Is it PC to help those who have fallen on hard times? Is it PC to hide millions of dollars from taxes in the Cayman Islands? Is it PC to tell those who can't afford to visit an emergency room or buy prescriptions that they are just out of luck? Is it PC to tell a person that they are not allowed the same rights as everyone else because they choose to love someone that's the same sex as they are? Is it PC to tell a group of wealthy supporters that you don't care about 47% of the American population because they are lazy, good for nothing slouches who feed off the government?

There is clearly a lack of basic morals and decency in the Romney/Ryan campaign...and it is for these reasons (and more) why Obama is winning in the polls.

Peter and a clear basic lie to what you wrote!
1. No one is taking away the safety net for a hand up. Stopping the hand outs is what we are saying.
2. Yes. Using any tax loop hole is what this tax code has forced us all to do. Before you say anything about Romney, maybe you should look up the Kennedy tax evasions or the Wasserman-Shultz tax evasions!
3. No one in America will be turned away from an emergency room for inability to pay!
4. I support gay marriage 100%. Maybe you should talk to Obama who JUST supported it in an election year OR Clinton who signed DOMA!
5. He didn't say what you claim! He said he will never win them over to vote for him so he can't worry about that.
6. There is a lack of moral compass on the part of Democrats who have stood on the Senate floor and lied (Harry Reid), had a man claim Romney killed his wife, trump up a war on women and finally miss characterize this statement.
7. When will Obama finally admit we had a terrorist attack on American Soil and they killed 4 Americans?

Caring about someone isn't the same as caring FOR someone. Also, he's talking about getting elected... he's not focusing on 47% of likely Obama voters (if 50% of population is voting for Obama, he's saying 47% of those (23% of the general population) will not vote for him no matter what... so he's not focusing ON GETTING THEIR VOTES. He never said that he would dump 47% of the entire population into the abyss. Do I know where he got his figures? No. Do I agree with the figures? No. But I do NOT agree that he "doesn't care" about 47% of America.

The percentage is actually higher when you consider illegals. Romeny was referring to the career generational welfarians and those abusing the system, not those who need the safety net. He didn't mention that most of these bottom dwellers also get a tax refeund due to tax credits for each kid popped out by those single mothers.

We should be more worried what Obama is doing with our tax dollars than what Romney is doing with his own money. He made is money and does what he wants with it. Is it ok that Obama sends $2 billion to Libya and will continue to do so even after 4 Americans were slaughtered there? How about creating jobs and stop making this country dependent on government bailouts, EBT cards, and SSDI. The president is going the down-trodden and college students. You want more welfare, you got it. How about a job Mr. President so I can have dignity and pride and get my own place and show my children that a person is judged by not how they get knocked down, but how they pick themself up and succeed. I was laid off for a year, couldnt get a job, couldnt get an EBT card either and to this day not sure why. I received my unemployment check weekly and paid my bills with it. I finally got a job, after going back to college at nights while unemployed to get my degree. I got knocked down, but picked myself up. Back to Romney, is it PC for him to tell supporters he doesnt care about the 47% who rely on welfare, absolutely not. But you know the 47% are going with Obama because he wants this country to be depended on government. We need someone who has experience in job creation, who worked hard to be successful, and can surround himself with people who believe in a stronger America and be the force of the world again. That person is MITT ROMNEY. By the way I am a DEMOCRAT.

These comments represent some of the most poorly informed views I've seen. No Sam, he's not right that the 47% of people that don't pay federal income tax view themselves as victims or entitled to everything. Of course there is a percentage that do, but that has ALWAYS been the case. The working poor, low income people receiving the child tax credit, elderly whose only income is social security and active duty military all fall into that 47%.

JoeC - your response is so ridiculous that it's not really worth an answer.

Melissa, he is absolutely not referring to 47% of likely Obama voters - 47% of the electorate (i.e. the general population).

And Dining Dad, let's look at how Mitt made his money. There is a tax loophole for "alternative investments" - hedge funds, PE, VC etc. that allows them to count what is in every way ordinary, incentive compensation as capital gains. Here's how it works: the fund raises $1 billion to invest in something, and they agree with their limited partners that they will get an annual management fee (typically 2% of assets under management) to pay the bills. That 2% typically counts as ordinary income and so is taxed up to 35%. They also agree that the fund gets to keep a percentage of profits on their investments (typically 20%), which is where they make the real money. So if you're a fund manager at Fidelity, and you do well and get paid well, you get taxed at 35%. If you do the same thing at a hede fund, 15%. Fairness in action!

The Dining Dad wrote: "Obama sends $2 billion to Libya and will continue to do so even after 4 Americans were slaughtered there?"
-----
what about the billions that bush sent to the middle east and all the lives lost there??

and bin laden was killed on obama's watch. but we had how many years in Iraq, Afghanistan,?? and how many lives were lost or maimed or forever messed up??

Did I miss something? Is Bush running in this election?

PETER GORMAN, you should be more worried about what OBAMA does with your tax money then what ROMENY does with his own money. This is not even a debate or discussion. Who cares what Romney does with his money. Obama and his socialists network have you believing thats an issue. Really?? When you have a valid point to make instead of watching MSNBC or CNN and quoting them, then we can discuss.

How quickly we forget Rev. Right and his morals, Bill Ayers, Michell Nobama "finnaly" being proud of America, Obama land deal to Rezko, Obama's Aunt and Uncle living here illegally and sucking up our tax dollars, his anti-gun positions, that he was raized in Indonesia madrassa Muslim school, Even changing his name for political reasons............some morals with him.

Your right Diana and lets not forget People that work who are making peanuts for pay. He will tax them before the rich.

That's certainly true. Of course, it's entirely likely that he has also illegally evaded more taxes in any given year than I'll make in a lifetime. If you're good with that, well, okay. You're his target audience.

So? relative to what I make I have paid more than Romney every year for the past ten years.

TMHSGrad, you're basing your statement on what now?

Diana, I heard Obama didn't pay taxes from 1996-2004 when he claimed he made no money. I heard it on the street!

As percentage of income, Romney pays far less than the average taxpayer. But as a TMHS grad, you probably wouldn't understand that.

Leeroy - Romney's tax returns, and a guess at Diana's income.

Diana, so did Ted Kennedy and ALL of the Kennedy clan! What is the point? Are the Kennedy's the target audience of Romney? BTW - Wasserman-Shultz also has an off shore account. Is the Chair of the DNC in Romney's target audience?

Gordon - that's because the majority of Romney's income is capital gains on his investments. The tax he pays on his salary is much higher than what you or I pay. Granted, his salary is very low in comparison to his capital gains, so his overall tax in percent is lower than what you or I pay. But, that is the tax code under which we live.

Not something I would expect a layabout "musician" to understand...

If most of his income is in capital gains,why does he offshore it before it's taxed ?

He's taking advantage of loopholes in the tax code. You wouldn't do the same thing if you had the opportunity? I know I would.

Bob, no Kennedys are running for president. Do try to keep up and stay on topic.

Diana, Thank God! They have done enough to destroy this country! I was simply pointing out all wealthy people use whatever loop holes they can to keep their wealth. As long as they don't call for higher taxes a la Ted Kennedy while contorting themselves to not pay taxes, I am ok with it.
The hypocrisy is you are ok with Kennedy tax avoidance and Wasserman-Shultz tax avoidance because they are D's. When Ted did run for President no one mentioned it. Why?

Exactly and the stats have nothing to with children not paying taxes as they are not eligible tax payers. HE is referring to those who refuse to work, but are more than able. His comments sure make those people upset as we can see from the defensive comments. Go get job!

Bob, when Ted Kennedy ran for president, I was very busy playing with my Barbie dream house. It was 32 years ago. Move on.

Diana, OK, fair enough on Ted Kennedy BUT there is a Kennedy running for Congress this year that has benefited from that same trust. Care to comment on that?
Also the present chair of the DNC who is yelling about Romney's off shore accounts has one herself. She is a sitting member of Congress as well. Anything on that? Didn't think so!

I don't care about anyone who's running for anything that I'm not in a position to vote for. I only have so much time and energy.

I DO, however, have enough time and energy to research the offshore accounts thing. You should have done the same.

http://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2012/jul/18/mary-matalin/debbie-wasserman-schultz-had-offshore-accounts-mit/

"Our ruling

Matalin said that Romney might have offshore accounts, but so do others. "Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the handpicked Democratic chairman by Barack Obama, has these offshore accounts," she said.

Actually, Wasserman Schultz had a 401(k) account of less than $15,000, managed by an American company, that included some foreign investments. Romney’s account was a savings account of approximately $3 million held by a Swiss bank.

Matalin does have a point that Romney’s account was entirely legal and he paid taxes on the earnings. It’s also true that many Americans have foreign investments through 401(k)s and pension funds.

But Wasserman Schultz’s investments are not similar to Romney’s, neither in size nor in type.

We rate Matalin’s claim Mostly False."

Oh Diana, let's not be silly and check facts. We should get back to our low-wage jobs now.

TMHSGrad,
Awesome point. The NObama gimme girls and boys won't understand it. They are too busy sitting on their fat asses on their free couches in their free section 8 apartments watching oprah on their free television. Actually you and I are paying for this stuff for these useless slobs.

@ Diana,

Au contrair, mon cheri!
Real fair and balanced research is obviously not your forté

http://mediatrackers.org/2011/12/19/unbiased-politifact-repeatedly-biased-against-conservative-groups/

Happy Friday!

MW

"Media Trackers is a conservative non-profit, non-partisan investigative watchdog dedicated to promoting accountability in the media and government across Wisconsin through cutting edge research and communications initiatives."

Are they conservative? Non-partisan? Vocabulary-challenged? Just plain lying and expecting stupid people to take their word that they can be both "conservative" and "non-partisan?" Your guess is as good as mine.*

Also, "contraire." You're welcome.

*No it's not.

please subsititute the work suck with such. Then again, it looks like a good typo.

Well you can bet he scared the hell out of a few million seniors on social security. Not Me I'm not voting for Romney and his sidekick who wants to dump us over the cliff.

You've made some good points, Don. Romney really is a horse's ass, and a nasty one at that. Obama's no bargain, either. I really can't stomach either one of them, so I'll probably vote for a third party at the polls this November. Martha Coakley lost because of her lacklustre campaign, but Elizabeth Warren seems okay. The only thing I take issue with her about, however, is the fact that she's on the board of AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee, i. e. the Israel Lobby).

ROTFLMAO! Diana, are you one of those enlightened Obama voters? The reference to the 47% is the households and individuals who file tax returns.

Bob, I'm one of those people who prefer to live in a world where "enlightened" isn't an epithet. I understood the reference perfectly. Did you understand anything I said?

I do, do you? You wrote "humans don't spring full-grown from the head of Zeus and immediately bound off to cubicles where they labor unceasingly" which infers you think he meant my 11 year old.
Enlightened is if you think you are but live in the DNC cave without light!

Diane I worked in the stell bussiness all my life. 90% of the workers I worked with were 30+ years older. In the 60's and 70's non of my co workers lived to collect their social security. If any maybe 2 years getting their social security. So there fore not many people ever lived to collect their social security.

Diana, you could have at least included the relevant information from that link. Most people believe the misconception that federal income tax = ALL federal taxes. No, federal income tax is but one of many federal taxes. From the link:

"These figures cover only the federal income tax and ignore the substantial amounts of other federal taxes — especially the payroll tax — that many of these households pay. As a result, these figures greatly overstate the share of households that do not pay federal taxes. Tax Policy Center data show that only about 17 percent of households did not pay any federal income tax or payroll tax in 2009, despite the high unemployment and temporary tax cuts that marked that year.[5] In 2007, a more typical year, the figure was 14 percent. This percentage would be even lower if it reflected other federal taxes that households pay, including excise taxes on gasoline and other items."

tl;dr: Only 17% of households paid no federal taxes at all. The rest paid some form of federal tax, even if it didn't include income tax.

Funny, I thought the biggest problem was the war(s) we have going on which cost us hundreds of times what any of the above mentioned expenses do each year.

Mitt Romney says Americans who don't pay income tax will never vote for him. But, eight of the top 10 states with the highest number of nonpayers tend to vote Republican. See map of the states that pay the least amount of taxes here: http://theatln.tc/QhxL9g

The percentage of Americans paying federal income taxes is NOT shrinking. According to the Center for Tax Policy (Romney's source for these numbers), the percentage of those who did not pay was just under 51% in 2008 and 2009; in 2011 it was 46.7 percent. Admittedly it's not a great number, but the picture is improving rather than worsening. Fortunately, not all of us have given up on the USA.

The federal welfare reform act of 1996 no longer allows for lengthly collection of benefits. Most recipients are required to find work within 2 years of first receiving benefits. Addtionally, states can establish caps that do not allow for benefits for additional children conceived while collecting benefits. The days of being on welfare for life ended 18 years ago. Try and keep up Joe :)

Jojo, I have talked to people who are on welfare, get a job and get fired to go back on welfare. They work 6 months and force their boss to fire them. I have even heard one who was moving to another state because they give greater benefits. She had 4-5 kids with 4-5 different guys. They are all over the place!

agree 100%
Mitt Romney for president! I share his views after years of watching the entitled element. Yes he's a millionaire who probably cares nothing for the little people, but he is the lesser of the 2 evils, and hopefully he'll somewhat cut the dang welfare system and restore some decency to this country. Where is the pride? There are grown men sitting on their butts taking checks, using food stamps and EBT cards..grown men with not a shred of pride! By the way, he did NOT say he didn't care about them (at least in the hidden recording) he said something more on the lines of it's not his job to worry about them because he's not going to get their votes anyway and he's right...if you're following the constant attacks on Romney way back he said he's not concerned about the poor because they have their safety net meaning the usual government hand out. I still pledge allegiance to the flag...
Merry Christmas!

Joe Bill
Powerful statement and absolutely the truth. Diana will never agree with you. She has the liberal blinders on.

Do you guys honestly believe that these 47% of people are on welfare benefits? You realize that only 17% of people don't pay federal taxes, and that the rest, including the vast majority of the 47%, pay other federal taxes. In fact Romney doesn't pay very much in income tax because his money comes from capital gains.

I am also willing to bet at least some of you on here don't pay federal income tax and have NO idea you don't. It's statistically likely a lot of you are up in arms and don't even realize you're part of this number.

Come on it only takes a few minutes of research to learn that, only about 4% of the population is on actual welfare. It's like people live in a bizarro world where you think everyone on food stamps and section 8 doesn't work. Also in this bizzaro world, people who think leftists are simultaneously welfare queens and prius drivers, and people who are offended by Merry Christmas.

no.

No, he is not.

How is Romney any better than Obama? Have you read Romney's healthcare plan? Doesn't it look familiar? Yeah, it's the affordable care act/mass health but without a plan to pay for it AT ALL.

Meggie, I'm not saying I love Romney, but ANYONE is better than what we have now.
Read Joe Bill's 9/19 message...he says it perfectly.

"Anybody is better than x" is the worst possible reason to vote for someone. It's what gets us into these messes. If there's no quantifiable reason that Romney is better than Obama, and he's proposing the same reforms but *worse*, there is no reason to vote for him.

Matt, too black and white. Jobs and Zuckerburg and many others who succeeded did so with humble beginnings. The difference between the Obama vision and the Romney vision is more a hand out vs. a hand up.

I agree many of the super successful came from nothing, educated in public schools etc. I in no way meant to imply this was not the case. I am no multi-millionaire but I have been able to carve out a comfortable life through making good decisions and hard work both in acquiring education and working and come from humble beginnings - living that american dream. I don't need to be a millionaire to be happy, I need to be able to support myself and my family and would like to be able to help my community as well.

That said the community aspect of this philosophy is where the political divergence begins. We have all watched the growth in class divide over the past 30 years this is driven by both policies like supply side economics and globalization and a changing definition of "middle class"

I think, at the end of the day it is the candidates definition of what it means to be middle class that matters and what we are willing to do as individuals and as a nation to enable that (this is not about on the "200-250k or less" because that is a donor thing that is the same for both candidates)

They way i read the platforms:

GOP/Romney platform focus is on private charity, trick-down economics, so-called "faith based" family values and defense spending.

The Dem/Obama focus is on gov charity (social welfare), demand side economics, and environmentalism through conservation and targeted subsidized business.

Matt, I will go even further. It is the result of We the People giving our country over to two corporations to run with impunity. Anyone who votes for a D or R because they are, is the problem. We need to destroy BOTH parties and take back our country. Until and unless that happens, we are doomed.

He was talking about AMERICANS who would likely vote for Obama. They are Americans just like the people paying $50,000 a plate at a fundraiser dinner and whoever wins the presidency needs to consider them equal to those who can afford to pay $50,000 a plate for dinner.

You are right on Melissa. He said a few times during that portion of the speech that there is a certain portion of the population that will not vote for him and he gave reasons why. He is right on the money with that assessment too.

Melissa, you are correct and most non-partisan's took it the way he said it. Especially those of us who actually did a little research and heard the question he was answering which was basically if I am giving Mitt my money, what is his strategy to win the election.
His "I can't worry about them" was in reference to gaining their vote not their well being etc.

Jon - explain how the Obama drive to a more progressive tax policy is creating a division in wealth.

Matt, government "needs to pool resources and hence facilitate redistribution because I actually believe in redistribution" is all most of us need to hear from President Obama.
The very wealthy will find ways to protect that wealth. The poor has little wealth so the pooled wealth will be from the middle class. I saw on the news yesterday that median wealth has gone down almost 50% for the middle class in the last 3 years.

The majority of net wealth loss was in the form of housing equity. This disproportional affected the middle class as that was their primary form of wealth - and i think we can all agree the housing market was vastly over-inflated. For the investor class the market has come close to its previous glory. For the poor - well they had no wealth to begin with.

Bob - out of curiosity - what is a middle class lifestyle for you? Rent/Own, transportation, how much savings, educational prospects, healthcare prospects, retirement...

Matt is right, "wealth" usually includes net assets like housing. A lot of millionaires are actually people who have a lot of equity in their house. It seems like a silly method of counting wealth to me, but it is the most common.

Jon -- the "minority" on welfare are actually only 4% of the population. What you're actually funding in excess is wars and subsidies for big businesses and banks. Everyone on here complaining about welfare should read Senator Colburn's 2011 "Wastebook" report. A lot of these things are programs and wasteful spending Obama himself has suggested to cut but was blocked by republicans and democrats. http://www.coburn.senate.gov/public/6946d43b-bccf-4579-990e-15a763532b40.html

Dawn - Are you attempting to use facts and common sense in a political discussion? Great post!

Dawn, those are FACTS and most people abhor facts, as they most of the time contradict their opinions.

The numbers are disgraceful..again where is the pride ?! This is NOT our father's country anymore...he isn't insensitive, he's RIGHT and it's about time someone said it! Obviously he comes from working stock who had pride in themselves and in their country!

Dawn, thank you for that post. Unfortunately, as quasi mentions, you'll find that facts and data are too often met with outright hostility here, but you will earn some ardent fans as well. Fight the good fight. :)

Okay use "Un-American" instead of "bad"; The trends are intentionally straight into the toilet so that he, Obama, can increase the "Welfare State" (a good substitute for "entitlement") and a stealing from to doers so he can give to the non-doers. This attempting to allow for his USSA (United Socialist States of America) which I believe he indicates in his long term goal

Because there's no money left for the rest of us! Are you kidding? or just the proverbial bleeding heart liberal? Less fortunate you say...I'm the less fortunate paying 350 a week in health care for 3 people...with barely enough money to buy food but way too much pride to ask anyone for anything...the little people are the ones suffering in silence..the people whose parents worked to build this country - key word - WORKED

Mats, the less fortunate are the ones who are in the same boat as you, but can't even afford food. They work 50 hour weeks --at LEAST-- at minimum wage to put food on the table for their kids. That's $20,800 a year before taxes or any expenses. If they have to pay 350 a week in insurance like you do, they'd have $50 a week left of their gross income.

Instead of telling them to give up something for you, maybe you should realize that the way things are right now aren't right, and punishing those with even less than you have doesn't make it better. The cost of healthcare isn't right because it's a for profit industry, profiting off of useless medical tests, profiting off of people being sick, profiting off of denying care when it suits them. And that's not even the beginning of our troubles....

But hey, telling the single parents making $8 an hour to give up food for their kids is the way to solve this, not cutting the wars, bailouts, tax loopholes, useless business subsidies, and gross government waste, right?

meggle- I never asked anyone to give up anything for us...we've trudged through life working for nothing apparently and that's the way it is..like it or lump it ...I'm talking about the freeloaders - FREELOADERS who take take take and then want more. I'm tired of seeing my half dead husband who works many more hours than 50 a week trudge out to work some more to pay their way so they can sit home watching the big screen. I would never take food from a child's mouth but you can bet your butt some of those parents are doing exactly that to get their drugs and liquor..and if you've never been witness to it then it's time to open your eyes, you and all of America (or at least the half that does pay taxes and suffers in silence).

One last time - people please do you research. Where do you think jobs come from? It certainly is not the government.

That makes no sense. What bill are we footing for the rich? If a rich person pays $100,000 a year in taxes, when the "decent" wage earners are paying $6000 a year in taxes, and the poor are paying no taxes (and getting refunds). What bill is there, aside from the one that's being paid to those who aren't paying taxes? You can't say that unless you estimate how much each American "costs" in government services. I would venture to guess that the rich guy is paying way more than his personal "cost" to the government. Personally, I'm in favor of a flat tax percent that EVERYONE pays - regardless of income. That is the ONLY way anyone can claim "fair share".

Kevin, 50k to 100k are no longer decent wages my friend.

I disagree... an individual making 50-100K (let's say $75K) a year can live quite comfortably in this country.

50K-100K may allow someone to live comfortably in some states, but not MA - at least not in Greater Boston.

I guess it all depends on your definition of "comfortable".

Regardless of what is "decent" or "comfortable" or any other subjective words, why do Americans feel that a higher percentage should be paid on income uder 100K than over 1 million?
Melissa wants a flat tax percent? The rich would never allow that because their deductions bring them to a lower rate than the lower middle class.

You can easily make it on 50k in the Boston Area. I make quite a bit more than that, but many of the folks I graduated with are getting by on about 20,000 -- yes, that's right, 20,000, a year in Boston.

The thing is that you can't raise kids on that salary and you can't really afford much beyond the basics, and god help you if your hand-me-down car breaks or the T gets more expensive. The only reason at least one of them isn't dead is because we have a health safety net in MA...

Anyway, I've posted this elsewhere but if you don't understand the fact that we live in essentially a corporate welfare state, you should really pause and look at where some of your tax money is going, and read the FULL report: http://www.coburn.senate.gov/public/6946d43b-bccf-4579-990e-15a763532b40.html

Just read something recently - for the first time in America's history there are more people on disability than there are working...how much of that is fraudulent and allowed? disgraceful and the rest of the world will run by us because of it

Where did you read that? Can you perhaps link to it?

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katehicks/2012/07/07/hopenchange_more_people_went_on_disability_than_found_jobs_in_june

That link is vastly different than what mats linked. More people are working overall than are on disability, it just happens that more people went on disability in June than found new jobs. 80,000 new jobs were created, and 85,000 people went on disability. Mats said there were *more people on disability* than there were people working overall.

So let's get some facts on this scare mongering. You can only get Social Security Disability if you've paid in to social security. The average benefit is around $1,111 per month, so if you were on disability you'd have around 13,000 a year, which I think we can all agree isn't exactly an income most people in Boston are going to be surviving well on. To actually qualify for SSD you need to be disabled for a full year, or have a disability that will prevent you from working for a full year, verified by a medical doctor.

There are 8,754,000 people on Social Security disability. It costs 9,729,000,000, but every person on SSD has already paid in to Social Security. that's why it is called Social Security Disability INSURANCE. This amounts to about 15% of actual social security payouts, the other 85% is to retirees. You are too, this is the FICA tax.

In comparison, we spend about $8 billion per month in JUST Afghanistan. Iraq is anywhere between an additional $5 and $12 billion.

Actually I didn't post a link ...I heard it on talk radio (my favorite talk show host that will remain unnamed as I'm pretty sure the bleeding hearts here dislike him very much)...anyway, I heard it and then researched it and there is was in black in white - forget the site but you can find it yourself as it appears you're a numbers person who is quite brilliant! :)

Right Bea,
I read that story in VF. It's probably all legal,but defy anyone to really understand the financial acrobatics that he employs to avoid paying taxes. Just incredible !

Vanity Fair???

Bob, You need to delve at least a few more layers into the problems at hand. Conclusory statements such as yours only generate heat, not light, on an issue.
It would be very helpful to have the demographics of the people posting here. Then we would all know the potential conflicts of interest and the impact on their views.

Bob, you are right and wrong. The "transfer" is not happening. It is simply that the wealthy are keeping more of what is made. By making product in China and Mexico, their costs are lower but they charge the same price to the consumer.

Obama will also continue the trend as he and the Democrats had complete control of the federal government for 2 years and did nothing about this. Why? Because they don't want to do anything about it. They like it!

The "transfer" as you call it has accelerated in the last 4 years. Unless we stop the blind following of the D's and R's it will never get better. We need better candidates than what the D's and R's allow us.

Exactly. "We are not all the same. We are entitled to only one thing - equality of opportunity."
Hence Romney' plan of class warfare to create a wealthy class by eliminating estate tax and making them pay lower taxes or letting them stash their cash in offshore accounts, while at the same time taking chunks out of the paychecks middle and not caring about the 47% is extremely detrimental to create an environment where equality of opportunity can be ensured.

whatsup...please deifne what you mean by "equality of opportunity?" Please also explain and be more specific on how Romney has a plan of class warfare.

Dave, I would define it as being equally able to not die when you get sick or have an accident. Can't make it up the ladder from humble beginnings if you die from lack of access to health care, or if you can't reinvest capital from your business because you're paying down hundreds of thousands in medical bills..

Thanks for reminding me why I vote conservative.

Right on, David!

Exactly... NOBODY should be taxed more than they already are... the government needs to be smart with the money they have... Stop this level of spending and we wouldn't be having this argument.

Melissa, first, you need to stop the war. Until that happens our federal government will be bleeding from all fronts. And since President Obama didn't get us in the war, President Bush did, how can you blame President Obama?

Governor Romney will create even more wars. He has no ability to be diplomatic. There is a difference between being diplomatic and being weak. You can be diplomatic and stand your ground without inciting the other side. Unfortunately, from just these types of statements, Governor Romney proves he will never be diplomatic which will only incite more wars. People forget so quickly that North Korea is on our backs waiting to attack at all times.

Mary, The Middle East is burning because Obama bowed to them and invited them to the table to have tea and crumpets! He apologized and told them he will be different and they spit in our eye. Al Qaeda has successfully attacked US soil for the first time since 2001 and he is denying it!
Obama has Neville Chamberlain written all over his foreign policy!
Without a strong America the world will devolve into chaos. Obama, IMHO, is happy with that as I see him as a anti colonialist as his father was. He sees Muslims as the new Minute Men and America as the invaders.

Hi Mary... You said to me, "how can you blame President Obama?" I didn't mention Obama at all in this discussion. Please don't put words in my mouth. The government has been tax and spend long before (and will be long after) Obama - with and without wars.

Wow, Bob.

The twist of logic it takes to blame Obama for Iraq and Afghanistan is both baffling and quite frankly amazing. You do realize that these wars started in 2001, right?

The Middle East is "burning" because of policies that started way before I was even *born*, or did you forget the various attempts by the US and USSR to stick their stupid noses in there when we were busy having this thing called the "Cold War"? I don't know if you remember it, but even up to the fall of the berlin wall and after we've been meddling in the middle east.

Also, you're frankly irresponsible if you think a government should be engaging in colonialist policies because the spending that comes along with that is grossly excessive, wasteful and has never gone well for any country that has attempted it.

Meggie, you have to be a liberal! Only a liberal can take "the Middle East is burning" and equate it to "blame Obama for Iraq and Afghanistan". Never happened in my post.
THEN you take "I see him as a anti colonialist as his father was" and turn it into "Also, you're frankly irresponsible if you think a government should be engaging in colonialist policies". Really?
As for the policies before you were born, sure and before many of us were born. What does that have to do with what happened in Libya? You know when the last Ambassador from the US was killed while on duty? 1979 when we had an equally spinless POTUS who tried the appeasement route. It doesn't work over there! We, the Russians and China are all sticking our noses in there today! It is why people with a clue didn't jump up and down to remove Mubarak or Gaddafii. Were they good guys? NO Were they handling the crazies in their country? YES.
Bush made the same mistake with Iraq. There are evil people in the world and they want to kill Americans. The worst think to do it to show weakness. Obama is still showing weakness when he keeps apologizing! Remember it was Obama that invited the Muslim Brotherhood to the speech in Egypt and sat them in the front row. He gave them legitimacy!
When will he speak out about the Coptic Christians being slaughtered in Egypt?

No Meggie,
Bob is right on here. He (obama) did make a point o apologize to muslums and he thinks that if we just talk nicely with Iran then we can sort out this whole silly nuc problem. yup ok

I don't know for sure but I don't think that number includes the military. How many of those jobs where created in the past 4 years?

The number does include police, fire, corrections, and education, but not military.

So we should cut the people who make our communities safe and teach our children? What a stupid statement. What do you do for work? How about cutting the welfare and freeloaders and illegal aliens off instead.

Greg - you missed my point entirely. I am not in favor of cutting those I mentioned. I was merely pointing out they are considered government employees, and military are not. Not a stupid statement, just unclear, perhaps.

I am for reducing government. For example, how about reducing the pay of MA and US legislators? In addition to cutting costs, this would make the jobs less attractive for those who seek a lifetime appointment (i.e., Ted Kennedy's seat).

I am with you on cutting welfare to freeloaders and illegal aliens.

I'm sorry TewksParent. I have to make a small correction to your assertion about lifetime appointments. Senator Kennedy faced reelection campaigns every six years while he was in office. He was not appointed to his post.

Also, according to the National Center for Children in Poverty, illegal immigrants are NOT eligible to receive TANF (welfare) benefits. http://www.nccp.org/profiles/MA_profile_36.html

C'mon Dawn. This is MA and he was a Kennedy. We all know it was effectively an appointment.

You're right. Illegal aliens are not eligible for welfare, but they do get free health care, and if our esteemed governor gets his way, state college tuition discounts.

Absolutely agree!

That's a little harsh, Joe. Most of the 46.6% are not deadbeats, but a large segment is. Those are the ones we must release from the government teat.

TewksParent, If you have a moment, would you mind posting a link to the source where you found evidence that "a large segment" of the 46.6% of people who do not pay taxes are deadbeats.

This article from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities would suggest otherwise:
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3505

Yes. I read the same report. I'm sorry, but it does not break out a "deadbeats" category.

Welfare recipients are disincentivized to work. In MA, for instance, the hourly rate received by welfare recipients is $14.66. Why get a job if you can rake that in? Perhaps that is why the rate of people on welfare for 5+ years is 20%?

Do you have a citation for that "hourly rate"?

Diana - here is where I got those numbers. They cite HHS and the Commerce Dept.
http://www.statisticbrain.com/welfare-statistics/

From the top of the page:

"Welfare is the organized public or private social services for the assistance of disadvantaged groups. Aid could include general Welfare payments, health care through Medicaid, food stamps, special payments for pregnant women and young mothers, and federal and state housing benefits."

I'm not sure how they're calculating that "hourly rate", but I find it peculiar that they don't link to any of their sources.

Yeah, maybe, but what's NOT peculiar, is that MA is at right up at the top of the list. ;)

You're right, that's not peculiar at all. Massachusetts has a particularly high cost of living.

I am also wondering where they get those figures... Most disability doesn't pay out much. Social security disability is about $13k a year. Foodstamps I think will give you around $100-125 a month. I suppose Medicare or Mass Health would inflate the numbers, especially given the cost of healthcare and how grossly inefficient the MassHealth set up is.

I don't see how either 10 years of his tax returns being released or whether his father released his are relevant to anything. We all know he's rich. We all know he earned his money. And, we all know he pays several million dollars in federal income tax every year. Whether it's $1M, or $4M, or $10M, what does it matter?

Because there's an amount that he is SUPPOSED to be paying under the law. Personally, I have much more sympathy and respect for poor people than I do for criminals.

Marta, if Romney cheated on his tax return the IRS would be all over him and it would be BREAKING NEWS. Federal law required anyone running for the Office of the President to hand over the previous two years of tax returns which he has done. Now I agree that the % paid in taxes from the total earning of 42M is rediculous but that's the law. Due to the fact that investments (the majority of his income is based on) are taxed differently than salaries and commissions offset the percentage of taxes paid. It's just math but the media doens't want to inform the country with the truth, just promote the chosen one.

There is no law against off shore bank accounts, It might be interesting to know who in Public Office has them.

Let me ask you one question. If you were a decision maker in one of the worlds largests business that is going sideways or slipping. A decision that most feel will affect the long term health of your business as well as many others that it is directly involved with. You have two applicants to choose from and look over their resumes. One has a long history of running business in similar situations, they are either not run or set up right, to expensive to run or a poor business model. This applicant was forced to make difficult but necessary changes to these busineesses that turns them around. The other, 4 years running a business which is slipping, 4 years in the congress and ran a community group. You may only have one chance. Who do you pick?

Believe me, I don't have sympathy for Romney. He doesn't need it anyway. But calling him a criminal? Really? It seems the ways he handles his money are allowed by law.

In July 2006, the legislature passed a bill increasing the minimum wage to $8.00 an hour, and he vetoed it. "I have spent hours reading a wide array of reviews on the minimum wage and its impact on the economy, and there's no question raising the minimum wage excessively causes a loss of jobs, and the loss of jobs is at the entry level," said Romney when he vetoed the bill.[141] He proposed an increase to $7.00/hour (which represented a 25 cents an hour increase over the existing rate.) The legislature voted on July 31, 2006 to override his veto (uanimously in the Senate) thus setting the minimum wage at the higher amount.[142]

In 2006, his last year as governor, Romney spent all or part of 212 days out of state

Romney had job approval ratings around 50 percent for most of his term,[209] but they began to decline towards the end of his term. A March 2005 poll found that only 32 percent felt Romney should be re-elected if he ran for a second term as governor (69 percent of Republicans said he should be re-elected, compared to 31 percent of independents and 12 percent of Democrats).[205] Many in Massachusetts grew dissatisfied with Romney's frequent out-of-state travel and shift toward promoting socially conservative issues as he began to focus increasingly on national rather than state politics.[210][211]

Enough info for you? Do you remember now how bad of a governor he was?

He likely doesn't want to be seen as a hypocrite. Capital gains taxes are much lower than income taxes, and from experience I'll tell you you don't have to do very much at all to make money off of investments. It's basically the laziest form of earning.

It's a common tactic to take a low income but make your cash through investments to keep your taxes low. This is an option unavailable to the middle class and the poor. So no, we really don't know if he pays several million dollars of federal income tax every year.

Now you know.

http://www.mittromney.com/learn/mitt/tax-return/2011/wmr-adr-return
http://www.mittromney.com/learn/mitt/tax-return/2010/wmr-adr-return

Yeah, now I know what taxes he paid for the two years during which he knew he was running for president. Consider my mind at ease.

You might want to check Romney's record when he was Governor. He took MA down while he was in office.

Mary, really? What could ANY governor do with over 85% of elected officials being from the opposition party? He vetoed over 400 bills/amendments and all but a handful were overridden! The only thing an R governor could do was slow the criminals on Beacon Hill down a little with the bully pulpit he had. Too bad the Globe and Coakley spent more time ripping he and Healy instead of watching the real crooks like the 3 straight Speakers who were FEDERALLY indicted!
Oh and we still had 4.7% unemployment!

@Mary,

Any chance you could expound on the "record" that you speak?

Statements of generalization, positive or negative, without supporting evidence is a waste of everyone's time and do not add anything to the discussion.

MW

During Romney's governorship - Job growth in Massachusetts rose at a rate of 1.5 percent (compared to the national average of 5.3 percent), placing Massachusetts 47th of the 50 states in new job creation over the course of Romney’s term.[38] The annual rate of job growth was improving by his last year in office, moving Massachusetts up from last place nationally to 28th.

Romney also personally intervened to help attract to the state, or maintain within the state, several large employers, such as Bristol-Myers Squibb and the Gillette division of Procter & Gamble.[36] However, some business leaders said Romney’s policies that increased fees and corporate tax revenue drove up business costs and may have weakened job growth.[35]

Unemployment in Massachusetts rose during Romney’s first year from a rate of 5.6 percent in January 2003, when he took office, to a peak of 6.0 percent in mid 2003.[40] It then steadily declined over the remainder of his term, ending at 4.6 percent in January 2007,[40] his last month as governor, for a net improvement in unemployment of 1.0 percent.[33] Much of the improvement in unemployment was due to the loss of working-age adults who moved away from Massachusetts during the period (as the size of the population shrinks, there are fewer job seekers, so the unemployment rate falls).[34][36] Massachusetts experienced one of the highest levels of net out-migration of any state during Romney's term.[34

During his 2002 campaign, Romney had said he backed age-appropriate, comprehensive sex education in public schools.[61] In 2005, against the will of the state legislature, he introduced federally-funded abstinence-only education programs developed by a subsidiary of a Christian anti-abortion organization into some public schools

In July 2006 Romney offered the assistance of his state police force to municipalities dealing with increased crime rates. Romney's offers were rejected by local officials. Officials from Boston Police unions complained that "if state aid hadn't been cut in recent years, then the city's police force might be staffed adequately to handle the crime surge."[11

As a candidate for governor in 2002, Romney proposed indexing the minimum wage to inflation and raising the hourly pay for the state's lowest-paid workers from $6.75 an hour to $6.96 an hour starting January 2004, saying, "I do not believe that indexing the minimum wage will cost us jobs. I believe it will help us retain jobs."[140]

In July 2006, the legislature passed a bill increasing the minimum wage to $8.00 an hour, and he vetoed it. "I have spent hours reading a wide array of reviews on the minimum wage and its impact on the economy, and there's no question raising the minimum wage excessively causes a loss of jobs, and the loss of jobs is at the entry level," said Romney when he vetoed the bill.[141] He proposed an increase to $7.00/hour (which represented a 25 cents an hour increase over the existing rate.) The legislature voted on July 31, 2006 to override his veto (uanimously in the Senate) thus setting the minimum wage at the higher amount.[142]

In 2006, his last year as governor, Romney spent all or part of 212 days out of state

Romney had job approval ratings around 50 percent for most of his term,[209] but they began to decline towards the end of his term. A March 2005 poll found that only 32 percent felt Romney should be re-elected if he ran for a second term as governor (69 percent of Republicans said he should be re-elected, compared to 31 percent of independents and 12 percent of Democrats).[205] Many in Massachusetts grew dissatisfied with Romney's frequent out-of-state travel and shift toward promoting socially conservative issues as he began to focus increasingly on national rather than state politics.[210][211]

@ Mary

First off, using Wikipedia as your source of "facts" leaves your judgement in question. Everyone with half a brain knows that just about anything can be added to Wikipedia.

Secondly, it seems you conveniently left out many of the sections that either gave any background about the state of the world/US/State/economy or spoke directly about his accomplishments. Typical democrat approach to debating. Never let the facts get in your way of proving your point.

Third, if you're going to plagiarize, you should at least cite your source and give credit where credit is due but again, not in the democrat playbook.

Keep up with the CNN, MSNBC etc talking points, it just helps demonstrate the lack of critical thinking that exists in the democrat party.

So as not to clog up this board with any more "data", if you would like more to read about Mitt Romney's tenure as Governor of Massachusetts please go here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governorship_of_Mitt_Romney

Mr. White. The point is that is negative contributions to the state of MA far out weight any of his minor accomplishments. Which in my opinion other than Universal Health care which he now says is good enough for MA with the tax burden but not good enough for the rest of the country. And I checked the source links on my posts. They are correct. Wikipedia is better than just spouting lies. And you can't just add information on most subjects. Another person spouting lies.

@Mary

The point is you are being disingenuous by giving only half the story.

No leader of people can please all the people all the time. When you're talking about elected office, more often than not, the political/economic climate are major factors affecting ones measure of success.

Not sure if you've heard but the reason given for President Obama's abysmal failure of the past 3 1/2-4 years is because President Bush left such a mess. It was not Obama's utter lack of experience actually running anything, his socialist redistribution agenda nor his anti-American exceptionalism . No, it was solely George Bush's fault.

You may want to check this link regarding the information contained on Wikipedia: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090202192239AASrM0C or you could just do your own Google search inquiring whether Wikipedia is a good source.

In this country, what it really comes down to is, are you a maker or are you a taker?
Before you and anyone else spout off about the myriad of exceptions that represent a very small percentage of our population, statistically, this is it in a nutshell.

So I put it to you and everyone else, ask yourself, which are you?

Are you a maker?

or

Are you a taker??

MW

@Mr White: "First off, using Wikipedia as your source of "facts" leaves your judgement in question."

HAHAHAHAHA!!!! Says the guy who quoted Yahoo Answers below!! OMG, that's the BEST!

@CSC

Yahoo was just one of many, since you seem like the typical liberal academic snob, I'm sure you'd prefer this one: http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2007/01/26/wiki

MW

Um... that's a wiki. You're not very good at this, are you?

@ Diana,

I'm not sure what you mean by your comment.

While I understand that Wikipedia is a wiki, you do understand that all wikis are not Wikipedia, right?

I also did not say all wikis were not good sources of information but that Wikipedia cannot be relied on because it is set up in such a way as to allow anyone with internet access the ability to make additions or changes. Most wikis have a greater degree of security and monitoring.
A wiki is a just another tool which helps organize and dispense information, books do something similar.
http://wiki.org/wiki.cgi?WhatIsWiki

Just for fun here are a few more references on the subject:
http://www.helium.com/items/739484-the-pros-and-cons-of-wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Researching_with_Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Academic_use

I Love Fridays:)

MW

I'll assume that's accurate, but it's really hard to quantify wage data unless you factor in the cost of living index. Let's just say that 50K doesn't go very far in Mass, or California, for example, but may lead to you being considered well-off in Idaho. Both of you are correct, but neither of you is accurate. Could I live "comfortably" on 50K? Probably. I have no mortgage and no bills other than a car payment, utilities, and food. Could my kid who has a 230K mortgage nut, a spouse, 2 kids, 2 cars, etc, etc, and is textbook middle-class? In Massachusetts? What do you think?

quasimodum.......find comfort in the masses. I'm sure that somewhere in the system there is a handout for you. Keep looking. Take advantage. Exploit those who work for a living.

^ Wisest post in the thread.

That was exactly my point. It depends on whose shoes you are in and where in the country you are located. 75k in Mass with 3 kids? That's not even something I want to even think about. I know exactly what you mean, but you can bet Romney hasn't even the slightest clue, and I'm not so sure about Obama either.

I can see why you are an Obama supporter. You're bad at math and finances.

My comment about "comfortable" was specifically about an individual. One person, on one income. A single person who lives within their means can live on $75K and be comfortable. Yes, In Massachusetts.

I didn't mention families, because I don't have any idea how much it costs to run a family. I would assume at least 2 people working at at least a 50-75K salary.

Mary, maybe you should not have had 3 children???

Joe Bill, that's not right, Mary's not making excuses just stating facts. It's difficult today and it will only get worse on the path we're on.

Dave Gray - thank you.

Ron - thank you for standing up for me.

Melissa, than you should not make a generalization. You should be more specific. Romney isn't talking about a single person home. He's talking about families. That's what seems to be forgotten in this world.

Mark - yes, I support President Obama. People seem to forget how bad this state was when he was governor. Unemployment went down. Easy to do when you have the highest rate of immigration OUT of the state during your tenure. Many, many more reasons he stunk.

Joe Bill, you are just ignorant! I haven't asked anyone to help raise or support my children. I do that myself with hard work.

Hi Mary, How much more specific could I have gotten? I said AN INDIVIDUAL could live comfortably on $50-75K. Does an "individual" mean "family of 3, 4, 10"? Does it mean "couple"? Stop putting words in my mouth (again, please). People make choices in life every day. There are people out there doing it (choosing to live single (or with a working spouse/partner), in an apartment, with a used car, and no kids) - and doing it quite comfortably.

And I wasn't responding to Romney, I was responding to a comment that $50-100K was a decent salary. Someone said it wasn't. I disagreed and expressly used the word INDIVIDUAL.

Stop trying to pick a fight. Jeeze.

is it better now Mary, after 4 years of obama. Is anyone on this site better off now than 4 years ago. If so please explain, and dont send me quotes and spun figures from David Axlerod. I have heard it all already. Here is how I see it
fuel costs have more than doubled
food prices skyrocketing
health insurance, I pay over $6000 per year for a family plan (50% employer
picks up other 50%) and increasing every year. My pay rate has not budged in the last 4 years. When I project out and think of another 4 years of obama, I think a tree and good strong rope are my best option. He will continue to take care of the "less fortunate" and I will continue to work 65 hrs per week to stay in my house

@CSC
In case you missed this:

@Michael Persons
2:01 pm on Wednesday, September 19, 2012

I'm disappointed by this conversation and disgusted by the tone of it.
Insults are not logic, loud does not equal truth and name calling is beneath us. Engaging in any of it reinforces the views of your opposition and convinces only those who already agree with you. It doesn't change anyone's mind.

I'd urge you to take the more difficult path of trying to convince someone to your point of view.

What percentage are military personnel or those recently discharged who can't find work? Seems to me we owe them some slack, don't we?

I'll bite...Any proof that illegal immigrants are voting in MA? Heck, any proof that legal non-citizens are voting? I thought not.

Regarding the topic at hand, clearly this was an off the cuff comment with poorly chosen words. He certainly deserves the right to better articulate what he meant to say. However, it will be very difficult for him to allege that he Dems are using "class warfare" since we now get to see that he also uses the same tactics he rails against. Will make for an interesting final two months of the election!

Congrats to you for picking yourself up and having pride in yourself..you will be a great role model for your child.

No proof Bav just my opinion. Duval is slimy and I wouldn't put it past him. That's going too far off topic though.

Thank you Mats. I've made some mistakes but I try to learn from them.

Duval Patrick might, possibly, perhaps be against voter ID laws because they're unconstitutional. Just throwin' that out there.

@ Diana

You can't be serious.

MW

Why not? Did they amend the constitution today and I missed it?

Diana, can you point out where in the Constitution it says voter ID is illegal? If you have that version, you would be the only one!

@ Diana,

You've missed the point.
The only time DP would care about the Constitution is if someone hit him in the face with it.
His respect and appreciation of our Constitution is on par with that of his Big Brother, Obama, which is zero.

Do you just take everything the media/DNC say as fact and never bother to listen to what any of these politicians actually say and/or do and come to your own independent opinion?

MW

As a matter of fact, I DO do my own research and arrive at my own opinions, which are different than yours for reasons that are obvious to pretty much everyone who's not you.

@ Diana,

I know this thread is a bit long and winding but can you point to where you may have expressed any opinion which may be considered contradictory to the democrat agenda or how some refer to as "off the reservation"? I have not been able to locate any.

Please advise.

MW

You're not looking hard enough, and I'm not doing your homework for you anymore. Hint: you won't find it on yahoo answers.

Bob, the Constitution forbids a poll tax, and IDs cost money. Please see the 24th Amendment, which I assure you is the same on my copy of the Constitution as it is on any copy you've ever read, presuming you've read one, which frankly I don't.

Diana, They are talking about a free ID for those who don't have a need for a drivers license etc. There fore not applicable in the poll tax.
BTW - you said voter ID was against the Constitution. It is not. Having to pay to get an ID to vote is against the Constitution. Just throwing it out there...
Trust me I have read the Constitution more than you or most people.

Very well said, a shame it will be lost on the bleeding hearts who feel they've done a good deed shelling it out to the hands that are always out looking for some freebie...they sleep pretty good in their so expensive homes after doing their good deeds for the day.

Unfortunately Romney neither wants to give a man a fish nor give him an opportunity to learn how to fish. In fact he does not care for a man or the 47% who needs a fish because they are elderly or wasn't born with a silver spoon. All he wants is to make sure his millionaire friends keep their fish, even if it rots away and make sure that the other 47% doesn't get the opportunity to learn, because there is only so much fish in the sea.

As for the translation, loosely speaking "I" would 'prefer' the characteristics apparent in Obama's 'base' (like Maryland and California and Massachusetts where he is leading by 20%+) than the less intellectually thriving regions on our country in Romney's 'base' (like Arkansas and Alabama and Mississippi where he is leading by 25%).

Fact check the film 2016, it may change your mind about the film 2016.

Working for the Government,MBTA,MWRA,STATE,CITY,TOWN is not really working.Private sector is alot different. We used to cal it working for the Government "Welfare With Dignity" Why is it that always and allways they go after the Social Security. Scare the Ps out of seniors.

Lots of people who work for the government prefer to refer to it as "paying our own salaries."

GW Bush brought us TWO UNPAID wars, a super tax cut for the 1% (who ever heard of a tax cut in a time of war?), which got us in the deepest recession ever. I would have liked to see what another Republican President could have done with the financial mess, more tax cuts for the rich? How did that work for Bush?

quasi, President Obama and the Democrats in the Senate extended those "Bush tax cuts" during a war time. Those have nothing to do with the recession. They got us out of the first Bush recession that he inherited from Clinton, then the wealth lost from 9/11/01. BTW - Those actually RAISED the taxes on many upper-middle and wealthy (top 2-3%) people because they didn't adjust the AMT rates.
The Democrats controlled the House, the Senate and the WH for 2 years and all they did was Obamacare. If they focused on the economy and jobs, they could have gotten us in a better economic situation with faster recovery. They didn't!

WOW, revisionist history alert! JFK EXPANDED our role in Vietnam. It was Nixon who finally got us out after 2 Democrats got us deeper.

Hey Bob, dont forget the people who stood to make a fortune once JFK got us deeper. Wasnt there a certain family who owned the business that was building helicopters for that" police action"

Romney does not give to his church: his faith requires it otherwise he wont inherit a planet (!?) (why don't you read about the Mormon faith?)

Hi Laura,

I thought you might like to see these articles:

From the Wall Street Journal:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204624204577181460356241588.html

From the Washington Post:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/obamas-gifts-to-charity-just-1-percent/2012/02/14/gIQAXuMDER_blog.html

The Wall Street Journal neglects to mention that when the Obamas donated less than 1% of their income to charity, they were making substantially less money per year than they are now.

Per the Washington Post article, in 2002, when Mr. Obama's income was $259,394, he donated $1050 to charity. That turns out to be 0.4% of his income for that year. (According to the WSJ article, on average, people make ~ 6% in charitable donations.) In 2009, the president's taxable income was $5.5 million. That year, he made $329,100 in charitable donations, and had the full $1.4 million in Nobel Prize money distributed to ten different charities, bringing charitable donations to 25.1% of income for that year.

You are, of course, entitled to your opinion. If you feel that a family of four earning ~$259,000 is cheap for donating only ~$1,000, that's up to you.

Mr. Romney is required by his church to tithe. I don't think that's a bad thing at all.

As with most things, I personally believe that the truth lies somewhere in the middle.

Dawn, Obama was required by the Constitution to donate or refuse the Nobel money. A President can't accept gifts.

That is true Bob, but he was not required to make any other donations.

Right Dawn, and if you take that $1.4 Million gift out, it is 6% not 25%.

A free family plan for the unemployed? In your dreams, lady.

If you believe that 47% of Americans are getting government assistance then you need to do some research. If Mitt believes it then he needs to drop out of the race for being completely uninformed.

Yes quasi, it's called Masshealth and there are thousands on it, some who never worked a day in this country. I work in healthcare and I see them everyday, trust me.

You've derived from the fact that because "thousands" of people are on MassHealth, "some" of whom have never worked, that 47% of Americans are receiving government assistance? Whatever it is you do, I sincerely hope that no one's health relies on your math skills.

I know plenty of people who work their asses off who are on MassHealth because their employer's health plan is far too expensive.

Diana, I didn't say 47% if Americans are receiving government assistance, Romney did, so that's his math. I only stated thousands of people are on free Masshealth, some of whom have never worked a day in this country. That math is correct. No one's health relies on my math skills, I'm not a pharmacist or surgeon, so you're safe. :)

He didn't say the 47% are all abusers. He said they will not vote for him.

Thanks Dave. You're right. I agree with you on every point you make. There are people who are getting entitlements who pay taxes. I don't even consider Medicare or Social Security an entitlement because right now social security and medicare taxes are being deducted from my paycheck every week so that when I retire, I can collect on it. But there has been an increase in entitlements since the current president, who I voted for, took office, and that's not good. My own sister was overjoyed 3 months ago when her housing project in Medford went "federal" because now her rent was going from $175 a month to only $60 a month. And it includes electricity. Even at $175, that was less than 20% of her disability check. Most working people are paying more than 25% of their income on their mortgages. In addition, she gets free medical insurance (Masshealth) with no patient responsibility, free food (EBT card), fuel assistance, and if something breaks in her apartment she picks up the phone and calls housing and they send someone down to fix it for free. They also just put in brand new appliances in her kitchen. She won't work even part time, even though she could, unless it's "under the table" because she doesn't want to take the chance of her rent going up. Even though they'd only take a percentage. Getting free money is still better than earning it. I think all politicians, including Obama, will tell their audiences exactly what they want to hear.

LOL if you think you're going to see a dime of Social Security when you retire.... whew, that was a good one.

Mike, you're probably right. Let's say, I hope to get my social security when I retire but the way things are going with the big giveaways, even that's in doubt.

LOL, and Obama doubled down on and wants to triple down now! BTW - Most Republicans in Congress voted against Bush's bailout. The Democrats controlled Congress at the time.

Bob - They voted against it to gain leverage for all of their silly riders like wooden arrow benefits and rum tariffs. The point is that Romney is determined to remove all regulations on the banks that got us into this mess with irresponsible investments. The cycle is starting over and yet another bank crisis will happen.

Kevin, They voted against it because many were elected with Tea-Party support and the Tea-Party said they would abandon them if they voted yes.
You are miss-informed, President Clinton removed regulations when he struck down parts of Glass Steagall and allowed investment houses to double as banks and give mortgages. Then Frank pushed those "banks" to give everyone a mortgage with no verification. That caused the melt down and it is still happening today! The Obama administration and Todd/Frank (there is that name again) then went over board on businesses and small banks to help the larger houses. See Todd's mortgage with Countrywide! And why did BOTH retire this year? All of that would have been out, that is why!

Bob - First, I do not appreciate being referred to as "Miss". I will not question your manhood so please do not attack mine.
Second, There was no tea-party pressure when TARP was passed. The tea party had no momentum in 2008.
Third, while Clinton certainly deserves blame for Glass-Steagall, I am focusing on who will be more likely to limit or remove regulations going forward. That would be the Republicans and that will lead to additional problems down the road.

Dave - What percentage of people who do not pay income taxes earn over $250,000? Do you think these people have something to gain by voting for Obama or should they vote for Romney? Does anyone posting here feel anything but outrage after reading dave's quote that roughly 20% of people who do not pay income taxes earn over 100K per year?

Ron - I would love to see 3 rates flat with no deductions/loopholes as such...
9% - ALL INCOME up to $150,000 first $30,000 exempt.
11% - ALL INCOME up to $500,000 first $30,000 exempt
17% - ALL INCOME from $500,001 up with first $30,000 exempt.

These are income so if it is salary, interest, dividends etc. it is income.

Bob, I think you intended to make this progressive first 30k = 0%, 30k-150k =9%, 150k-500k = 11%, 500k+ =17%. Also would there be any corporate tax or are we just considering corporations people?

Matt, Corporations would pay the tax based on income. If a small business makes $400K they would pay 11% if they make $400 Million they would pay 17% etc.

No. If you make $150,001 in income (all income) you pay 9% on $120,001. If you make $499,999 you pay 9% on $499,969. Progressive just confused things and causes more cost to figure out. Taxes should be done on a postcard.

How do you know they're living off the US system?

Maybe you should get a better job if you have to work 3 jobs.

Or, maybe the people who can work, but don't (or won't) should get A job.

@ Ella Watson

I'm concerned, I believe we've been involved in "Bush banking", how does this cause one to go homeless or losing(sp?) one's home? I fear becoming just another statistic and can't wait until Bush is out of office.

Please advise.

MW

Dave - I asked 3 questions. The 3rd question was are you enraged that 20% of the people who do not pay taxes earn over 100K per year. I read your post again and that is my understanding of your post. I do not think it wise to click links on public forums from sources I do not know so I didn't read your source but I have read similar numbers elsewhere. The first two questions were simply asking you for additional clarification on people earning over 250K and then for your opinion. I think the 250K number has been an important threshold in recent political discussions and I would be interested to hear your opinion on how these people should vote.

SPEND ! SPEND! SPEND! Put that stimulus out there! Kick start the economy. Takes money to make money. Spend that buck.Cant take it with you! Spend! Spend! Spend and when your done shopping spend some more!!!! Yeah!

Great quote from a great lady

Well I talk to people from the UK everyday and they are happy with their Socialized Medicine. Live on Skype face to face and on Paltalk.com. Norway, Sweden,Denmark all those countries. We all have live discussions and they are well satisfied the way it works. See it's not about Obama,Its about your MAMA!

are you talking to the illegals in England?

David, are you speaking to the people trying to balance their budget? Are you talking to the ones that have private insurance to cover what the national doesn't? The UK system is so great, they just passed a major overhaul moving towards more private HC.

Dave - Mitt clearly states on the video above that 47% of Americans do not pay income taxes. Listen to the whole thing. Here is part of his quote transcribed. It is written on the video above if you need an editor to explain it to you.
"And I mean, the president starts off with 48, 49, 48—he starts off with a huge number. These are people who pay no income tax. Forty-seven percent of Americans pay no income tax. So our message of low taxes doesn't connect"

Note the part where he says "Forty-seven percent of Americans pay no income tax."

Also - According to cbsnews.com, "The same data shows that in 2011, 78,000 tax filers with incomes between $211,000 and $533,000 paid no income taxes."

I hope this improves your clarity, you can always call for an editor if you need additional assistance.

so, yes, Romney was right

Dave - I thought that you said that 20% of people who pay no taxes earn over 100K and I asked you for additional details. I was trying to point out that 47% of Americans pay no income tax and that many of them earn a substantial income. No household earning over 1,000,000 should have a 0 tax bill. There should be significant anger that anyone earning over 100K pays zero income tax.

Dave,

Most people don't like to bother with facts, they already made up their minds based on their prejudices, illusions, misunderstandings, and, since we are talking about laziness, their laziness to educate themselves. Bitching is much easier for them!

Correct Dave I seen the same clips on MSNBC. I also saw another clip as you said in your post. Sorry about your headache Dave Take 2 Ducolax and call me in the morning LOL

DM, you're right and I believe you have a lot of people, including me, that think like you. My paycheck is in the same range as yours. I pay a mortgage, taxes, utilities, insurance, etc., and I just finished paying off a parent college loan for my son's education who graduated 6 years ago. I paid $3000 to the state of Massachusetts last year because I work in MA but I live in NH. I got nothing back from them when I did my tax return. You can see from my letter above, the story of my sister, who unlike me, doesn't work, and basically lives free on the government's (my) dime. I love her, but she can work but choses not to so as not to jeopardize the gravy train. While not everyone is like her and there are truly disabled and elderly people who deserve assistance, there are so many freeloaders in this country, who can work but chose to live on government assistance instead. I know wheelchair dependent people who work full time and get no government assistance. There is so much waste and fraud and the government just gives out benefits and money to people without fully checking as to whether these people can work or not. This government encourages not working or supporting yourself, or going to school. They are now telling insurance companies that the age of a dependent is 26, whether or not they go to school, get married, leave home, sit home all day. It's totally ridiculous.

ditto

Have another beer, Dad.

I had forgotten to add "and be quiet."

HUH ????

You know Ted, either their personal finances matter or they don't, but you've got to pick one and if it's the former then I expect to hear you screaming for tax returns.

Got curious about what "charities" he's supporting, so I did a little research. Color me largely unimpressed.

1. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints: $4,781,000
2. Brigham Young University: $525,000
3. The United Way: $177,000
4. Right to Play: $111,500
5. The George W. Bush Library: $100,000
6. Operation Kids: $85,000
7. Center For Treatment of Pediatric MS: $75,000
8. Harvard Business School: $70,000
9. City Year: $65,000
10. Deseret International: $50,000
Weber State University: $50,000

Source: http://www.forbes.com/sites/edwindurgy/2012/05/17/an-inside-look-at-the-millions-mitt-romney-has-given-away/

To clarify, that's donations through the Tyler Foundation since 2000, not last year.

More info on The Tyler Foundation:http://www.businessinsider.com/mitt-romney-charitable-donations-2012-7

And just to clarify, he only claimed deductions on 2.75 million of that, because if he had claimed he entire amount, his rate would have been less than 13% and his statement that he never paid less than 13% taxes in any year would have been wrong. It must be nice to be able to throw away $1,250,000.00 in deductions just to be able to say that. These people really do live in a different world than the rest of us.

Myron, as is so often the case, you have completely and utterly missed the point. I wasn't criticizing charitable contributions, but commenting on the ability to throw away $1.25 million in deductions to make a minor political point. BTW, Obama earned about 770K, and Biden about 350K. That I can relate to - those are numbers from the world I inhabit..

Your point is? You just said exactly what I said - he refused to take $1.25 million in deductions to make a minor political point.

As long as we're going down this road, his reported income in 2011 was $13.7 million. Part of that $4 million was the $1.1 million he gave to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. He also gave a considerable amount to Brigham Young University. Seems to me there's a difference between a charity and a non-profit, like a church, or a University.

Let's use a parallel - are donations to the Catholic Church charitable? Seems to me paying settlements in abuse cases doesn't cut it as charitable work.

During a Republican presidential debate in January, Romney said, "I don't think you want someone as the candidate for president who pays more taxes than he owes."

David Kautter of American University's Kogod Tax Center, who spent his career at accounting giant Ernst & Young said "I was in private practice for 40 years and don't know that I ever had a client who said, 'I don't want to take all my deductions.'".

Incidentally, Obama contributed 22% of his income to charity, most of which went to the Fisher House Foundation, which provides housing for war veterans

Are you OK?

David, you will get what you want but you might be the reason that the phrase was created that you "can't buy character". How do you sleep at night and look at yourself in the mirror. I assume that you're a male but I might question that. You are a complete buffoon and it takes people like you who may be able to work but make a conscious decision not to and live off the Government doll because you can. There are millions of Americans who are represented in the 47% who rather work than accept the support but they need but they have no choice. You are a card carrying member from the group within the 47% that all Americans loath. You are the group within the 47% who take something for nothing because you fall into a box, a box that some sleazy politician put into place because your vote is worth as much as anyone else, all the while someone who is in real need gets less because you fall into the box.

If the Hollywood President gets a second chance and continues to pump his chest and tell the world how wonderful he is you may not get the "free stuff" your looking for but you will not change, you will remain the classless, characterless fool that you've shown.

Enjoy your free stuff.

You know, Myron, all I did was provide a few facts and give some background on members' contributions to the LDS. Why, whenever you have no reasonable response, do you resort to that kind of stuff?

when I go on skype with group video I make Howard Sterns look like Mary Poppins.

why are you people so wrapped up about what mitt romney does with his own personal hard earned money,you should be more worried about what obama is doing with your money.you sheep fall for this trick every time,why would any american not want to be succesful. why is it all of a sudden a bad thing to be rich and successful through hardwork.if that is your only knock on mitt romney is that he became successful and rich,then you are delusional and need to move to a communist country.

It is a non-profit just like most churches. Therefore in the US tax code a donation to it is tax deductible. Try to comprehend...

A non-profit is not the same thing as a charity. Try to comprehend. Harvard is a non-profit, too.

I don't think that Dave's argument is that it's not tax-deductible, it's that no points will be awarded morally for giving to LDS. It's not a charitable institution.

Not Me E..Sorry Im a Union Guy but i allways made more than most who graduated from Colledge. Back in the 60' and 70's those colledge kids could not find a job just like now. Republican leaderships. Many engineers who put their who put their faith in High Tech at that time lost their homes. They called it the Rt.128 ghost town. Because of a Crook Repuplican. Everything went to China and mostly Japan. Yuppers Thats why I Have to go Democrat all the way. History Repeats itself allways. Sorry I dont qualify for being a Brainy person But I cant help being STOOOOPID Sorry I didnt know that it was a requirment for posting.

Oh by the way E. Didn't they teach you in colledge to right your name? E is like X LOL Banter,,Banter

E i agree with you all the way. these liberals or people who vote for them are falling for that line that the libs have out there,about how it is gonna take more time to fix the problems,well no sh#t,if obama had even helped a little in his four years i would agree but he has not fixed a thing,he actually made things worse.and as far as the housing and putting the blame on the republicans for the downfall of housing,check your facts you bunch of obama sheep.when bush was in office he went to congress 17 times between 2006 and 2008 to try and do something about the housing that was about to collapse and he could not get the democrat held majority to do a thing about it,and barney frank and chris dodd both retired at the same time cause they were mostly responsible for what happened,they are the one's who made the rules and regulations about who was eligible to get loans and who was not and they forced banks to give low income people loans that they knew these people could not pay,this is why the housing is a shambles and why those two nit-wits retired so quickly.

Geesh Tim you wanna take all my goodies away? Geesh Im on Disability. All those lil kids in wheel chairs wont be able to go anywhere and no one will help them. We elders wont be able to get a walker to walk with! We will have to use a big stick! There will be a large shortage of woman cause they will be dying off from cancer. our boys and girls in the Middle East wont be able to come home Where is your heart and your consciense. Vote for the real man..Vote for Obama!

Geesh Ron if you get over 10,000 bucks you cant get food stamps and its the Bush's fault for the unemployment it was onthe way out. All the conservative's crashed the banks and fudged paperwork to make people eligable. It was the Bush administration. Obama had no chance to get it right yet. Next term he will you'll see! Obama has been sent here from God to straighten out the corruption and evil that lurks in our country. How can you turn someone away if they need medical care. Where's your heart? Didn't you go to Sunny School when you was a kido? Geeesh people are so mean.

I'm impressed with charities that actually help people in need. TIthing is unimpressive to me. The United Way has some questionable business practices. Harvard Business School won't go under without Romney's help.

The George W. Bush Library is, I must presume, filled with childrens' books, so that I can get behind.

Diana, back when this country was founded, churches were the ONLY security net of the people. The church was charged with helping those in need and taking care of their own. Churches today still work towards that mission. They still help the poor and they CAN'T do that without their congregations' tithe. I'm sorry you're not impressed with citizens motivated by faith who are helping other citizens. Perhaps we should eliminate ALL charities, tax everyone at 60% and just have the government do it all.

And how did that work out, Melissa?

Also, last I checked the Mormon church spent more money fighting Prop 8 than feeding the poor. That's not just unimpressive, that's vile.

In my church, it's working out pretty darn well. Thanks for asking! :-)

Um... that's not what I asked. I asked how the Church(es) being the sole source of help for the poor has worked out historically. The answer, I think you'll find, is "kinda crappy, actually."

I'm pleased for you that you think that your church is doing much good. Not convinced that it's true, but nonetheless pleased for you.

No That's not what I said I would Rather be a socialist than a greedy Republican. Obama isnt a socialist. Socialized medicine is not the same. Republicans are actually the next step to communism. They take from the people,the working class thats what communists do. republicans dont want to give as well as not letting you have nothing.Thats what communists do same thing. You'll Learn. Always through life be aware of what you wish for. What has the Republicans done? Block progress. Ryan and Romney are going to tell you that you cannot have anything anymore. Pure Communism.

good greif this is the longest P'n Contest Ive seen Yet!

uhhh, you mean the fees that mitt romney raised while he was governor?