[VIDEO] Romney: Obama Voters Dependent on Govt.

Asked and answered many times. Keep trying to change the subject, I'll keep it on track.

See post #68. The elderly and disabled do not have TAXABLE INCOME. And are not the subject. The subject is those working people with jobs and income that pay nothing in and take billions OUT. The actual disabled do not have taxable income. Few of the elderly have taxable income.
The disabled because they cannot earn income and the elderly because their SS income is their money being returned after being used and abused by the govt.

Romney said the vote of the 47% would not go to him. He was right. He could also add that their vote doesn't matter. Few of them will vote. b.o. got elected on their vote. They didn't vote before b.o. and they won't vote for him again. WHY, because he's done such a miserable job? He has, but, no, they won't vote for him because he's being unreasonable asking them to get off their asses again. They did vote for him, now its up to him. They'll be home or in the bar watching the game. The seniors you keep lamely trying to include will be voting for Romney.

 

They're precisely the subject as they fall into the category of those who do not pay federal income tax. The topic of this conversation.

Like a family of 5 who makes $50k a year. You're issues with the tax system, not those who are the beneficiaries of it.

Nope, he's wrong. Unless you can make the case that everyone making less than ~$35k a year vote Democrat, and you won't since Red states tend to be net consumers of federal government handouts (via farm subsidies and other expenditures) while blue states are net contributors.

 

IOW he didn't and you can't show where he said the are IRRESPONSIBLE or are you claiming anyone on government welfare or substance in irresponsible?

 

How does that mitigate the fact that almost half the country pays no income tax and rely on transfer payments in one shape or form, that that number is growing and unsustainable?

Are you arguing that that is better than having more people working in private jobs earning good incomes and paying taxes?

 

That's Mitts claim, or else he wouldn't have said "I'll never convince them that they should take responsibility and care for their lives". That's calling them irresponsible.

Once more... don't play dumb, please. It's pretty ridiculous.

 

It doesn't at all, there's a lot of places to spread blame around, but the fact that a lot of those folks who are receiving transfers wake up and go to work every day changes the dialog doesn't it? It certainly undermines the caricatures of the welfare queen or the lazy bum mooching off the system.

I don't support a living wage or a drastically higher minimum wage, but something isn't right with the tax system when someone works 40 hours a week and still can't get by without a refund.

My problem is with the tax system, not those who benefit from it, which includes a lot of folks not in that ~45%.

No way! But what do we do with folks who have skills that are no longer valuable?

 

Of everything he said in that footage, this was the worst for his campaign. I guess my blind aunt who is single with no children should stop living off of government benefits and start taking responsibility for her life.

 

He is partly correct. Not all the 47% are dependent on government. Some of us work at the low income level, but do not bother with food stamps etc.

It is not really that big a deal anyway. If you go back and get everything that every politician has said, including the now popular Clinton, or the once leading candidate Newt Gingrich, you see they all make exaggerated claims depending on which group they are talking to.

Its already old news now. On to Romney vs Obama in debate,and maybe we can get some specifics from EITHER of these guys??

 

Screw America.

 

So where did he say the are irresponsible and anyone, still waiting. Is he wrong in that someone who is relies on government to provide their housing, their health care their food and other needs when they could do so for themselves is not taking responsibility for their own needs? Is someone actiing "irresponsible" because they take advantage of such government subsistence. I don't know that you call it that, but many could certainly take MORE responsibility for their own lives.

Now his point was that we as a society and a country as we know it cannot survive when the majority rely on government subsistence and do not take responsibility for their own lives. Do you agree or not?

 

When you take someone's very general statement, as Romney was making in an informal chat with supporters and try to parse it as is being done you engage in folly. His larger point and he was very correct is that we have a choice. Vote Obama if you want more being relying on government to meet their, ie not taking personal responsibility for their own lives and government not just willing to provide for them but to expand and enhance that subsistence. Or you can vote for Romney if you want to move people on government subsistence back into the workforce where they will become taxpayers and grow the economy and grow tax revenues and provide for themselves. That the choice is so clear the Obama supporters must try to turn it into an argument such as "that mean old Romney called people irresponsible, don't vote for him" rather than engage in an intellectual argument as the merits of his position on the matter.

 

The problem with the conservative argument: they claim Romney is right in claiming 47% of people do not pay INCOME tax but they give no feasible alternative solution. Demographically, this 47% falls into a few categories, those very poor who make under the minimum for paying income tax who pay payroll taxes and those very rich who have found tax loopholes and off-shore safe havens for their money. Out of these logistically the lower income people make up a greater amount of that 47% and would be easier to go after and get an income tax on.

 

Those in the lower income groups get their payroll taxes reimbursed. How come that fact has to repeated so often. Who is it that tells you they pay payroll roll taxes when in fact FICA reimburses them for them? This oft repeated myth total distorts what the true tax picture. The 47% goes up to the median income. Or let's just look at it this way, the bottom 50% pay about 2% of income taxes. Is that fair? Can we really survive if half the people pay virtually no taxes to the federal government and yet seem so willing to vote themselves largesses from the federal treasury?

And the myth of the rich, if they have all those loopholes and off-shore havens how come the top 1% pay FORTY PERCENT OF INCOME TAXES? How come the top 25% pay over NINETY PERCENT OF INCOME TAXES? And if you want to get rid of those loopholes then vote for Romney and Ryan! They are the ones talking eliminating them.

 

the same part... when he said he could never convince them that they should take responsibility for their lives. Suggesting that someone take responsibility is a result of the perception that they lack responsibility. You couldn't have possibly needed that explanation. Seriously, is there a problem?

Which is the disconnect (emphasis mine) that he, you, and every "supporter" of the comment choose to promote. It is an assumption that the entire group is comprised of able-bodied moochers.

a new TPC paper shows that about half of people who don’t owe income tax are off the rolls not because they take advantage of tax breaks but rather because they have low incomes. For example, a couple with two children earning less than $26,400 will pay no federal income tax this year because their $11,600 standard deduction and four exemptions of $3,700 each reduce their taxable income to zero. The basic structure of the income tax simply exempts subsistence levels of income from tax.



What about the rest of the untaxed households, the 23 percent of households who don’t pay income tax because of particular tax breaks? We divided tax expenditures (special provisions in the tax code that benefit particular taxpayers or activities) into eight categories and asked which ones made the most people nontaxable. The conclusion: Three-fourths of those households pay no income tax because of provisions that benefit senior citizens and low-income working families with children. Those provisions include the exclusion of some Social Security benefits from taxable income, the tax credit and extra standard deduction for the elderly, and the child, earned income, and childcare tax credits that primarily help low-income workers with children (see graph). Extending the example offered above, the couple could earn an additional $19,375 without paying income tax because their pre-credit tax liability of $2,056 would be wiped out by a $2,000 child tax credit and $57 of EITC.

A great question for Mitt Romney.

Which he could've stated himself... but he didn't. Instead of saying "there's nothing wrong with people taking advantage of the expenditures we've afforded them... I've done it myself, and said as much when my opponent attempted to use my offshore accounts, which are perfectly legal. My job is to change the culture we've created for our citizens". Instead, he painted a picture of "47% that lack responsibility, and think they're victims". Don't put words in the mouths of poeple who are smart enough to make them on their own.

 

Funny when you have no idea what you are talking about. 47% pay no "income taxes", the article linked to was about "taxes" which if you ask a liberal the "contributions to government insurance programs" are not taxes at all but now they seem to suddenly think it is important to do an about face.

Now about the Romney remark.

Here is what Jay Carney said about Obama when Carney was working at the Washington Times.

My how things change when the shoe is on the other foot.

 

This is one item the IRS needs to implement on tax forms. An option for all or a portion of your returns to go toward "entitlements" of your personal choice, for others. I think for a the liberal minds that would be an awesome way to SHOW that you are leading with your own money the ideas you want to impose on the nation as a whole.

I think all Americans should have healthcare, but if you choose to have a big home you can't pay for, a big fancy car with 22" rims, a 60" tv, designer clothes..............and be without healthcare that's your choice. But I'm not going to pay for your healthcare by raising MY taxes when YOU could afford it yourself if you made better choices about your personal economical lifestyle.

 

So they need to stop reimbursing them their payroll taxes. And they need to start applying the income tax on all individuals making money in this country. And those that can't make the cut fall through and become bankrupt and starve to death? Exemplary example of a 1st world society that cares for its own, a society like this exists in today's world? If so would you be willing to point out models that work not only in theory but also in reality?

 

Yes, and? Obama voters are social parasites. In other news, water is wet.

 

So it is YOUR Position that anyone who is on government welfare is irresponsible..........gotcha since Romney didn't say it.

I promote the idea that almost half the country now pays no income taxes and is recieiving some form of government assistance and that that number is increasing, and has done so dramatically under this President and we cannot sustain that.

Yes, and? They also get refundable tax credits and MAKE money off the tax system. The top 1% pay FORTY PERCENT OF INCOME TAXES while the bottom 50% pay virtually nothing and the left claims that is unfair and we must raise taxes even more on the top 1%. As has been said this country will fail when the citizenry realizes they can vote themselves largesses, when the majority don't pay taxes they become much more willing to raise tax rates on the minority that does.

 

Let's look at what doesn't work..........Greece. What does work is exactly what Gingrich and Kasich passed and forced on Clinton. Cut welfare dependence and put people back to work.

Do you believe one citizen has a rightful claim on someone else earnings?

 

Your vision of America has existed before, prior to the Great Depression of 1929. A generation of Americans learned self-sacrifice in both the Great Depression as well as World War II. Since then America has not gone back to the pre-Depression era of oil moguls and steel tycoons dictated by a man's greed but recently we did have a brush in with corporate moguls. You have a cynical view of people, stemming out of the assumption that most people are inherently lazy? The only way I could see Americans at the bottom of the tax bracket paying taxes would be if they were willing to lower their own standard of living to that of a similar individual in developing countries like Mexico or India, but then that would create a stratified class system. There is no feasible way to maintain standard of living while having everyone pay equal taxes and no politician will admit to lowering the standard of living of a group of Americans based on their earnings.

 

It existed just recently in the late 70's and in the 90's and between 2003 and 2007.

And now under Obama they learn government dependence.

I have a cynical view? I believe in people, I believe people do best when they are free to act in their own best interest with the least government intrusion in their lives and without government dependence. I think your view is stemming out of the false assumption that to end poverty and government subsistence you make it more comfortable and lucrative. The welfare reform Gingrich and Kasich force on Clinton cut the welfare roles in half and it put people to work and made taxpayers out of them. That is why the budgets went into surplus, more tax payers, less people on government dependence.

Our poor live better lives than the average working family of the 60's. But if the bottom means you are making $50,000 a year, shouldn't you be paying taxes? And that's what we need to do, put those at the bottom to work. Obama wants to just give them more free stuff and make it easier for them to not have to go to work. He assumes everyone given the choice of getting $40,000 a year by going to work every morning or getting $40,000 a year sitting at home everyone will choose the former. We need to grow the economy not the government dependence and Obama has no plan to do that.

No one is proposing that.

 

Sure, he did. It just doesn't vibe well with the wall in reason you've conveniently created for yourself. He suggested that there's nothing he could do to convince a people that they should take responsibility and care for their lives, which is suggesting they lack the quality... thereby calling them irresponsible. Simple.

The various array of expenditures/codes know no exclusive party signature. You "promote responsibility" without calling to question the candidate that recently defended himself by claiming that nothing he's done (tax wise) is illegal. He's merely taking advantage of the codes that benefit his bracket... wasn't that the argument? That in mind, who would Mitt be to call people "victims" for taking similar advantage of what's been afforded to them? Which brings me to another portion you deleted:

Instead of saying "there's nothing wrong with people taking advantage of the expenditures we've afforded them... I've done it myself, and said as much when my opponent attempted to use my offshore accounts, which are perfectly legal. My job is to change the culture we've created for our citizens". Instead, he painted a picture of "47% that lack responsibility, and think they're victims". Don't put words in the mouths of poeple who are smart enough to make them on their own.​

 

Just pointing out time periods when republican administrations were in the executive and claiming that these periods were an example of the America of pre-Great Depression is not only false but also conveys to me that you did not understand what I meant. Now I am working under the assumption that your study of history was limited to basic high school history which is highly liberal. I am assuming now that you did not take history in college because you didn't catch what I meant by my pre-Great Depression statements, correct me with your views if I am wrong.

Second, I am assuming you mean Obama is teaching the World War II generation how to take handouts? Most of these people are probably around age 80-90, I think they deserve whatever help they can get from the government or us. If it's not them I am assuming you think he is teaching our generation how to take handouts? He is to blame for welfare, social security, food stamps, veterans benefits, disability benefits? Really these programs were passed under his administration? They did not exist when Bush, Clinton, Bush Sr, Reagan, Carter etc. were president? I thought FDR passed social security reform?

And you pulled a Romney by flip-flopping in the middle of your conversation by saying you are not viewing people as lazy. You said people are not lazy, but Obama has no right to assume they aren't lazy? WHAT ARE YOU TRYING TO SAY?

 

[QUOTEVenom;1061754029]Sure, he did. It just doesn't vibe well with the wall in reason you've conveniently created for yourself. He suggested that there's nothing he could do to convince a people that they should take responsibility and care for their lives, which is suggesting they lack the quality... thereby calling them irresponsible. Simple.
[/quote]
Those are your words not his. He said he could not convince the to vote for him. Why do you have such a need to lie about it?

Can you try to make some sense?

And you can't make the intellectual distinction between those who give and those who receive?

What 'expendititures' are you talking about? And you do know his offshore accounts are taxed?