Was Romney's 47% comment so really bad? (unemployment, Reagan, compare, economy)
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 read the entire link. The problem is Romney did not speak the truth (bolded that statement above). Oh, he spoke "the truth" that YOU think is out there. That everyone in the 47% is entitled and have a victim mentality. The problem is--that is not the truth. As I've said three times now--YES, some of that 47% do behave as Romney described but those are not "THE" 47%.
I get that you don't like that I disagree with your link. I am not against Romney because he's republican. If he truly says something truthful, I'm not going to be one of "those" people who discredits it because he's not MY candidate. But, in my opinion, he incorrectly generalized the 47%. He was wrong.
I believe that we have heard the words on that tape completely different. I heard him tell his wealthy supporters that he wasn't going to get many of that group to vote for him and that worrying about them as voters would be a waste of time. Now you took the words of Mother Jones, a far left leaning publication,as fact and they did some normal lefty twisting and disservice to truth in reporting. I guess you haven't seen the threads about that Cleveland woman talking about why the minority people in that part of the world would be voting for Obama. Maybe you haven't see the Stern youtube about those people in Harlem he had interviewed. Ignorance ran rampant in that group. They didn't seem to know much about this election other than good old Prince Barack was running again. One of them said that he was glad Obama has appointed Ryan to be his VP. Another talked about his reason being Obamacare and I bet has no idea that it may well get repealed. I have never heard more ignorance than in that thing.
Have you never heard the ignorance displayed by the voters from 2008 in Dallas? I wonder if any of them will even vote this time around.
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.
Well yeah, because business owners have not been able to fill out a five year plan since this man became president.
1. They don't know what their income tax or regulatory liability will be from one month to the next.
2. They don't know what the employee health care liability will be from one week to the next
3. Our national debt is thru the roof, and we are printing trillions of dollars, our economic stability is in question
4. The EPA has gone off the rails, making reckless regulations that are destroying a wider range of businesses on almost a monthly basis.
5. There is no sense of leadership in our country from Obama, he seems to have phoned it in, and has delegated most of his authority to nameless, faceless bureaucrats, while he plays golf, attends parties in his honor, and campaigns.
I'd like a definition of "fair share," too. Thanks!
"Fair share" could be defined as the amount required by law (as per Romney). Or it could be by your definition, which would mean that your problem is with the tax code, not Obama.
It is nice to hear a political leader talk about tough issues. The 47 percent issue has been out for months and yet nobody talked about it. Sure, Romney could have put it a different way, but at least people know this issue is out there. I bet millions of Americans never knew this fact and were shocked about it.
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%.
ok but in context of what he said he said those 47% not a percentage of those 47% so he didn't clarify about well some are serving our country, some are 90 and on SS, he didn't do that and not the day of but up to a week after and even now after the tape got released, it's not the no. it's the disdain he held for everyone in that group, you have brain damage and are paralyzed on one side too bad, you lost a leg in Iraq too bad, you're 90 get to work, that's how a lot of people took it, he should clarify; actually for most people it's still to late not election wise but this comment wise, but he could have said what he meant instead of saying he should have been more eloquent or whatever how could you have been more eloquent explain it then and there when he said that about being more eloquent or within the next couple of days and it would have been less painful, and yes i'm the brain damaged person i was talking about and i have worked when i was able and i have never been a moocher or victim but some people don't think we should exist or that we should get any benefits and i think he's one of those until he says otherwise...
Taken out of context? Calling 47% of Americans victims who don't take personal responsibility, what is the proper context of that sentiment?
I already gave my assessment of the proper context, because i have listened to, and engaged in discussions exactly like the one he was making.
The 0bama supporters who will never vote for Romney have been pounding home that talking point that the top 1% are not paying their fair share. The response from the rest of us has been that about 45% of the country are not paying any effective income taxes, hence not their fair share. And yet these same people will vote for 0bama so they can keep on not paying any taxes, and some of these are serial losers, the takers, the lost souls, whose entire lives have been made by living off the taxpayer charity from the rest of us.
Maybe this entire topic is new to you, which might explain any confusion you may have.
Who said anything about Obama winning. I make no predictions.
What I say is that if the people think Obama's policies are as dire as many C-D posters predict and those thoughts represent America, then our society will make that "correction" on election day. If they don't believe that Obama is the problem, then that correction won't be made.
My personal opinion is that our downfall is entirely the fault of Congress. I don't think we've even seen the tip the iceburg in regard to Obama's policies. It's not as if a whole lot of what he wanted to do every made it through Congress.
I suppose you really like the prospects for the nation from Obamacare? It was nothing but a power grab and many people really think it was good. It was not written as the Constitution says it should have been. You do know that the Supreme Court has called it a tax bill in order to make it Constitutional. Of course, all taxes are to originate in the House of Representatives and that abortion was written in Dirty Harry's offices and not by as many Senators as outsiders. Then the Senate passed it with exactly no debate, committee work or anything. Nasty Nancy refused to allow any debate or committee work in the House and that concluded the unconstitutionality of the way that one was passed. Obama had promised no new taxes for anyone who made less that $250,000 and we found 21 or 22 new taxes in that law.
Ok, blame the Congress for all that foolishness but didn't Obama promise to veto things like that? Surely but he had to have his signature law passed and couldn't even give us the promised 5 days to read it. I don't need 4 more years of this crap.
Was the comment really that bad? Yes it was. Not so much for what it said, but rather for the fact that it exposed an extremely ignorant Mitt Romney.
We can't afford to have a president who doesn't realize it's 2012 and that anything anyone says can bite you in the butt down the road. There's no such thing as "privacy" in politics.
I've been saying since he was fighting off Santorum that Romney would get the nomination and his mouth would sink him.
Why only payroll taxes? Did you never pay any federal income taxes?
That was what was deducted from my paychecks ,at the end of the year when i did my income taxes i'd usually had enough deducted to compensate for my earned income resulting in me paying a small additional amount or receiving an income tax return if they'd deducted too much.
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.
