The Glade 4.0

You somehow think there aren't a **** ton of folks that won't vote for Obama simply because he has a D after his name? There are straight party line voters in EVERY party.

The fact is that except for comment about 47% of the population not paying income tax, the rest of his comments are completely wrong and only show how completely out of touch he is.

But that's what I'm saying Aizle. His 47% comment was aimed at those folks who won't vote for him no matter what. I give you that his descriptions of a large % of those folks may be off some, but his main point is correct. He basically said what most common sense folks who engage in political debate think. You know it. I know it. He just said it out loud. What he said is no worse than Obama's "bitter clinger" remark and yet the MSM gave Obama a pass on it. I certainly don't remember any of you guys rushing to condemn BO on that and remarking how it would sink his chance at becoming president.

As for Obama's bitter clinger comment, frankly he's right on the money there, and if you actually read the comment he's not being derogatory. He's talking about how when you're desperate you'll cling on to anything to help explain or comfort you in the situation. That's common sense. Could the phrasing have been better? Sure, but the key point is right on, which is why it didn't get traction as a "story", not because of some media conspiracy to get four more years.

Yeah, about that...

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/09 ... z27ZSphHft

Also, fun fact...

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/rom ... 52977.html




Oh those generous libs...

when every single one of them that has a job pays more taxes than he does, even the ones that pay no income tax at all.

Who is the 47% Not Paying Taxes?

GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s recent remarks caught on camera regarding the 47% of Americans who don’t pay income tax are all over the news.

Our nation’s tax code is long and complex, and as I’ve shown in recent columns there are ways the super rich can avoid paying massive taxes and for lower-income individuals to reduce their income and save on taxes-- even to the point of receiving back more money than they paid in.

But the question remains, who makes up this 47% and why don’t they pay income taxes?

Here is the breakdown, according to the Tax Policy Center:

Elderly: 10.3% This group has likely paid off their mortgages and is earning reduced income in the form of modest pensions and Social Security benefits. If they are making less than $10,950 (single), $20,150 (married filing jointly) and $13,650 (head of household) in annual pension benefits alone, then their Social Security is not taxable and they have no filing requirement.

6.9%: Non-elderly Some of these folks are under the age of 65, likely live in low-income areas, may possibly enjoy the benefits of low-income housing, food stamps, government subsidized medical, etc. They make less than $9,500 (single), $19,000 (married filing jointly), and $12,200 (head of household). They have no filing requirement and do not work. If they did, they would be included in the next category of the 28.3%. This could also include the ultra rich who pay no taxes thanks to tax loopholes. It also includes many students living off student loans or with their parents. And don’t forget our beloved Armed Forces who receive nontaxable combat zone pay.

28.3% Pay Payroll Tax This group has jobs, but are working for very low pay or part time. They pay into Social Security and Medicare through payroll withholding, but because their incomes are so low, they end up owing nothing in income taxes.

Low enough wages to not have to file a return can be common at large corporations. According to Forbes 400 Richest Americans 2012, four members of the Wal-Mart family hold 6th through 9th place with a combined net worth of $107.1 billion. Yet, Angela Andrews, a registered tax practitioner who works in a tax office at a California mall across from Wal-Mart states, “more than 50% of the 100 Wal-Mart employees who come in to get their taxes done qualify for and receive the Earned Income Credit.” When employers don’t pay the difference between the minimum pay scale and adequate compensation, taxpayers provide it in the form of the EIC for those workers.

These people are legally entitled to the Earned Income Credit (EIC), which helps low-income filers hold on to and even get more money from Uncle Sam. Many eligible candidates for the EIC are single parents, and can get a maximum of $5,666 for 2011 with the credit.

Some corporations prefer to hire two part timers rather than one full-time individual so they don’t have to provide fringe benefits.

<1% Others – a hodge podge of the remainder that make up the 47%, with no descriptive provided by the Tax Policy Center. These are probably self-employed individuals who are suffering business reversals. They file tax returns with the hopes of carrying backward or forward their business losses. No tax is due if you threw your money into a business that is not yet giving you a return on your investment.

So as you can see, the 47% is a varied group. Some are elderly, living modestly on small pensions. Some work and pay into the system in other ways. Some are thrown by the bad economy, unemployed and looking, losing their businesses, losing their homes.

On Mitt Romney’s website is the following declaration: “Mitt Romney has scrupulously complied with the U.S. tax code, and his income is reported and taxed at the applicable rates, and he has paid 100 percent of what he has owed.”
It’s likely that most among the 47% can say the same.

Think about the tax monster we have created. The rich pay 15%, the poor get reverse welfare. Those in the middle are forced to carry the load. It’s time for less talk and more action. We need a Congress and a president who will radically change the tax system in this country.


Read more: http://www.foxbusiness.com/personal-fin ... z27mAeTAin

In comic strips the person on the left always speaks first. - George Carlin

What he said is no worse than Obama's "bitter clinger" remark and yet the MSM gave Obama a pass on it. I certainly don't remember any of you guys rushing to condemn BO on that and remarking how it would sink his chance at becoming president.

Did you really mean to say that?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/charleskadl ... ome-taxes/

I'm pretty sure Romney paid more in taxes than most folks...

There are two important differences, though. First, Obama's statement was sympathetic to the people being discussed (condescending and patronizing, yes, but still sympathetic), whereas Romney's was condemnatory and dismissive. Personally, I find arrogant sympathy somewhat less off-putting than arrogant disdain, and I suspect many people feel the same.

That meta-discussion aside, though, I actually kind of agree with you on the substance of the comparison. I think Obama's "bitter clinger" remark reflected a condescending, elite-liberal narrative about "cultural" issues like guns, religion, immigration and so on. Rural, working/middle-class Republican voters couldn't possibly be voting based on those issues because they genuinely feel strongly about them; it has to be because they're bitter about their economic situation (i.e. something elite liberals think is important) and are therefore "clinging" to these otherwise unimportant issues. It was self-flattery and condescending paternalism rolled into one.

Interesting. I didn't get that feel at all from the quote. I took it as him referring to those people who are way hardcore on those topics and part of what drives them to be that way. And I didn't get condescending sympathy but more understanding as to why they are as polarized.

But that "understanding" presumes that people who are hardcore on those issues are really just exhibiting some kind of politico-psychological transference, misdirecting their anger and frustration over issue X into excessive passion about issue Y. It ignores or rejects the possibility that maybe they're just intelligent, rational adults who genuinely place a great deal of value on issue Y for its own sake. Hence, it strkes me as condescending and patronizing.

Don't get me wrong, I think it's true, in a general sense, that people facing material hardship will often embrace non-material sources of meaning and comfort - family relationships, religious beliefs, national or other group identities, etc. - and I can see the argument that Obama was simply pointing that out. However, I think elite liberals in the US have a tendency to draw from that well far too often and much too deeply, dismissing genuine cultural and values-based political preferences as nothing more than misguided attempts to compensate for economic difficulty. Obama's statement struck me as being of a piece with that tendency.

RD, which "mobility-enhancing policies" are you referencing?

We may be switching gears here but this is what frustrates me more than anything. What BO and said and what MR said is basically a wash. If you took an unbiased don't care person and asked their opinion on it, I think they would agree. But here you are defending BO and lambasting MR(yes, I see the irony in saying this).

This is my main source of frustration when it comes to political discourse. We are all homers.

Mmm. How do you account fr the fact that I have no horse in the race, but think what Romney said was appalling?

Do you think you might be reading a generous interpretation into his words because you like and trust the guy, and can find ways to interpret bits of it that align with your own beliefs?

Boy, I wonder why Romney seems to come off as a dufus...

On the topic of paying taxes vs not paying taxes, you must also consider where money comes from.

Consider, for example, a public school teacher. On paper, it looks like they pay taxes. All of their income is received from tax dollars, so all they're really doing is deferring a part of their total compensation until the next year. Postal workers are another example. On paper, they appear to pay taxes. They are paid in tax dollars.

Any group that is paid out of the public coffers does not pay taxes. We simply have them fill out IRS returns so that they can feel like they've paid their dues. Make no mistake, these groups do not pay taxes. They receive taxes. Presumably, they receive tax money for performing some valuable function, so they do make a contribution to society, but it is not monetary.

The USPS has not directly received taxpayer-dollars since the early 1980s with the minor exception of subsidies for costs associated with the disabled and overseas voters.