Worf - that may be very much true for where you live or where you shop, and
explain many of your comments, but 50 percent of households in the US are not
receiving food aid. That number is way too high... there are approximately 164
million households in the US of which 40 million receive aid - that is about
25%, which I think even at that number is far too many.And a large
percentage of that is driven by single parents families, and the elderly poor -
too high in either case. I think we can agree on the problem there.Voice of reason... I would say you are far underestimating your numbers. Look
at the average Utah family. If it were not for government subsidies, the
average cost to educate a child annually is 10,000 dollars each. WIth the
average Utah family having 4.someting kids, that is over 40,000 of benefit they
are receiving annually... and I doubt the number of Utah families paying 40k in
taxes is all that high. Last I checked we were all getting about a
trillion dollars plus more benefits we aren't paying for.
UtahBlueDevil,Over the past two years, I've asked many cashiers
at grocery stores, about people using food stamps to purchase groceries. They
all say at least ninety percent.Look at your schools, and
you'll find that most children qualify for free lunches.Forty
seven percent is a low figure. Look around you, and you can easily see it.merich39,With thousands of pictures taken, the press will
use the worse ones to bear false witness on Romney. Don't be fooled by
@CIclass warfare? victimhood? I have to wonder if you or other
republicans have a mirror anywhere in their house.
@FRED44My original post was about Obama (and the left's)
reliance on class, race and gender warfare for power;using the meme of
victimhood to rationalize perpetrating.You did not refute that
claim, but instead merely obfuscated with tangent discussions of how society is
victimized by Limbaugh and big banks, etc., while claiming you are not a victim.
So I can only assume that you really are OK with class, race and
gender warfare. And I feel perfectly fine about calling the left out on
that.BTW, for the record: Schultz called Ingram a slut and the other
MSNBC talkers accused Palin of facilitating murder. AND bailing out banks and
other big industries is not a popular concept with most conservatives who
actually oppose corporate welfare, so its not even germane to the topic.
Counter Intelligence,Big Oil doesn't expect a federal subsidy?
Did that go away yesterday? Big banks didn't get a bailout either that was
all misreported? I would agree with you that many of the MSNBC crew is way over
the top, but I don't believe any of them have called another human being a
slut or a prostitute.Oh and I did read your whole post but I thought
victimhood was victimhood I didn't realize that republicans are in the
recovery phase of victimhood.Oh and I am not a victim, don't
feel like a victim, am not a recovering victim. But I hope calling me one makes
you feel better.
The real statistic we need to worry about is this one:How many
Americans do you think receive more in federal benefits than they pay in
taxes...ALL federal taxes including income, payroll, etc.?60%.Read that again. 3 out of 5 Americans receive more benefits than they
actually pay for. Does anyone - anyone - here want to defend the idea that 60%
of Americans need to be net-dependent on their neighbors? This is one
definition of tyranny of the majority, i.e. when a majority consistently votes
itself at will into the wallets of their neighbors, who by definition can never
vote their wallets closed. There is no rational argument that can defend 60% of
a nation needing to live off the labors of the other 40%.
@Fred44As you would note if you actually read my post: There ARE
conservatives who take on the mantle of victimhood. The difference is; Most
conservatives are in transitory phase, it is not the center of their political
identity. Or, as in the case of YOUR examples, they are MOCKING feigned liberal
victims (who take their martyrdom sooo seriously and are sooo dour when it is
questioned). None of your examples expect a government program or subsidy to
solve their comic "victimhood" (Like all those stimulus funds that went
to ads on MSNBC - NOT Limbaugh or Beck.) You forgot the number #1 hate spewer
Chris Matthews and his side kicks Rachael Maddow and Lawrence O'Donnell.But nice job at playing victim there FRED
Counter Intelligence,You forgot the number #1 hate spewer Rush
Limbaugh and his side kicks Sean Hannity and Glen Beck. Isn't complaining
about the "main stream media" also victimhood? Or is it different when
the right spews hate and claim victimhood?
The funny thing is that a majority of that 47% are likely dyed in the wool,
registered red-state Republicans. I guess Mitt is expecting very few, if any,
of those Republican 47%-ers to vote for him. Let's hope he's correct.
If you are a relatively common Utah household, you might have a
working father making less than $50k and a stay at home mom. Maybe 6 or 7 kids
with a 30 yr mortgage on your house. With itemized deductions and all those
child dependent deductions, that household likely pays no Federal Income Tax.
And according to Mitt Romney, he'd classify that household as a group of
lazy freeloaders who would never give Mitt their vote.
It's readily apparent that the stress of this campaign is wearing on Mitt.
He looks like he's aged about 25 yrs since last spring. All those gaffes
he commits are causing him grey hair and wrinkles. And holes in his feet.
"That's the America I grew up in."Unless you grew up
before the great depression.... I highly doubt that.This notion that
it is only democrats having babies out of wedlock, taking food stamps, or
needing assistance is just an out an out fabrication and distortion. Just last
night I saw a rebroadcast of an early 60's interview with Mitts own mom,
talking about how Mitt's father who needed government assistance to make
ends meet in their early married years. Was Mitts dad part of the 47%Lets look at the 46.4% victims by the numbers. Over half paid payroll taxes -
but owed no federal through leveraging tax deductions. For example a family of
two with two kids with an income under 27,000 owned no federal income tax.
About 1/4 of those 46.4% (10 percent of all tax payers) are social security
recipients, and owned no income tax. Seven percent of those that filed earned
less that $20,000 a year.... mostly part time workers and kids. Of the 164
million households filing- only 10 million paid no tax and received assistance.
That is only 6% - not 47% line Romney claims.
You have to be president of everyone? Then why did you tell the Republicans to
sit in the back of the bus when you were first elected?And then go
on to blame them for all of your failures, when you had control of the senate,
congress and the white house?If people can't see through their
god (obama) then we are doomed as a nation. We'll just keep printing,
borrowing, spending until the day comes that people won't lend to us
anymore; our dollar is worthless and not worth printing and can no longer
spend.That's the path we're on. Both parties got us here.
Neither one has reformed anything or gotten rid of any program. Mitt is right.
47% of the people will continue to vote themselves benefits no matter what. The
other % will vote themselves benefits. We need a change of thinking in this
country. The real change will come when our nation lives on less than what we
are taxed for.
Romney (too many people dependent on government handouts) and Ryan (the right to
pray in schools) made valid comments that spoke to real issues that ring true
with many Americans (at least those who hold traditional values), and the
out-of-touch mainstream media calls them gaffes. Obama's record is one
misstep after another that the mainstream media won't call him on.
Of course Obama decries criticism of victimhood, because that is the essence of
politically correct liberal thought and philosophy: I am a victim, therefore I
have a right to perpetrate. Race baiting is OK because I am a victim. Gender
warfare is OK because I am a victim, etc. Al Sharpton, Sandra Fluke, Dan
Savage all get to spew hate incessantly - because they first claim to be victims
(which they may be - but they long since devolved into classic perpetrators).Which does not mean conservatives are never victims, some have long
standing resentments; however most conservatives view victimhood as a transitory
phase to be worked through, not a prime opportunity to be seized for maximum
passive/aggressive powerObama relies on class warfare, race warfare
and gender warfare because he has so few legitimate accomplishments; therefore
with out victimhood - his presidency means nothing. After all; it is
all George Bush's fault
Scredriver,"Why do republicans think the measure of a person is
just the number in the bank account?"Why do democrats feel they
must take from someone and give it away? I have a teenage neighbor who just had
a baby, and the benefits she now qualifies for are astounding. I should pay for
her behavior? Redistribute my hard earned money? Roll out the food stamps?People are collecting money from a government which is sixteen trillion
in debt. That's 550 thousand dollars for every second in a year.
What's this country going to be like when the handouts can't be
made?As for me, I'm totally out of debt, and did it on my own.
I donate to people when I can, but shouldn't be forced by careless
politicians to do so. That's the America I grew up in.
OneAmerican said:"And since more than 50% oppose Obamacare, why did he
exclude ALL republican idea"The MANDATE was the republican's idea
until Obama added it then it was "The unconstitutional part" of
Obamacare?t702 said: "This is great coming from someone that said
republicans are for dirty air and dirty water…"Mit says
he'll abolish the EPA! In favor of self regulation, (like energy
solutions sneaking hotter waste then allowed,) or oil and gas writing their own
environmental laws.I think most remember what it was like when rivers
caught fire and lead in gas was a good thing?ECR you nailed it, mits
crowd is constantly whining and blaming when they aren't mocking or
belittling allies and enemies alike.
Three paragraphs in, and I knew it without looking: this was an AP article.
They didn't use Romney's actual words, a courtesy they give Obama in
the article...they only "interpreted" Romney's meaning. But his
actual words make it indisputably clear he was talking about not being able to
get the 47% to VOTE for him...he WASN'T saying he doesn't
"care" about them as so many on the left have dishonestly claimed.
Guess what - Obama is doing the same thing - he also knows a big percentage of
America is already decided against him, myself included. He's not really
trying for my vote either.Oh, and it's not 47% that pay no
income tax...it's 49%. Romney was low. But he probably was talking about
those Americans who get means-tested redistribution checks from their fellow
Americans: Medicaid, welfare, food stamps, etc. That IS 47% of the country.
That number is way, way too high. Nobody with a brain honestly believes 47% of
Americans are poor enough to need welfare. That culture of dependency is
literally bankrupting our country, and is completely unsustainable. Romney won
my vote with his 47% quote.
"Mitt Romney and Barack Obama are moving the presidential campaign back to
familiar ground, grappling over the proper role of government in a debate where
clumsy, seemingly dismissive statements have made both men susceptible to
caricature."There was a joke several years ago that said if
George Bush said the world was flat, the Fox News headline would be:
"EARTH'S SHAPE: OPINIONS DIFFER."Your lead paragraph
for this story may be the Deseret News equivalent. Romney's gaffe, saying
47% of the American people are 'victims', and 'my job is not to
worry about those people', potentially putting his campaign on life
support, is hidden behind more spin than an Iranian centrifuge.
Romney is sinking and from the looks of things, the Deseret News seems more than
happy to go down with the ship.
"why did he exclude ALL republican idea and shove the whole thing down our
throats in a behind-closed-doors deal? Because he's phony, says one thing,
does another."How did he shove it down peoples throats. Last I
can tell it was the Congress that passed the law, a body elected by the people
of the states they represent. And if memory serves, I did see open meetings
actually televised about the health care program. Lastly, ObamaCare is largely
based on RomneyCare - who last I checked, is a Republican.Lets not
get confused here. The law was passed on partisan lines, and yes, because the
Republicans decided to play an all or nothing strategy, they got little. But
the way the process works is now the adults are suppose to come together, fix
the broken parts, replace the wrong parts, and enhance the parts of the law that
work - pre-existing conditions for example.But to pretend that Obama
did something that those on the other side of the isle aren't doing is a
bit presumptive. You have to have drunken a particularly strong blend of
kool-aiide to really believe that.
I listened to the entire taped event where Mitt made his "Let them eat
cake" statements. The only alarming thing about it was that it must be a
"secretly" taped event to finally hear what he really thinks. I was more
alarmed by what he had to say about what he would have done about some past
world events. I now fear that he will take us into a third world war, back into
the cold war era, and into even higher deficits. It is no wonder that Wall
Street may be turning against him. He seems to be in total lockstep with the Tea
he is wearing out his etch-a-sketch
Romney will work for all by cutting taxes for the rich. Can't you people
understand that? It is about time that a real man told the huddled masses there
will be no more government handouts.
Romney is a Mr. Hyde and Dr. Jekyll, he can not be trusted, and no one can
believe what he says, or know what he is intending behind the scene, or with
whom he is scheming.
"If you want to be president, you have to work for everyone, not just for
some," Obama said in an appearance on CBS' "Late Show with David
Letterman" Tuesday.This is great coming from someone that said
republicans are for dirty air and dirty water which is a classic way of working
for everyone, right?
If Obama's working for everyone, I guess he's trying to get everyone
to the poverty level. And since more than 50% oppose Obamacare, why did he
exclude ALL republican idea and shove the whole thing down our throats in a
behind-closed-doors deal? Because he's phony, says one thing, does
When I served in the military I made only $15,000 a year and was below the level
of paying federal income tax. The government also gave me food and shelter. I
was such a freeloader...Why do republicans think the measure of a
person is just the number in the bank account? I don't have to make thibgs
up to say that republicans are "respectors of persons" in a biblical
way.Republicans just say it loud and proud, "greed is good".
"If you want to be president, you have to work for everyone, not just for
some."That soft spoken, non-confrontational statement by the
President somehow generated the DN headline writer to claim he "decried"
Romney's statement and the author to say the President "ridiculed"
Romney. If anyone is feeling like a victim it seems to be Mitt Romney and all
his supporters who are constantly whining about how badly they are treated while
at the same time they are calling the president a socialist. Give it up
folks.There are many who pay no income tax but pay payroll tax that
supports those evil government programs Mr. Romney referred to. Their taxes
where lowered (or elimintaed) by the votes of Republicans who needed something
to make the massive tax cuts they gave to the wealthy more palatable to the
public. Most of those people are not relying on the government for their
livlihood but they are poor or low income and struggle every day to put food on
the table. The Obama campiagn has not needed to use their own tactics to make
Mr. Romney look out of touch. Mitt Romney is doing that all by himself.