Look what it did for George, who was born in Mexico and so would also have been covered by the welfare assistance that the father took when moving the family back. Was George Romney doomed to dependency? Did it sap his work ethic or stall his entrepreneurial spirit? It looks more like it enabled him to settle in his new homeland and then strike out on his own, eventually to be able to rescue a failing company and make a success of it, as well as getting involved with politics at a high level. Well done to the man - it's the American Dream, is it not?

And, of course he helped out his son, giving him a good private education, setting him up so he and his wife could afford for him to study law while they started a family, not needing to rely on welfare or getting a job. Nothing wrong with that, in itself, we all want to provide for our kids and give them a good start. A shame, then, that George's son does not learn the lesson of his own father's life.

danivon wrote:No, DF, because they are off-topic. Start a new thread to exercise your venting about Obama. Or just add to the ones you already started.

By the way, why do you keep going on about 'partial'? Mother Jones released all of the video they had which may be missing 2 minutes, but does run to a lot longer and does not isolate the quote.

Meh. The only thing he has wrong is the number. The rest of it is spot on.

danivon wrote:Look what it did for George, who was born in Mexico and so would also have been covered by the welfare assistance that the father took when moving the family back. Was George Romney doomed to dependency? Did it sap his work ethic or stall his entrepreneurial spirit?

Great point. So, why don't you do some research and compare the government subsidies he received with what is available today?

I'll tell you why: 1) it would be work; 2) you would soon discover you are comparing water balloons to fire hoses.

DF - surely it's the principle of the thing. After all, Mitt Romney seems to think anyone not paying Income Tax is just as much a freeloader as those on full available benefits. So someone getting even a small welfare cheque when they come back to the country from exile is in that lump, right?

However, he wasn't far out on the figure (in 2011 it was 46.4% of households), but it doesn't mean what he thinks it means or what some people (including on here) have claimed. This article has a number of charts that show some clear facts: Who doesn't pay taxes in eight charts (Ezra Klein, WaPo)

The data shows that in reality, just over 80% of American households are paying Federal Taxes (Income Tax and Payroll Tax). More than half of the remainder are elderly, and so are possibly paying the Medicare rump of the Payroll Tax, but otherwise are retired and so most will have been paying taxes for decades before and should not be lumped in with the indigent.

What's left is about 8% of American households.

Further, a lot of people have been taken out of Income Tax by Republican policies, such as the Bush tax cuts and extensions to tax credits (some tax credits are of course Democrat in origin, I know). While sometime those tax credits result in a negative tax bill (so a net gain), most households who benefit only do so for up to 2 years (the vast majority for less than 5), and over a working lifetime they tend to be net payers of taxes.

Of people aged between 30 and 65, about 70% are paying Income Tax (80% including Payroll Tax). The old don't pay as much tax, and neither do the young, but it's obvious why - they will tend to be lower earners.

So, Romney is talking toot (to use a Rankinian expression). His thesis on why nearly half of Americans are going to vote for Obama misses out how about 40% of them are motivated to.

Also, I saw an interesting link between his words, and a section of the Book of Mormon that would appear to suggest that denigrating the poor is not cool. From Mosiah 4:17-18:

Perhaps thou shalt say: The man has brought upon himself his misery; therefore I will stay my hand, and will not give unto him of my food, nor impart unto him of my substance that he may not suffer, for his punishments are just—
But I say unto you, O man, whosoever doeth this the same hath great cause to repent; and except he repenteth of that which he hath done he perisheth forever, and hath no interest in the kingdom of God.

(hat tip Fred 'Slactivist' Clark

danivon wrote:DF - surely it's the principle of the thing. After all, Mitt Romney seems to think anyone not paying Income Tax is just as much a freeloader as those on full available benefits.

I would not take that as a fair summary of his view. In fact, if I didn't know how unbiased and fair you are, I'd say that was a ridiculously cheap shot.

However, he wasn't far out on the figure (in 2011 it was 46.4% of households), but it doesn't mean what he thinks it means or what some people (including on here) have claimed. This article has a number of charts that show some clear facts: Who doesn't pay taxes in eight charts (Ezra Klein, WaPo)

The data shows that in reality, just over 80% of American households are paying Federal Taxes (Income Tax and Payroll Tax).

With all due respect to you and the liberal hack known as Ezra Klein, so what?

"Payroll tax" is the only "tax" which results in a financial return. Income tax is not any sort of "investment," except to those who believe in income redistribution and spreading the wealth around.

So, Romney is talking toot (to use a Rankinian expression). His thesis on why nearly half of Americans are going to vote for Obama misses out how about 40% of them are motivated to

.

Nah. His thesis is that his platform talks about cutting taxes that 47% of Americans don't pay.

His thesis is that many Americans on food stamps and other assistance may not want to bite the hand that feeds them.

If anyone is talking rubbish, it's you. Do you have any idea how much George Romney received or for how long? Did he get 99 weeks of unemployment? Did he receive food stamps? Housing assistance?

Just what did the welfare recipient, George Romney, receive? You brought it up, so answer it.

Also, I saw an interesting link between his words, and a section of the Book of Mormon that would appear to suggest that denigrating the poor is not cool. From Mosiah 4:17-18.

He didn't.

Here's another funny thing: he's given a massive amount of money to charity.

Romney’s 2011 tax returns show he gave more than $4 million to charity last year (about 30 percent of his income) to Biden’s $3,690 (0.2 percent of his income) over the previous ten years when he first ran for vice president, according to the Weekly Standard.

All told, Romney gave a thousand times as much to charity in one year as Biden gave in a decade, according to the Standard. Romney’s charitable giving averaged more than $10,000 a day last year.

I give more to charity (total, not percentage) than Biden and I don't have his resources.

It's just the way liberals are: taking others' money is "patriotic;" giving their own is idiotic.

Doctor Fate wrote:With all due respect to you and the liberal hack known as Ezra Klein, so what?

Umm, he didn't make the number up, he got them from proper sources.

"Payroll tax" is the only "tax" which results in a financial return. Income tax is not any sort of "investment," except to those who believe in income redistribution and spreading the wealth around.

I don't think you understand either tax. A lot of the people getting money/healthcare from the Federal government are getting it from the Social Security system. So, people paying into it are contributing to those people. Payroll tax is actually relevant to Romney's argument about people who want 'entitlements'.

You'd think he'd want to think about including those contributors, to sell himself to them, and then he'd have up to 80% of voters to call upon.

His thesis is that many Americans on food stamps and other assistance may not want to bite the hand that feeds them.

But 47% of Americans are not on food stamps. So again, I refer to the question of why there are many Americans who are not on food stamps who still will never vote for Romney.

I give more to charity (total, not percentage) than Biden and I don't have his resources.

It's just the way liberals are: taking others' money is "patriotic;" giving their own is idiotic.

I thought the point of charity was not to brag about it. Many people give to charity, regardless of their political leanings. If I give to charity (which I do), do I cease to be a liberal in your eyes?

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:With all due respect to you and the liberal hack known as Ezra Klein, so what?

Umm, he didn't make the number up, he got them from proper sources.

And, so what?

I don't think you understand either tax.

Let's test that.

I pay both. How about you?

A lot of the people getting money/healthcare from the Federal government are getting it from the Social Security system.

Again, I have actual real-life experience. The government killed my father and is trying to kill my mother. I know a lot more about the system than you do. I know kids who get checks because they're orphans. I know kids who get checks because their Dad is old. I am a guardian for someone who receives those checks and lives on Medicare. I have been forced to learn a lot about the system.

My point stands. This is the only "tax" with a government-guaranteed return on it.

So, people paying into it are contributing to those people.

Not really. People pay in less than what they will eventually take out, for the most part.

Payroll tax is actually relevant to Romney's argument about people who want 'entitlements'.

No it wasn't.

You'd think he'd want to think about including those contributors, to sell himself to them, and then he'd have up to 80% of voters to call upon.

Which is why Klein's entire piece was exactly that . . . a piece.

His thesis is that many Americans on food stamps and other assistance may not want to bite the hand that feeds them.

But 47% of Americans are not on food stamps. So again, I refer to the question of why there are many Americans who are not on food stamps who still will never vote for Romney.

Bold added to help you.

I give more to charity (total, not percentage) than Biden and I don't have his resources.

It's just the way liberals are: taking others' money is "patriotic;" giving their own is idiotic.

I thought the point of charity was not to brag about it.

Yes, that was my point. How keen of you to see through me. You're a sharpie, no doubt about it.

Many people give to charity, regardless of their political leanings.

Biden doesn't.

Obama is a bit better.

Conservatives give more than liberals.

If I give to charity (which I do), do I cease to be a liberal in your eyes?

No, but you do go up. At least you have the "audacity" to use your own money to give to causes you believe in rather than wanting others to do so (like Biden).

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:With all due respect to you and the liberal hack known as Ezra Klein, so what?

Umm, he didn't make the number up, he got them from proper sources.

And, so what?

So... quit with the ad hominem attacks such as that on Mr Klein. They don't help.

I don't think you understand either tax.

Let's test that.

I pay both. How about you?

I pay the UK equivalents. What's more, I am able to read up on how your system works.

A lot of the people getting money/healthcare from the Federal government are getting it from the Social Security system.

Again, I have actual real-life experience. The government killed my father and is trying to kill my mother.

That's some paranoia you have there. Cancer is what killed my grandparents (pretty much all four of them), and I am not blaming 'the government' for that. Unless the CIA are using snipers to take out citzens, I suspect you are baing a tad hyperbolic here.

So, people paying into it are contributing to those people.

Not really. People pay in less than what they will eventually take out, for the most part.

Which is how pensions work. If I don't get significantly more than I put into my occupational pension, it will have failed me very badly.

Payroll tax is actually relevant to Romney's argument about people who want 'entitlements'.

No it wasn't.

Keep repeating it till you are blue in the face, but it is. A lot of the 'entitlements' he was deriding are paid for out of Payroll Tax. How would it not be relevant?

His thesis is that many Americans on food stamps and other assistance may not want to bite the hand that feeds them.

But 47% of Americans are not on food stamps. So again, I refer to the question of why there are many Americans who are not on food stamps who still will never vote for Romney.

Bold added to help you.

Whatever. Still, please show that 47% of Americans are on 'food stamps and other assistance' then, because I believe the figure will be somewhat lower, even in such straightened times as these. Looks to me like 80% are paying taxes to the Federal government. Please provide some stats on how many are actually on assistance (and please differentiate between seniors and people of working age).

If I give to charity (which I do), do I cease to be a liberal in your eyes?

No, but you do go up. At least you have the "audacity" to use your own money to give to causes you believe in rather than wanting others to do so (like Biden).

Well, I don't do it for your approval or anyone else's, and neither do I take the time to compare amounts to other people. I'm still a socialist. I'm just plugging a gap that I feel is negected. Frankly, I would rather that it was paid for via taxes, because what I tend to give to are services that I think should be covered just as similar ones are.

Anyway, as I said before, there's charity and 'charity'. The amount/proportion you give doesn't matter if all it's doing is feathering nests or making an organisation look better. I'm sure the LDS gets a lot of money as charity. But is building large temples and sending young 'elders' all over the world to proselytise really a charitable purpose compared to feeding the homeless or looking after the sick? I believe also that within the Mormon community, charity to members is more like workfare - if you receive some, you are expected to give back (on top of the tithes).

And yes, now I am talking specifically about the Mormons, but it applies to other 'charities'. Glossy new mega-churches. Organisations that spend more time and money lobbying governments than helping people. Organisations that are defined as charities as part of tax avoidance. Charities that pay their executives large salaries, or soak up a lot of the donations in to 'administration' (the salaries of a bloated workforce).

Whatever Romney gives, whoever he gives it to, that does not mean he was not expressing disdain for the poor in that talk.

No matter how one rationalizes Romneys musings about those who don't pay tax, its still startlingly to see him target in any way 47% of the population, in a negative mannerr. For some reason he doesn't understand that he is trying to get elected and that he does indeed need to persuade some of the 47% to vote for him.

Now I know that this speech wasn't supposed to go public, but they do seem to represent Romneys' convictions. And its hard to understand how anyone who falls within that 47% could find Romneys attitude to be a compliment....
SInce the great reveal on these comments, polls have been falling. Including his favorability numbers. And Obama's favorability rating has been climbing. Perhaps becasue of the direct comparison with Romney?
This election was supposed to have been about the economy. Or a referendum on Obama.
Instead its about Romney, And Romney isn't helping....

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls ... e-643.html
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls ... -1134.html

At least he will secure the aviation safety engineers' votes...

Oopsie!

danivon wrote:So... quit with the ad hominem attacks such as that on Mr Klein. They don't help.

I'm not attacking HIM. I'm attacking his ANALYSIS. Why? Because it proves nothing--it sets out to disprove what Romney never intended in the first place.

Sure, Romney made a mistake. However, to expand on it, doesn't do anything except underline that he made a mistake.

Again, so what? It was a mistake.

I pay the UK equivalents. What's more, I am able to read up on how your system works.

So what? There is no way you know more about it than I do. Have you stood in an SSI line? Filled out forms explaining how you spent the money during the year?

That's some paranoia you have there. Cancer is what killed my grandparents (pretty much all four of them), and I am not blaming 'the government' for that. Unless the CIA are using snipers to take out citzens, I suspect you are baing a tad hyperbolic here.

No, I'm not. It was government red tape and government regulations that led directly to his death. I could draw you a picture, but it's not extremely helpful and it's not painless.

Which is how pensions work. If I don't get significantly more than I put into my occupational pension, it will have failed me very badly.

Right, and Social Security is not that well run. So, it earns little and pays out a lot. That's why, eventually, it will go bankrupt unless changes are made.

Keep repeating it till you are blue in the face, but it is. A lot of the 'entitlements' he was deriding are paid for out of Payroll Tax. How would it not be relevant?

Because he was not talking about payroll taxes. And, he was not talking about SSI or the like, but food stamps, etc.

Keep arguing about what he believes or does not believe, but at least have the decency to acknowledge this was not a policy speech and he was not addressing every entitlement. And, he said he was "inartful." That is tantamount, during a campaign, of saying "I was wrong."

Whatever. Still, please show that 47% of Americans are on 'food stamps and other assistance' then, because I believe the figure will be somewhat lower, even in such straightened times as these.

I found this on a site I'm sure you respect:

Nearly half (49.1 percent) of the American population lives in households that received some form of government benefit in the first quarter of 2011, the Wall Street Journal reported last month, citing US Census data.

Looks to me like 80% are paying taxes to the Federal government. Please provide some stats on how many are actually on assistance (and please differentiate between seniors and people of working age).

I'm done proving the numbers. It is actually more than 47%. Deal with it.

Well, I don't do it for your approval or anyone else's, and neither do I take the time to compare amounts to other people.

Meh.

You can't complain about Romney, extol Biden, and ignore this. I'm just analyzing the numbers. Biden says it's "patriotic" to pay more in taxes, but holds onto his own like it's the Great Depression.

I'm still a socialist. I'm just plugging a gap that I feel is negected. Frankly, I would rather that it was paid for via taxes, because what I tend to give to are services that I think should be covered just as similar ones are.

That's your right.

I'm of a different mindset. I believe man is inherently evil, which means government is led by self-serving men and women. Government, consisting of greedy people, cannot be trusted. The more we give to government, the more will be stolen and wasted. That's the nature of man.

I believe also that within the Mormon community, charity to members is more like workfare - if you receive some, you are expected to give back (on top of the tithes).

Sort of.

However, if every church ran like the Mormons, government assistance would be unnecessary. They give everything needed to those in need. Those not in need work at various operations the Church owns (as a kid, I did a few days a year in an orange grove). And, yes, the Church does expect those who receive aid to do something in return, but it is based on ability, nothing else.

And yes, now I am talking specifically about the Mormons, but it applies to other 'charities'. Glossy new mega-churches. Organisations that spend more time and money lobbying governments than helping people.

Like Media Matters?

Organisations that are defined as charities as part of tax avoidance. Charities that pay their executives large salaries, or soak up a lot of the donations in to 'administration' (the salaries of a bloated workforce).

Still raving on about MM?

Whatever Romney gives, whoever he gives it to, that does not mean he was not expressing disdain for the poor in that talk.

We disagree about the "disdain."

He has done more in his life for the poor than you (or I) ever will. He erred.

So what?

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:So... quit with the ad hominem attacks such as that on Mr Klein. They don't help.

I'm not attacking HIM. I'm attacking his ANALYSIS. Why? Because it proves nothing--it sets out to disprove what Romney never intended in the first place.

In the sentence I was responding to, you called him a 'hack'. That says nothing about the analysis in the article, but is about him. Thus, it is ad hominem.

So what? There is no way you know more about it than I do. Have you stood in an SSI line? Filled out forms explaining how you spent the money during the year?

I have to fill in my tax forms every year. Having never claimed on welfare, I've no experience with it directly, but that was not your point - not the one I was talking about, anyway. You were saying in simple terms what the purpose of Payroll Tax and Income Tax are, in your opinion. Direct experience of the bureaucracy is not actually relevant, if you understand the actual purpose of those taxes.

Because he was not talking about payroll taxes. And, he was not talking about SSI or the like, but food stamps, etc.

he mentioned several kinds of 'entitlement' (with an open ended 'you name it' at the end), including healthcare (Medicare being funded by Payroll Tax). So, yes, he was.

Keep arguing about what he believes or does not believe, but at least have the decency to acknowledge this was not a policy speech and he was not addressing every entitlement. And, he said he was "inartful." That is tantamount, during a campaign, of saying "I was wrong."

Oh, I know it was not a 'policy' speech. It was about his view of the political landscape, how he saw voters and how they saw him. 'inartful', is a good one, as it describes the phrasing rather than the message. Still, there's a saying - in politics, a gaffe is the mistake of accidentally telling the truth.

Nearly half (49.1 percent) of the American population lives in households that received some form of government benefit in the first quarter of 2011, the Wall Street Journal reported last month, citing US Census data.

I read the WSJ article this was based on. It doesn't say much about whether this includes any form of tax credits, or how many of those households were making a net contribution. Households with children are more likely to be in receipt of something (eg SCHIP), and they will be a higher proportion of the population, but with SCHIP or EITC, the household is also likely to be paying into the Federal system too.

The more relevant figured are those for Social Security, Unemployment, Medicare/ Medicaid and food stamps. However, the overlaps for these will be significant, so it's not clear what the picture is with the combination of those benefits. It also does not (as I requested) differentiate between seniors and those of working age. If a working family has an aged relative living with them, their medical benefits will count the whole household as 'recipients', when in reality only one person is.

I'm done proving the numbers. It is actually more than 47%. Deal with it.

You provided A number, which does not necessarily prove anything, and doesn't speak to net contribution, and conflates being in the same household as a recipient with being one yourself.

You can't complain about Romney, extol Biden, and ignore this. I'm just analyzing the numbers. Biden says it's "patriotic" to pay more in taxes, but holds onto his own like it's the Great Depression.

Please point to where I 'extol' Biden.

Besides, I wonder if you really can say how much someone gives to charity with any confidence. I do not claim the tax back on mine, so it does not appear on my tax return (I don't give out of my payroll, either). So withput examining my spending, how would you know how much I give or do not give (barring taking my word for it). Same with Biden - he could be giving more, but not declaring it.

That's your right.

I'm of a different mindset. I believe man is inherently evil, which means government is led by self-serving men and women. Government, consisting of greedy people, cannot be trusted. The more we give to government, the more will be stolen and wasted. That's the nature of man.

What a thoroughly depressing outlook. One problem, though, if man is inherently evil, and if government as an agency of a group of men is also tainted by that evil, doesn't that mean that pretty much any other agency of man has the exact same issue? Businesses, social clubs, churches, families etc. etc.

However, if every church ran like the Mormons, government assistance would be unnecessary. They give everything needed to those in need. Those not in need work at various operations the Church owns (as a kid, I did a few days a year in an orange grove). And, yes, the Church does expect those who receive aid to do something in return, but it is based on ability, nothing else.

What about those who are not members of a church? It looks quite similar to parts of Acts, the socialist, 'from each... to each' thing that the Early church (in common with many religious communes) did. Apparently it's bad if it isn't a church doing it. :shrug:

And yes, now I am talking specifically about the Mormons, but it applies to other 'charities'. Glossy new mega-churches. Organisations that spend more time and money lobbying governments than helping people.

Like Media Matters?

Perhaps. I don't know much about them, and don't really care as I don't intend to donate to them. But if you say so, lump them in with the rest.

Organisations that are defined as charities as part of tax avoidance. Charities that pay their executives large salaries, or soak up a lot of the donations in to 'administration' (the salaries of a bloated workforce).

Still raving on about MM?

Do you really think this is some kind of reasoned response? Do you think that if MM does turn out to be one or more of the above that this makes a jot or tittle's worth of difference to the basic point that there are different kinds of charity, and different qualities of charitable giving other than just the dollar amount?

Hey, if you want to argue cost/benefit analyses on social programs, help yourself. I'm not interested.

There is nothing you posted that is worth refuting. Most of it is false, but who cares? I don't. Enjoy yourself.

Almost no one truly extol's Biden. The most obviously fake part of the DNC were the speeches where Biden was praised. The guy's a complete moron, walks around with both feet in his mouth (you thought that was impossible). If there was an artful way to dump him from the ticket (where he doesn't kick and scream and hold onto the door as he's being dragged out) he would have been dumped.

Man is inherently evil? Flawed, sure, capable of evil of course, but inherently evil? I got to agree with Dan on that one, that's a thoroughly depressing outlook.

geojanes wrote:Man is inherently evil? Flawed, sure, capable of evil of course, but inherently evil? I got to agree with Dan on that one, that's a thoroughly depressing outlook.

Funny thing is: I learned that in public school.

Why are there checks and balances? Why the Bill of Rights?

It's not depressing; it's wise.

Example: someone calls your home and says he can save you hundreds of dollars a year on food. You don't have to do anything but give him some information which he will use to send out a package to you so you can begin enjoying the benefits today.

Do you believe what he says?

We all deal with this sort of thing on a regular basis. Is there such a thing as a free lunch?

Why do some (liberals) insist on setting aside common sense when it comes to government? Do you believe there is no fraud or waste in government? If you don't believe that, then you do acknowledge there is "evil" in government--fraud and waste don't occur without people.

Now, "inherently evil" is not the same as "incapable of good."

Another example: Why can't pure socialism work? Why is Marx wrong and Orwell right (in Animal Farm)?

Because men are inherently selfish. Pure socialism would only work if everyone were selfless. That is not the nature of man.