The republicans aren’t upset about people not paying taxes. They’re upset about the feeling of entitlement government dependence breeds. I don’t think anyone is suggesting we tax the poor.
Ryan was saying tax the poor. That’s what “broadening the base” is all about.
Romney basically says that “It’s not my job to worry about those 47%.” Is that what we can expect if he is elected? At Bain, he’d just fire their a$$es and send their jobs to China if at all possible and pocket the difference in labor costs himself. Now he’s upset that after having done that, they end up in the unemployment line. If you can’t fire people, clearly you aren’t working hard enough.
Maybe he’ll just fire them as citizens too, and send them… well, I"m not sure where, but probably somewhere where they can’t bother him.
Hmm. I guess the error in Romney’s speech is when he implies that the 47% of people who will vote for Obama “no matter what” are the same 47% of people who “pay no income tax”; which is of course incorrect. I think what he is trying to say is that 47% of people believe in a high degree of wealth transfer, so they will vote for Obama. Most likely, he got confused in the heat of the moment. A lot of political rhetoric is confused, though.
Also, in the context of this speech, I don’t think Romney is suggesting cutting all taxes. He is suggesting cutting taxes on rich people (i.e. the people in the room).
Actually, no it’s not. Republicans are not suggesting we raise marginal rates on low income earners or lower the minimum amount of earned income subject to taxation. Ryan does propose eliminating many credits, deductions, and loopholes. Some people, myself included, would probably end up paying more - no more child tax credits for me. But the poor, not middle class but actually poor, don’t benefit from credits and deductions because they don’t pay taxes to begin with so it wouldn’t affect them.
Nor is Romney saying “I won’t worry about them if elected.” What he’s saying is - and I think he has a point - those people that have become completely dependent on government assistance view his election as a threat to their wellbeing. The handouts they’ve become “entitled” to would be at risk. That may or may not be the actual case if elected, but it’s a fight that’s not really worth fighting for Romney.
The R’s are upset about people not paying taxes, but that wasn’t Romney’s message. He was clearly speaking about the food stamps, the increased dependency on programs like unemployment and welfare, etc. Obama had basically made it that you could collect up to 2 years of unemployment checks! Obviously the economy was and continues to be in dreadful shape, but one way to get people back to work is to stop supporting them (with money the gov’t doesn’t even have!) and make them have to support themselves. The word “tax” is not even in Romney’s quote from this video.
It could be argued, though, that this 47% of the population does disproportionately benefit from things such as the payroll tax cuts, so I can see how the parellel can be drawn from Romney’s comments to taxes, but it isn’t what he actually said.
Romney put his foot in his mouth once again by saying that Palestinians do not want peace. Such an insightful comment from someone with great foreign policy credentials.
If you’ve ever seen the dad on the TV show shameless, this is why you can’t have entitlements for everybody up the wazooo. There has to be a consequences for being a drunken, lazy, bum. If Obama takes those away I’m gonna get drunk everyday and vote for him to tax the shit out of you punks.
This. I’m not sure why the D’s go running around screaming that a good swath of the Republican base is voting against “their interests.” Whether right or wrong, they simply agree with the R heads because entitlements are out of control, particularly, in their eyes, for those who don’t pull their weight (but easily could) in society.
As Sweep said, I don’t think anyone is saying lets completely take away all the safety net benefits. It’s more lets get them to a sustainable level, put in place the right incentives, and stop supporting deadbeats.
We can only hope that when the presidential debates take place the current occupant of the White House will turn to his opponent and say, “Why won’t you stand up for those who can’t stand up?”
Well… the bottom 50% of US people can still vote. They can also hold public protests and pay money to unions, which spend millions of dollars on lobbying. I disagree that the “can’t stand up”.
I think Romney’s message to the people in that room is being misinterpreted. His main point is that his campaign strategy assumes that 47% of voters will not vote for him no matter what. So, he will run a campaign that targets voters around the median. The same can be said for the Democratic campaign. It’s just a rational campaign strategy given the current political climate.
Yeah, Ohai’s right. I think the “not my job to worry about those people” part is being misconstrued. The “job” he was talking about was campaigning, not governing.
Still, the more Romney talks the less I like him. I think I’ll vote for Gary Johnson. I live in a solidly red state so my vote won’t matter anyway. If I was in a swing state I’d have to pull the lever for Romney.
I think what Romney needs to say is that he is a “businessman”, not a “career politician”, and that’s why he is using a lot of straight talk, rather than wishy-washy political rhetoric. If there’s anything that people can agree on, it’s dislike for career politicians. Then, Romney should highlight the debt and deficit situation, create an apocalyptic future scenario (your children will suffer!!!), and blame everything on the incumbent. Of course, not everything he says will be 100% true, but this is all about media spin, right?
I hate Obama’s policies and I don’t know Romney’s policies (besides he will repeal Obamacare). Most tax paying and law abiding citizens of this nation are in a serious bind on who to vote for in November and that is scary and sad.
So are the non law abiding citizens.