Skip to comments.Romney's Right - Obama's 47% Dependency Rate Subverts Democracy
Posted on 09/18/2012 3:43:04 PM PDT by raptor22
click here to read article
I also think this is a great opportunity to put some spin on this with a simple retort. Romney wants people in the 47% to get good jobs, pay taxes and make that 47% a smaller number. Obama's only objection with that number is that he wants it bigger. More food stamps, more welfare, more medicaid, more low paying jobs, through policies that bog down the economy.
I am astounded that they all only add up to 47%
Only an Absolute Idiot would not agree with Romney !!
Nobama 2012 ping
Analysis by the Chairman of the Economics Department at Harvard University:
Because transfer payments are, in effect, the opposite of taxes, it makes sense to look not just at taxes paid, but at taxes paid minus transfers received. For 2009, the most recent year available, here are taxes less transfers as a percentage of market income (income that households earned from their work and savings):
Bottom quintile: -301 percent
Second quintile: -42 percent
Middle quintile: -5 percent
Fourth quintile: 10 percent
Highest quintile: 22 percent
Top one percent: 28 percent
The negative 301 percent means that a typical family in the bottom quintile receives about $3 in transfer payments for every dollar earned.
The most surprising fact to me was that the effective tax rate is negative for the middle quintile. According to the CBO data, this number was +14 percent in 1979 (when the data begin) and remained positive through 2007. It was negative 0.5 percent in 2008, and negative 5 percent in 2009. That is, the middle class, having long been a net contributor to the funding of government, is now a net recipient of government largess.
CBO report cited:
For Obama it’s all about growing the size of government unions even bigger. More “herders” for the dependent sheep.
The messiah knows this. That is why he is cramming as many people on the rolls as possible
Very confusing responses.
Half of FR responds to him as if he is saying the 47% who draw a check from the government.
Half of FR responds to him as if he is saying the 47% who do not owe income tax in a given year.
>>>Romney is correct on this. Not necessarily about how they vote, but that the 47% are more suseptible to being bought off with big unaffordable programs that will break the back of the 53%.
So how does a policy based on additional tax cuts address this issue? For example, removal of the capital gains tax would put someone like Romney whose income is based off of investments into the 47%.
I think Romney’s remarks will hurt him. Tonight on our local news they interviewed people about his statement and a lot of working class people are not happy with his remarks. Sometimes I think Romney just doesn’t want to win, just like I felt about McCain. Just wish we had a better candidate - someone who knew how to just shut up.
Well, I happen to disagree. Yes, there are plenty who would disagree with Romney’s remarks.
However, there is a true national security issue with so many people not being productive enough to earn and improve themselves. The people who take nearly outnumber those who don’t.
What will become of these people who have not learned to be their own masters when the money runs out? They have been parasites on the national largesse and taxation. Many are functionally illiterate. Some are ignorant. Some are infirm. Some are just plain lazy. Some are thieving from the rest of us. What will these people do with themselves? Even if they loot and kill and do other violence, what will they do when the money really and truly is gone?
I have no doubt that you're right. Given the fact that Obama's ministry of propaganda will give him several billion dollars worth of free political advertising, you can bet that rather than hearing the truth, you'll be hearing the lies about the statement over and over again, from every media source.
I get SS from the government. I paid into it as did my employer. If the government did not invest it effectively to cover inflation that is their problem. I don’t consider it a government hand-out that obligates me to vote for anyone.
I have read a couple of stories on the Weekly Standard site damning Romney for his remarks...
Their concern, rightly so, was that his remarks seem to relegate the poor to being poor forever.
I think the writers of these articles aren’t taking into account the context of what Romney was saying....he wasn’t saying (and doesn’t say) anything of the sort.
Indeed, his record of job creation and wealth creation completely is the opposite of what the critics say his remarks indicated.
Instead, the way to see this, is that Romney was speaking ELECTORALLY...not about how he would govern. His appeal for lower taxes won’t work for those who don’t pay taxes...
I have even heard Romney, to my chagrin, boast that he was going to keep the rich paying the same share of taxes...in essence, the rich will keep paying 70+ percent of the income taxes....
All this makes me believe Romney was talking about how to win the election—not how to help change the outlook of citizenry and the electorate.
just my thoughts.
What Romney should now do is explain the reasons why those on fixed incomes have to go on food stamps and other benefits such as energy assistance etc.
The price of,goods, services, food,and energy,have been driven up the democoms through edicts of regulations and prohibitions designed to change the systems of distribution and use of resources to conform to a socialist scheme or ideal
I agree with what Romney said but think he used too broad a brush. But my concern is that as Governor he only added to the problem. He just recently said how proud he is of RomneyCare which gives free health care as well as free abortions. He implemented a free cars for welfare which included free repairs and even free AAA cards. He governed as a liberal. I suspect his fund raiser was with conservatives so he said what he believed they wanted to hear. He has a history of doing that. His record is in conflict with his statements.
Even if the GOP had a real conservative instead of a degenerate coward, con man and liar as it's nominee, the groups the Founders warned about expanding voting rights to would still support the foreigner.
The sooner the inevitable collapse caused by ignoring the Founders and amending the Constitution to institute Universal Suffrage happens, the better.
The Founders didn't put a right to vote in the Constitution for a reason.
The collapse will be when the SS and welfare checks stop coming.
Then the Republic can be reset.
The franchise must be limited and determined by the states.
Incorporate term limits and rotate the Capitol amongst the States.
"Democracies have been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their death." James Madison
Remember democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide. John Adams: letter to John Taylor, April 15, 1814
The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.:Thomas Jefferson
Actually, there are a lot of people who work but don’t make a lot of money and because of the tax rates and EIC, do not pay income taxes. Just because you don’t end up paying income tax doesn’t mean you are lazy and dependent on the government. He insulted a lot of voters and I don’t think it helped him.
Feh. MSM setup. I was listening to Jason Lewis today and he had multiple *black* callers -- from MINNEAPOLIS -- saying that Romney was 100% correct.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.