RomneyRyan 2012!

A) I am aware, but since I'm not so familiar with the way your government's finances are run on several levels, I can't really comment (as in, I don't know which services are paid by which level, etc.)
B) didn't say high, I said highER
C) Need may have been the wrong choice if words, but the point remains that the workers are prepared to do a certain job for a certain wage. If they keep less of the wage, they'll want more for the same job, or fewer people that are qualified will want to do the job. Or, to put it in supply and demand terms: say you have a demand for cheese, and a supply, they meet at a certain price. If the price remains the same, but the package shrinks because mice eat bits of it (so you get to keep less), you will have fewer customers who are prepared to pay that price. So, either price goes down, or the package size has to increase to compensate what the mouse eats, or there will be fewer customers (or of course a combination). Replace cheese with netto wages, the price with labour, and mice with the government (seems appropriate :p ).
Of course the demand will be pretty inelastic, but you are talking about half your country, so the effects will be big.
My point was that the argument was about not paying income tax, and you shifted it into welfare. That 47% doesn't pay taxes is a progressive taxing issue, wealth redistribution, not welfare or bloated government. It's not the.same.
Also your last point is stupid, because living standards and price indexes are also wide apart. and if you think that getting on fine with slightly lower wages is okay, I'm sure you don't mind extra tax for the super wealthy. After all, billions manage just fune on wages far, far, FAR lower than them ;)
D) I never said that. Taxes are necessary, but should be neither too high nor too low. The discussion is about what the right level is, and in this discussion, how to spread it among the population. Also, if you say lower for everyone, that seems somewhat awkward after saying you want to raise them for 47% (:

On the one hand, lower net wages would mean fewer people wanting to work for those wages. On the other hand, no welfare means that not working means starving, which sends a pretty damn strong signal in the opposite direction. :noob:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

On the one hand, lower net wages would mean fewer people wanting to work for those wages. On the other hand, no welfare means that not working means starving, which sends a pretty damn strong signal in the opposite direction. :noob:

---

Welfare != tax distribution.

And, of course, if net wages drop enough, even working means starving ;) Leaving criminality as an option, of course, but I duobt that's what you want.

Why would wages "drop enough"? Pretty sure people can survive on $5-6 an hour. Besides, only something like 1-2% of the population works for the minimum wage, which suggests that slightly higher taxes wouldn't make all that much of a difference.

Again, so why are you opposed to higher taxes on the rich? :p And thanks for still ignoring my main point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

Again, look up an ecological fallacy. The fact that Red states are least likely to have income tax does not mean that Republicans in the Red states are less likely to pay income tax. In fact, the median income of a Republican voter is substantially higher than the median income of an average Democrat.

---

So you're saying that by and large Republican voters do all pay income tax and so Romney's stand on that point may not be off the mark.... But what do you think about the rest of it? If someone doesn't make enough to pay income tax, do you think it is fair or accurate to label them with a victim mindset, irresponsible and uncaring of their own lives? And does it make sense to you to base policy on those character assumptions?

I think the speech was given at a fundraiser, and some things need to be embellished to get your point across.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EyeKhan

So you're saying that by and large Republican voters do all pay income tax and so Romney's stand on that point may not be off the mark.... But what do you think about the rest of it? If someone doesn't make enough to pay income tax, do you think it is fair or accurate to label them with a victim mindset, irresponsible and uncaring of their own lives? And does it make sense to you to base policy on those character assumptions?

---

The way he phrased the statement was bad. A lot of folks (like me at the start of my career) didn't pay income tax for awhile. I'm sure some folks are in the very same position I was in right now. And some people who have worked all of their lives and paid income tax now no longer do so based on being in retirement. However I agree with the general gist of the statement. Folks who don't pay income taxes don't see a benefit in tax cuts. They don't pay them in the first place! This should be obvious. Secondly as to the victim mentality - your damn right there is a huge victim mentality. Its far easier for a person who is not doing well to say "Its because of X Y and Z not because of anything I did!" People it seems, prefer to be a victim then a screw up. Those people who view their present circumstances as those that are forced upon them will never change their lifestyle and will keep their hand out waiting for government assistance until their attitude changes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

The way he phrased the statement was bad. A lot of folks (like me at the start of my career) didn't pay income tax for awhile. I'm sure some folks are in the very same position I was in right now. And some people who have worked all of their lives and paid income tax now no longer do so based on being in retirement.

---

That's how a progressive tax system is designed to work, allowing for people to move between different brackets. You made a blanket statement about some who NEVER pay income tax, without a citation. Care to show how that group isn't a fairly small percent of the population? :donkey:

Quote:

---

However I agree with the general gist of the statement. Folks who don't pay income taxes don't see a benefit in tax cuts. They don't pay them in the first place! This should be obvious.

---

That's a public perception and awareness gap, not a character flaw. Same thing happened when 1/3 of stimulus dollars were used as tax cuts instead of direct rebates. Plenty of benefits are "buried" in tax code, invisible to most folks. (Surveys show a majority don't consider having used a "govt program" when it comes as Education tax credits, SBA loans, or even Medicare.)

Quote:

---

Secondly as to the victim mentality - your damn right there is a huge victim mentality. Its far easier for a person who is not doing well to say "Its because of X Y and Z not because of anything I did!" People it seems, prefer to be a victim then a screw up. Those people who view their present circumstances as those that are forced upon them will never change their lifestyle and will keep their hand out waiting for government assistance until their attitude changes.

---

Yeah, we know you believe that, but haven't backed it up with anything but your gut feelings and stereotypes. Those People is like your "code" for loathing poor people (instead of poverty), and a round-about way to loathe gov't assistance as nothing but welfare or a hand out. :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steely Glint

Federal welfare programs, 0% income tax rates and other government safety nets effectively subsidize the low wages paid to the bottom rung of employees in an large company, low wages directly translating into increased profits for companies such as the ones Mittens made his money from, making him one of the biggest scroungers of them all.

---

In a word, Yes.

Something not mentioned so far is that our 'war on poverty' of the 60's turned into re-structuring Welfare during the 70's *and beyond*. There were bi-partisan efforts under both (R) and (D) administrations (imagine that!) that led to Welfare-to-Work programs, raising federal minimum wage, razing public housing 'projects' and replacing them with Section 8 Housing tax incentives....basically using the tax code to engineer social change. Much of it came from traditional conservative ideas (including Milton Friedman's theories) to incentivize work, participation in the economy, and get rid of "welfare checks".

That's how the Earned Income Tax Credit came about. Those working low-middle wage jobs would keep more money in their pockets, and not need gov't supplement checks. I'm pretty sure every administration increased the EITC as low-mid wages failed to keep up with rising COL. Then things like Child and Dependent Care tax credits were added, and the Marriage Penalty tax was removed, to encourage two-income families with children. There was the Credit Card Interest tax deduction to induce credit-debt buying (later cancelled). The Home Mortgage Interest tax deduction to induce home-buying (and grow construction industry employment). Plus a whole host of other tax deductions whose goals were to let workers keep more of their wages, and not need federal assistance/welfare.

Of course, those tax/fiscal policies also benefitted the employers who could keep wages on the low side....effectively "subsidizing" larger profits for certain corporations. <Insert the history of union activism here, then the 'mandate' for employer-subsidized health insurance with its tax deductions. Even Bain Capital.> All these things played nicely into our American history of hating both taxes and welfare, while rewarding definitions of American "success", upward mobility, and The Great American Dream.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

The way he phrased the statement was bad. A lot of folks (like me at the start of my career) didn't pay income tax for awhile. I'm sure some folks are in the very same position I was in right now. And some people who have worked all of their lives and paid income tax now no longer do so based on being in retirement. However I agree with the general gist of the statement. Folks who don't pay income taxes don't see a benefit in tax cuts. They don't pay them in the first place! This should be obvious. Secondly as to the victim mentality - your damn right there is a huge victim mentality. Its far easier for a person who is not doing well to say "Its because of X Y and Z not because of anything I did!" People it seems, prefer to be a victim then a screw up. Those people who view their present circumstances as those that are forced upon them will never change their lifestyle and will keep their hand out waiting for government assistance until their attitude changes.

---

You are a serious piece of work. For once you finally admit that the world isn't black and white, and likely because you found yourself in that grey area. Congrats, you were, until, recently part of that 47%, but not that "evil" part of it.
Yet in the same reply, you claim a huge victim mentality, a claim thats coming completely out of your ass. You used a lot to describe people like yourself, but huge to describe the victim mentality. You then go on to connect the sense that sometimes people experience events as outside their control (which is entirely possible), and immediately jump to those people maintaining that victim mentality and becoming some sort of government leech.

Its as if the entire point of these safety nets, to catch people who didn't plan for exact XYZ event, and support them while they work past it, simply doesn't exist. Someone can suffer an event outside their control, become a victim, and not let that keep them down. Victims aren't broken people.

Moving past that, I hope Romney's Univision appearance happened immediately after some sort of tanning accident. Cause holy shit that was a horrible attempt at brownfacing.

What? :confused: I saw him on teevee today, at an appearance in FL (with a background banner saying something about strengthening Medicare--is that ironic or hypocritical?). Yeah, he looked pretty tanned. But he's also been doing some boating in NH, and spending time in the Sunshine State. I think he's just got the skin type that easily tans with natural sun exposure. Look at his hands.


edit:

Wow, I'm surprised at all the "brownface" internet links. Are there just as many with his son speaking Spanish to Latino/Hispanic voting groups?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

What? :confused: I saw him on teevee today, at an appearance in FL (with a background banner saying something about strengthening Medicare--is that ironic or hypocritical?). Yeah, he looked pretty tanned. But he's also been doing some boating in NH, and spending time in the Sunshine State. I think he's just got the skin type that easily tans with natural sun exposure. Look at his hands.

---

perhaps. Here is a few pictures of him over the past few days
http://colorlines.com/archives/2012/...univision.html

During the interview, the colortone difference between his hands and face is rather extreme.

Everyone gets "makeup" before televised appearances. The harsh camera lighting requires that, as a matter of practicality. Plenty of men end up in front of the camera with eyeliner ffs, because lighting bright enough for camera quality can make their eyes look small and squinty (a "sign" of dishonesty to the casual viewer).

I'm not seeing a problem here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer

You are a serious piece of work. For once you finally admit that the world isn't black and white, and likely because you found yourself in that grey area. Congrats, you were, until, recently part of that 47%, but not that "evil" part of it.
Yet in the same reply, you claim a huge victim mentality, a claim thats coming completely out of your ass. You used a lot to describe people like yourself, but huge describe the victim mentality. You then go on to connect the sense that sometimes people experience events as outside their control (which is entirely possible), and immediately jump to those people maintaining that victim mentality and becoming some sort of government leech.

Its as if the entire point of these safety nets, to catch people who didn't plan for exact XYZ event, and support them while they work past it, simply doesn't exist. Someone can suffer an event outside their control, become a victim, and not let that keep them down. Victims aren't broken people.

---

Those who don't pay income tax on a temporary basis are not the people who have the victim mentality. This is why Romney's statement was unfortunate he over generalized and brought together two issues that are linked but separate. The 47% not carrying about tax cuts and the victim mentality. I highly doubt Romney thinks 47% of Americans will always be in that same bracket (or have been). Why do you liberals find it so hard to believe that some people make horrible decisions and that those horrible decisions are the reason they are in their particular circumstances. Why is so hard for you to take into account basic human nature and the way incentives to work to figure out that government subsidies for life enable people to continue to wallow on the bottom rungs of society?

OG - What percentage of the folks in their 30s (for example) are poor primarily due to bad decisions. Decisions like choosing to break the law, decisions like wasting money on booze or other frivolous entertainment, laziness and just all around personal failure? Obviously 100% are not in that category. And *just as obviously* neither are 0%. So what percentage do you think are poor because of their own choices?

Lewk, you need to provide citations backing up your opinions. It simply won't pass muster to continue your claims.....that poverty is primarily due to choice or character flaws.

Oh yeah, and why do "you conservatives" find it so hard to believe that gov't incentives and subsidies enable corporate cronyism, financial engineering, subsidizing people at the Top -- who are so busy whining in their wealth and tax shelters -- wondering when the Trickle Down effect will begin to spur the economy?

Again, which entitlements are we raging against if payroll taxes--which most working people pay?--go to SS and medicare?

Again, approximately how large a portion of those 47% are we ranting about if just half of them get out of federal income taxes due to not earning enough?

What portion of those "not earning enough" are "poor" by any definition we can both agree on?

Of those, I can concede that a portion may have committed crimes etc.

More likely than not, a number of those could have led more normal and more productive lives had their woefully inadequate single parents lived in a better country with a better social system, but that's beside the point NO IT ISN'T

Having seen more segments from that video I'm like wtf :bulb:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tu...ire-gaffemaker

Do you think people who spend their entire life not working or working dead end job because they never finished high school, have a prison record, etc. bear any responsibility at all for their inability to pay taxes?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

So what percentage do you think are poor because of their own choices?

---

I think Clinton answered this for you last night; "the problem with any ideology is that it gives the answer before you look at the evidence."

Why guess, why assume, when research would be the smart choice? Unless you're afraid of what you will find.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

However I agree with the general gist of the statement. Folks who don't pay income taxes don't see a benefit in tax cuts. They don't pay them in the first place!

---

The statement being this 47% of Americans are never going to support Romney b/c his stance on tax and government services is cut taxes and cut services? Yes it should be obvious, I guess. On the other hand is it established that that people who don't pay income tax DO use more government services that those that do? Evryone uses government services, its just that many don't realize it or realize how much they use. Services used by the very poor are more obvious, but is it more overall?

Quote:

---

Secondly as to the victim mentality - your damn right there is a huge victim mentality. Its far easier for a person who is not doing well to say "Its because of X Y and Z not because of anything I did!" People it seems, prefer to be a victim then a screw up. Those people who view their present circumstances as those that are forced upon them will never change their lifestyle and will keep their hand out waiting for government assistance until their attitude changes.

---

This is an interesting concept/ idea I often see from the Right. To summarize (correct me if I'm wrong):

A. Poor people are poor and/or fail to enter the middle and upper class because of bad decisions they make themselves.

B. Poor people don't see it that way and blame someone or something else for their poverty.

C. Because it isn't their fault, poor people believe the nation owes them economic/ social help to easy their suffering and/or increase their chances of becoming less poor.

D. The Right gets prickly at the thought that those benefitting from government help feel like they are victims who deserve it. And that feeling of entitlement dis-incentivizes them from trying harder to improve their situation.

Honestly I don't see the point of this line of thinking outside the effect of soothing people's guilt for cutting help to poor people. "A" allows you to place blame solidly on the poor and absolve yourself of any responsibility or duty to those less fortunate. The rest justifies your self-richeous contempt for these people, which bolsters the resolve to minimize the help they get.

I think reality goes more like this:

W. Poor people are poor and stay poor for a variety of reasons - some they can or should be able to control and many they can't. Some reasons an outsider might look at and believe should be obvious but likley from the inside they are not.

X. Our society and our economy always benefits when poor people move up the socio-economic ladder, regardless of the reasons for their poverty or their attitude regarding why they are poor. Always.

Y. Reasonable, targeted and measured help and incentives to poor people soothes their economic and personal difficulties and suffering and increases opportunity to climb the ladder out of poverty. The benefit for our society is clear and obvious when they do climb. For those that don't climb they often are able to live with greater dignity and less suffering, an unmistakable moral benefit, but also benefits society as a whole by minimizing social unrest and crime.

Z. Every society throughout human history has been structured as a socio-economic pyramid. The poor always exist and always out number the wealthier classes. One goal of government policy should be to keep that pyramid base as narrow as possible becaues everyone benefits and it is morally right.

I think that line of thinking from the Right aims to negate the nagging guilt sense that not helping the poor is immoral (ironic given the religous right...). But from a practical, secular POV the moral part of the benefit is by far the lesser.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer

I think Clinton answered this for you last night; "the problem with any ideology is that it gives the answer before you look at the evidence."

Why guess, why assume, when research would be the smart choice? Unless you're afraid of what you will find.

---

There's quite a lot of evidence showing that irresponsible behavior (not finishing high school, doing drugs, getting knocked up in school, going to prison) leads to bad outcomes.

Was this the same Clinton who cut off welfare payments to a huge portion of recipients? :noob:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

There's quite a lot of evidence showing that irresponsible behavior (not finishing high school, doing drugs, getting knocked up in school, going to prison) leads to bad outcomes.

---

bad outcomes ≠ poor primarily due to bad decisions.

from the two seperate lists thus provided I think legal is the only option you two share so far, and you at least left it open to being locked up without necessarily breaking the law :up:

No doubt there are some that are paying for their deeds, just like there are some who simply got the short end in life. So why wrap everyone up with a number like 47% and descriptions like "lack personal responsibility and won't care for their own lives" when you know thats not the story? Why suggest that a previous bad decision suddenly made these people government leeches? and why guess what the real perecentages are without doing the actual work?

yeah yeah, politicans have to lie.

so why defend it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

Do you think people who spend their entire life not working or working dead end job because they never finished high school, have a prison record, etc. bear any responsibility at all for their inability to pay taxes?

---

If 47% of Americans didn't finish high school and/or have a prison records, I think you have a bigger problem, to be honest.

Of course, it could be that you blindly ignore the vast amounts of people who didn't screw up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flixy

If 47% of Americans didn't finish high school and/or have a prison records, I think you have a bigger problem, to be honest.

Of course, it could be that you blindly ignore the vast amounts of people who didn't screw up.

---

From what i understand the poor and uneducated have a higher percentage of them being republican, so that's odd. Also if 47% of voting americans are going to vote for Obama (what he said in the speech) then I don't see how he could win at all. that leaves 53% up for grabs. He would have to get 51 out of the 53 remaining points, that'd be 51/53 or like i don't know that's like 97% of the remaining voters who are not garaunteed to vote for Obama to win the popular vote.

Obama really needs to run an add compaign against the senate saying the democrats can't implement any problem solving policies if the republicans seek to block them regardless what they are. Especially for them to be so idiotic as to sign something like: The Grover Norquist pledge. Which when i first heard about, I thought it was too rediculous to be true.

http://www.bls.gov/emp/ep_chart_001.htm
http://soc101.wordpress.com/2011/09/...el-2011-update

And: "studies show only 30 to 40 percent of people with criminal records generally showing any employment per quarter, with quarterly earnings of those working often averaging around $2,000".

http://www.heartlandalliance.org/wha...of-poverty.pdf

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lebanese Dragon

From what i understand the poor and uneducated have a higher percentage of them being republican, so that's odd.

---

You understand wrong, something you'd know if you read this thread. You don't get to have an opinion about facts.

I think some people are really blowing out of all proportion what Romney actually said. The point is that Romney can't appeal to (the vast majority of) the 47% by saying "cut taxes" as they get no benefit from cutting taxes as they're not paying it. While Obama can threaten that Romney'd cut spending and they'd lose if spending is cut. Romney needs to win the swing voters in the middle. That's what he said and that's entirely correct.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

I think some people are really blowing out of all proportion what Romney actually said. The point is that Romney can't appeal to (the vast majority of) the 47% by saying "cut taxes" as they get no benefit from cutting taxes as they're not paying it. While Obama can threaten that Romney'd cut spending and they'd lose if spending is cut. Romney needs to win the swing voters in the middle. That's what he said and that's entirely correct.

---

That is certainly part of what Romney actually said

If we ignore the part of what he said where he insulted nearly half of the country he's supposed to be running for president of, what he said isn't actually all that bad.

Can you imagine if Obama was like "Yeah, anyone who doesn't vote for me is redneck racist white trash, pure and simple" and people excused it with "well, actually he has a point there in that there are a small number of people who won't vote for him no matter what he says or does"? Just picture the reaction.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

http://www.bls.gov/emp/ep_chart_001.htm
http://soc101.wordpress.com/2011/09/...el-2011-update

---

This isn't related to what lewk or Romney claim. No one here is arguing about the payout of higher education. Even with the numbers here, those that didn't finish high school make more than double what you earlier claimed a poor person could survive off of. Are you honestly trying to claim that someone who makes 25k+ a year is someone who lacks responsibility and can't/won't care for themselves?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

The point isn't to look at the actual numbers. It's to look at the disparity between the votes for Democrats and Republicans at each level. You get similar results in every recent election.

---

Says the one who cited a sample size of one. :o I'm not saying you're wrong, but I question the strength of the point when the only data we're looking at is a year when Democrats won large portions of the electorate. EG, some skimming around suggests the gap narrowed in mid-terms (with sub$50k voting Democrat and super$50k voting Republican in roughly even quantities.

We're not really disagreeing over much here.

http://elections.nytimes.com/2008/re...xit-polls.html :o

Another Democratic landslide. I was looking for 2010 data. CNN seemed to have had it at one point, but their database is broken and not showing it. They only show data for elections when Democrats are considered winners. :downcast:

Um, it has every presidential election since 1992...

Here's the 2010 election; same pattern: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...%3Dinteractive

I think we went down a black hole where I assumed Steely was saying Democrats get an overwhelming share of votes from poor people, and I thought you were supporting that. When none of us where saying anything that any of each other disagreed with.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steely Glint

Can you imagine if Obama was like "Yeah, anyone who doesn't vote for me is redneck racist white trash, pure and simple" and people excused it with "well, actually he has a point there in that there are a small number of people who won't vote for him no matter what he says or does"? Just picture the reaction.

---

Arguably Obama did something close to that in 2008 with his "they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations" gaffe.

Which was excused with, "Well, Obama was saying that he wants to keep trying to reach those people [Read:"racists"/"real Americans"] even though they are inclined to hate Obama."

Both Obama's in 2008 and Romney's in 2012 are total gaffes. The struggle to explain them always comes off as awkward to the people who don't support the person making the gaffe. That's politics and the prisms through which we view these things. Life goes on.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/art...ng_115526.html

Interesting piece.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dreadnaught

Arguably Obama did something close to that in 2008 with his "they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations" gaffe.

---

http://prospect.org/article/cling-guns-vs-47-percent

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aimless

http://prospect.org/article/cling-guns-vs-47-percent

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dreadnaught

Which was excused with, "Well, Obama was saying that he wants to keep trying to reach those people [Read:"racists"/"real Americans"] even though they are inclined to hate Obama."

Both Obama's in 2008 and Romney's in 2012 are total gaffes. The struggle to explain them always comes off as awkward to the people who don't support the person making the gaffe. That's politics and the prisms through which we view these things. Life goes on.

---