Romney’s voters are not moochers or victims

[msj]

Don't you need to file taxes to be a moocher?

If the US is anything like Canada then you have to file taxes to be a "moocher."

How else do you get a tax refund from claiming this tax credit or that tax deduction...

That's the thing with payroll withholding taxes - it forces people to file tax returns so they can get their tax refunds (or to keep their money).

Edited September 19, 2012 by msj

[Canuckistani]

All I know is payroll taxes are 16% and Mittens doesn't pay them. He pays less in tax then 60% of the people he is pretending are deadbeats.

How do you know this exactly? I think you're mistaken:

Federal social insurance taxes are imposed equally on employers[5] and employees,[6] consisting of a tax of 6.2% of wages up to an annual wage maximum ($110,100 in 2012) for Social Security and a tax of 1.45% of all wages for Medicare.[7] For the years 2011 and 2012, the employee's contribution has been temporarily reduced to 4.2%, while the employer's portion remained at 6.2%.[8] To the extent an employee's portion of the 6.2% tax exceeded the maximum by reason of multiple employers, the employee is entitled to a refundable tax credit upon filing an income tax return for the year.[9]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Payroll_tax#In_the_United_States

4.2% + 1.25% = 5.45% not 16%

You falsely assume that I'm sympathetic to Romney. I'm not, I think what he said was bs. That's no reason to spew bs in return.

Edited September 19, 2012 by Canuckistani

[punked]

How do you know this exactly? I think you're mistaken: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Payroll_tax#In_the_United_States

4.2% + 1.25% = 5.45% not 16%

You falsely assume that I'm sympathetic to Romney. I'm not, I think what he said was bs. That's no reason to spew bs in return.

Again my number is a quote from the Washington post fact checker, the dailybeast, and the New York Times so maybe you need to take it up with them. Not even restate is challenging it.

[jacee]

Again my number is a quote from the Washington post fact checker, the dailybeast, and the New York Times so maybe you need to take it up with them. Not even restate is challenging it.

I read that most employers pay about half of the payroll tax, which totals near 15%, leaving the employee paying about 6%. I think that clears up the discrepancy.

In other news ... fallout continues ...

ELDERLY ARE KEY

Elderly voters have become an important part of the Republican coalition in recent elections,and Romney is struggling to hold on to his advantage among voters age 60 and older.

Romney’s lead over Obama among voters in that group was nearly 20 percentage points last week but has declined to less than a 4-point lead this week,according to Reuters/Ipsos tracking polls. Obama leads among all other age groups.

Romney is not likely to win among lower-income voters but he will need to limit his losses among this group in order to carry battleground states such as Ohio. Romney currently has the backing of 37 percent of voters with income under $50,000,according to a New York Times/CBS poll released last week.

http://www.nationalpost.com/m/wp/news/world/blog.html?b=news.nationalpost.com/2012/09/19/mitt-romney-needs-the-47-of-americans-he-disparaged-to-vote-for-him-to-win-election

[Shady]

Obama's busy building his election constituency...

CRS report: number of able-bodied adults on food stamps doubled after Obama suspended work requirement

Obama administration officials have insisted that their decision to grant states waivers to redefine work requirements for welfare recipients would not “gut” the landmark 1996 welfare reform law. But a new report from the Congressional Research Service obtained by the Washington Examiner suggests that the administration’s suspension of a separate welfare work requirement has already helped explode the number of able-bodied Americans on food stamps

Link

[Michael Hardner]

I don't think Obama is a great president, but he is preventing the recession from impacting the poorest even more by extending welfare and food stamps. Cutting those programs right now isn't going to create jobs.

[wyly]

I read that most employers pay about half of the payroll tax, which totals near 15%, leaving the employee paying about 6%. I think that clears up the discrepancy.

In other news ... fallout continues ...

ELDERLY ARE KEY

Elderly voters have become an important part of the Republican coalition in recent elections,and Romney is struggling to hold on to his advantage among voters age 60 and older.

Romney’s lead over Obama among voters in that group was nearly 20 percentage points last week but has declined to less than a 4-point lead this week,according to Reuters/Ipsos tracking polls. Obama leads among all other age groups.

Romney is not likely to win among lower-income voters but he will need to limit his losses among this group in order to carry battleground states such as Ohio. Romney currently has the backing of 37 percent of voters with income under $50,000,according to a New York Times/CBS poll released last week.

http://www.nationalpost.com/m/wp/news/world/blog.html?b=news.nationalpost.com/2012/09/19/mitt-romney-needs-the-47-of-americans-he-disparaged-to-vote-for-him-to-win-election

insinuating that pensioners are sponging off the government(the obama47%)wasn't a great move...

[wyly]

I don't think Obama is a great president, but he is preventing the recession from impacting the poorest even more by extending welfare and food stamps. Cutting those programs right now isn't going to create jobs.

but it would increase crime, then they would need more prisons and cops and guards = more employment...

that was sarcasm

[jacee]

I don't think Obama is a great president, but he is preventing the recession from impacting the poorest even more by extending welfare and food stamps. Cutting those programs right now isn't going to create jobs.

Agreed.

And you can hardly justify a job requirement for food stamps if there are no jobs.

[kimmy]

The fact that Mitt describes these 47% as people "who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it" seems to indicate that Mitt doesn't realize that the statistic only refers to federal income tax either. He doesn't seem to be aware that many of them are still paying into things like Medicare and Social Security even though they are not paying into federal income tax.

And I have heard this line that "47% of Americans pay no taxes!" repeated often enough without any further qualification, by people ranging from media figures to forum members, to be highly skeptical that people are aware of the specifics behind it.

And further to this aspect of the story, Jon Stewart's segment on the topic last night, entitled "Chaos on Bullshit Mountain!"

“Lets drill down to the core of this thing,” Stewart said, playing a clip of Fox News host Sean Hannity decrying the so-called entitlement society fostered by Obama. Hannity said that 49 percent of Americans received government handouts under Obama.

“This is the core of bullshit mountain,” Stewart said. “The 49 percent entitlement society Obama enables — that is the core of the bullshit nation fiction. That somehow, only since Obama, the half of Americans who love this country and work hard and are good have had the fruits of their labor seized and handed over to the half of this nation that is lazy and dependent and the opposite of good. Now in that 49 percent, Hannity is including those on Social Security and Medicare, or as I like to call them, his audience.”

Stewart continued, noting that Hannity had forgotten a certain demographic that received plenty of government handouts. Corporations have taken in billions in federal subsidies, but “at least Exxon-Mobil and AT&T give us back cheap gas and reliable cell phone service,” Stewart mockingly said.

People like Sean Hannity and Fox Nation and Shady are trying to create the impression that half of America is sitting around collecting handouts. But that doesn't match with the reality.

-k

[The_Squid]

ahhhh, the irony. I <3 American politics! haha Romney's father was on social assistance.....

Does Romney think his dad was a deadbeat? Or does he just think that it was OK for him, but those "other people" are just losers...

Did Romney's father not take responsibility for himself? Or is it just those other people who lack motivation in their lives?

[Guest American Woman]

That's false.

Shady said " There's an ever-increasing number of voters that don't pay any taxes, who's existence is mostly, or soley based on government. So of course, they'll vote themselves bigger benefits, at the expense of tax payers."

No, it isn't false. He said it in response to Romney's statement, which was in regards to federal income tax.

Nothing in this statement indicates that Shady was remotely aware that the "47%" statistic refers strictly to federal income tax.

The fact that it was preceded by the reference to Romney's comments clearly indicates that Shady was referring to federal income tax.

That he says "[their] existence is mostly or solely based on government" indicates otherwise.

No, it doesn't. It may indicate some ignorance, but nothing else. However, there are those among the 47% who do rely on the government and do think life owes them a living.

In fact, there's nothing to indicate that the audience at Mitt's fundraiser, or Mitt himself, for that matter, are aware of the distinction either.

Perhaps to you, but I doubt if most Americans would agree.

The fact that Mitt describes these 47% as people "who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it" seems to indicate that Mitt doesn't realize that the statistic only refers to federal income tax either. He doesn't seem to be aware that many of them are still paying into things like Medicare and Social Security even though they are not paying into federal income tax.

I didn't take it that way at all. When Americans file tax returns, it's federal income tax returns. Yet it's referred to as "filing taxes" and applying for an extension is referred to "filing for a tax extension" and getting a return is called a "tax refund." We speak of taxes when funding things such as education, roads, wars, food stamps, welfare, etc. Social Security taxes fund only Social Security while Medicare taxes fund only medicare. When politicians and citizens speak of raising taxes for the rich, they aren't speaking of social security taxes or medicare taxes. When people say they want to see Romney's tax returns, how much taxes he paid, they aren't referring to his social security and/or medicare taxes even though they aren't specifying federal income taxes - the "federal income" part of his "taxes" is presumed.

As I said, Romney was wrong to criticize the 47% as a single entity, just as it's wrong to defend them as a single entity. Another reality. Some of the 53% paying federal income tax are also recipients of government programs/services. Some of them get back in services more than they pay in.

And I have heard this line that "47% of Americans pay no taxes!" repeated often enough without any further qualification, by people ranging from media figures to forum members, to be highly skeptical that people are aware of the specifics behind it.

Not so much. People are referring to federal income tax, which Americans refer to simply as "taxes." Who qualifies it? Nobody, when asking to see how much Romney paid in taxes. Again. Social Security and Medicare taxes are very specific taxes for very specific services. Again. When speaking of raising taxes, they are referring to the federal income tax.

[blueblood]

When was that? Was that when they had thousands of scientists working around the clock to make the bomb? Or was it when half the country was helping the government with the war effort? Was it after the war when they took on the largest construction project ever in the highway system? How about when they re routed a river across 3 states to grow crops in the desert? I really have no clue what you are talking about seriously. When the US was growing at its fastest pace taxes were at 90% on the top tax bracket. The US government was passing Social Security, and building a nation by lying roads in the mud. Is that US you are talking about because that is not what small government means.

Maybe you mean when my grandfather came home and they paid for the collage education of most of the nation.

You live in a dream world if you don't think big government programs didn't help the US become what it is. Government isn't the problem, bad government is a problem but the government can help grow a nation.

No rich person paid 90 percent of his income in taxes. They lobbied for numerous loopholes which Reagan closed when he dropped the tax rate.

Big govt didn't turn the USA into a superpower before the first world war. That was the industrialists and their workers. The USA grew at it's fastest pace when the govt was air it's smallest. We've been thru is before. The gilded age turned the USA into a superpower, not big government. Big government does not create wealth, people do. Imagine massive economic growth and no debt!

[Bitsy]

If this has already been posted, please forgive. Where the 47% live........

http://www.businessinsider.com/mitt-romney-47-percent-no-income-tax-map-red-republican-states-2012-9

[GostHacked]

I don't think Obama is a great president, but he is preventing the recession from impacting the poorest even more by extending welfare and food stamps. Cutting those programs right now isn't going to create jobs.

Giving food stamps is not going to create jobs either.

There are more people on food stamps in the USA than the total population of Canada. That is hard to wrap my brain around.

[Michael Hardner]

Giving food stamps is not going to create jobs either.

I agree with you there.

There are more people on food stamps in the USA than the total population of Canada. That is hard to wrap my brain around.

It's a time of change, and no one has found a way to employ those who have been displaced.

[gunrutz]

Im not a big fan of Obama, i watche Clinton on the daily show last night and i'd trade for him right now, but as for Romney I can't imagine how giving more tax breaks to the wealthiest is going to help, it hasn't helped up to now, but I also don't agree with making it easier for people to not work, neither of these are good options, both sides are playing to their base, the wealthy or the poor. Extremes never make for good policies.

[wyly]

I agree with you there.

It's a time of change, and no one has found a way to employ those who have been displaced.

globalization has changed everything and americans have their heads so far up their butts they can't accept it and adapt...industry and the jobs that go with them are moving overseas to the third world and they're not coming back, they need to adapt to the new reality...unfortunately for many people there will be no return to better days...

[eyeball]

It's a time of change, and no one has found a way to employ those who have been displaced.

No one has found a way to overcome the moral imperative to be self reliant. The real problem here lies within people who haven't been displaced.

Stepping down from their high horses would be a good place to start solving it.

[bud]

mitt romney: the corporate/colonial and zionist lapdog

On a conference call with American rabbis Thursday evening, Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney altered his position on what "red lines" he would set for Iran before deciding military action was necessary.

link

[The_Squid]

MIT said:

“I don't pay more than are legally due and frankly if I had paid more than are legally due I don't think I'd be qualified to become president. I'd think people would want me to follow the law and pay only what the tax code requires

And apparently he paid more taxes than he needed to so the optics wouldn't be so bad and so he couldn't be called a liar when he claimed he never paid less than 14% tax. He only legally needed to pay around 9%.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/the_big_idea/2012/09/romney_s_taxes_the_gop_candidate_s_preposterous_explanation_for_overpaying_them_.html

[GostHacked]

I agree with you there.

It's a time of change, and no one has found a way to employ those who have been displaced.

Bring manufacturing back to North America.

Put money back into America instead of sending it overseas.

Build new refineries.

Invest in green technology that actually works.

Start a standardized national recycling program.

For example. Apple, new iPhone made in China, by most likely Foxxconn. For the price you pay for one of these devices (mainly made on some type of assembly line) you can pay Americans to build these products. Sure the profit margin for these devices will decrease for selling these products, however, you would have more people that would not waste more than 1 paycheck for a silly little phone.

[kimmy]

Giving food stamps is not going to create jobs either.

In terms of stimulus to the economy, food stamps are probably a lot more efficient than cutting capital gains taxes or any of the other ideas that Team Elephant is trumpeting right now.

Food stamp funds go straight into the economy. They're spent at retailers, and more than likely spent at food retailers that are close to poor communities where food stamp recipients actually live.

As well as being spent at local businesses in areas that need jobs the most, food stamp funds probably purchase American-made products at a higher rate than the average shopping dollar. As in, if an American buys $100 of consumer goods, a big portion of that $100 is probably being spent on stuff made in other countries. If an American buys $100 of food, a lot of it is probably spent on stuff produced by American farmers and food companies.

-k

[punked]

In terms of stimulus to the economy, food stamps are probably a lot more efficient than cutting capital gains taxes or any of the other ideas that Team Elephant is trumpeting right now.

Food stamp funds go straight into the economy. They're spent at retailers, and more than likely spent at food retailers that are close to poor communities where food stamp recipients actually live.

As well as being spent at local businesses in areas that need jobs the most, food stamp funds probably purchase American-made products at a higher rate than the average shopping dollar. As in, if an American buys $100 of consumer goods, a big portion of that $100 is probably being spent on stuff made in other countries. If an American buys $100 of food, a lot of it is probably spent on stuff produced by American farmers and food companies.

-k

Food stamps are one of the only things keeping the American Family farm afloat, Republicans often forget that.

[GostHacked]

Food stamps are one of the only things keeping the American Family farm afloat, Republicans often forget that.

This is like giving a man a fish to eat for a day. Teach a man to fish ......

Hand outs are only going to last as long as there is money in the system. The money seems to be running out quick.... oh wait now we have QE-Unlimited. The fed pumping 49bill every month into the economy until further notice. Sure this will work out as well as the last two attempts at QE. Is the economy better off now than it was 4 years ago? I think that answer is ... no.