This just in: Romney tells the truth; People don't like it...

johnny_rebson said:

And what do voters do when they don't like what a political candidate says?

Click to expand...

They wait 2 days until the next big story talked about by the 24 hr news media companies comes out and form entirely new opinions to gripe about...

When they go to the polls they either vote their party or their wallet...

With $16T in debt (5.4% added under this president), 8.1% unemployment and the lowest workforce participation rate since 1981, and average gasoline prices at $3.86/gal... There aren't too many people comfortable with what's going on in their wallet...

Especially if when there is so little of it, they see a president who is taking it from them, and giving it to 50% of the population who don't pay taxes...

hikari said:

The op starts from the erroneous premise of "the overwhelming majority" thinking as they do.

There is certainly no overwhelming majority who agrees with Romney's remarks, judging by the media response and empirical observation I would venture to think only about 1/4 agree totally with his assessment of people who are not paying income tax, and maybe another 1/4 who agree with it with some reservations and a good half who are against it. This is the hallmark of a division in this country not support.

FWIW in my view, he doesn't understand my life at all, his avarice, arrogance, and ignorance shows a poor picture of him. I pay about $200 a week in taxes, sure a fair portion of that will be refunded, but a fair portion won't.

Now Romney has put his argument that people who pay no income taxes won't vote for him because they dont see the benefits from it. That is totally not the reason I am against his tax policy because I need to pay more taxes and so does everyone else until everyone has a job, there is no debt, and all the bridges are fixed.

Click to expand...

If that's your opinion... then you actually support Mitt Romney's tax position...

Romney wants EVERYONE to be paying taxes, and having jobs, so they're less reliant on the government, and we will pay down the debt...

Obama wants ONLY THE RICH to be paying taxes, and giving that money to people who live on government programs, so they can be manipulated by what government beaurocrats believe they ought to be living like, even at the expense of the success of private market enterprises... and that has added to the debt, and cost people jobs...

What's increasingly apparent is that MSM is telling us what we think instead of reporting it. For all the ado about Romney's comments, there is little in polling to suggest voter backlash.

What he said was spot on except in the sense that only about 30% or the electorate are likely what he described, not 47. That 30% are dependent on government handouts and feel entitled to them will never vote for someone who might take their free stuff. The balance probably have a greater sense of personal responsibility even though they may pay no taxes.

IndepCentristMA said:

If that's your opinion... then you actually support Mitt Romney's tax position...

Romney wants EVERYONE to be paying taxes, and having jobs, so they're less reliant on the government, and we will pay down the debt...

Click to expand...

Hehe, Romney wants the poor and working poor to pay taxes so HE and his filthy rich runnin' buddies can get a huge tax cut.

btw, how does making poor people pay more in taxes make them less reliant on the government? Seems to me if you take money out of peoples' pockets who are barely scraping by, you will push them below the poverty line and thus make them MORE reliant on the government.

How is it possible to have an "overwhelming majority" when you start out with 47% against you right away? Is it the OP's contention that everyone who isn't dependent on government programs agrees with his elitist view? I would think the numerous liberal celebrities who could buy and sell him a dozen times over would show the fallacy of that hubris. That has always been a fatal flaw of the Tea Party/ far right, they are convinced they have far more support than they actually do. The simple fact is the rich don't have the option of not paying taxes. Romney and his fellow plutocrats want them to pay less than they do now. Every recent poll I've seen says a majority, perhaps not overwhelming, of Americans want them to pay more.

Peter King said:

first exposed lie, only 50% do not pay income tax, that however is not the only tax that people pay. So your claim that 50% do not pay taxes is nonsense (republi-goggled BS).

Click to expand...

lmfao... you're right... it is not the only tax people pay...

There's also capital gains and windfall income taxes, corporate income taxes, property taxes, water taxes, excise taxes, luxury taxes, death taxes, repatriation taxes, etc. It's a good thing our founding fathers threw off the bonds of an overtaxing empire... (guess who also pays a significant portion of those?)... So don't try and pull this payroll tax dodge to the actual issue of pertinance... The over progressivity of the tax code, and the fact that so many people are living on the backs of so few... when the few are typically the ones who did well in school, worked hard at their job, and lived more responsible lives... Yes there are exceptions to that generality, as there are to every generality... but I'd more than willing to take the bet on that generality being completely accurate...

Any idiot with half a brain would know from the context that the reference was to income taxes... for which the statement is an accurate estimate of the percentage of the population who do not pay taxes...

It was 51% in 09, it was 49% in 10 and 11, this year it is expected to be 47%... that's about 50%... So yes, 50% of the population pay NO INCOME TAX... yet, Obama is concerned with raising it on the rich...

If we are so concerned with raising tax rates... we also need to make sure they're enforced by eliminating many of the tax breaks and credits... and make everyone pay their fair share of the tax burden...

No one said "Go out and have 8 kids"... why should you get an extra tax credit for that? You did it, it's your responsibility... not the rest of ours to pay for them...

Everyone should pay a flat 15% in taxes... and what you chose to do with your life should be what impacts how your finances are handled... Not how much the government can take away from other people to make up for your short comings...

AdamT said:

Hehe, Romney wants the poor and working poor to pay taxes so HE and his filthy rich runnin' buddies can get a huge tax cut.

btw, how does making poor people pay more in taxes make them less reliant on the government? Seems to me if you take money out of peoples' pockets who are barely scraping by, you will push them below the poverty line and thus make them MORE reliant on the government.

Click to expand...

It doesn't... but if they're reliant on the government, then they should be the ones footing the bill for the government managing their lives... not the others who did the right things, like perform well in school, work hard at their jobs, not conduct illegal activities, and generally live responsible lives...

Everyone should be paying their share in taxes... excusing some from paying for things, then taking money from other people to pay for the things they use up doesn't work... it only encourages people to do less... it gives them an escape valve, so they can check out any time they want...

We need to reward those who do the right thing... then you will see more people doing that.. and less people taking advantage of government largesse...


Also this concept of keeping the tax rates exactly the same as they have been for 10 years now isn't "a huge tax cut"... It's keeping the current tax rates so people can reliably plan their finances accordingly...

IndepCentristMA said:

It doesn't... but if they're reliant on the government, then they should be the ones footing the bill for the government managing their lives... not the others who did the right things, like perform well in school, work hard at their jobs, not conduct illegal activities, and generally live responsible lives...

Everyone should be paying their share in taxes... excusing some from paying for things, then taking money from other people to pay for the things they use up doesn't work... it only encourages people to do less... it gives them an escape valve, so they can check out any time they want...

We need to reward those who do the right thing... then you will see more people doing that.. and less people taking advantage of government largesse...


Also this concept of keeping the tax rates exactly the same as they have been for 10 years now isn't "a huge tax cut"... It's keeping the current tax rates so people can reliably plan their finances accordingly...

Click to expand...

Well that's a bit circular, isn't it? People relying on the government because they need temporary assistance should pay for the assistance that they need because they can't get buy without it? That's sort of like telling an accident victim that he can have two units of blood ... if he first donates two units of blood.

The truth is that most of the people Romney shat on are perfectly responsible, hard working people who simply do lower paying, generally thankless jobs ... the sort that Mittens has never had to dirty his hands with. Obviously the economy needs those done every bit as much as it needs higher paying jobs. The fact is that, in terms of over all taxation (including payroll taxes, state taxes, sales taxes, fees, etc.), the poor and middle class don't pay a much lower percentage than the rich.

You say that everyone should be paying their "fair share." That, of course, begs the question -- what is fair. Is it fair to ask more from someone who has virtually no disposable income in order to give a six-figure tax cut to someone who has more disposable income than he knows what to do with? Not in my view. But I do think that everyone is going to have to pay a little more going forward. I do think that the top Bush tax cuts should be eliminated now, and the rest of them should be eliminated in two years.

I think Charles Krauthammer said it best, and I'm paraphrasing here. He basically said that Romney had the right message but the wrong stats. The reason it is the wrong stat is that most of that 47% he speaks of are elderly and poor. So, by saying what he said, he is implying that the elderly and poor think they are "victims". I agree that we have an entitlement society, but that is the wrong way to say it. The huge uptick in disability claims is the biggest indicator I see. How is it that all of these people that were previously good to work are now "disabled"? I think the vast majority of them are people who could work, can't find a job, so figure "Heck, why not. The moneys there." I think that's the wrong attitude to have. You take 2 low paying jobs before you go on the gov't dime. Sorry, but that's the risk you take when your outcome is equal to or more than your income. I'm not saying its a punishment. Its just the risk of freedom. My Dad is a prime example. My dad had a well paying job with Norfolk Southern in South Carolina. The union at NS basically bankrupted the station he worked at. He was given the option of relocating to Roanoke, VA or staying in SC and seeking employment elsewhere. He picked SC. After that, he never could equal the income that he had at NS. So, he signed a second mortgage, got two jobs, and worked his way out of the hole. Heck, he's still working out of it and he's getting close to retirement age. He took the risk, it bit him. Others have taken the risk, and made it. Its the nature of the beast in the US. Its why its great.

with the economy the way it is Obama has a much better chance at winning the election because the majority of people are in such hard financial straits that many who weren't believers in wealth redistribution are so broke now that the idea is sounding pretty good.

All Romney is doing is pointing out the truth or reality of the situation but the more he opens his mouth the more he alienates himself since all he is doing is crying and not providing any real solutions. If Romney really wanted to win the election he should just promise everyone a free house, 5,000 dollars in cash and car through a new program he wants to implement to stimulate the economy and then he would win by a landslide

then when he takes office just break every promise like Obama has done and it will be politics as usual

MarineTpartier said:

I think Charles Krauthammer said it best, and I'm paraphrasing here. He basically said that Romney had the right message but the wrong stats. The reason it is the wrong stat is that most of that 47% he speaks of are elderly and poor. So, by saying what he said, he is implying that the elderly and poor think they are "victims". I agree that we have an entitlement society, but that is the wrong way to say it. The huge uptick in disability claims is the biggest indicator I see. How is it that all of these people that were previously good to work are now "disabled"? I think the vast majority of them are people who could work, can't find a job, so figure "Heck, why not. The moneys there." I think that's the wrong attitude to have. You take 2 low paying jobs before you go on the gov't dime. Sorry, but that's the risk you take when your outcome is equal to or more than your income. I'm not saying its a punishment. Its just the risk of freedom. My Dad is a prime example. My dad had a well paying job with Norfolk Southern in South Carolina. The union at NS basically bankrupted the station he worked at. He was given the option of relocating to Roanoke, VA or staying in SC and seeking employment elsewhere. He picked SC. After that, he never could equal the income that he had at NS. So, he signed a second mortgage, got two jobs, and worked his way out of the hole. Heck, he's still working out of it and he's getting close to retirement age. He took the risk, it bit him. Others have taken the risk, and made it. Its the nature of the beast in the US. Its why its great.

Click to expand...

Are you aware that they do not just declare you disabled as soon as you apply for it? The process is usually about two years long, almost anyone who can function at all gets denied initially and you can't really have any income during the entire period. You also have to be examined by doctors who the government contracts and who aren't encouraged to find a high number of people disabled if they wish the contract to be renewed. As I said in another thread, I'm willing to bet a good percentage of the new applicants are soldiers returning from Iraq and Afghanistan who aren't able to find employment. Frankly, I think someone is a fool not to take benefits they paid into and qualify for and instead work themselves to death so someone else can live extravagantly. The work ethic became obsolete when it became obvious that employers want it all their way and feel no obligation to the employee whatsoever.

Loki97 said:

Are you aware that they do not just declare you disabled as soon as you apply for it? The process is usually about two years long, almost anyone who can function at all gets denied initially and you can't really have any income during the entire period. You also have to be examined by doctors who the government contracts and who aren't encouraged to find a high number of people disabled if they wish the contract to be renewed. As I said in another thread, I'm willing to bet a good percentage of the new applicants are soldiers returning from Iraq and Afghanistan who aren't able to find employment. Frankly, I think someone is a fool not to take benefits they paid into and qualify for and instead work themselves to death so someone else can live extravagantly. The work ethic became obsolete when it became obvious that employers want it all their way and feel no obligation to the employee whatsoever.

Click to expand...

Yes, I am well aware of how long it takes to get benefits. What does that have to do with anything? We've been in a recession for going on 4 years. If we were 1 year into a recession, this argument would hold some (not a lot) of water. As it is, with the recession being as long as it is and unemployment staying as high as it is, it holds none.
Also, you can bet on things all you want. Betting equals you being wrong. Servicemembers are not who I am speaking of and you know it. We do not draw disability from the same sources that Joe Civilian does when he claims his back hurts. In addition, most vets don't receive full disability benefits. This means that they can continue to work and contribute even though they are collecting disability. Most likely I will be one of those people due to the fact that I have neurological problems as a result of blast exposure. Civilians collecting disability cannot participate in "substantial gainful activity". So basically a part time job is okay and that's it.
Working while receiving Social Security disability benefits

IndepCentristMA said:

So all along we have been hearing all this crap about politicians as liars and why can't they come out and say what they mean...


Here we have several instances of comments Romney makes, candidly, where he speaks the absolute truth, and is complete right about it... but it's turned into a big uproar, and Mitt Romney is being called stupid to make those remarks... You know, the ones that the overwhelming majority of us think...

Click to expand...

What are you talking about? So what if the lower class and middle class don't pay income tax? Romney said 47% of American citizens are a lost cause and they rely on the government to survive. You think that's the absolute truth? I may dislike Romney, but I definitely think he's a smart guy and knows what tripe it is to say 47% of Americans are unable to take responsibility for their own lives. Why would it follow that anybody who is exempt from income tax is unable to take care of themselves and their family? It wouldn't. Mitt wasn't telling the truth, he was lying to appease angry conservatives such as yourself.

Romney's own father needed government assistance, without which Mitt would never gone to prestigious schools, make millions in corporate takeovers, stash millions in oversea bank accounts and now run for President. The guy behind the counter at the gas station you go to doesn't pay income tax, but he works day in and day out to support himself. And the guy or gal at your coffee shop, bank, grocery store, movie theater, and even your favorite restaurant - they all work hard, likely pay no income tax, and I'm sure you yourself are aware that the people you encounter in everyday life are hard working Americans who can and do take care of themselves.

Romney's just lying. He's working for these people and he's telling them what they want to hear because he will do anything to get in office and it's about him, not about the country. What's depressing to me is that you've seen the man behind the curtain and you still pay no attention.

Mustachio said:

Wwhat tripe it is to say 47% of Americans are unable to take responsibility for their own lives.

Click to expand...

Indeed.

When one actually breaks down this number...

Romneys comments are nothing more than pandering to morons.

Now Romney has put his argument that people who pay no income taxes won't vote for him because they dont see the benefits from it. That is totally not the reason I am against his tax policy because I need to pay more taxes and so does everyone else until everyone has a job, there is no debt, and all the bridges are fixed.

Click to expand...

This is unbelievably ignorant.

Think of the logic of the situation. People who pay no INCOME taxes are unlikely to respond to a proposal to REDUCE those taxes. <--- yes or no ??? True statement or not a true statement ????

This was the sum total of Romney's PRIVATE remarks. Period. It wasn't disparaging anyone - it was stating a private opinion. It was delivered to people who Romney was hoping would donate money to his campaign. He was merely outlining one of the major problems he would face in championing a tax reduction agenda.

You can disagree with the need for smaller tax rates all you want - but it is a complete falsehood to say that he was disparaging anyone. And you know it.

You are consciously trumpeting a know lie. This is shameful in terms of personal integrity. Shame on you.

Another completely fabricate lie is that Republicans don't want to build/fix roads and bridges. Have you EVER heard ANYONE say anything that REMOTELY suggests this? The answer is - of course - no. So why do you jump through your anus to push a manufactured strawman argument? The reason is that you know the DEM message is designed for the abysmally stupid portion of the high-school dropout segment of society. And you joyously align yourself with this dysfunctional element.

You can disagree - more accurately refuse to believe - that the GOP tax cutting proposals are made NOT to enjoy the collapse of roads and bridges, but in the sincere belief that these proposals will HELP the economy grow so that there will be MORE money coming into the treasury. This EXTRA money can then be used to pay down the DEBT - and to fix roads and bridges.

Obama's proposals shrink the economy - leading to mountains of debt and less money coming to the treasury so that in fact roads and bridges have no funds available for maintenance.

This is the issue - you can disagree of course, but you would be wrong.

This whole incident reminds me of the last British election when Gordan Brown thinking the mic off was heard to call a voter a bigot! Pretty much destroyed any chance he had!

Higgins86 said:

This whole incident reminds me of the last British election when Gordan Brown thinking the mic off was heard to call a voter a bigot! Pretty much destroyed any chance he had!

Click to expand...

I wouldn't say that exactly.

A: He didn't have a chance to begin with.

B: There's far more ignorant Americans who will embrace these comments rather than denounce them. Never forget... this is the country that elected George W. Bush... Twice.

Though to be fair to W... he's alot more likeable than Mitt Romney.

But than again so is Gordon Brown :lol:

Jetboogieman said:

I wouldn't say that exactly.

A: He didn't have a chance to begin with.

B: There's far more ignorant Americans who will embrace these comments rather than denounce them. Never forget... this is the country that elected George W. Bush... Twice.

Though to be fair to W... he's alot more likeable than Mitt Romney.

But than again so is Gordon Brown :lol:

Click to expand...

lol when your more boring than Gordan Brown you may as stop what your doing!

Higgins86 said:

lol when your more boring than Gordan Brown you may as stop what your doing!

Click to expand...

As Jon Stewart so eloquently summed it up... "Mitt Romney has the charisma of an On Star Operator".

Mustachio said:

What are you talking about? So what if the lower class and middle class don't pay income tax? Romney said 47% of American citizens are a lost cause and they rely on the government to survive. You think that's the absolute truth? I may dislike Romney, but I definitely think he's a smart guy and knows what tripe it is to say 47% of Americans are unable to take responsibility for their own lives. Why would it follow that anybody who is exempt from income tax is unable to take care of themselves and their family? It wouldn't. Mitt wasn't telling the truth, he was lying to appease angry conservatives such as yourself.

Romney's own father needed government assistance, without which Mitt would never gone to prestigious schools, make millions in corporate takeovers, stash millions in oversea bank accounts and now run for President. The guy behind the counter at the gas station you go to doesn't pay income tax, but he works day in and day out to support himself. And the guy or gal at your coffee shop, bank, grocery store, movie theater, and even your favorite restaurant - they all work hard, likely pay no income tax, and I'm sure you yourself are aware that the people you encounter in everyday life are hard working Americans who can and do take care of themselves.

Romney's just lying. He's working for these people and he's telling them what they want to hear because he will do anything to get in office and it's about him, not about the country. What's depressing to me is that you've seen the man behind the curtain and you still pay no attention.

Click to expand...

You haven't seen the actual video have you?

He said 47% of Americans won't vote for him anyway, because they believe that not paying any taxes, and expanding entitlements handouts like free healthcare is a good thing.

That's the fact of the matter... So he is running to get as much support from the other 53% of Americans... in order to change that system...

I'm not an "angry conservative" that needs to be appeased... I'm a Centrist that has seen this nation go far too liberal, and the dangerous effects its been having, and realize it needs to lean back to the right to even out...

This is one such way where we have gone too far to the left... the massive expansion of entitlement spending, and the "progressivity" of the tax code, which keeps turning into punish those who did well in school and lived responsible lives and reward those who do not...

You mention the guy at the gas station... I don't have a car, I use a MBTA pass to get to and from work... The people that run that systeam are all making decent money, likely more than me, and get charged the higher tax rates as a result...

The guy at the gas station the last time I went was busy chatting up some chic on his cell phone while 4 cars were in line behind us... We've had to fight with him on numerous occasions because he counted the change back wrong, or couldn't read what the gauges on his own pump said...

I'm not sure you want to use him as an example...

The ones who are making more money for the most part performed better on SATs, graduated higher in their high school classes, completed several more years of schooling, have less substance abuse, less children born out of wedlock, took the risk to start-up a business, etc. Yes, there are exceptions to that, but those arent just generalities, they've been proven by statistics that track these things...

This is not some miracle process or secret recipe... If you do well in school, work hard, and live responsibly, you will get ahead in life... If you mess up, dont value your education, and live irresponsibly, you will most likely struggle to get by...

So why would we want a system where those who followed those guidelines to get ahead are taxed at excessively high rates while the ones who chose not to follow them pay nothing in taxes at all, but then reap the benefits of what tax money is collected, through programs which give them things they didn't have to go out and earn? What does that encourage?


The other fact of the matter is we have no context to his quote... we don't know what question he was answering, but we do know he was in the middle of a statement when the video clip that's conveniently edited picks up... So to suggest you have a full clue of what Romney was discussing is absurd...

All you heard was Romney relay two lines, where nothing he said was inaccurate... some people might be offended by it... but it was not inaccurate

IndepCentristMA said:

You haven't seen the actual video have you?

He said 47% of Americans won't vote for him anyway, because they believe that not paying any taxes, and expanding entitlements handouts like free healthcare is a good thing.

Click to expand...

Yes, he did say what you claim he said. Just after he said this: There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe that government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you name it.

That's not the truth, that's a lie, and you know it, I know it, and Mitt knows it. Just read that again. 47% of Americans see themselves as victims and are dependent on the government? Check out that handy pie chart posted earlier in the thread.

IndepCentristMA said:

The ones who are making more money for the most part performed better on SATs, graduated higher in their high school classes, completed several more years of schooling, have less substance abuse, less children born out of wedlock, took the risk to start-up a business, etc. Yes, there are exceptions to that, but those arent just generalities, they've been proven by statistics that track these things...

Click to expand...

Correlation, not causation. And I'm not aware of any evidence that backs up your claim, but I'll buy it until I find out it's garbage. Anyway, maybe people who have the better SAT scores (or in my case, the ACT) come from wealthy families. I'm just generalizing also, but it makes sense. Those who grow up around money and good neighborhoods have more opportunities than the kids living in Hooverville. There's a great British documentary called Up which examines the point I just made. Check it out, bro.[/QUOTE]

IndepCentristMA said:

This is not some miracle process or secret recipe... If you do well in school, work hard, and live responsibly, you will get ahead in life... If you mess up, dont value your education, and live irresponsibly, you will most likely struggle to get by...

Click to expand...

Or you might struggle because you go to work one day and a cyst ruptures in your leg causing excruciating pain, financial problems, ongoing health problems and the potential loss of sensation in your foot for the rest of your life. I'm in that 47% and I valued my education, lived responsibly, and I definitely work hard. Some people have medical problems, such as myself and my cyst, but more importantly, some want to help people with their lives. My grandmother worked with social services, making barely anything but it was important to her.

IndepCentristMA said:

So why would we want a system where those who followed those guidelines to get ahead are taxed at excessively high rates while the ones who chose not to follow them pay nothing in taxes at all, but then reap the benefits of what tax money is collected, through programs which give them things they didn't have to go out and earn? What does that encourage?

Click to expand...

What programs? I don't have access to any programs and I have horrendous health problems. Disability is extremely difficult to get, as is welfare and unemployment to various degrees. Food stamps are the only thing that's not too challenging to get. I'd favor tax cuts for everybody if we weren't trillions of dollars in debt. Decreasing revenues with our federal spending is a dumb idea, because programs like Social Security are wonderful resources to ensure that all Americans can seek the pursuit of happiness. That's what America stands for if you ask me

Mustachio said:

Yes, he did say what you claim he said. Just after he said this: There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe that government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you name it.

That's not the truth, that's a lie, and you know it, I know it, and Mitt knows it. Just read that again. 47% of Americans see themselves as victims and are dependent on the government? Check out that handy pie chart posted earlier in the thread.

Click to expand...

Oh, it's probably like 75% of Americans feel like victims... you're right, if that's what his measurment was he was selling it way short...

Again, the question was conveniently left out of the video released... so we don't fully know what he is answering in full context... all we can do is guess...

What it appears is that he is discussion the percentages of support for either party... and that 47% support the issues that the president, the democrats, and liberals all support... a number of them are the ones he highlighted...

Then he said, we have to worry about getting the support from the independents rather than trying to change the minds of those who support liberal ideals... That's just the reality of the situation...

Mustachio said:

Correlation, not causation. And I'm not aware of any evidence that backs up your claim, but I'll buy it until I find out it's garbage. Anyway, maybe people who have the better SAT scores (or in my case, the ACT) come from wealthy families. I'm just generalizing also, but it makes sense. Those who grow up around money and good neighborhoods have more opportunities than the kids living in Hooverville. There's a great British documentary called Up which examines the point I just made. Check it out, bro.

Click to expand...

Unlike the dreamworld... in this case we are dealing with causation, not correlation... since you are required to have masters degrees in most of the high salary fields...

Think of the fields with high salaries, and tell me you arent dealing with people who put extra time into education...

Doctors, Lawyers, Business Managers, Medical Research, Accounting, Information Technology, Engineers, etc.

Education pays

Median Annual Income, by Level of Education, 1990–2009 — Infoplease.com

Education Pays: Income by Education Level (2011 Update) « Soc101

The SAT (and yes ACT) stat holds true as well...

The Correlation Between Income and SAT Scores » Sociological Images

SAT Scores and Family Income - NYTimes.com

How Much Is A High SAT Worth? Up To $100K In Future Earnings - Forbes

http://digitalcommons.iwu.edu/cgi/v...at+score#search="average salary by sat score"


Like I said... this aint the Captian's special recipe or the secret ingredient in DR Pepper...

If you study hard, and put the time in, and do well in school, you're more than likely to get ahead... The converse is true as well... if you mess up, don't pay attention to school, and don't seek higher education, you're far more likely to struggle to get by...

This isn't a rigged society, just those who fail tend to not value education, the rule of law, and responsible living choices...

Those who chose to see themselves as victims are doing just that... chosing to see themselves as victims rather than putting the effort in to reap the reward...

Mustachio said:

Or you might struggle because you go to work one day and a cyst ruptures in your leg causing excruciating pain, financial problems, ongoing health problems and the potential loss of sensation in your foot for the rest of your life. I'm in that 47% and I valued my education, lived responsibly, and I definitely work hard. Some people have medical problems, such as myself and my cyst, but more importantly, some want to help people with their lives. My grandmother worked with social services, making barely anything but it was important to her.

Click to expand...

And your point is? I'm sorry about your cyst and all... but, that anecdote does nothing to change the situation... The overwhelming majority of those people all fall within that 47%... Including the ones who had cysts that burst... Social Workers... same thing... most social workers are heavily liberal backers of social programs... We aren't breaking out of the motivation of the 47% or an additional portion of the independents...

(also, don't act like there aren't numerous people who overcome ailments, injuries, and paralyzation to find decent employment either...)

Mustachio said:

What programs? I don't have access to any programs and I have horrendous health problems. Disability is extremely difficult to get, as is welfare and unemployment to various degrees. Food stamps are the only thing that's not too challenging to get. I'd favor tax cuts for everybody if we weren't trillions of dollars in debt. Decreasing revenues with our federal spending is a dumb idea, because programs like Social Security are wonderful resources to ensure that all Americans can seek the pursuit of happiness. That's what America stands for if you ask me

Click to expand...

Pfff... they hand out disability left and right where I live, perhaps you are getting the raw deal...

SSDI is a regular for inner city people, who just apply, and suggest a mental health illness they're aware of, and end up getting it...

Food Stamps are easy to get, a fairly decent program, and the only things I complain about with them, is that they're very relaxed with the work requirement, and that they kick you off so quickly when you do get work...

There are numerous programs that are out there... The best ones are usually private employment and private charity... but there's a mountain of government programs, like HUD, Section 8, SNAP, etc. ... Yes, they're becoming harder to get for the people who have found real hardship, and yet easier to come by for the same types of people who regularly end up on them... namely black females who had children out of wedlock... It's not exclusive to them, but they continue to make up a greater portion of them annually...

Just another reason why the Safety Net programs need to be revised... so that they're a Safety Net and not a coddling sling for those who chose to continually live irresponsibly and beyond their means...

Trust me, I know... I've been through all this... In 2009, I was without work or unemployment benefits, living in a homeless shelter, with pending criminal charges, and all I got on was food stamps... I was kicked off them after just 2 months when I got a p/t $10 seasonal summer job... It also shows, though, that someone who is on them can easily get off of them, if they wanted to... Working my behind off for $10 was tough, but I did it, to get back on my feet today...

I'm no one special... If I could do it, they can too... So, I don't want to hear a damn thing about the troubles of the workers, the poor, those who have come upon hardship... blah blah blah...

The difference between why I got back on my feet, and why the ones that didn't are still where they are, is because they didn't work hard, live responsibly, and increase their education/work skills...

Our illustrious OP does not appear to be familiar with The Onion.

IndepCentristMA said:

Oh, it's probably like 75% of Americans feel like victims... you're right, if that's what his measurment was he was selling it way short...

Click to expand...

This argument is circular so I won't bother going piece by piece arguing with you. Although let me point out:

1. We do know the question. It's in the video and the transcription. Romney's comments are inexcusable, factually wrong, and fully in context. The idea that 75% of Americans rely on the government and can't accept personal responsibility is ridiculous. I haven't read this entire thread, but have you attempted to reconcile your statements with the fact that most people who don't pay income tax are lower-middle class families and senior citizens? The vast majority of americans get to give the government their cut for social security and medicare every paycheck and you'll notice that they're aren't any riots over it. Most people work hard, contribute to our society, and don't deserve their potential future president calling them moochers because they don't owe the government more money at the end of the year.

2. Money is not success. You're talking as though the only way a person can contribute to society is through climbing the ladder. If you were homeless 3 years ago, it kinda blows my mind that you're essentially saying that you are (or were) lazy and you'll never learn the merits of personal responsibility. If you did in fact turn your life around, why can't the 47/75 percent? Well, other than middle class families, disabled people, and senior citizens, who do not need to turn it around or can't turn it around. But you seem to deny the very existence of those demographics.

3. Money is not success, dude. I say it once again. Money and success are not mutually exclusive. It's the "pursuit of happiness," not "the pursuit of money." It seems like you have mistakenly bought into the idea that our form of government is capitalism. People contribute in many ways. I spend my money at locally owned stores and small businesses. I volunteer for political campaigns. I help people every single day and I chose a job that helps people and makes the world a better place because making the world a better place is a gigantic facet of my own definition of success. And what would this country be like without people who want to help others? People who take a low paying job because they love it, or it's all they can do. If those people weren't all over the place, we'd all be screwed.

They say personal responsibility and they mean social darwinism. Let me get one thing straight: I do not feel like a victim. Look at the people in the Middle East, I could never live the life I'm living here in many of those countries. We should all feel blessed to live in this country and take the opportunities that come with living here. And we should never judge people who aren't well off. That's a very dangerous thing to do. Right now, it sounds to me as though YOU are the one that feels like a victim. You are complaining that you went from a bad place to a good one, and now the others who haven't been able to do that are bleeding your wallet. How ironic

If Romney is so correct about his statements, then he would have made them in public, not in a closed door private fundraiser.

He is incapable of running a national campaign.

He also believes that he is entitled to the POTUS office.

Hopefully, he will never win.

The American people hopefully will see past his BS.