PDA

View Full Version : Romney: It's not my job to worry about the poor



mrveggieman
09-18-2012, 04:54 PM
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/mitt-romney-its-not-my-job-to-worry-about-the-poor-8145203.html

Wickabee
09-18-2012, 07:03 PM
Well, he's right he'll never get their support, but not for the reasons he gave. It almost seems like he's already giving excuses for the loss that hasn't happened yet.

pspstatus
09-18-2012, 07:34 PM
I think that just about sums up what Mitt Romney is all about. If you have money I care and I will help you get more. If you don't have money then screw you. The funniest part is here's this guy talking about people taking responsibility for their own lives when he was basically handed a fortune when he was born. Not to say that he didn't work hard to make even more money for himself, but one has to wonder where he'd have ended up without the silver spoon.

Wickabee
09-18-2012, 07:45 PM
I think that just about sums up what Mitt Romney is all about. If you have money I care and I will help you get more. If you don't have money then screw you. The funniest part is here's this guy talking about people taking responsibility for their own lives when he was basically handed a fortune when he was born. Not to say that he didn't work hard to make even more money for himself, but one has to wonder where he'd have ended up without the silver spoon.

He'd be a lazy, no good, freeloading Democrat now, wouldn't he...

INTIMADATOR2007
09-18-2012, 08:44 PM
I think that just about sums up what Mitt Romney is all about. If you have money I care and I will help you get more. If you don't have money then screw you. The funniest part is here's this guy talking about people taking responsibility for their own lives when he was basically handed a fortune when he was born. Not to say that he didn't work hard to make even more money for himself, but one has to wonder where he'd have ended up without the silver spoon.
Are you aware that he gave everything he inherated from his family away to charity ? He gave his silver spoon away and made his money himself . In the ORIGINAL UNEDITED clip that you will not here from your source of info that he is for the people who struggle to make it in this country and wants to make it so they can support there selfs without Gov.handouts. The Obama campaign has given up on the white vote , so whats the difference.The problem with the left media is they will do anything to win..

Unedited video...http://www.theblaze.com/stories/is-the-full-secret-video-of-romney-at-fundraiser-really-unedited/

texansrangerfan73
09-18-2012, 08:50 PM
He'd be a lazy, no good, freeloading Democrat now, wouldn't he...

Don't you mean a hard working, sweating by the brow Democrat? You do realize that most Democrats ARE the blue collar working class right?

*censored*
09-18-2012, 08:56 PM
Don't you mean a hard working, sweating by the brow Democrat? You do realize that most Democrats ARE the blue collar working class right?

Not certain, but I believe Wickabee may have been using the literary devices of sarcasm and/or irony there.

Wickabee
09-18-2012, 09:05 PM
Are you aware that he gave everything he inherated from his family away to charity ? He gave his silver spoon away and made his money himself . In the ORIGINAL UNEDITED clip that you will not here from your source of info that he is for the people who struggle to make it in this country and wants to make it so they can support there selfs without Gov.handouts. The Obama campaign has given up on the white vote , so whats the difference.The problem with the left media is they will do anything to win..

Unedited video...http://www.theblaze.com/stories/is-the-full-secret-video-of-romney-at-fundraiser-really-unedited/

Care to clarify the (I'm *sure* not racist) remark in bold?


Not certain, but I believe Wickabee may have been using the literary devices of sarcasm and/or irony there.

Give that man a cigar!

Wickabee
09-18-2012, 09:13 PM
Are you aware that he gave everything he inherated from his family away to charity ? He gave his silver spoon away and made his money himself . In the ORIGINAL UNEDITED clip that you will not here from your source of info that he is for the people who struggle to make it in this country and wants to make it so they can support there selfs without Gov.handouts. The Obama campaign has given up on the white vote , so whats the difference.The problem with the left media is they will do anything to win..

Unedited video...http://www.theblaze.com/stories/is-the-full-secret-video-of-romney-at-fundraiser-really-unedited/

TO add, He did say 47% of Americans are with Obama because they feel entitled and Democrats give them things. Whether he is correct or not, I have to wonder if he will be fighting FOR that 47% as hard as he is now fighting against them. He won`t even bother campaigning to them because all they can do is vote, they can`t fundraise, they`re poor. Like it or not and regardless of what was edited out (or what he claims about his past wealth) it was a stupid move and it`s another black eye in a campaign that already has more than they need.

drtom2005
09-18-2012, 10:15 PM
Are you aware that he gave everything he inherated from his family away to charity ? He gave his silver spoon away and made his money himself . In the ORIGINAL UNEDITED clip that you will not here from your source of info that he is for the people who struggle to make it in this country and wants to make it so they can support there selfs without Gov.handouts. The Obama campaign has given up on the white vote , so whats the difference.The problem with the left media is they will do anything to win..

Unedited video...http://www.theblaze.com/stories/is-the-full-secret-video-of-romney-at-fundraiser-really-unedited/


A couple of points here. First, Romney didn't give up his family business contacts even if he did give up the money. Many things in life are dependent on who you know, not are you good at that job.

Second, when you say white vote, which group of white people are you talking about? Obama couldn't win without a significant portion of the white populace.

JustAlex
09-18-2012, 11:02 PM
RIP Romney's Campaign (if you want to call this a campaign).

pspstatus
09-18-2012, 11:17 PM
Are you aware that he gave everything he inherated from his family away to charity ? He gave his silver spoon away and made his money himself . In the ORIGINAL UNEDITED clip that you will not here from your source of info that he is for the people who struggle to make it in this country and wants to make it so they can support there selfs without Gov.handouts. The Obama campaign has given up on the white vote , so whats the difference.The problem with the left media is they will do anything to win..

Unedited video...http://www.theblaze.com/stories/is-the-full-secret-video-of-romney-at-fundraiser-really-unedited/

You're talking about Romney donating a 1 million dollar inheritance from his father in 1995. I'm talking about Mitt being born into a life of priviledge where the path was already paved in gold. All he had to do was walk straight ahead. I applaud Mr. Romney for donating such a significant sum of money but at the point when he did this he had already used his families wealth and contacts to make himself prosperous. What's another mil?

Also I hope you go back and re-read your post to see just how ignorant you sound in relation to the assertion about Romney being for people who work hard for themselves and Obama giving up on the white vote. Me thinks thou hath shown thyself.

JustAlex
09-18-2012, 11:23 PM
BTW.....talking about people inheriting money.

Isn't it ironic how people speak badly about poor people how they are "leeches" of society and they feel "entitled" to social programs and they are "lazy" and a million other things...

What about people like Mittens???

He was born into money, he didn't earn anything, he didn't work his way up the way most people did.

Talk about a lazy, unproductive, Self-entitled, LEECH!!

shrewsbury
09-18-2012, 11:38 PM
so being "born rich" is a bad thing? I wish I was, does that make me bad?

I can't speak for romney (nor would i want to) nor all republicans, but when we talk about the poor there are a few types. poor people who are trying to make it, poor people who have been "shunned" for one reason or another, the disabled, the elderly, and then the so called "bad ones". people who do abuse and leech off society.
we could keep entitlements at the same level but spread it among the ones who really need it. thus increasing the help to those that do need it and passing some laws to stop the others from abusing it.

it's weird that when romney's tracking poll goes up
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll
an edited piece of media comes out to make him look bad.

pspstatus
09-19-2012, 01:57 AM
so being "born rich" is a bad thing? I wish I was, does that make me bad?

I can't speak for romney (nor would i want to) nor all republicans, but when we talk about the poor there are a few types. poor people who are trying to make it, poor people who have been "shunned" for one reason or another, the disabled, the elderly, and then the so called "bad ones". people who do abuse and leech off society.
we could keep entitlements at the same level but spread it among the ones who really need it. thus increasing the help to those that do need it and passing some laws to stop the others from abusing it.

it's weird that when romney's tracking poll goes up
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll
an edited piece of media comes out to make him look bad.

I never said being born rich is a bad thing. My point is that it sure does make things a lot easier. I know there are different types of poor people. There are many people receiving governmental help legitimately because they need it and not because they're lazy. If they can't afford to keep themselves and their families afloat then how the hell are they supposed to pay income tax? We know that there is a difference but in the big picture they're all leeches to Romney. And this guy has the nerve to talk about poor people who have no money not paying taxes, meanwhile this cat makes boat loads of it and instead of paying his taxes properly he does whatever he can to pay less through loopholes.

AS far as the amount of people receiving entitlements, I would love to see some reform as well. People exploiting the system deserve to be cut off. Even if Mitt did win I doubt he would reform things all that much though.

I know most of your post was talking from your point of you. I'm looking at this from Romney's point of view and that video just confirms what's already obvious, which is that he has no use or concern for you if you're poor. He writes those people off saying they won't be what he cares about. That's insane, outrageous, and dangerous. These are the same people that were left hanging after Katrina. The president during that disaster didn't seem to care too much about the poor either. Perhaps it runs in the party, at least at the top anyway.

Wickabee
09-19-2012, 02:03 AM
so being "born rich" is a bad thing? I wish I was, does that make me bad?

I can't speak for romney (nor would i want to) nor all republicans, but when we talk about the poor there are a few types. poor people who are trying to make it, poor people who have been "shunned" for one reason or another, the disabled, the elderly, and then the so called "bad ones". people who do abuse and leech off society.
we could keep entitlements at the same level but spread it among the ones who really need it. thus increasing the help to those that do need it and passing some laws to stop the others from abusing it.

it's weird that when romney's tracking poll goes up
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll
an edited piece of media comes out to make him look bad.

Edited or not, he said some pretty bad things. The bit about how being Latino would make it easier for him to win the election (I wonder what his shot at the nomination would have been, for starters...) was particularly idiotic. Him coming out after and saying he stands behind what he said makes no sense,

Mitt is historically a moderate conservative, correct? Any chance he could really be a Liberal taking things down from the inside?

pghin08
09-19-2012, 09:16 AM
Edited or not, he said some pretty bad things. The bit about how being Latino would make it easier for him to win the election (I wonder what his shot at the nomination would have been, for starters...) was particularly idiotic. Him coming out after and saying he stands behind what he said makes no sense,

Mitt is historically a moderate conservative, correct? Any chance he could really be a Liberal taking things down from the inside?

He's historically a VERY moderate conservative. You know what? Strike that. He's not a conservative. His record certainly doesn't show it. That's what baffles me about this election. He's a centrist guy who should attract a lot of centrist votes, which is the key demographic right now. However, the Republican base (which has tacked much harder right in the last four years) has made Romney so concerned about his Republican "street cred" that he's tacked very hard to the right. For me at least, it's very easy to see how disingenuous he is about it. The real Mitt Romney isn't the guy who's running this campaign right now. I think if Mitt Romney talked about who he really was and was honest about his governing past, he'd probably win this election.

Conservatives of SCF, help me out here. If Romney were running as a centrist candidate, one who stood by his abortion stance and stood by his governing record, would you really vote for Obama over him? The language from the right in regards to Obama is so vitriolic that I think if the Republicans nominated a 2x4 for President, the base would still vote for it over Mr. O.

habsheaven
09-19-2012, 11:19 AM
Exactly!! In all honesty, early on when it looked apparent that Romney was going to win the nomination, I thought: "Of all the candidates he has the best chance at winning the election because of...

pghin08
09-19-2012, 11:30 AM
No way he would be in charge. Zero chance.

mrveggieman
09-19-2012, 11:59 AM
Yeah I made the comment on here several months ago that I could stomach romney because he did look moderate compared to those clowns herman cain and rick santorum. Now he seems just as bad if not...

JustAlex
09-19-2012, 02:05 PM
And that is precisely why we must get rid of the two party system. <br />
<br />
In a sane world, Mitt Romney would run as an individual with HIS own ideas and beliefs, that's not the way America works. <br />
<br />
And...

Wickabee
09-19-2012, 02:19 PM
Kind of reminds me of McCain '08. I thought he was a fairly level-headed guy. Then he ran for President and seemingly lost his mind. This is why the Dems are currently in better shape than the Reps....

duane1969
09-19-2012, 02:38 PM
This thread title is so biased and ridiculous it isn't even funny. He didn't say "It's not my job to worry about the poor" he said that it isn't to worry about the people who he knows will vote for Obama no matter what. What he said is that the people who have made a career out of welfare checks and food stamps will never vote for him and that is true. They are going to vote for the person who will guarantee their free ride and that person is Obama.

What I find supremely funny is that Obama supporters like to claim that Obama will defeat Romney with ease and then they show just how weak their position is by taking things out of context and using them to lie and deceive. If the Obama position is so strong then why keep doing this ignorant stuff? Is it just natural instinct for liberals to lie and deceive or is the Obama position not as strong as they want us to think and they are doing this because they know how weak their position really is?

Wickabee
09-19-2012, 02:48 PM
This thread title is so biased and ridiculous it isn't even funny. He didn't say "It's not my job to worry about the poor" he said that it isn't to worry about the people who he knows will vote for Obama no matter what. What he said is that the people who have made a career out of welfare checks and food stamps will never vote for him and that is true. They are going to vote for the person who will guarantee their free ride and that person is Obama.

What I find supremely funny is that Obama supporters like to claim that Obama will defeat Romney with ease and then they show just how weak their position is by taking things out of context and using them to lie and deceive. If the Obama position is so strong then why keep doing this ignorant stuff? Is it just natural instinct for liberals to lie and deceive or is the Obama position not as strong as they want us to think and they are doing this because they know how weak their position really is?

He called 47% of Americans leeches (paraphrased). He said that the 47% of Americans who don't pay income taxes are nothing but moochers who depend on the government and feel entitled to do so. That 47% includes families of 5 making less than $50,000 (does that number look familiar? It's what a plate at the dinner where the video was taken cost), households making less than $20,000 (all those people pay payroll tax, even if not income), seniors and, this is my favourite, MILITARY PERSONAL who are exempt from income tax.

He said American soldiers are nothing but moochers leeching of the system out of a sense of entitlement...

duane1969
09-19-2012, 02:53 PM
He called 47% of Americans leeches (paraphrased). He said that the 47% of Americans who don't pay income taxes are nothing but moochers who depend on the government and feel entitled to do so. That 47% includes families of 5 making less than $50,000 (does that number look familiar? It's what a plate at the dinner where the video was taken cost), households making less than $20,000 (all those people pay payroll tax, even if not income), seniors and, this is my favourite, MILITARY PERSONAL who are exempt from income tax.

He said American soldiers are nothing but moochers leeching of the system out of a sense of entitlement...

Funny, I didn't hear the words "moocher" or "leech" a single time. I guess you hear what you want to hear when you listen to it.

Wickabee
09-19-2012, 02:55 PM
Funny, I didn't hear the words "moocher" or "leech" a single time. I guess you hear what you want to hear when you listen to it.

Paraphrased and you know it.

indexed
09-19-2012, 02:57 PM
I dont think he said the poor I think he meant able bodied non working people sitting on their butts looking for a handout.

Wickabee
09-19-2012, 02:59 PM
Here's a direct quote:

There are 47% of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47% 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 they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you name it...These are people who pay no income tax, 47% of Americans pay no income tax.
Let's see what this means:
47% of Americans (including military personnel, the elderly and students) don't pay income tax.
That same 47% feels entitled to "yo0u name it" from the government.
That same 47%, the ENTIRE GROUP-not one exception, support Obama and will never not support Obama or the Democrats.
That 47% of America isn't worth campaigning to.

So, Duane, tell me what he really meant...

Wickabee
09-19-2012, 03:00 PM
I dont think he said the poor I think he meant able bodied non working people sitting on their butts looking for a handout.

He said 47% of America. There's no room to really move from that, he kind of repeated it.

habsheaven
09-19-2012, 03:02 PM
He clearly said ALL of Obama's supporters thought of themselves as VICTIMS. Democrats do not have to take that video out of context at all. He said everything he said as plain as day.

pghin08
09-19-2012, 03:03 PM
Funny, I didn't hear the words "moocher" or "leech" a single time. I guess you hear what you want to hear when you listen to it.

You don't think "moocher" and "leech" are the same things as "entitled" and "victim"?

And by the way, it's not like the entitlement culture began with Obama, and I strongly doubt it would be any different under a Romney presidency.

duane1969
09-19-2012, 03:04 PM
I know that what I heard in that clip is neither wrong nor proof that Romney doesn't care about the poor. The simple reality is that people who are dependent on welfare are going to vote Obama. Period. When Romney says that 47% of Americans don't pay taxes and the message of tax cuts won't matter to them, he is correct. People who don't pay taxes don't value tax cuts. Nowhere in any of that is there proof that Romney doesn't care about the poor.

My opinion is that Obama doesn't care about America, period. His policies of attacking and demonizing the wealthy while propping up the poor is a formula to ensure that the American economy collapses. Anybody who truly believes that taking money from the wealthy and giving it to the poor will fix the economy and make America grow is stuck somewhere between Stupidville and Dimwit City.

Wickabee
09-19-2012, 03:06 PM
I know that what I heard in that clip is neither wrong nor proof that Romney doesn't care about the poor. The simple reality is that people who are dependent on welfare are going to vote Obama. Period. When Romney says that 47% of Americans don't pay taxes and the message of tax cuts won't matter to them, he is correct. People who don't pay taxes don't value tax cuts. Nowhere in any of that is there proof that Romney doesn't care about the poor.

My opinion is that Obama doesn't care about America, period. His policies of attacking and demonizing the wealthy while propping up the poor is a formula to ensure that the American economy collapses. Anybody who truly believes that taking money from the wealthy and giving it to the poor will fix the economy and make America grow is stuck somewhere between Stupidville and Dimwit City.

Many of those people pay payroll and other taxes, just not income. And again, he's including soldiers. He's also indirectly saying anyone who votes for Obama is a leech.

duane1969
09-19-2012, 03:12 PM
Here's a direct quote:

Let's see what this means:
47% of Americans (including military personnel, the elderly and students) don't pay income tax.
That same 47% feels entitled to "yo0u name it" from the government.
That same 47%, the ENTIRE GROUP-not one exception, support Obama and will never not support Obama or the Democrats.
That 47% of America isn't worth campaigning to.

So, Duane, tell me what he really meant...

He didn't say any of that in that context. You are doing exactly what the video editor and liberal left is doing, reading into it what you want it to say. He says "47% of Americans pay no income tax. So our message of low taxes doesn't connect." That is not a statement against military or anyone else, it is a fact. People who don't pay taxes don't care about promised tax cuts.

Another fact. There is a very large element of our society who believes that it is the governments responsiblity to take care of them and they want money taken from the rich and given to them. You may have heard of them, they call themselves Occupy Wall Street. These people do not want to be successful, they want to cash the goverment checks that are funded by taxation.

pghin08
09-19-2012, 03:12 PM
I know that what I heard in that clip is neither wrong nor proof that Romney doesn't care about the poor. The simple reality is that people who are dependent on welfare are going to vote Obama. Period. When Romney says that 47% of Americans don't pay taxes and the message of tax cuts won't matter to them, he is correct. People who don't pay taxes don't value tax cuts. Nowhere in any of that is there proof that Romney doesn't care about the poor.

My opinion is that Obama doesn't care about America, period. His policies of attacking and demonizing the wealthy while propping up the poor is a formula to ensure that the American economy collapses. Anybody who truly believes that taking money from the wealthy and giving it to the poor will fix the economy and make America grow is stuck somewhere between Stupidville and Dimwit City.

No, he's wrong. As we've been over a billion times in this thread.

habsheaven
09-19-2012, 03:14 PM
I know that what I heard in that clip is neither wrong nor proof that Romney doesn't care about the poor. The simple reality is that people who are dependent on welfare are going to vote Obama. Period. When Romney says that 47% of Americans don't pay taxes and the message of tax cuts won't matter to them, he is correct. People who don't pay taxes don't value tax cuts. Nowhere in any of that is there proof that Romney doesn't care about the poor.

My opinion is that Obama doesn't care about America, period. His policies of attacking and demonizing the wealthy while propping up the poor is a formula to ensure that the American economy collapses. Anybody who truly believes that taking money from the wealthy and giving it to the poor will fix the economy and make America grow is stuck somewhere between Stupidville and Dimwit City.

I didn't realize that there were no WHITE REDNECKS on welfare. When did that change?

Anyone with a clue knows that the larger the gap between the upper class and the lower class, the worse off the country will be as a whole. If you think otherwise you must live on Ignorant Avenue.

duane1969
09-19-2012, 03:24 PM
You don't think "moocher" and "leech" are the same things as "entitled" and "victim"?

And by the way, it's not like the entitlement culture began with Obama, and I strongly doubt it would be any different under a Romney presidency.

No I don't see how that is the same thing.

And you are right, the entitlement culture started with the Great Depression and FDR's actions to create a government support system for the poor. During the Great Depression the poor somehow got the stupid idea that while the WORLD was suffering the government was somehow responsible for making their lives better. FDR got the bright idea that free money was the way to fix it all. Now we have that nice little thing called a national debt. It is a little known fact that at the start of FDR's presidency the national debt represented about 40% of the GDP but by the end of FDR's presidency it represnted nearly 120% of the GDP.

Our entitlement society got a nice little boost in 1996 when Slick Willy signed the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act which did nothing but create a pipeline of taxpayer dollars into state coffers with the signular goal of entitlement funding. No, it definitely didn't start with Obama, but he is doing nothing to fix it.

duane1969
09-19-2012, 03:28 PM
I didn't realize that there were no WHITE REDNECKS on welfare. When did that change?

Anyone with a clue knows that the larger the gap between the upper class and the lower class, the worse off the country will be as a whole. If you think otherwise you must live on Ignorant Avenue.

I am a little baffled as to what that means. When did race become the issue? What does white rednecks have to do with this and why are you slinging racial comments?

habsheaven
09-19-2012, 03:40 PM
I am a little baffled as to what that means. When did race become the issue? What does white rednecks have to do with this and why are you slinging racial comments?

It was in response to your comment that EVERYONE on welfare will vote for Obama. Obviously, EVERYONE will not.

Wickabee
09-19-2012, 03:55 PM
He didn't say any of that in that context. You are doing exactly what the video editor and liberal left is doing, reading into it what you want it to say. He says "47% of Americans pay no income tax. So our message of low taxes doesn't connect." That is not a statement against military or anyone else, it is a fact. People who don't pay taxes don't care about promised tax cuts.

Another fact. There is a very large element of our society who believes that it is the governments responsiblity to take care of them and they want money taken from the rich and given to them. You may have heard of them, they call themselves Occupy Wall Street. These people do not want to be successful, they want to cash the goverment checks that are funded by taxation.

How about:


There are 47% of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47% 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 they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you name it...These are people who pay no income tax, 47% of Americans pay no income tax. So our message of low taxes doesn't connect. So he'll (President Obama) be out there talking about tax cuts for the rich. I mean, that's what they sell every four years. And so my job is not to worry about those people.

You are correct in the title of the thread being misleading, though. He didn't say it's not his job to care, he said his job is not to care. Those are two different statements.

JustAlex
09-19-2012, 04:13 PM
I am a little baffled as to what that means. When did race become the issue? What does white rednecks have to do with this and why are you slinging racial comments?
You know exactly why....

BTW, about 39% of Welfare recipients are White, about 40% are Black, another 16% are Hispanic.

In a recent demographics poll, it clearly showed that Romney has the White vote 50% - 41%


Too bad Mittens never learned anything about numbers....

This is the same guy who believes that the average middle class family makes $250K!!!

drtom2005
09-19-2012, 11:15 PM
I know that what I heard in that clip is neither wrong nor proof that Romney doesn't care about the poor. The simple reality is that people who are dependent on welfare are going to vote Obama. Period. When Romney says that 47% of Americans don't pay taxes and the message of tax cuts won't matter to them, he is correct. People who don't pay taxes don't value tax cuts. Nowhere in any of that is there proof that Romney doesn't care about the poor.

My opinion is that Obama doesn't care about America, period. His policies of attacking and demonizing the wealthy while propping up the poor is a formula to ensure that the American economy collapses. Anybody who truly believes that taking money from the wealthy and giving it to the poor will fix the economy and make America grow is stuck somewhere between Stupidville and Dimwit City.
Based on what data? Remember the highest tax bracket was during Einshower. Common sense is not an answer. Tax rate has no effect on the economy. No literature agrees with tax rates affecting the economy.

pghin08
09-20-2012, 09:01 AM
Based on what data? Remember the highest tax bracket was during Einshower. Common sense is not an answer. Tax rate has no effect on the economy. No literature agrees with tax rates affecting the economy.

Just a note, while you're right about Eisenhower presiding over the highest tax bracket (which was over 80%, right?), there were many more loopholes in the tax code then, so many of the super-rich's effective tax rates were much lower.

AUTaxMan
09-20-2012, 11:01 AM
Based on what data? Remember the highest tax bracket was during Einshower. Common sense is not an answer. Tax rate has no effect on the economy. No literature agrees with tax rates affecting the economy.

Here's a recent E&Y study entitled "Long-run macroeconomic impact of increasing tax rates on high-income taxpayers in 2013"

http://majorityleader.gov/uploadedfiles/Ernst_And_Young_Study_July_2012.pdf

Part of the conclusion:

"Overall, this study finds that the higher tax rates would reduce output in the long-run by 1.3% when the proceeds are used to finance additional government spending. Employment would fall by 0.5%. In today's economy these changes would translate into a decline in GDP of $200 billion and employment by roughly 710,000 jobs. Investment, the capital stock (net worth) and real after-tax wages would also fall. Under the alternative assumption that resulting revenues are used to finance an across-the-board tax cut, output would only fall by 0.4% and real aftertax wages would rise. A sensitivity analysis using “low” and “high” responsiveness of household and firm behavior bounds these results, but does not appreciably change the qualitative results."

Wickabee
09-20-2012, 12:50 PM
He didn't say any of that in that context. You are doing exactly what the video editor and liberal left is doing, reading into it what you want it to say. He says "47% of Americans pay no income tax. So our message of low taxes doesn't connect." That is not a statement against military or anyone else, it is a fact. People who don't pay taxes don't care about promised tax cuts.


Actually, I'm going by THE WORDS HE SAID. If anyone is reading what they want, it's conservatives. You keep saying he didn't mean what he said, and then turn around and say "but he's right". Contradict yourselves much?

Or is it "Romney Jazz!" You have to listen to the words he's not saying?

drtom2005
09-20-2012, 06:37 PM
Here's a recent E&Y study entitled "Long-run macroeconomic impact of increasing tax rates on high-income taxpayers in 2013"

http://majorityleader.gov/uploadedfiles/Ernst_And_Young_Study_July_2012.pdf

Part of the conclusion:

"Overall, this study finds that the higher tax rates would reduce output in the long-run by 1.3% when the proceeds are used to finance additional government spending. Employment would fall by 0.5%. In today's economy these changes would translate into a decline in GDP of $200 billion and employment by roughly 710,000 jobs. Investment, the capital stock (net worth) and real after-tax wages would also fall. Under the alternative assumption that resulting revenues are used to finance an across-the-board tax cut, output would only fall by 0.4% and real aftertax wages would rise. A sensitivity analysis using “low” and “high” responsiveness of household and firm behavior bounds these results, but does not appreciably change the qualitative results."
Just because an article has percentages doesn't mean it is a research paper. This a position paper referring to primary research. Now, I have no idea how to tell if this is good economic literature(for sure), but I would look for things like comparing different times in the US and comparing the US to different countries. I see no math that gives this away as primary research such as confidence intervals, P values,etc.

I could find a different position paper that says the opposite with different research about taxes. So no agreement by the experts, economists, on taxes.

AUTaxMan
09-20-2012, 09:55 PM
Just because an article has percentages doesn't mean it is a research paper. This a position paper referring to primary research. Now, I have no idea how to tell if this is good economic literature(for sure), but I would look for things like comparing different times in the US and comparing the US to different countries. I see no math that gives this away as primary research such as confidence intervals, P values,etc.

I could find a different position paper that says the opposite with different research about taxes. So no agreement by the experts, economists, on taxes.

You said NO literature agrees with tax rates affecting the economy. I was only quickly demonstrating that your position is incorrect.

I could also do it with a simple hypothetical. What if the rate was 100%? Would that affect the economy?

drtom2005
09-20-2012, 10:06 PM
You said NO literature agrees with tax rates affecting the economy. I was only quickly demonstrating that your position is incorrect.

I could also do it with a simple hypothetical. What if the rate was 100%? Would that affect the economy?
Sorry I wasn't specific. When looking for an effect, multiple people in a field should agree. Multiple economists should agree. Since taxes are a political issue, I'm not sure you would get any agreement on the topic.
100% would be communism, so I'm not sure you could compare. One question I always ask now is about Canada. Their taxes are higher, but they have more value now. I just do not see it. I think the argument is moot unless good data comes about.

AUTaxMan
09-20-2012, 10:28 PM
Sorry I wasn't specific. When looking for an effect, multiple people in a field should agree. Multiple economists should agree. Since taxes are a political issue, I'm not sure you would get any agreement on the topic.
100% would be communism, so I'm not sure you could compare. One question I always ask now is about Canada. Their taxes are higher, but they have more value now. I just do not see it. I think the argument is moot unless good data comes about.

I would venture to guess that most all economists, regardless of where they fall on the political spectrum, acknowledge that changes in tax rates have macroeconomic effects. Certainly Keynes, Adam Smith, Milton Friedman, and David Hume would all disagree with you. At some point, when taxes get too high, you have the substitution effect. If they are too low, they don't generate enough revenue. Both too high and too low have macroeconomic effects. The Laffer curve is the most well-known modern day visual representation of these ideas.

On your side of the coin, you have Hauser's law, which says that it generally doesn't matter what the tax rate is, revenues stay the about same in relation to GDP.

Both sides have plenty of proponents and detractors. The former has more supporters than the latter.

Another point I'd like to make is that if you and Hauser are right, then there is no reason to raise taxes on the rich, unless you are merely intending to punish them.

Wickabee
09-20-2012, 10:58 PM
Funny how to some people "all" means "all" but "47%" means "Well, you know what I meant."

drtom2005
09-20-2012, 11:12 PM
I would venture to guess that most all economists, regardless of where they fall on the political spectrum, acknowledge that changes in tax rates have macroeconomic effects. Certainly Keynes, Adam Smith, Milton Friedman, and David Hume would all disagree with you. At some point, when taxes get too high, you have the substitution effect. If they are too low, they don't generate enough revenue. Both too high and too low have macroeconomic effects. The Laffer curve is the most well-known modern day visual representation of these ideas.

On your side of the coin, you have Hauser's law, which says that it generally doesn't matter what the tax rate is, revenues stay the about same in relation to GDP.

Both sides have plenty of proponents and detractors. The former has more supporters than the latter.

Another point I'd like to make is that if you and Hauser are right, then there is no reason to raise taxes on the rich, unless you are merely intending to punish them.
I defer to your opinion on this one since you have studied it. Thanks for the education on the topic. I might be changing it when I read up on it more.

shrewsbury
09-21-2012, 08:33 AM
so there are 58 states since obama said so?


"I've now been in 57 states -- I think one left to go." --at a campaign event in Beaverton, Oregon (Watch video clip)

habsheaven
09-21-2012, 09:02 AM
so there are 58 states since obama said so?

Are you seriously comparing a slip of the tongue involving the number of states with a whole diatribe on what someone thinks of half of the country? Why did you even bother to post that?

shrewsbury
09-21-2012, 09:30 AM
responding to this.


Funny how to some people "all" means "all" but "47%" means "Well, you know what I meant."

Wickabee
09-21-2012, 09:44 AM
responding to this.

Obama wasn't insulting 58 States. Romney was insulting 47% of Americans.