Romney is by admission is anti %47 Obama is anti %1 and Obama is a class Warrior ?
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Romney is by admission is anti %47 Obama is anti %1 and Obama is a class Warrior ?[/quote]
LOL at this post man.
I love how people upset about “you didn’t build that” are blasted for “taking it out of context” yet you can take what Romney was saying out of context and all is good in the world.
Love liberal logic.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Romney is by admission is anti %47 Obama is anti %1 and Obama is a class Warrior ?[/quote]
LOL at this post man.
I love how people upset about “you didn’t build that” are blasted for “taking it out of context” yet you can take what Romney was saying out of context and all is good in the world.
Love liberal logic.[/quote]
Just look at who wrote it chuckle and move on.
I don’t think his comment indicated he was anti that 47%. I could say something like 47% of models would never date me, but that doesn’t mean I would take them if they changed their mind.
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
I don’t think his comment indicated he was anti that 47%. I could say something like 47% of models would never date me, but that doesn’t mean I would take them if they changed their mind.[/quote]
Good point. I don’t see it as a huge deal.
Politically, anything that blunt is dangerous. And saying that half of this country is made up of victims is stupid and not true, especially considering that that 47 percent is partially made up of old people living off SS (which they paid into for decades), the working poor who simply don’t have taxable income after standard deductions and personal exemptions, disabled veterans, etc. It even includes about 1500 millionaires.
So, a poorly-phrased and somewhat misleading sentiment? Yes. Class warfare? No. Proof that Romney doesn’t care about the poor? No.
Will it be overblown like “you didn’t build that” and “I like to fire people?” Of course.
Romney never said he was against the 47%. He just stated the fact that a huge percentage of the population vote to put money in their own pocket, and that means they won’t vote for him.
In other news, the sky is blue, grass is green, and the emperor has no clothes.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
I don’t think his comment indicated he was anti that 47%. I could say something like 47% of models would never date me, but that doesn’t mean I would take them if they changed their mind.[/quote]
Good point. I don’t see it as a huge deal.
Politically, anything that blunt is dangerous. And saying that half of this country is made up of victims is stupid and not true, especially considering that that 47 percent is partially made up of old people living off SS (which they paid into for decades), the working poor who simply don’t have taxable income after standard deductions and personal exemptions, disabled veterans, etc. It even includes about 1500 millionaires.
So, a poorly-phrased and somewhat misleading sentiment? Yes. Class warfare? No. Proof that Romney doesn’t care about the poor? No.
Will it be overblown like “you didn’t build that” and “I like to fire people?” Of course.[/quote]
Good post.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
Politically, anything that blunt is dangerous. And saying that half of this country is made up of victims is stupid and not true, especially considering that that 47 percent is partially made up of old people living off SS (which they paid into for decades), the working poor who simply don’t have taxable income after standard deductions and personal exemptions, disabled veterans, etc. It even includes about 1500 millionaires.[/quote]
Actually, the majority of people on SS are taking money they didn’t put in. The average person takes out going on 3 times the amount that they put in. So, most of them would still count in the statistic.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
Politically, anything that blunt is dangerous. And saying that half of this country is made up of victims is stupid and not true, especially considering that that 47 percent is partially made up of old people living off SS (which they paid into for decades), the working poor who simply don’t have taxable income after standard deductions and personal exemptions, disabled veterans, etc. It even includes about 1500 millionaires.[/quote]
Actually, the majority of people on SS are taking money they didn’t put in. The average person takes out going on 3 times the amount that they put in. So, most of them would still count in the statistic.[/quote]
That’s right. I didn’t mean to imply that they were taking just what they had contributed. The point is that my uncle living off SS isn’t exactly a freeloading victim. And even if you think he is, you shouldn’t tell him so as a politician.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
Politically, anything that blunt is dangerous. And saying that half of this country is made up of victims is stupid and not true, especially considering that that 47 percent is partially made up of old people living off SS (which they paid into for decades), the working poor who simply don’t have taxable income after standard deductions and personal exemptions, disabled veterans, etc. It even includes about 1500 millionaires.[/quote]
Actually, the majority of people on SS are taking money they didn’t put in. The average person takes out going on 3 times the amount that they put in. So, most of them would still count in the statistic.[/quote]
SS is a ponzi scheme. If you were to set up an anuity like that privately you would be arrested. Let’s look at it, shall we?
ACtual numbers, from a very real person:
Total benefits - 15,294
Medicare protion - 1,158
Net SS benefit - 14,136
So, the tax rate for SS is normally 6.2% (Obama dropped it to 4.2% in 2010 or 2011)
14,136 / .062 = 228,000 This means the SS benefits collected in 2011 for this individual where paid by $228,000 worth of wages.
So lets assume the person lives 20 years on SS. 228,000 x 20 = 4,560,000. That means over the life of collecting SS they will bring home the taxes paid in on $4.6 million dollars worth of wages.
Lets assume they paid into SS for 50 years. 4,560,000 / 50 = 91,200. That means this person would have had to pay in on an average of $91k of wages throughout their working life to “get back what they paid in”. The person in this example retired making below 40k a year.
Now I have no problem giving the old, retired, sick, disabled and otherwise incapable such a small amount of money to live on, in fact I would forgo my benefits, and still pay in to help fix the mess that is SS. But to say they aren’t in fact getting back more than they put in and living off of today’s payers is false.
EDIT: to be fair, the less time someone lives on SS, the more likely they are to cover their benefits assuming a long pay in period.
SS demands constant working population growth and wage growth to be viable.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
The point is that my uncle living off SS isn’t exactly a freeloading victim. [/quote]
No he isn’t, not likely at least. There is SS fraud, but more likely than not, he isn’t one of them.
Romney could have made the distinction between those not paying income tax, and those expecting the government to handle their responsibilities and engineer “social justice”. But he didn’t, and it is unfortunate, because some of the latter make quite a bit more than I do. cough Liz Warren cough
Romney’s transgression is pointing out what is a well known and accepted reality in socialist countries. In Britain they call this the “client state”. What they mean by the client state is the people who are heavily dependent upon the state for their existence. While the welfare recipients at the bottom are the most obvious there are other groups, some of whom are very well paid.
For example in Europe they have a type of tax known as “value added tax” or VAT. It is commonly misunderstood to be a sales tax but it isn’t. Whenever a something is turned into a manufactured good each step in the process adds value. VAT taxes each incremental increase in value. Now in order to do this, the government literally needs an army of tax assessors and you can’t just hire a high school graduate to do this. That is why the minimum level of a VAT has to be at least fifteen percent just to support the massive bureaucracy needed to assess and collect it.
Another aspect of the client state are Quango’s Quango - Wikipedia
Quango or qango is an acronym meaning quasi-autonomous non-governmental organisation used chiefly in the United Kingdom and Ireland, but also elsewhere, to label an organization to which government has devolved power. In the United Kingdom the official term is “non-departmental public body” or NDPB. International Organization for Standardization, which is a network of the national standards institutes of countries and Forestry Commission, which is a non-ministerial government department responsible for forestry in Great Britain can be a form of Quango.
Criticisms
Depending upon one’s point of view, the separation of a quango from government might be either to allow its specified functions to be more commercially exercised, independently of politics and changeable government priorities, and unencumbered by civil service practices and bureaucracy; or else to allow an elected minister to exercise patronage, and extend their influence beyond their term of office, while evading responsibility for the expenditure of public money and the exercise of legal powers. Quangos have also been criticised by the right wing as inherently undemocratic, expensive and conducive to over-extending government.[citation needed]
The Times has accused quangos of bureaucratic waste and excess.[11] In 2005, Dan Lewis, author of The Essential Guide to Quangos, for example, claimed that the UK had 529 quangos, many of which were useless and duplicated the work of others. In August 2008, a report by the right-leaning pressure group the Taxpayers’ Alliance, claimed that £15 billion was being wasted by the regional development agencies, quangos set up with the stated goal of encouraging economic development in their respective English regions.[12]
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
I don’t think his comment indicated he was anti that 47%. I could say something like 47% of models would never date me, but that doesn’t mean I would take them if they changed their mind.[/quote]
Good point. I don’t see it as a huge deal.
Politically, anything that blunt is dangerous. And saying that half of this country is made up of victims is stupid and not true, especially considering that that 47 percent is partially made up of old people living off SS (which they paid into for decades), the working poor who simply don’t have taxable income after standard deductions and personal exemptions, disabled veterans, etc. It even includes about 1500 millionaires.
So, a poorly-phrased and somewhat misleading sentiment? Yes. Class warfare? No. Proof that Romney doesn’t care about the poor? No.
Will it be overblown like “you didn’t build that” and “I like to fire people?” Of course.[/quote]
Excellent (as usual) post, smh.
One thing (among many) that I’m really fed up with (and have been so) for some time is “gotcha” politics…taking a comment out of context (and in many cases even “clipping and pasting” the original comment to support ones point) and blowing it up to have much more meaning than it should have.
And EACH SIDE HAS BEEN GUILTY OF IT!
By the way; Romney expressed a sentiment that has been repeated OVER and OVER on this site; that nearly 1/2 of Americans are free-loading, Occupy-Type losers, ready and willing to Vote for the President to continue “giving them stuff”; when in fact (as you stated, smh) a large % of that 47 or so % are the working poor and the elderly.
Mufasa
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
I don’t think his comment indicated he was anti that 47%. I could say something like 47% of models would never date me, but that doesn’t mean I would take them if they changed their mind.[/quote]
Good point. I don’t see it as a huge deal.
Politically, anything that blunt is dangerous. And saying that half of this country is made up of victims is stupid and not true, especially considering that that 47 percent is partially made up of old people living off SS (which they paid into for decades), the working poor who simply don’t have taxable income after standard deductions and personal exemptions, disabled veterans, etc. It even includes about 1500 millionaires.
So, a poorly-phrased and somewhat misleading sentiment? Yes. Class warfare? No. Proof that Romney doesn’t care about the poor? No.
Will it be overblown like “you didn’t build that” and “I like to fire people?” Of course.[/quote]
Excellent (as usual) post, smh.
One thing (among many) that I’m really fed up with (and have been so) for some time is “gotcha” politics…taking a comment out of context (and in many cases even “clipping and pasting” the original comment to support ones point) and blowing it up to have much more meaning than it should have.
And EACH SIDE HAS BEEN GUILTY OF IT!
By the way; Romney expressed a sentiment that has been repeated OVER and OVER on this site; that nearly 1/2 of Americans are free-loading, Occupy-Type losers, ready and willing to Vote for the President to continue “giving them stuff”; when in fact (as you stated, smh) a large % of that 47 or so % are the working poor and the elderly.
Mufasa[/quote]
It does not really matter who or what they are.
What matters from a specific point of view is that they do not want their suggardaddy to be defunded.
- Their “funding” will continue, independent of who is President, and
2)There is a more than significant number of those “freeloaders” who wouldn’t give President Obama a drink of water in a desert.
Mufasa
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
I don’t think his comment indicated he was anti that 47%. I could say something like 47% of models would never date me, but that doesn’t mean I would take them if they changed their mind.[/quote]
Good point. I don’t see it as a huge deal.
Politically, anything that blunt is dangerous. And saying that half of this country is made up of victims is stupid and not true, especially considering that that 47 percent is partially made up of old people living off SS (which they paid into for decades), the working poor who simply don’t have taxable income after standard deductions and personal exemptions, disabled veterans, etc. It even includes about 1500 millionaires.
So, a poorly-phrased and somewhat misleading sentiment? Yes. Class warfare? No. Proof that Romney doesn’t care about the poor? No.
Will it be overblown like “you didn’t build that” and “I like to fire people?” Of course.[/quote]
Excellent (as usual) post, smh.
One thing (among many) that I’m really fed up with (and have been so) for some time is “gotcha” politics…taking a comment out of context (and in many cases even “clipping and pasting” the original comment to support ones point) and blowing it up to have much more meaning than it should have.
And EACH SIDE HAS BEEN GUILTY OF IT!
By the way; Romney expressed a sentiment that has been repeated OVER and OVER on this site; that nearly 1/2 of Americans are free-loading, Occupy-Type losers, ready and willing to Vote for the President to continue “giving them stuff”; when in fact (as you stated, smh) a large % of that 47 or so % are the working poor and the elderly.
Mufasa[/quote]
But the fact remains that there are 46 million people on food stamps (an increase of 16 million under Obama) and about 100 million on some sort of government support. If you peel away the aged, and the (truly) disabled that leaves millions upon millions of people who will vote for Obama…TO GET FREE MONEY!
Anyone who actually pays taxes is NOT offended by the Romney remark. And quite honestly I don’t think it’s as damaging as Obamas’ leaked tape where he says that he is for redistribution of wealth.
We have two opposing views on how the country should be run. We’ve lived under Obama for four years is his way working? The question should be asked repeatedly by the Romney people “Are you better off today than you were four years ago”. When that is asked about 60% of America says NO.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
But the fact remains that there are 46 million people on food stamps (an increase of 16 million under Obama) and about 100 million on some sort of government support.[/quote]
According to Pelosi unemployment benefits are the ‘fastest way to create jobs.’ And as Biden explains you have to ‘spend more money’ to ‘get out of debt.’ All ‘out of context’ as usual I’m sure. Economic illiterates at best; Cloward and Piven radicals at worst.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
…Obama is anti %1[/quote]
Yes it’s true. The Narcissist in Chief is the leader of the OWS movement.
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
I don’t think his comment indicated he was anti that 47%. I could say something like 47% of models would never date me, but that doesn’t mean I would take them if they changed their mind.[/quote]
Good point. I don’t see it as a huge deal.
Politically, anything that blunt is dangerous. And saying that half of this country is made up of victims is stupid and not true, especially considering that that 47 percent is partially made up of old people living off SS (which they paid into for decades), the working poor who simply don’t have taxable income after standard deductions and personal exemptions, disabled veterans, etc. It even includes about 1500 millionaires.
So, a poorly-phrased and somewhat misleading sentiment? Yes. Class warfare? No. Proof that Romney doesn’t care about the poor? No.
Will it be overblown like “you didn’t build that” and “I like to fire people?” Of course.[/quote]
Excellent (as usual) post, smh.
One thing (among many) that I’m really fed up with (and have been so) for some time is “gotcha” politics…taking a comment out of context (and in many cases even “clipping and pasting” the original comment to support ones point) and blowing it up to have much more meaning than it should have.
And EACH SIDE HAS BEEN GUILTY OF IT!
By the way; Romney expressed a sentiment that has been repeated OVER and OVER on this site; that nearly 1/2 of Americans are free-loading, Occupy-Type losers, ready and willing to Vote for the President to continue “giving them stuff”; when in fact (as you stated, smh) a large % of that 47 or so % are the working poor and the elderly.
Mufasa[/quote]
Much appreciated, Mufasa. Unfortunately in this age of 144 characters I fear that soundbite politics (and art and entertainment) will only gain ground.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
…Obama is anti %1[/quote]
Yes it’s true. The Narcissist in Chief is the leader of the OWS movement.[/quote]
Nope. Some of their main gripes are bank and auto bailouts (Obama) and war overseas (Obama).