47%.)
Then I would create an exemption for income necessary to meet the obligations we expect Americans to meet under the principle of personal responsibility.
Examples of what we (generally) expect Americans to provide for themselves are food, basic shelter, adequate savings for future needs (emergency funds, retirement, children's education), and insurance adequate to meet risks (health, life, auto, home/renters, umbrella).
Income above what is agreed to be necessary for personal responsibility should be taxed at a flat rate.
Everybody pays something, there is no penalty for being poor or rich.
Have you ever read much at Fair Tax.com? It sounds like you have the basics down to a Tee. If you haven't try it.
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.
