By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - Romney doesn't care about 47% of americans

kaneada on 20 September 2012
WiiBox3 said:

That was supposed to make sense?



-- Nothing is nicer than seeing your PS3 on an HDTV through an HDMI cable for the first time.

Around the Network
WiiBox3 on 20 September 2012
kaneada said:
WiiBox3 said:

That was supposed to make sense?


That's why it's funny. This is how Romney feels about 47% of Americans.



kain_kusanagi on 20 September 2012
kaneada said:
kain_kusanagi said:
The problem with this thread is that it assumes that the "47%" statement is wrong. It's not. 46.4% of America does not pay federal income tax. Go check for yourself. A person who's not paying taxes isn't going to vote for anything that will require them to pay even a small amount of their share.

The hard reality is that too many Americans are on the government dole. A person who is receiving money from the government is less likely to vote for anything that could reduce or eliminate that income. It's as simple as that. There are people who need help, but too many are taking advantage of a broken welfare system. Should we take care of our veterans? Yes. Should we allow an able bodied fourth generation welfare recipient to never get a job? No. There needs to be a path to self reliance. A government safety net is good, but we've let it become a comfortable hammock that too many are content to rest on forever.

The problem is that number keeps creeping up. If it ever dips beyond 49% or overflows past 50% then this country will be in real danger of failing. The minority can't take care of the majority. Right now 53% of America is paying the taxes that the 47% are not. A lot of people like to say that things aren't fair in America. Well how is it fair that nearly half of the population isn't doing their share and wants the half that is paying to pay more?

Romney's only mistake was forgetting that people don't like the truth if it embarrasses them.

What's the break down of this number? How many fourth generation welfare recipients are there actually in America? That number can't be that large.

Romney is hardly a poster child for truth and is a poor candidate for commander in chief...we all know that Paul was the best the GOP had to offer, but was snuffed out, despite the fact that he is the best thing this country has seen in a long time.

Fourth Gen welfare was just a single example of what's wrong, obviously it's not the only problem. It doesn't really matter what the actual number is, there are too many people content with living on perpetual welfare because the state doesn't even require volunteer work from their able bodies recipients.

Oh and while I do agree with many of Ron Paul's economical views, I think his foreign policies amount to isolation and surrender. Unless you're talking about Paul Ryan, who I'd rather have for president than either candidate.



whatever on 20 September 2012
kain_kusanagi said:
The problem with this thread is that it assumes that the "47%" statement is wrong. It's not. 46.4% of America does not pay federal income tax. Go check for yourself. A person who's not paying taxes isn't going to vote for anything that will require them to pay even a small amount of their share.

The hard reality is that too many Americans are on the government dole. A person who is receiving money from the government is less likely to vote for anything that could reduce or eliminate that income. It's as simple as that. There are people who need help, but too many are taking advantage of a broken welfare system. Should we take care of our veterans? Yes. Should we allow an able bodied fourth generation welfare recipient to never get a job? No. There needs to be a path to self reliance. A government safety net is good, but we've let it become a comfortable hammock that too many are content to rest on forever.

The problem is that number keeps creeping up. If it ever dips beyond 49% or overflows past 50% then this country will be in real danger of failing. The minority can't take care of the majority. Right now 53% of America is paying the taxes that the 47% are not. A lot of people like to say that things aren't fair in America. Well how is it fair that nearly half of the population isn't doing their share and wants the half that is paying to pay more?

Romney's only mistake was forgetting that people don't like the truth if it embarrasses them.

Funny how people equate not paying income tax with not paying ANY taxes.  Simply not true (go check for yourself).  And to equate not paying taxes as being dependent on the government is also factually inaccurate.  Since churches don't pay taxes, I guess that makes them and anyone that attends church as dependent on the government also.



steverhcp02 on 20 September 2012

Im not sure how this discussion has went this long without someone pointing out that the reason this is huge is not that it unveiled not any percent of people receiving government assistance. Its that he said

"I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives."

The problem is hes admitting that the caricature that all of us "liberals" have of Romney, you know, what the entire RNC was trying to prove was false, that Romney and the like are nothing but disdainful rich guys who were born on third, and got home on a sac fly hit by the middle class then wonder how they made it home and we all hit a fly ball out, then they point to the scoreboard and say "see we scored a run cause i made it home", are exactly who we make them out to be.

Notice he doesnt stutter, hes more fluid, this is what he feels. Hes not talking circles around an idea hes simply stating it matter of factly. Granted thats my personal impression and not science but it strikes me as very heartfelt, what hes saying.

Now, if someone wants to start debating that veterans, elderly, unemployed all who receive government assistance should learn to take personal responsibility for their lives, then go ahead.

Also in one of the republican debates when Gingrich said he wanted to make the tax rate on capital gains 0% to which Mitt respnoded saying if that were true hed pay 0% taxes, which means........he currently pays 0% or little INCOME TAXES. Which is exactly the people he cant convince to take control of their lives or personal responsibility. Interesting.

Personally i dont think we can have a president who feels this way, that people who receive assistance dont want to take personal responsibility and the majority of americans agree with me which is why Obama will win a second term.




Get Your Portable ID!

Around the Network
kain_kusanagi on 20 September 2012
whatever said:
kain_kusanagi said:
The problem with this thread is that it assumes that the "47%" statement is wrong. It's not. 46.4% of America does not pay federal income tax. Go check for yourself. A person who's not paying taxes isn't going to vote for anything that will require them to pay even a small amount of their share.

The hard reality is that too many Americans are on the government dole. A person who is receiving money from the government is less likely to vote for anything that could reduce or eliminate that income. It's as simple as that. There are people who need help, but too many are taking advantage of a broken welfare system. Should we take care of our veterans? Yes. Should we allow an able bodied fourth generation welfare recipient to never get a job? No. There needs to be a path to self reliance. A government safety net is good, but we've let it become a comfortable hammock that too many are content to rest on forever.

The problem is that number keeps creeping up. If it ever dips beyond 49% or overflows past 50% then this country will be in real danger of failing. The minority can't take care of the majority. Right now 53% of America is paying the taxes that the 47% are not. A lot of people like to say that things aren't fair in America. Well how is it fair that nearly half of the population isn't doing their share and wants the half that is paying to pay more?

Romney's only mistake was forgetting that people don't like the truth if it embarrasses them.

Funny how people equate not paying income tax with not paying ANY taxes.  Simply not true (go check for yourself).  And to equate not paying taxes as being dependent on the government is also factually inaccurate.  Since churches don't pay taxes, I guess that makes them and anyone that attends church as dependent on the government also.

Paying a few bucks for payroll is not the same and even insinuating that nonprofit charitable organization's are freeloaders is about as ridicules as any argument could possibly be. I didn't equate dependency and taxes. I discussed two interlinking problems.



HappySqurriel on 20 September 2012
kaneada said:

1) Yeah and has religious indoctrination and education rates been tested against that? Availablity of birthcontrol does not mean that women have been educated on its existence, proper use, or that the education they recieved teaches that birth control is effective. Also consider the steep incline in population since the 1960's...that is going to inflate that number of 'poor choices.'

2) I lived in a primarily rural area for 14 years. I can tell you most of my friends were preganant before they left high school. None of them on birth control, most of them because their familes were either A) poor, B) highly religous and against birth control and or, C) completely unapproachable about sex and its reprecutions. Even worse, half were married before they could even go to college. Despite the non-availablity (either from lack of money or denial of permission) these women were still having sex and producing children they could not afford. So a good percetage of that number can be attributed to ignorance and or education.

3) Now you want to talk about me and my wife, both of which have had multiple sexual partners (mine being right around 20 and hers being damn near 100) both practicing safe sex either through use of condoms, birth control...I'm 31, she's 27, there are no children between us either from previous sexual relationships or the current ones...Now living in a major metropolitan area, most of the working professionals are around my age or younger...most don't have kids or if they do they were planned. Most of the girls are highly sexual and do not have comitted relationships. The reason? They simply don't have time, they are too busy working, but becuase sex is pleasureable, so they have their 'friends', a very loose term for whoever is cute, decent in bed, and they met at club wherever.

4) Get out of town a little bit (about 20 miles west) its an area high concentrated by Mexican familes, of which have meager incomes, non-skilled workers, who are mostly catholic...every single one of them have kids (between 3-5 on average.) Point being, your statistics may be accurate, but either they don't or you aren't addressing all the factors which may be because you didn't consider them or because you don't want to consider them.

Correlation is not causation.


1) I'm certain that more people are using birth control effectively today than before birth control was widely available. Beyond that, the vast majority of statistics are controlled for population growth and are done as a percentage or a rate per 100000.

2) Ignorance plays a big part of it, but it could be argued that these young girls (and young boys) are ignorant of the consequences of their actions. I'm certain that in the 1940s few daughters were told that sex is no big deal ...

3) There have been several studies done on the relationship between the number of pre-marital sexual partners and divorce rates and there is a direct correlation between the two. From what I remember (off the top of my head) if one partner had 20 or more sexual partners the divorce rate is (something like) 80% after 10 years. The most often cited reason for this is infidelity ...

4) How many of those Mexican families have children to unwed mothers?

 

I'm not saying that people shouldn't have pre-marital sex, but the elimination of consequences for poor decisions to encourage treating sex as a recreational activity has many demonstrated negative consequences. Diseases that were once relatively well controlled (like syphilis) are becomming drug resistent because the is a growing population of morons who believe that there are no consequences for (often unprotected) sex with strangers

https://www.google.ca/search?q=drug+resistance+syphilis



whatever on 20 September 2012
kain_kusanagi said:
whatever said:
kain_kusanagi said:
The problem with this thread is that it assumes that the "47%" statement is wrong. It's not. 46.4% of America does not pay federal income tax. Go check for yourself. A person who's not paying taxes isn't going to vote for anything that will require them to pay even a small amount of their share.

The hard reality is that too many Americans are on the government dole. A person who is receiving money from the government is less likely to vote for anything that could reduce or eliminate that income. It's as simple as that. There are people who need help, but too many are taking advantage of a broken welfare system. Should we take care of our veterans? Yes. Should we allow an able bodied fourth generation welfare recipient to never get a job? No. There needs to be a path to self reliance. A government safety net is good, but we've let it become a comfortable hammock that too many are content to rest on forever.

The problem is that number keeps creeping up. If it ever dips beyond 49% or overflows past 50% then this country will be in real danger of failing. The minority can't take care of the majority. Right now 53% of America is paying the taxes that the 47% are not. A lot of people like to say that things aren't fair in America. Well how is it fair that nearly half of the population isn't doing their share and wants the half that is paying to pay more?

Romney's only mistake was forgetting that people don't like the truth if it embarrasses them.

Funny how people equate not paying income tax with not paying ANY taxes.  Simply not true (go check for yourself).  And to equate not paying taxes as being dependent on the government is also factually inaccurate.  Since churches don't pay taxes, I guess that makes them and anyone that attends church as dependent on the government also.

Paying a few bucks for payroll is not the same and even insinuating that nonprofit charitable organization's are freeloaders is about as ridicules as any argument could possibly be. I didn't equate dependency and taxes. I discussed two interlinking problems.

 

A few bucks?  Please, learn before you speak (or type in this instance).  Insinuating that church's that don't pay taxes are freeloaders is not any more ridiculous than claiming anyone is a freeloader just because they don't pay income tax.

Romney's "claim" certainly did equate dependency and taxes.  And since you agree with it, how am I supposed to figure out that you don't equate the 2.



badgenome on 20 September 2012
steverhcp02 said:
Also in one of the republican debates when Gingrich said he wanted to make the tax rate on capital gains 0% to which Mitt respnoded saying if that were true hed pay 0% taxes, which means........he currently pays 0% or little INCOME TAXES. Which is exactly the people he cant convince to take control of their lives or personal responsibility. Interesting.

How do you figure that? The rate on capital gains isn't currently 0%, except in the case of long term investments for people in the very lowest tax bracket. Otherwise you're paying anywhere from 10-35% on cap gains.

In case you're confused, the cap gains tax is an income tax. It's just taxed at a different rate.



Mr Khan on 20 September 2012
badgenome said:
Mr Khan said:

Romania's as fucked up as it is because Caucescu decided to ban all birth control in an effort to get a bigger labor force. It didn't help things.

Also, i can't believe anyone's suggesting that needy children should be tossed off of welfare to prevent the births of more needy children. That's just heartless.

Because welfare is the only way to take care of the needy. You really need to read Bastiat.

"Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all. We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education. We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all. We object to a state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality. And so on, and so on. It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain."

I can think of a lot of reasons why Romania's fucked up. A long dead dictator banning birth control isn't in the top 10.

Whoever that is is doing a bad job of being clever.

The understanding, here, is that society is capable of being just as oppressive as the state is, and so the state needs to work to stamp out societal oppression, without itself being unduly oppressive.



Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.