Romney insults 47% of americans because they are poor.

[QUOTE="Guybrush_3"]

[QUOTE="konvikt_17"]

this seems like people making things up or drawing baseless conclusions.

like always, misinterpretting a politicians words.

Planet_Pluto

This is romney refering dirrectly to the 47% of people that don't pay income tax. Please tell me what I am miss representing here.

"There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent 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 whatThese are people who pay no income tax

"[M]y job is not to worry about those people. I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives."

Only he isn't right, and he just potentially alienated a significant portion of his voter base (such as seniors, who don't pay income tax and tend to vote Republican).

[QUOTE="Abbeten"]

You just said that while his number is 'a bit high,' his statement is 'pretty accurate,' which leads me to believe you agree with the essence of his statement. Aside from the fact that his number is drastically wrong, as I just pointed out, the essence of his statement is also horribly off. Does he honestly believe half the country's population is comprised effectively of children? Children who cannot even beconvincedto take responsibility for their lives? That is reprehensible. Someone below the poverty line doesn't take responsibility for his or her life? How about someone who works 40 hours a week but doesn't make enough to qualify for the lowest tax bracket? Is that just laziness and a refusal to take responsibility? Romney's statement shows just how far removed he is from the bulk of the population. He is utterly unaware of the nature of the economy if he thinks that people are only poor through personal failings. He literally called half the country leeches. And you're just fine with this?

(I know you're fine with this. That was rhetorical.)

airshocker

His statement is accurate: He's not going to get the votes of people dependent on government welfare. I don't see how that's so hard to figure out.

And the number is too high. It's more like 35%, 20 for the hardcore who will NEVER give up their bennies, and 15% that can be persuaded to go one way or the other(source: Charles Krauthammer).

I don't know why you've included the rest of that rant, as I was speaking only about the bolded.

I guess Heinlein was correct. Our society is going to fall apart because of people wanting things without having to pay, or work, for them.

Anyway, what Romney said is pretty accurate. There's no way he's going to get the votes of those who are dependent on welfare, but I think the 47% number is a bit high.

airshocker

The problem is that he's conflating not paying income tax with welfare. That and he's pretty much stating that he doesn't give a sh*t about nearly half the country he's asking to be given leadership of.

That was one part of his statement (which was also inaccurate, because seniors will largely go for him and they're hugely reliant on entitlements). The rest of the stuff was in there to address the second part of his statement, which you implicitly agreed with through the first sentence of your original post.Abbeten

No it isn't. Seniors aren't the only ones on welfare. You forget about the inner-city communities that are highly reliant on welfare and vote democratic. I did no such thing. It's your inability to understand the written word that gave you the impetus to write that spiel. I very clearly indicated which part of Romney's statement I find to be true.

The problem is that he's conflating not paying income tax with welfare. That and he's pretty much stating that he doesn't give a sh*t about nearly half the country he's asking to be given leadership of.

worlock77

So he's just like Obama. Gotcha.

I don't really care what portions of his speech are inaccurate, as I'm not talking about them. What I do know is true is that he will not get the vote of people largely dependent on government welfare.

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

The problem is that he's conflating not paying income tax with welfare. That and he's pretty much stating that he doesn't give a sh*t about nearly half the country he's asking to be given leadership of.

airshocker

So he's just like Obama. Gotcha.

I don't really care what portions of his speech are inaccurate, as I'm not talking about them. What I do know is true is that he will not get the vote of people largely dependent on government welfare.

Like seniors?

The problem is that he's conflating not paying income tax with welfare.

worlock77

[QUOTE="Abbeten"]That was one part of his statement (which was also inaccurate, because seniors will largely go for him and they're hugely reliant on entitlements). The rest of the stuff was in there to address the second part of his statement, which you implicitly agreed with through the first sentence of your original post.airshocker

No it isn't. Seniors aren't the only ones on welfare. You forget about the inner-city communities that are highly reliant on welfare and vote democratic. I did no such thing. It's your inability to understand the written word that gave you the impetus to write that spiel. I very clearly indicated which part of Romney's statement I find to be true.

Romney: "There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent 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 whatThese are people who pay no income tax."

You: "I guess Heinlein was correct. Our society is going to fall apart because of people wanting things without having to pay, or work, for them."

Do you not understand the link here? If you weren't agreeing with Romney's other statement, then you probably shouldn't have started off with that.

He probably thinks that is's not good for 47% of the country to depend on the government for assistance. Personally, I have no problem with govt. assistance, but at some point, someone has to pay for all of it. That's going to be a problem if almost half the country is dependent.

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"][QUOTE="UnknownSniper65"]

He isn't going to get those votes anyway...people who are getting a free ride don't vote for somebody who wants to end it.

SpartanMSU

Obviously all of the people in that percentage aren't the people who he's referring to. It was a general statement that wasn't very well articulated.

Seniors are a large chunk of the 'dependent on welfare' crowd. The majority of them, actually. And I find it amusing that you think I don't know how to read while you don't understand what an implication is.

Romney: "There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent 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 whatThese are people who pay no income tax."

You: "I guess Heinlein was correct. Our society is going to fall apart because of people wanting things without having to pay, or work, for them."

Do you not understand the link here? If you weren't agreeing with Romney's other statement, then you probably shouldn't have started off with that.

Abbeten

That's an observation from the posts in this thread, not Romney's statement. The second part of my post deals with Romney's statement. It all should be pretty clear since both "Romney" and "statement" are included in that section of my post. The part you conveniently left out.

Like seniors?

worlock77

No, he'll get some seniors. The ones that don't believe the lies from the DNC. He won't get them all though. I'm referring to the people who rely on government welfare and couldn't give a sh*t if the rest of us were taxed 100% of our income in order to pay for it.

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

Like seniors?

airshocker

No, he'll get some seniors. The ones that don't believe the lies from the DNC. He won't get them all though. I'm referring to the other people who rely on government welfare and couldn't give a sh*t if the rest of us were taxed 100% of our income in order to pay for it.

So 1.4% of the population. -Sun_Tzu-

I seriously doubt it's that low.

It's much better to promise everything to everyone regardless of how you can actually provide for it. The nice thing is you can just push debt off onto future generations and let it be their problem until the country collapses from it. But that hopefully won't be our problem.

[QUOTE="comp_atkins"][QUOTE="Ghost_702"]If you don't pay taxes and you aren't a student or mentally or physically incapable of work, then you are a scumbag. Ghost_702

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]So 1.4% of the population. airshocker

I seriously doubt it's that low.

He probably thinks that is's not good for 47% of the country to depend on the government for assistance. Personally, I have no problem with govt. assistance, but at some point, someone has to pay for all of it. That's going to be a problem if almost half the country is dependent.

sonicare

The thing is, however, is that Romney is mixing two entirely seperate things up. He's confusing not paying federal income taxes (which quite a lot of people who work and pay payroll taxes don't) with being on welfare.

[QUOTE="sonicare"]

He probably thinks that is's not good for 47% of the country to depend on the government for assistance. Personally, I have no problem with govt. assistance, but at some point, someone has to pay for all of it. That's going to be a problem if almost half the country is dependent.

worlock77

The thing is, however, is that Romney is mixing two entirely seperate things up. He's confusing not paying federal income taxes (which quite a lot of people who work and pay payroll taxes don't) with being on welfare.

[QUOTE="airshocker"]

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]So 1.4% of the population. -Sun_Tzu-

I seriously doubt it's that low.

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="sonicare"]

He probably thinks that is's not good for 47% of the country to depend on the government for assistance. Personally, I have no problem with govt. assistance, but at some point, someone has to pay for all of it. That's going to be a problem if almost half the country is dependent.

sonicare

The thing is, however, is that Romney is mixing two entirely seperate things up. He's confusing not paying federal income taxes (which quite a lot of people who work and pay payroll taxes don't) with being on welfare.

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="airshocker"]

I seriously doubt it's that low.

sSubZerOo

[QUOTE="sonicare"][QUOTE="worlock77"]

The thing is, however, is that Romney is mixing two entirely seperate things up. He's confusing not paying federal income taxes (which quite a lot of people who work and pay payroll taxes don't) with being on welfare.

sSubZerOo

"Confusing" was a poor word choice on my part. "Conflating" is more appropriate.

I think those 47% of people are the ones that refuse to work and want the government to take care of them for their entire lives. My cousin is like that and so was this one kid I used to be friends with.pero2008

[QUOTE="konvikt_17"]

this seems like people making things up or drawing baseless conclusions.

like always, misinterpretting a politicians words.

Guybrush_3

This is romney refering dirrectly to the 47% of people that don't pay income tax. Please tell me what I am miss representing here.

"There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent 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 whatThese are people who pay no income tax

"[M]y job is not to worry about those people. I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives."

Think critically for once in your life.

It's true, liberals are misconstruing and putting a terrible spin on Romney's message.

Romney is only saying the truth, something most of us are too scared to say.

People who don't pay federal income tax don't care about Romney's message of tax cuts for the middle class. They only care about more taxes for the rich. They don't care about the middle class. Romney wants to help the middle class by giving them tax cuts. Obama wants to give handouts to the poor by taxing the rich. Which sounds like a better idea on the surface, but when you get down to it, what does that mean? It will make people dependant on government and less motivated to work to BECOME part of the middle class.

"Mitt Romney and I are not running to redistribute the wealth, Mitt Romney and I are running to help Americans create wealth. Efforts that promote hard work and personal responsibility over government dependency are what have made this economy the envy of the world." -Paul Ryan

its becasue Obama wants to reward the lazy people

its becasue Obama wants to reward the lazy people

resevl4rlz

[QUOTE="Guybrush_3"]

[QUOTE="konvikt_17"]

this seems like people making things up or drawing baseless conclusions.

like always, misinterpretting a politicians words.

GeoffZak

This is romney refering dirrectly to the 47% of people that don't pay income tax. Please tell me what I am miss representing here.

"There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent 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 whatThese are people who pay no income tax

"[M]y job is not to worry about those people. I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives."

Think critically for once in your life.

It's true, liberals are misconstruing and putting a terrible spin on Romney's message.

Romney is only saying the truth, something most of us are too scared to say.

People who don't pay federal income tax don't care about Romney's message of tax cuts for the middle class. They only care about more taxes for the rich. They don't care about the middle class. Romney wants to help the middle class by giving them tax cuts. Obama wants to give handouts to the poor by taxing the rich. Which sounds like a better idea on the surface, but when you get down to it, what does that mean? It will make people dependant on government and less motivated to work to BECOME part of the middle class.

"Mitt Romney and I are not running to redistribute the wealth, Mitt Romney and I are running to help Americans create wealth. Efforts that promote hard work and personal responsibility over government dependency are what have made this economy the envy of the world." -Paul Ryan

Think critically for once in your life.

It's true, liberals are misconstruing and putting a terrible spin on Romney's message.

Romney is only saying the truth, something most of us are too scared to say.

People who don't pay federal income tax don't care about Romney's message of tax cuts for the middle class. They only care about more taxes for the rich. They don't care about the middle class. Romney wants to help the middle class by giving them tax cuts. Obama wants to give handouts to the poor by taxing the rich. Which sounds like a better idea on the surface, but when you get down to it, what does that mean? It will make people dependant on government and less motivated to work to BECOME part of the middle class.

"Mitt Romney and I are not running to redistribute the wealth, Mitt Romney and I are running to help Americans create wealth. Efforts that promote hard work and personal responsibility over government dependency are what have made this economy the envy of the world." -Paul Ryan

GeoffZak

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/sep/18/mitt-romney/mitt-romney-says-voters-who-support-barack-obama-a/

You should follow your own advice

Also, nice quote but it doesn't mean jack sh*t. It's just a bunch of pretty words telling people what they want to hear.

People who don't pay federal income tax don't care about Romney's message of tax cuts for the middle class. They only care about more taxes for the rich. They don't care about the middle class. Romney wants to help the middle class by giving them tax cuts.

GeoffZak

Another point I missed, Romney pays less taxes than my f*cking parents do and he's a god damn millionaire

So why is it fair that Romney doesn't have to pay as much as the middle class while still having a huge income? What's wrong with taxing him a little more?

[QUOTE="GeoffZak"]

People who don't pay federal income tax don't care about Romney's message of tax cuts for the middle class. They only care about more taxes for the rich. They don't care about the middle class. Romney wants to help the middle class by giving them tax cuts.

Bane_09

Another point I missed, Romney pays less taxes than my f*cking parents do and he's a god damn millionaire

So why is it fair that Romney doesn't have to pay as much as the middle class while still having a huge income? What's wrong with taxing him a little more?

I agree, the rich should be taxed more because they can pay more. It's just common sense.

But Obama is doing jack sh*t for the middle class.

Obama has only raised taxes for my middle class family. He doesn't want to help us at all.

According to Obama, we're rich.

What's he gonna do for us?

More student loans? That's fvcking counter-productive. If people can get more student loans, that means schools will raise tution because they know they can get more money, and we go deeper into debt.

I'm baffled that so many people still support Obama. Two of my friends who were huge Obama supporters in the last election are both supporting Romney now because Obama turned out the be a flop. I thought more people were smart enough to realize this. The guy has gotta go. Having so many people dependant on the government is not the way this country should be.

And you blame me for falling for Romney/Ryan's propaganda? Look at yourself! Both sides will say things to make themselves look good. Not everything they say is true. That's politics. Obama is guilty of saying so many "pretty words" that people want to hear that don't mean anything. He's guilty of that so much more than Romney is.

I'm voting for the lesser of two evils in the next election.

Obama even said that we can kick him out if he doesn't fix this in one term. I say we hold him to his word.

By the way, Romney wasn't my first choice for the Republican candidate. I think I like Ron Paul more. But I wish Rudy Giulianiwould try to run again. He was my first choice for the 2008 election. Too bad he flew under the radar and dropped out early.

what republicans call the 47%, entitled leeches suckling at the teat of the fed.

what i call them, granmaw and grampaw.

[QUOTE="Guybrush_3"]

[QUOTE="konvikt_17"]

this seems like people making things up or drawing baseless conclusions.

like always, misinterpretting a politicians words.

GeoffZak

This is romney refering dirrectly to the 47% of people that don't pay income tax. Please tell me what I am miss representing here.

"There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent 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 whatThese are people who pay no income tax

"[M]y job is not to worry about those people. I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives."

Think critically for once in your life.

It's true, liberals are misconstruing and putting a terrible spin on Romney's message.

Romney is only saying the truth, something most of us are too scared to say.

People who don't pay federal income tax don't care about Romney's message of tax cuts for the middle class. They only care about more taxes for the rich. They don't care about the middle class. Romney wants to help the middle class by giving them tax cuts. Obama wants to give handouts to the poor by taxing the rich. Which sounds like a better idea on the surface, but when you get down to it, what does that mean? It will make people dependant on government and less motivated to work to BECOME part of the middle class.

"Mitt Romney and I are not running to redistribute the wealth, Mitt Romney and I are running to help Americans create wealth. Efforts that promote hard work and personal responsibility over government dependency are what have made this economy the envy of the world." -Paul Ryan

Totally. Those lazy goddamn seniors. They should stop sucking off the government t*t and learn to earn their own way.

[QUOTE="airshocker"]

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]So 1.4% of the population. -Sun_Tzu-

I seriously doubt it's that low.

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="airshocker"]

I seriously doubt it's that low.

LOXO7

Something not being specifically stated in the Constitution does not make it unconstitutional.

[QUOTE="LOXO7"][QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"] Well it is. Only 4.4 million people are actually on welfare. By far, the vast majority of government aid goes to senior citizens, the disabled and the working poor. Are these people freeloaders? As a percentage of the US population, there are very few able bodied people who are actually just sitting on their couches collecting checks from the government. worlock77

Something not being specifically stated in the Constitution does not make it unconstitutional.

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="airshocker"]

I seriously doubt it's that low.

LOXO7

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="LOXO7"] This is unconstitutional to call this welfare because it is not general welfare. General meaning for everyone. Medicare/medicaid is not general. Food stamps are not general. This is specific welfare. Not for everybody. We the People of the United States, promote the specific welfare? We the People are an ignorant people. The government has "power" to enslave us because we are too ignorant to know otherwise. We deserve this.LOXO7

Something not being specifically stated in the Constitution does not make it unconstitutional.

What do either of those have to do with your point? If anything the 9th disproves your point since it refers to rights not specially stated in the Constitution.

[QUOTE="Abbeten"][QUOTE="LOXO7"] This is unconstitutional to call this welfare because it is not general welfare. General meaning for everyone. Medicare/medicaid is not general. Food stamps are not general. This is specific welfare. Not for everybody. We the People of the United States, promote the specific welfare? We the People are an ignorant people. The government has "power" to enslave us because we are too ignorant to know otherwise. We deserve this.LOXO7

Have you ever studied the Constitution? The Supreme Court has never held that the government can only do what is specifically written in the Constitution. See the doctrine of Implied Powers and McCulloch V Maryland. Also check out the Commerce Clause which the Supreme Court has interpreted very broadly when it comes to Congresses's powers.

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="airshocker"]

I seriously doubt it's that low.

LOXO7

[QUOTE="LOXO7"][QUOTE="worlock77"]

Something not being specifically stated in the Constitution does not make it unconstitutional.

white_wolf922

What do either of those have to do with your point? If anything the 9th disproves your point since it refers to rights not specially stated in the Constitution.

[QUOTE="white_wolf922"]

[QUOTE="LOXO7"] Refer to amendment IX and then to X.LOXO7

What do either of those have to do with your point? If anything the 9th disproves your point since it refers to rights not specially stated in the Constitution.

If Wellfare were unconstitutional, someone would have challenged it by now. The fact is those social programs are funded by taxes and Congress can spend tax dollars however it wants unless you can prove that they are doing something unconstitutional with them. Wellfare isn't unconstitutional. An no I wasn't saying the goverment has rights, however your reply was so vague I had no clue what you meant which is why I asked you why you think those amendments support you.

[QUOTE="LOXO7"][QUOTE="Abbeten"] Glossing over the fact that people being cripplingly poor is bad for the nation as a whole and not just for the people who are poor, the social safety net is technically available to everyone. It's there as a fallback to anyone who comes down on hard times and has need of it, and the laws don't specifically bar large portions of the population from ever having access to it. From a legal perspective it's totally constitutional.white_wolf922

Have you ever studied the Constitution? The Supreme Court has never held that the government can only do what is specifically written in the Constitution. See the doctrine of Implied Powers and McCulloch V Maryland. Also check out the Commerce Clause which the Supreme Court has interpreted very broadly when it comes to Congresses's powers.