Romney insults 47% of americans because they are poor.

[QUOTE="MrPraline"]Doesn't Mitt pay people to tell him not to do sh*t like this a mere months away from the election?-Sun_Tzu-

Listen there are probably a good amount of people in the 47% that are leeches. Please don't be naive to think that there are not and that every single one of them are poor and lost their jobs because of the bad economy. A lot of them are their because of their upbringing and the choices they made in life. At the same time there are people in that group that unfortunately have had bad luck. Also the thing that gets me about the people who don't pay federal income taxes some how manage to get a pretty good refund at the end of the year. How in gods green earth does that happen?

Also the thing that gets me about the people who don't pay federal income taxes some how manage to get a pretty good refund at the end of the year. How in gods green earth does that happen?

xscrapzx

"There are 47% of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47% who are with him, who are dependent upon government, 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. That that's an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what." That is the quote.

I don't think Romney was "insulting" these Americans rather just acknowledging that they are not likely to vote for him. It is quite sad that so many Americans require government assistance and that 49% of Americans do not pay a federal income tax, though some of that is due to the poor economy.

I think that in this bad economy some people are bitter and because they are bitter they cling to their birth control pills, their socialist doctrine and their anti-corporation sentiment.

Listen there are probably a good amount of people in the 47% that are leeches. Please don't be naive to think that there are not and that every single one of them are poor and lost their jobs because of the bad economy. A lot of them are their because of their upbringing and the choices they made in life. At the same time there are people in that group that unfortunately have had bad luck. Also the thing that gets me about the people who don't pay federal income taxes some how manage to get a pretty good refund at the end of the year. How in gods green earth does that happen?

xscrapzx

quick question: if a person pays say $6000 a year in federal income tax, but qualifies for a mortgage interest deduction of say $7000 in a given year, technically they're part of the 47%. does that make that person a dependant, victim, leecher?

question: if a person pays say $6000 a year in federal income tax, but qualifies for a mortgage interest deduction of say $7000 in a given year, technically they're part of the 47%. does that make that person a leecher?

comp_atkins

"There are 47% of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47% who are with him, who are dependent upon government, 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. That that's an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what." That is the quote.

I don't think Romney was "insulting" these Americans rather just acknowledging that they are not likely to vote for him. It is quite sad that so many Americans require government assistance and that 49% of Americans do not pay a federal income tax, though some of that is due to the poor economy.

I think that in this bad economy some people are bitter and because they are bitter they cling to their birth control pills, their socialist doctrine and their anti-corporation sentiment.

whipassmt

The first part of your post wasn't too bad (although possibly ill-informed), then you leapt into full-on idiocy.

[QUOTE="whipassmt"]

"There are 47% of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47% who are with him, who are dependent upon government, 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. That that's an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what." That is the quote.

I don't think Romney was "insulting" these Americans rather just acknowledging that they are not likely to vote for him. It is quite sad that so many Americans require government assistance and that 49% of Americans do not pay a federal income tax, though some of that is due to the poor economy.

I think that in this bad economy some people are bitter and because they are bitter they cling to their birth control pills, their socialist doctrine and their anti-corporation sentiment.

worlock77

The first part of your post wasn't too bad (although possibly ill-informed), then you leapt into full-on idiocy.

[QUOTE="RushKing"][QUOTE="TheWalkingGhost"]I am implying the US and Europe are crippled by debt. We need to get our deficit gone and then work on lowering the cost of health care first. Universal health care now would just cripple this lardbutt nation.SpartanMSU

Yeah! No.

[QUOTE="comp_atkins"] question: if a person pays say $6000 a year in federal income tax, but qualifies for a mortgage interest deduction of say $7000 in a given year, technically they're part of the 47%. does that make that person a leecher?

DevilMightCry

Listen there are probably a good amount of people in the 47% that are leeches. Please don't be naive to think that there are not and that every single one of them are poor and lost their jobs because of the bad economy. A lot of them are their because of their upbringing and the choices they made in life. At the same time there are people in that group that unfortunately have had bad luck. Also the thing that gets me about the people who don't pay federal income taxes some how manage to get a pretty good refund at the end of the year. How in gods green earth does that happen?

xscrapzx

It's not that they don't pay taxes at all, it's that their net federal income tax is zero after deductions and stuff. They get a refund because taxes are initially withheld from their checks. When it is shown that they didn't make enough money to pay that much in tax after deductions at the end of the year, they get a refund.

"There are 47% of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47% who are with him, who are dependent upon government, 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. That that's an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what." That is the quote.

I don't think Romney was "insulting" these Americans rather just acknowledging that they are not likely to vote for him. It is quite sad that so many Americans require government assistance and that 49% of Americans do not pay a federal income tax, though some of that is due to the poor economy.

I think that in this bad economy some people are bitter and because they are bitter they cling to their birth control pills, their socialist doctrine and their anti-corporation sentiment

whipassmt

[QUOTE="xscrapzx"]

Listen there are probably a good amount of people in the 47% that are leeches. Please don't be naive to think that there are not and that every single one of them are poor and lost their jobs because of the bad economy. A lot of them are their because of their upbringing and the choices they made in life. At the same time there are people in that group that unfortunately have had bad luck. Also the thing that gets me about the people who don't pay federal income taxes some how manage to get a pretty good refund at the end of the year. How in gods green earth does that happen?

comp_atkins

quick question: if a person pays say $6000 a year in federal income tax, but qualifies for a mortgage interest deduction of say $7000 in a given year, technically they're part of the 47%. does that make that person a dependant, victim, leecher?

or if you made all of your money through capital gains instead of through earned income. Those people are also counted in that 47% (at least that's how I think it is from what I've read)

"There are 47% of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47% who are with him, who are dependent upon government, 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. That that's an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what." That is the quote.

I don't think Romney was "insulting" these Americans rather just acknowledging that they are not likely to vote for him. It is quite sad that so many Americans require government assistance and that 49% of Americans do not pay a federal income tax, though some of that is due to the poor economy.

I think that in this bad economy some people are bitter and because they are bitter they cling to their birth control pills, their socialist doctrine and their anti-corporation sentiment.

whipassmt

Can people please stop throwing around the word "socialism" or "socialist" when they aren't using it correctly. This is really annoying, socialism isn't some vague idea that the government should help people. Unless someone calls for the complete abolisment of capitalism and handing over industry to the working class they aren't socialists and they aren't promoting socialism. Obama and the modern Democratic Party are Liberals and pretty centrist ones at that.

[QUOTE="whipassmt"]

"There are 47% of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47% who are with him, who are dependent upon government, 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. That that's an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what." That is the quote.

I don't think Romney was "insulting" these Americans rather just acknowledging that they are not likely to vote for him. It is quite sad that so many Americans require government assistance and that 49% of Americans do not pay a federal income tax, though some of that is due to the poor economy.

I think that in this bad economy some people are bitter and because they are bitter they cling to their birth control pills, their socialist doctrine and their anti-corporation sentiment

l4dak47

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="whipassmt"]

"There are 47% of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47% who are with him, who are dependent upon government, 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. That that's an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what." That is the quote.

I don't think Romney was "insulting" these Americans rather just acknowledging that they are not likely to vote for him. It is quite sad that so many Americans require government assistance and that 49% of Americans do not pay a federal income tax, though some of that is due to the poor economy.

I think that in this bad economy some people are bitter and because they are bitter they cling to their birth control pills, their socialist doctrine and their anti-corporation sentiment.

whipassmt

The first part of your post wasn't too bad (although possibly ill-informed), then you leapt into full-on idiocy.

By first part I meant the first part of your statement (since I understand what quotation marks are). By second part I meant the second part of your statement.

[QUOTE="whipassmt"]

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

The first part of your post wasn't too bad (although possibly ill-informed), then you leapt into full-on idiocy.

worlock77

By first part I meant the first part of your statement (since I understand what quotation marks are). By second part I meant the second part of your statement.

[QUOTE="DevilMightCry"][QUOTE="comp_atkins"] question: if a person pays say $6000 a year in federal income tax, but qualifies for a mortgage interest deduction of say $7000 in a given year, technically they're part of the 47%. does that make that person a leecher?

comp_atkins

I think we are in danger of seeing of a situation where, through handouts and social programs, a large portion of the populace's votes can be bought at the expense of a smaller, more productive people group. It is the fundamental problem with the government ever being able to redistribute wealth (whether it be directly or through social programs). Quite simply, the politician that campaigns on giving away the most money to the most people once he gets in office will always buy enough votes to win the election, to the detriment of rational and long term politics. Once you can promise slightly over half the population a portion of the other half's money in some way or form you can lock down the election with public funds. Over the last hundred years we have developed the legal precedent to do so.

Even if the poor wound up paying very little in income tax (which the likely would because the are poor) as long as they have the right to vote and direct the republic then they need to pay taxes along with everyone else, even if they obviously pay less because they make less.

What hurts libertarians the most in this country is that they refuse to buy votes with the public funds so not enough people will vote for them. The Democrats are the extreme opposite with the Republicans not far behind.

Romney's campaign shakeup is apparently in full swing.

He's gone from moderate Obama-bashing to full-on poor-hating.

He's so elitest and out-of-touch it's laughable.

He should just stick to being a CEO or some other money-based job. Running a country is completely beyond his scope because it requires compassion and empathy at all levels, not just the top 5%.

[QUOTE="Novotine"]i think they're all lazy scumbags anyways burn the 47%thelordofpies

you my good sir are a First Class A$$hole and piece of $hit

[QUOTE="SpartanMSU"]

[QUOTE="RushKing"] Private Heath care is expensive because CEOs require private jets and large mansions. We can either save money or hand more over to private insurance companys.DrTrafalgarLaw

Yeah! No.

I think you're overpaid.

Interesting article, "Fact-Checking Romney's statement"

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57515033-503544/fact-checking-romneys-47-percent-comment/

"The same data shows that in 2011, 78,000 tax filers with incomes between $211,000 and $533,000 paid no income taxes; 24,000 households with incomes of $533,000 to $2.2 million paid no income taxes, and 3,000 tax filers with incomes above $2.2 million paid no income taxes."

So, I guess he just forgot about those guys...

Romney's campaign shakeup is apparently in full swing.

He's gone from moderate Obama-bashing to full-on poor-hating.

He's so elitest and out-of-touch it's laughable.

He should just stick to being a CEO or some other money-based job. Running a country is completely beyond his scope because it requires compassion and empathy at all levels, not just the top 5%.

Netherscourge

[QUOTE="comp_atkins"]

[QUOTE="DevilMightCry"] I would say yes. DevilMightCry

I think we are in danger of seeing of a situation where, through handouts and social programs, a large portion of the populace's votes can be bought at the expense of a smaller, more productive people group. It is the fundamental problem with the government ever being able to redistribute wealth (whether it be directly or through social programs). Quite simply, the politician that campaigns on giving away the most money to the most people once he gets in office will always buy enough votes to win the election, to the detriment of rational and long term politics. Once you can promise slightly over half the population a portion of the other half's money in some way or form you can lock down the election with public funds. Over the last hundred years we have developed the legal precedent to do so.

Even if the poor wound up paying very little in income tax (which the likely would because the are poor) as long as they have the right to vote and direct the republic then they need to pay taxes along with everyone else, even if they obviously pay less because they make less.

What hurts libertarians the most in this country is that they refuse to buy votes with the public funds so not enough people will vote for them. The Democrats are the extreme opposite with the Republicans not far behind.

GIJames248

what he said. i like to respond back by saying Why does the 1% control 70% of the nations wealth?

Romney is an idiot. It is beyond me why anyone would want to make him president.

As in all things, the truth is never as simple as a sound byte, but in this case, Romney stepped in it. Many of the people that fall under the simplfied category he made vote Republican.

Doesn't Mitt pay people to tell him not to do sh*t like this a mere months away from the election?MrPraline

By the way this candidacy has run, I think the idea was this:

"Mitt, the economy is struggling, people don't like Obama, and they don't like his policies. Just don't f**k up and you'll win. We'll just play you as 'the guy who isn't Obama'".

Well, he f**ked up. Again and again. So much for that strategy.

By the way this candidacy has run, I think the idea was this:

"Mitt, the economy is struggling, people don't like Obama, and they don't like his policies. Just don't f**k up and you'll win. We'll just play you as 'the guy who isn't Obama'".

Well, he f**ked up. Again and again. So much for that strategy.

jimkabrhel

[QUOTE="jimkabrhel"]

By the way this candidacy has run, I think the idea was this:

"Mitt, the economy is struggling, people don't like Obama, and they don't like his policies. Just don't f**k up and you'll win. We'll just play you as 'the guy who isn't Obama'".

Well, he f**ked up. Again and again. So much for that strategy.

DevilMightCry

Every poll I've seen say the exact opposite. Which poll are you referring to?

[QUOTE="DevilMightCry"][QUOTE="jimkabrhel"]

By the way this candidacy has run, I think the idea was this:

"Mitt, the economy is struggling, people don't like Obama, and they don't like his policies. Just don't f**k up and you'll win. We'll just play you as 'the guy who isn't Obama'".

Well, he f**ked up. Again and again. So much for that strategy.

jimkabrhel

Every poll I've seen say the exact opposite. Which poll are you referring to?

I got confused by the quote.

Are the poor the only ones that want the government to do more?

[QUOTE="jimkabrhel"]

[QUOTE="DevilMightCry"] Just the opposite. Romney is up in polls today over the President for first time of likely voters. DevilMightCry

Every poll I've seen say the exact opposite. Which poll are you referring to?

You know what would make that number go down? If Romney would create more jobs. So go ahead, Mitt, work your trickle-down magic and allow more of these Americans to file tax returns.

I feel like the worst part of thing in this rant is where he says "[M]y job is is not to worry about those people. I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives." That is some truly awful sh*t right there.Abbeten

He means his campaign...he's not going to convince them through his campaign to vote for him since they'd be voting against entitlements meant for them.

[QUOTE="Abbeten"]I feel like the worst part of thing in this rant is where he says "[M]y job is is not to worry about those people. I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives." That is some truly awful sh*t right there.SpartanMSU

He means his campaign...he's not going to convince them through his campaign to vote for him since they'd be voting against entitlements meant for them.

I got confused by the quote.

Are the poor the only ones that want the government to do more?

JoGoSo

[QUOTE="JoGoSo"]

I got confused by the quote.

Are the poor the only ones that want the government to do more?

TwistedShade

For the Romney campaign that means 1% down...

[QUOTE="Abbeten"]I feel like the worst part of thing in this rant is where he says "[M]y job is is not to worry about those people. I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives." That is some truly awful sh*t right there.SpartanMSU

He means his campaign...he's not going to convince them through his campaign to vote for him since they'd be voting against entitlements meant for them.

[QUOTE="jimkabrhel"]

[QUOTE="DevilMightCry"] Just the opposite. Romney is up in polls today over the President for first time of likely voters. DevilMightCry

Every poll I've seen say the exact opposite. Which poll are you referring to?

The bottom of article from the Hill gave the poll average with OBama up 3. It's hard to know which poll is the best measure, so I like the averages, and not just because the candidate I support is winning the average. With so many polling groups having a political bias, the average is a better judge, I think.