Mitt Romney drives the final nail into his campaign's coffin

[Old Blue Collar Joe]

azulmagia

Old Blue Collar Joe

Personally, I'd rather have more people employed and paying taxes than 47% NOT paying any.

The "47% don't pay taxes" is a discredited meme. How many times must this be pointed out to you? The only taxes they're not paying is the federal income tax. Which, incidentally, when they originated, only targetted the first few top percent.

Now if you want the history of the meme itself, check here. For tl;dr people, the phases are:

1. WSJ argues in 2002 that Bush shouldn't have tax breaks for the non-rich since there are so many "lucky duckies" already. Bush should focus on people earning over $250,000.

2. The AEI in the Obama era. Here, the specific percentage given is 30%, who "reject the free enterprise system culturally" and who "twists equality of opportunity into equality of outcome."

3. Paul Ryan in 2011. Gives it as 49%. The social safety net is identified as something evil in se.

4. Reason magazine talking to Jim DeMint. It's going to be just like Greece!

Oh, and Paul Ryan has been caught in his own embarassing moment:

Quote:

It is impossible to summarize these statements without sounding like a breathless conspiracy theorist. Here’s what Ryan says. Don’t trust my bullets. Read the transcript. Don’t trust my transcript, listen to the audio on the Atlas Society site.

Ryan describes Social Security and Medicare as “collectivist” and “socialistic.”

Ryan’s strategic plan: privatize Social Security and Medicare in order to convert people from “collectivism” to believers in a “capitalistic individualistic” philosophy. So that there will be “more people on our team” who “won’t listen to” Democrats.

Ryan’s acceptance of Pinochet’s Secretary of Social Security José Piñera’s similar program of Social Security privatization as a “moral revolution” that made Marxists into capitalists who started to read the Chilean equivalent of the Wall Street Journal. Ryan is overheard, “Yeah” “That’s right.”

For Ryan “defined benefit” programs such as Social Security and Medicare are problems in themselves. This isn’t something he saves for gatherings of the Ayn Rand Society, such concerns about “dependency” are scattered throughout his Path to Prosperity—again hidden in plain sight. This transcript doesn’t so much reveal a secret, as highlight a clear theme in his policy rationale that is always present, but in more public settings subordinated to his prophecies of fiscal apocalypse. Thus, it is no surprise his budget cuts the safety net and radically reshapes Medicare first and addresses the deficit later.

(link)

Atlas Society. s**t, is there nothing Ayn Rand hasn't poisoned already?

And another thing. If the 47% are moocher and will never vote GOP, and the smart people will also never support the GOP (as Rick Santorum admitted recently), what does THAT Venn diagram look like?

I'll make this short, since we already know we won't agree. But I do like the arrogance in the last part about 'smart people'. Typical liberal arrogance.
I'm not voting for Romney. I'm voting against Obama. It's really that simple. We don't have a candidate that I feel is worthy. But we know Obama can't do the job. Worst government I've ever seen in action.
I really hope Hil runs next time.

[azulmagia]

Old Blue Collar Joe

I'll make this short, since we already know we won't agree. But I do like the arrogance in the last part about 'smart people'. Typical liberal arrogance.

Rick Santorum is a deep-cover liberal, then?

Quote:

I'm not voting for Romney. I'm voting against Obama. It's really that simple. We don't have a candidate that I feel is worthy. But we know Obama can't do the job. Worst government I've ever seen in action.

At least he hasn't launched TWO land wars in Asia. Talk about the all-time classic blunders...

[Wendigo]

Old Blue Collar Joe

Personally, I'd rather have more people employed and paying taxes than 47% NOT paying any.

But the 47% in question do pay taxes. Romney made a false equivalency between paying no marginal income tax and both paying no taxes and receiving benefits like TANF.

In actuality, of course, a person can pay payroll taxes (which all working people do) without qualifying to pay income taxes. And one is still liable for local and state taxes regardless.

CNNMoney

That does not mean such households end up paying no taxes whatsoever. For instance, those in the group still pay other taxes such as state and local income taxes, as well as property and sales taxes.

And the group doesn't necessarily get off scot-free when it comes to payroll taxes -- which support Social Security and Medicare.

More than two-thirds -- or 49 million of the 69 million households -- pay payroll tax. Of those, 34 million end up paying more in payroll taxes than they get back on their federal return. The other 15 million pay payroll tax but they get enough refundable credits to offset what they paid.

Contrary to what many assume, membership in the group isn't restricted to the poor.

It's true that the vast majority of the 69 million households make less than $50,000 -- with very heavy representation among households making less than $30,000.

But nearly 5 million households in the group make somewhere between $50,000 and more than $1 million. The vast majority of that group -- 4.3 million -- make between $50,000 and $100,000. Another 485,000 make between $100,000 and $500,000. And the remaining 18,000 make $500,000 or more

Very high-income households can fall into the non-payer group if they get their income from tax-exempt bonds or overseas sources for which they get foreign tax credits, according to Roberton Williams, a senior fellow at the Tax Policy Center.

http://money.cnn.com/2011/04/14/pf/taxes/who_pays_income_taxes/index.htm

[Complex Systems]

Want to know what I hate? I used to work at Tax Foundation, for whom the % nonpayers is an issue, and I want to douse everything in fire now. I really wish this issue wouldn't come up.

[Old Blue Collar Joe]

Wendigo

Old Blue Collar Joe

Personally, I'd rather have more people employed and paying taxes than 47% NOT paying any.

But the 47% in question do pay taxes. Romney made a false equivalency between paying no marginal income tax and both paying no taxes and receiving benefits like TANF.

In actuality, of course, a person can pay payroll taxes (which all working people do) without qualifying to pay income taxes. And one is still liable for local and state taxes regardless.

CNNMoney

That does not mean such households end up paying no taxes whatsoever. For instance, those in the group still pay other taxes such as state and local income taxes, as well as property and sales taxes.

And the group doesn't necessarily get off scot-free when it comes to payroll taxes -- which support Social Security and Medicare.

More than two-thirds -- or 49 million of the 69 million households -- pay payroll tax. Of those, 34 million end up paying more in payroll taxes than they get back on their federal return. The other 15 million pay payroll tax but they get enough refundable credits to offset what they paid.

Contrary to what many assume, membership in the group isn't restricted to the poor.

It's true that the vast majority of the 69 million households make less than $50,000 -- with very heavy representation among households making less than $30,000.

But nearly 5 million households in the group make somewhere between $50,000 and more than $1 million. The vast majority of that group -- 4.3 million -- make between $50,000 and $100,000. Another 485,000 make between $100,000 and $500,000. And the remaining 18,000 make $500,000 or more

Very high-income households can fall into the non-payer group if they get their income from tax-exempt bonds or overseas sources for which they get foreign tax credits, according to Roberton Williams, a senior fellow at the Tax Policy Center.

http://money.cnn.com/2011/04/14/pf/taxes/who_pays_income_taxes/index.htm

Wendigo, I've clarified this comment multiple times. FEDERAL tax, not payroll. Different critters entirely. And still, my question remains, what is wrong with wanting to get more people at work?

[Wendigo]

The Old Blue Collar Joe

Wendigo, I've clarified this comment multiple times. FEDERAL tax, not payroll. Different critters entirely. And still, my question remains, what is wrong with wanting to get more people at work?

But the people Romney was bullshitting about are at work. They pay FICA and everything. Some of them are even doing quite well:

Quote:

But nearly 5 million households in the group make somewhere between $50,000 and more than $1 million. The vast majority of that group -- 4.3 million -- make between $50,000 and $100,000.

"Federal income tax" just ain't the only tax a person might be liable for on their income. Nor, indeed, the only federal tax.

[pockybot]

Old Blue Collar Joe

pockybot

As I've been saying, it's almost like Romney is throwing the boxing match on purpose. Who train wrecks this bad right before an election?

I can only imagine the October surprise it would take to somehow blind people and get Mittens into office.

My question? When he followed that up with the comment 'we need to get more people working so more are paying taxes', that seems to get lost in the shuffle. Can they not hear beyond one sentence at a time? (And what of that Virginia Senate candidate that wants everyone to pay some amount in federal taxes? Where's the screaming over that?)
Personally, I'd rather have more people employed and paying taxes than 47% NOT paying any.

Sounds like when NBC edited the Trayvon Martin call...

[Ban]

Old Blue Collar Joe

Wendigo, I've clarified this comment multiple times. FEDERAL tax, not payroll.

Payroll taxes are, in large part, federal taxes. Federal income tax is a payroll tax. FICA is a payroll tax. Unemployment insurance is a federal tax; even though each state runs its own unemployment compensation program, the tax itself was created as part of the Social Security Act of 1935. But, yes, some states also impose payroll taxes in the form of state income taxes and so forth.

Old Blue Collar Joe

Different critters entirely. And still, my question remains, what is wrong with wanting to get more people at work?

Well, the numbers come from the Tax Policy Center, that found that in 2011, 46% of those who filed a tax return had no federal income tax liability. Which is to say, many of them are working, because they have an income that is reflected by the fact that they pay payroll taxes. As in they receive a paycheck that has FEDERAL withholdings on it, because this data comes from FEDERAL data. And so they are filing their income tax paperwork with the ******** IRS.

So, your question is based on a false premise given the statistic you are citing. These are all people filing federal tax paperwork and receiving some sort of taxable income. More than half of those who don't pay federal income tax are working, receiving a paycheck, and paying other federal taxes. Of the remaining 18 percent of the population, who don't pay any federal taxes, over half of those are the non-working elderly, and most of the rest are just poor ******** who don't have a regular job, and are making less than $20,000 a year doing something that doesn't involve getting a regular paycheck, contract work where they aren't a regular employee, self-employed or something similar.

[Old Blue Collar Joe]

pockybot

Old Blue Collar Joe

pockybot

As I've been saying, it's almost like Romney is throwing the boxing match on purpose. Who train wrecks this bad right before an election?

I can only imagine the October surprise it would take to somehow blind people and get Mittens into office.

My question? When he followed that up with the comment 'we need to get more people working so more are paying taxes', that seems to get lost in the shuffle. Can they not hear beyond one sentence at a time? (And what of that Virginia Senate candidate that wants everyone to pay some amount in federal taxes? Where's the screaming over that?)
Personally, I'd rather have more people employed and paying taxes than 47% NOT paying any.

Sounds like when NBC edited the Trayvon Martin call...

The Obamanauts are going to hear what they want and that is it. They are going to continue to scream "FICA", with, apparently no comprehension that FICA is NOT the same as federal income tax.
It is, for a nutshell design, retirement/disability funds for citizens.
In other words, it's almost like buying retirement/disability insurance. Not even the same category as federal taxes.
Lets use this 'Buffett rule" all the libs are raging about with screaming erections. Never been illegal for rich people, or poor people, to send in extra money they have to the federal government as bonus tax money.
Nor is there some bizarre law against taking deductions. But...then you hear about Buffett and company bemoaning how they have too much money. So they form a coalition of rich folks to donate half their wealth. How generous. How courageous. How...come they haven't done a damn thing but talk about what they're going to eventually do? Apparently, when they ******** die?
Because, as usual, they're talking s**t. They constantly bemoan how they're miserable and must do more to help society. But just talk. Nothing more.
I still maintain I have more respect for someone like Romney who flat out states he's out to keep as much as possible in citizens hands, vice those tha bemoan and cry in agony...and take deductions and hide their own money.
One's a hypocrite. The other is doing what they say. Guess which is more honest?
Instead, they want to continue down a path with someone who's really only accomplished one main accomplishment. Unanimous votes of '******** you' from the senate and congress.

[Wendigo]

Old Blue Collar Joe

The Obamanauts are going to hear what they want and that is it. They are going to continue to scream "FICA", with, apparently no comprehension that FICA is NOT the same as federal income tax.
It is, for a nutshell design, retirement/disability funds for citizens.

When you say that somebody "pays no taxes," naming a tax they do pay is a valid critique of your argument. A person doesn't have to qualify to pay federal marginal income tax in order to pay taxes to the federal government on their income. And a person doesn't have to be not working, or relying on food stamps for subsistence, not to pay that tax.

Whether one is a ______naut or not. Bullshitonaut in this case.

[Old Blue Collar Joe]

Wendigo

Old Blue Collar Joe

The Obamanauts are going to hear what they want and that is it. They are going to continue to scream "FICA", with, apparently no comprehension that FICA is NOT the same as federal income tax.
It is, for a nutshell design, retirement/disability funds for citizens.

When you say that somebody "pays no taxes," naming a tax they do pay is a valid critique of your argument. A person doesn't have to qualify to pay federal marginal income tax in order to pay taxes to the federal government on their income. And a person doesn't have to be not working, or relying on food stamps for subsistence, not to pay that tax.

Whether one is a ______naut or not. Bullshitonaut in this case.

Yeah. Cause the whole issue, all along hasn't been federal taxes. All that money goes in one magical pool. FICA is closer to a 401k than a tax. You will, potentially, get that back. You just have to live long enough.

[Wendigo]

I would say that th' whole issue with this one is that Romney sees "not qualifying to pay marginal income tax" with "not working and receiving food stamps or Medicaid" and consequently "voting Democrat," even though basically none of those things actually follows logically from the others. Although people who don't work certainly do fall into the category of people who don't pay said marginal income tax, they are a subset of it, and not even a particularly big one.

Never mind that, say, Tennessee, which has been suffering grinding poverty for some time, routinely favors Republican candidates.

[Old Blue Collar Joe]

Wendigo

I would say that th' whole issue with this one is that Romney sees "not qualifying to pay marginal income tax" with "not working and receiving food stamps or Medicaid" and consequently "voting Democrat," even though basically none of those things actually follows logically from the others. Although people who don't work certainly do fall into the category of people who don't pay said marginal income tax, they are a subset of it, and not even a particularly big one.

Never mind that, say, Tennessee, which has been suffering grinding poverty for some time, routinely favors Republican candidates.

While he probably phrased that comment very damn poorly, his point still stands. It is a good thing to get people off the public dole and in a tax paying bracket, wouldn't you agree, since that means they're making more money? Foodstamps and welfare are at record levels. That is NOT a good thing.

[Wendigo]

It's not the phrasing he got wrong, it's the idea he was trying to express. It's Reagan's hooplah about "welfare queens" all over again. He's constructed a fictitious, ludicrous stereotype of 70 million Democratic-voting Welfare recipients.

His choice to hinge his getting-folks-back-to-work proposal on that ludicrous stereotype is what he got wrong, not the words he used in saying so.

[pockybot]

Old Blue Collar Joe

pockybot

Old Blue Collar Joe

pockybot

As I've been saying, it's almost like Romney is throwing the boxing match on purpose. Who train wrecks this bad right before an election?

I can only imagine the October surprise it would take to somehow blind people and get Mittens into office.

My question? When he followed that up with the comment 'we need to get more people working so more are paying taxes', that seems to get lost in the shuffle. Can they not hear beyond one sentence at a time? (And what of that Virginia Senate candidate that wants everyone to pay some amount in federal taxes? Where's the screaming over that?)
Personally, I'd rather have more people employed and paying taxes than 47% NOT paying any.

Sounds like when NBC edited the Trayvon Martin call...

The Obamanauts are going to hear what they want and that is it. They are going to continue to scream "FICA", with, apparently no comprehension that FICA is NOT the same as federal income tax.
It is, for a nutshell design, retirement/disability funds for citizens.
In other words, it's almost like buying retirement/disability insurance. Not even the same category as federal taxes.
Lets use this 'Buffett rule" all the libs are raging about with screaming erections. Never been illegal for rich people, or poor people, to send in extra money they have to the federal government as bonus tax money.
Nor is there some bizarre law against taking deductions. But...then you hear about Buffett and company bemoaning how they have too much money. So they form a coalition of rich folks to donate half their wealth. How generous. How courageous. How...come they haven't done a damn thing but talk about what they're going to eventually do? Apparently, when they ******** die?
Because, as usual, they're talking s**t. They constantly bemoan how they're miserable and must do more to help society. But just talk. Nothing more.
I still maintain I have more respect for someone like Romney who flat out states he's out to keep as much as possible in citizens hands, vice those tha bemoan and cry in agony...and take deductions and hide their own money.
One's a hypocrite. The other is doing what they say. Guess which is more honest?
Instead, they want to continue down a path with someone who's really only accomplished one main accomplishment. Unanimous votes of '******** you' from the senate and congress.

I am hoping with all my lucky stars Obama doesn't win; mainly just out of spite of all the smarmy mouthy snobby know it all "liberals"(particularly the college age set)
I see feminist fascists, poli sci nerds, etc all trying to bully people with sky-is-falling rhetoric and scare tactics into voting for Obama. Even as a 'leftist' I can't stand this sort of mentality and they come off as more antagonistic than the average GOP voter.

For every dumb a** hanging a chair as a clearly racial effigy, there's a million more smarmy ******** liberals who will talk you down and call you every name in the book due to your beliefs or voting choices