98 - 99% die hard Obama supporters Romney's comment not likely to change polls much cause it is FACT.

(09-18-2012 12:00 PM)dcCid Wrote:  

(09-18-2012 09:12 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(09-18-2012 09:10 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  If you think the 47% who don't pay federal income tax exclusively vote D you are certifiable.

You thinking 98-99%?

I would say less than 50% due to the fact that most of them are poor white southerners driven by Westboro Baptist and any other reason to point blame on others rather than accept personal accountability.

You do realize that Westboro baptist isn't in the south, right?

My real problem with his statement is the broad brush he used. There are many hard working people that fall into that 47%. Something that I don't think he (or many 'conservatives' for that matter) understands is that, for many people, not being really well off doesn't mean that you are a leach. That 47% is very complex and he took the easy way out by just painting everyone in that category as lesser than his ilk.

There's also a bit of irony in this. Many of his voters are in that 47% and don't think that he was talking about them.

Romney hit the nail on the head. What did he call it? "The makers vs. the takers"? I've been saying this for years, but I called it "the productive vs. the unproductive". Thank God someone finally said it and it's out there.

Redistribution of wealth is Obama's reason for living. It's all he cares about. And Romney is opposed to it. Hopefully Romney sticks to his guns on this.

Nomad chances are in 2009 Willard was one of those 47%

(09-18-2012 10:28 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  Romney hit the nail on the head. What did he call it? "The makers vs. the takers"? I've been saying this for years, but I called it "the productive vs. the unproductive". Thank God someone finally said it and it's out there.
Redistribution of wealth is Obama's reason for living. It's all he cares about. And Romney is opposed to it. Hopefully Romney sticks to his guns on this.

Yes, but he should have had a more coherent message. Stray sound bytes can bite you in the butt, particularly when you don't have a strong main message.

I really think the problem is that the republican leadership doesn't know what the hell their message is. I've been complaining about this for years.

(09-18-2012 10:28 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  Romney hit the nail on the head. What did he call it? "The makers vs. the takers". I've been saying this for years, but I called it "the productive vs. the unproductive". Thank God someone finally said it and it's out there.

Redistribution of wealth is Obama's reason for living. It's all he cares about. And Romney is opposed to it. Hopefully Romney sticks to his guns on this.

So there are no productive members of society in that 47%? For people who complain about class warfare and division, some of you are praising class warfare and division.

BTW, class warfare has been made a very weak term.

I have been pretty leery of criticizing the 47% because the approach I like--negative income tax or Boortz-Linder prebate/prefund--is actually the basic idea behind the credits that are driving a lot of this. I think there are ways to make legitimate substantive criticisms without saying thins that could be interpreted--rightly or wrongly--as attacking a segment of the population.

(09-18-2012 10:46 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I have been pretty leery of criticizing the 47% because the approach I like--negative income tax or Boortz-Linder prebate/prefund--is actually the basic idea behind the credits that are driving a lot of this. I think there are ways to make legitimate substantive criticisms without saying thins that could be interpreted--rightly or wrongly--as attacking a segment of the population.

One day, I'm going to the library so I'd know what the heck you were talking about. But I'm in agreement with the last part.

(09-18-2012 10:38 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(09-18-2012 10:28 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  Romney hit the nail on the head. What did he call it? "The makers vs. the takers". I've been saying this for years, but I called it "the productive vs. the unproductive". Thank God someone finally said it and it's out there.

Redistribution of wealth is Obama's reason for living. It's all he cares about. And Romney is opposed to it. Hopefully Romney sticks to his guns on this.

So there are no productive members of society in that 47%? For people who complain about class warfare and division, some of you are praising class warfare and division.

BTW, class warfare has been made a very weak term.

Conservatives are trying to avoid a situation where only 40% of the population pays taxes and the other 60% live off those taxes. That's where we're headed with Obama and the Progressives, and it's a bad place to go.

(09-18-2012 11:30 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(09-18-2012 10:46 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I have been pretty leery of criticizing the 47% because the approach I like--negative income tax or Boortz-Linder prebate/prefund--is actually the basic idea behind the credits that are driving a lot of this. I think there are ways to make legitimate substantive criticisms without saying thins that could be interpreted--rightly or wrongly--as attacking a segment of the population.

One day, I'm going to the library so I'd know what the heck you were talking about. But I'm in agreement with the last part.

Try this for the prebate. I'd go with a bit bigger one, because I'd use 30% instead of 23.5%:

http://www.fairtax.org/PDF/2009FairTaxPr...hedule.pdf

And this is a pretty decent explanation of the negative income tax:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_income_tax

(09-18-2012 11:35 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(09-18-2012 10:38 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(09-18-2012 10:28 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  Romney hit the nail on the head. What did he call it? "The makers vs. the takers". I've been saying this for years, but I called it "the productive vs. the unproductive". Thank God someone finally said it and it's out there.

Redistribution of wealth is Obama's reason for living. It's all he cares about. And Romney is opposed to it. Hopefully Romney sticks to his guns on this.

So there are no productive members of society in that 47%? For people who complain about class warfare and division, some of you are praising class warfare and division.

BTW, class warfare has been made a very weak term.

Conservatives are trying to avoid a situation where only 40% of the population pays taxes and the other 60% live off those taxes. That's where we're headed with Obama and the Progressives, and it's a bad place to go.

Well that would be all fine and dandy if that was Romney's intention for saying what he said. Based off of the little context I got, that wasn't it.

(09-18-2012 11:35 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(09-18-2012 10:38 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(09-18-2012 10:28 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  Romney hit the nail on the head. What did he call it? "The makers vs. the takers". I've been saying this for years, but I called it "the productive vs. the unproductive". Thank God someone finally said it and it's out there.

Redistribution of wealth is Obama's reason for living. It's all he cares about. And Romney is opposed to it. Hopefully Romney sticks to his guns on this.

So there are no productive members of society in that 47%? For people who complain about class warfare and division, some of you are praising class warfare and division.

BTW, class warfare has been made a very weak term.

Conservatives are trying to avoid a situation where only 40% of the population pays taxes and the other 60% live off those taxes. That's where we're headed with Obama and the Progressives, and it's a bad place to go.

Dipstick, poor people currently pay a greater percentage of their income in overall taxes than the middle class and the top 1%. Yes, it's not federal income tax, but how much more do you want these folks to give?

(09-18-2012 09:12 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(09-18-2012 09:10 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  If you think the 47% who don't pay federal income tax exclusively vote D you are certifiable.

You thinking 98-99%?

IMO? Probably about 68-70%.

Btw...

Quote:I have been pretty leery of criticizing the 47% because the approach I like--negative income tax or Boortz-Linder prebate/prefund

I catch a bit of Boortz's 'replay' on the way into work.. and he's got some guy Jamie D. (something, don't ever catch his last name) that comes on. Jamie thought Boortz was going to rip Romney a new one for the comment, (as Boortz has admitted, he's not a fan of a number of Romney's policies)

Neal shocked the hell out of him by saying.. "Why would I do that? He's (Romney) was correct".

(09-18-2012 11:59 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Dipstick, poor people currently pay a greater percentage of their income in overall taxes than the middle class and the top 1%. Yes, it's not federal income tax, but how much more do you want these folks to give?

Commie Tommie, lottery tickets don't count dufus.

(09-19-2012 01:59 AM)OLD DIRTY Wrote:  

(09-18-2012 11:59 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Dipstick, poor people currently pay a greater percentage of their income in overall taxes than the middle class and the top 1%. Yes, it's not federal income tax, but how much more do you want these folks to give?

Commie Tommie, lottery tickets don't count dufus.

Actually there is one sense in which the poor pay the highest "tax rate" of anyone. It's called the "welfare trap." From about $15,000 to $55,000 for a family of four in northern Virginia (the subject are for the study I've seen, the numbers vary slightly for other areas, but the concept is the same everywhere), every additional dollar of income results in a dollar lost to the combination of 1) increased taxes and 2) reduced welfare benefits. In effect, that's a 100% tax rate. If moving from a minimum wage to what most would consider a middle class income means zero additional dollars in your pocket, is it any wonder that many people on welfare try to stay there instead of making the effort to move up?

This is one area badly in need of welfare reform.

(09-18-2012 11:59 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Dipstick, poor people currently pay a greater percentage of their income in overall taxes than the middle class and the top 1%. Yes, it's not federal income tax, but how much more do you want these folks to give?

So you are suggesting that governments lower taxes?

(09-18-2012 11:59 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(09-18-2012 11:35 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(09-18-2012 10:38 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(09-18-2012 10:28 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  Romney hit the nail on the head. What did he call it? "The makers vs. the takers". I've been saying this for years, but I called it "the productive vs. the unproductive". Thank God someone finally said it and it's out there.

Redistribution of wealth is Obama's reason for living. It's all he cares about. And Romney is opposed to it. Hopefully Romney sticks to his guns on this.

So there are no productive members of society in that 47%? For people who complain about class warfare and division, some of you are praising class warfare and division.

BTW, class warfare has been made a very weak term.

Conservatives are trying to avoid a situation where only 40% of the population pays taxes and the other 60% live off those taxes. That's where we're headed with Obama and the Progressives, and it's a bad place to go.

Dipstick, poor people currently pay a greater percentage of their income in overall taxes than the middle class and the top 1%. Yes, it's not federal income tax, but how much more do you want these folks to give?

The "poor" have cars, air conditioning, flat screen TV's, cell phones, food stamps, free medical care .... they live like the upper class in most other countries. They're not the abused, downtrodden "victims" of corporate America ("Republicans") that liberals like to portray.

I just want everyone to pay a fair flat tax.

(09-19-2012 06:15 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(09-18-2012 11:59 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Dipstick, poor people currently pay a greater percentage of their income in overall taxes than the middle class and the top 1%. Yes, it's not federal income tax, but how much more do you want these folks to give?

So you are suggesting that governments lower taxes?

I have never been opposed to targeted tax cuts ever. I've just never believed that they alone will magically result in increased revenue by the treasury.

But I also want taxes increased on the top levels though.

(09-19-2012 09:07 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(09-19-2012 06:15 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(09-18-2012 11:59 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Dipstick, poor people currently pay a greater percentage of their income in overall taxes than the middle class and the top 1%. Yes, it's not federal income tax, but how much more do you want these folks to give?

So you are suggesting that governments lower taxes?

I have never been opposed to targeted tax cuts ever. I've just never believed that they alone will magically result in increased revenue by the treasury.

But I also want taxes increased on the top levels though.

40% of their earnings isn't enough?