Was Romney's 47% comment so really bad? (Limbaugh, represent, stats, Kerry)
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.
And exactly what about that means they pay federal income tax?
If they pay no federal income tax, they're NOT paying their fair share.
That would be the Bush tax cuts at work, they took a lot of lower income people completely off the tax rolls, but it would kill libs to credit Bush with that. 0bama has just created a lot more low income earners, people who want a full-time job but cannot find one, and 0bama characterizes it as a governmental success, if he can get them on Welfare and Food Stamps, "my plan is working."
It is past time for you to read the link in the OP. Reading my thread titles and basing everything on them is not good business as many of the left leaners here can attest to. However, those who make the loudest noises about this never, and I mean never, read any of the links I post. I pretty surely know why that is, too.
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.
"There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what ... who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe that government has a responsibility to care for them....I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives...These are people who pay no income tax. Forty-seven percent of Americans pay no income tax...."
I don't see how anyone could read these statements and not understand that Mitt committed political suicide writing off 47% of people like that---and especially since he based that 47% figure of a falsehood insulting a lot of hard working people, veterans, deployed military and the elderly who pay no taxes because of legal tax deductions. Then the next day when he was given an opportunity to walk it back he didn't. The only thing that Romney was honest about is his distaste for nearly half the population of the U.S.A.
So you don't know that is was months, not the next day that he was given a chance to walk it back. Oh yes, the Dems had been sitting on that Jimmy Carter IV thing for more than just a month or two. How in hell can he be truthful and walk that back, Obama style? If you had read my link you would have found a man who admits to being an Obama lover extolling Romney for speaking truth. I wonder if you could learn anything ir you read that link. You may even find out what he considers to be the social contract as compared to what socialists think it is.
And exactly what about that means they pay federal income tax?
If they pay no federal income tax, they're NOT paying their fair share.
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?
the problem in your argument is if he was in touch he wouldn't have said my job is not to worry about them so either he wasn't thinking about disabled, elderly, etc. thinking they're victims or he doesn't care if they do...it was insulting to me and i'm no fan of either one of them and a proud independent...a lot of people i know that were thinking about voting for him now are not...i don't think either one of them are in touch with people or cares...but at least with Obama we've had almost four years and know wtf we are getting.
Everything he was referring to was about being elected. His job right now is not to try to talk these people into voteing for him because many of them will not. He has decided not to pander to them as obama has. He is not talking about his job as president. He knows that they have safety nets for these folks and hasn't said anything about takeing them away. He could have explained it in a much better way. But, people are free to interpret it the way they choose. Just like many people were offended by obama saying, "you didn't build that". Some people thought he was putting down the efforts of our business owners. Some people didn't. Yeah, we know wtf we are getting with obama. And it is scarey to think we may be in for four more years. With his performance of the last 4 years, a CEO, a coach, a teacher, a police officer, an insurance agent...practically any professional you can think of, would have already been fired.
With his performance of the last 4 years, a CEO, a coach, a teacher, a police officer, an insurance agent...practically any professional you can think of, would have already been fired.
Not to worry. The Romney supporters are dragging it out again. They've got nothing else and the polls are NOT looking good.
So we'll all hear about the Bitter Clingers because Romney is running the most inept campaign in presidential history and Bitter Clingers is one of the straws they're grasping at.
Anything to not talk about 1.3% GDP growth and losing another 400,000 jobs. The 0-bots love to use the excuse that 800,000 jobs were lost the month before he took office, but here we are, almost four years of 0bama policies later, and we just lost 400,000, and millions on the horizon in 2013:
The study projected a loss of 2.14 million American jobs in the event that Budget Control Act mandates take effect on January 2, 2013 – the date on which $1.2 trillion budget cuts begin to impact federal programs.
Get over it. *I* read the link. I think the guy sounds naive. Yes, I agree with a "social contract." However, you're taking at face value that Romney's comments were spot on, and they arent. Sure, that group of 47% contains some losers--some people who have no aspirations and don't care about a social contract. We know that. There's no denying it. I think, as I said upthread, that this is what Romney was getting at. However, he botched it. Badly. He overgeneralized and assumed that those in the 47%--all of them, would not be voting for him. He assumed that those in the 47% were all losers who do not work. He is wrong and he marginalized a whole segment of our population as losers. That shows he's not enlightened enough to know what people really do. Again, SURE, there's some bottom feeders in that group but to say what he said--geez. Guess what, my 21 year old daughter, a college student who made $5,968 last year is one of the 47%. She never paid federal income tax because her income is below the threshhold for paying federal tax. I don't happen to think she's a loser nor do I think she thinks she's entitled to something.
This is a matter of Romney not being "politically correct." He was just wrong.
I have to say two things about your post. First, political correctness came about from the progressive movement and I don't think much about it and too many of the rest of us don't care for PC.
The other would be that you failed to read much of the link since you didn't seem to know about these words right out of it. People complain that politicians are not truthful. Yet when politicians do state the truth, people don’t want to accept it.
For some it is easier to blame others for their place in life because they are influenced by the rubbish put out by some commentators who clearly have no idea about what it takes to succeed in the real world. Some commentators try to brainwash their audience by theorising something they are clueless about based on theoretical text books they read at University. The theory gives them a false illusion of intelligence even though they are deluded from the real world.
Damned guy thinks, as I do, that Romney spoke a lot of truth in that number. Of course, the media and the left don't like to see anything true when they can use it against an opponent. I guess you failed to see those words about what those people got at college.
I was talking with a friend yesterday who got thrown out of a class in college because he told the prof that he was so terribly wrong about letting the national debt grow and grow. That was in about 1970 and I didn't even know the libs had taken over in that school that early.
Anything to not talk about 1.3% GDP growth and losing another 400,000 jobs. The 0-bots love to use the excuse that 800,000 jobs were lost the month before he took office, but here we are, almost four years of 0bama policies later, and we just lost 400,000, and millions on the horizon in 2013:
The study projected a loss of 2.14 million American jobs in the event that Budget Control Act mandates take effect on January 2, 2013 – the date on which $1.2 trillion budget cuts begin to impact federal programs.
I'd say Congress better get to work then, as they are the only ones that can avoid their self inflicted sequestration.
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.
