Romney's September Surprise

Some leaked videos of Romney at a private fundraiser with wealthy donors are likely going to make this news cycle a very nasty one to deal with.

ABC Report
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/09/leak…

The videos from Mother Jones
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/09/secre…

The main statement:
"There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That that's an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what…These are people who pay no income tax.

"M]y job is is not to worry about those people. I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives."

Now, whether or not he is right (there is, of course, an element of truth in what he says), there is no doubt that this is some serious political ammunition and is going to cause a very big stir.

At the same time, Romney seems very comfortable and at ease in these videos, and I think his ideas resonate with a lot of voters. He's calm, confident, sensible, and calculating. This Romney could do a good job in sparking the base more.

The big question is, how to spin this? Writing off half the country as free-loaders and claiming you don't care about them is not a wise move at all. Do you try and dodge it/downplay it and create distance? Or do you double down?

 

I agree. Those people were born like that, and will never change.

If my parents always used food stamps, I probably would feel no shame in using them myself, but how do you explain to those people that what they're doing is wrong?

Another problem I see coming for this country is that only idiots have 5-10 kids and teach them that help from the government is okay. Normal, middle class people only have 2-3 kids. So, if you were wondering if there are more idiots in America than ever before, you are probably correct.

 

Hmmm...I'm perplexed by the support for his comments given it's blatant hypocrisy. Romney's 13% tax rate shows the power of the special tax rate that benefits wealthy investors when some Americans pay upwards of 30%+. Why is evading paying your fair share of taxes (in some cases less than Americans earning much less) when you're wealthy or a corporation any different than the "welfare queens" constantly spoken about.

The bulk of the 47% who don't pay income tax are either too poor to be taxed or are receiving things like social security (the large majority of whom paid their payroll taxes for decades prior).

Let's say benefits, government subsidies, and handouts are bad - didn't Paul Ryan receive Social Security benefits after his dad died? Don't corporations get special tax incentives and subsidies from the government? Don't students who's parents are legacies or donated money to certain schools have a greater chance of acceptance? Don't corporation pay millions to financial professionals to help evade or minimize their taxation? Didn't the financial industry get bailed out?

Corporations benefits from having a bevvy of educated adults to choose from. Subsidized school loans, grants, and other "handouts" help infuse business with workers. The more educated individuals the better for all. The fewer kids who might rob me or you because they are involved in a gov supported after school art program or who's parent's can survive a bout of unemployment the better. We simply need to design the system so that it helps, but doesn't enable. Still, I don't see the validity of Romney's statements.

 

Strange then that Democratic voters often have higher college completion rates and average incomes.

It's almost as if the most widely-cited phenomenon in political science: that people don't seem to vote entirely on their current socioeconomic status- is true.

Or that the the 66% of welfare recipients that are white (look it up) are overwhelmingly supportive of Romney over Obama.

Romney like any half-decent politician will play the crowd. In front of white factory workers he'll blame foreigners/hispanics (immigration policy, free trade, etc). In front of white wealthy donors he'll blame poor people. In front of churchgoers he'll blame atheist liberals.

Obama is no better. I'm just saying its more complex than what he'd say in a speech to voters.

 
ReadLine:
Strange then that Democratic voters often have higher college completion rates and average incomes.

It's almost as if the most widely-cited phenomenon in political science: that people don't seem to vote entirely on their current socioeconomic status- is true.

Or that the the 66% of welfare recipients that are white (look it up) are overwhelmingly supportive of Romney over Obama.

Romney like any half-decent politician will play the crowd. In front of white factory workers he'll blame foreigners/hispanics (immigration policy, free trade, etc). In front of white wealthy donors he'll blame poor people. In front of churchgoers he'll blame atheist liberals.

Obama is no better. I'm just saying its more complex than what he'd say in a speech to voters.

I completely agree that political speeches are typically made up of misleading oversimplications designed to pander to the audience and this speech is no exception. However I think your statement about whites and welfare is a little off. Whites only make up a large proportion of welfare recipients due to social security. Whites have a longer life expectancy than blacks and as a result a greater percentage of whites collect social security. If you just look at food stamps and the like blacks are heavily overrepresented whereas whites are underrepresented. I would assume that of the people on welfare programs that are linked to poverty and not age, a sizeable majority would favor Obama over Romney and this is more what he's talking about

 
bigtool05:
ReadLine:
Strange then that Democratic voters often have higher college completion rates and average incomes.

It's almost as if the most widely-cited phenomenon in political science: that people don't seem to vote entirely on their current socioeconomic status- is true.

Or that the the 66% of welfare recipients that are white (look it up) are overwhelmingly supportive of Romney over Obama.

Romney like any half-decent politician will play the crowd. In front of white factory workers he'll blame foreigners/hispanics (immigration policy, free trade, etc). In front of white wealthy donors he'll blame poor people. In front of churchgoers he'll blame atheist liberals.

Obama is no better. I'm just saying its more complex than what he'd say in a speech to voters.

I completely agree that political speeches are typically made up of misleading oversimplications designed to pander to the audience and this speech is no exception. However I think your statement about whites and welfare is a little off. Whites only make up a large proportion of welfare recipients due to social security. Whites have a longer life expectancy than blacks and as a result a greater percentage of whites collect social security. If you just look at food stamps and the like blacks are heavily overrepresented whereas whites are underrepresented. I would assume that of the people on welfare programs that are linked to poverty and not age, a sizeable majority would favor Obama over Romney and this is more what he's talking about

Wow, that is pretty much wrong......

SNAP, which is the food stamp program administered by USDA, and TANF comprise what is generally considered 'welfare'. The statistics show, and have shown since day one, that whites are the largest ethnic group receiving assistance. Whites receiving welfare outnumber blacks, in every age demographic by a roughly 3 to 2 ratio. The reason is really, really, really obvious: There are a lot more white people than there are black people in America. Social Security provides its own statistics and are not thrown into graphs titled under 'Welfare' unless some d*bag politician is trying to make a bad point.

http://www.fns.usda.gov/pd/15SNAPpartPP.htm

 

Watched all the videos...not sure what the big deal is. He uses consultants to test ads? He thinks the market will react better to him being elected?

My drinkin' problem left today, she packed up all her bags and walked away.
 

You can just tell the White House is getting desperate. Romney is on par and leading in polls for a bunch of battle ground states. You have the ME blowing up in the great uniter's face, economy sucking wind, gas prices rising, food prices rising, debt climbing and endless QE.

 

I think Rommey's chances of winning the election are done - the optics of making this comment while speaking at Marc Leder's (Sun Capital CEO) fundraiser are horrible.

I am sure the democrats will publicize this as what the real Romney believes in while speaking privately to his rich friends. Also the elderly will not appreciate this comment as this seems to be aimed at them (bye bye Florida).

edit (graphic on the 47%) --- http://www.businessinsider.com/mitt-romneys-47-who-are-dependent-on-the…

 

Yup, this comment means he is done. I mean with him closing in the polls and the economy and now FP blowing up Obama has this on lock. Surreeee.

This isn't anything new. Romney will roll off this and if anything, this will fire up the base.

 

actually .. the polls are all going the opposite way for Romney recently: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/general_elect…

you can see the poll results changing and the intrade odds diverging over the last couple of weeks: http://www.intrade.com/jsp/intrade/common/c_cd.jsp?conDetailID=743474&z…

Agreed - that these comments might fire up the republican base but it seems that 5-6% of independent voters are really who both parties are trying to target. I think this doesn't play well to those voters - especially assuming the elderly are smart enough to figure out that Romney is talking about them (maybe they aren't) ....

edit - i tried to look for data that quantifies impact of debates on presidential elections and couldn't really find much that supported that thesis. Most of the analysis is dated. My guess is that the debates won't really change much barring a catastrophic mistake by either candidate (which I think they are too polished to make) ...

 

Yeah, this is nothing. Republicans have been slamming Obama for his welfare nation for a long time. Fact is we need to eliminate deductions. Tax income and be done with it. None of these bullshit incentives and spending in disguise. No more interest deductions on mortgages, no more Chevy Volt credits, no more deducting interest from student loans, etc etc.

Obama better lean on Uncle Ben and have him pull some magic out his ass. I'm talking him and Timmy G in a F150 rolling through main street throwing wads of hundo's out of something. Stimulus on stimulus. Cause unless that happens Obama is running for re-election with a lot going against him.

And even if he beats Romney, Republicans are looking stronger and stronger when it comes to local elections and taking the Senate. 2 years at least of nothing going on. Obama will be forced to come to the middle or just wallow.

 

you're suggesting a very libertarian fiscal policy - which I'm ok with. I would also add we need to tax capital appreciation & carried interest at marginal tax rates, eliminate all those deduction which skew the markets.

Haven't spent enough time on quantifying whether this would be a wash or would have major repercussions for US tax receipts - but eliminating loopholes and increasing taxes should actually increase tax receipts as % of GDP.

Uncle Ben already has pulled some magic out of his ass - unlimited QE which he can keep upsizing (until he crowds out the private markets). Maybe he'll switch to buying corporates then,

Senate might go Republican - means nothing really will happen over the next 4 years. Also if Obama doesn't have to think about winning a re-election he might actually get a whole lot more left leaning (than he has been) and let tax cuts expire etc. for the high earners ...

 
LilJon101:
Hahahhaah @ Ant. Romney is done bro. I'm not a big fan of Obama, but Romney is done.By the time the debates are over itll be a 7-8% lead for Obama

We will see. Gotta love re-electing a person who is driving up debt, inflation, lowering labor participation, continued high unemployment, ME is imploding (the great unifier in action).

Keep pull that lever though.

 
Best Response
TNA:
LilJon101:
Hahahhaah @ Ant. Romney is done bro. I'm not a big fan of Obama, but Romney is done.By the time the debates are over itll be a 7-8% lead for Obama

We will see. Gotta love re-electing a person who is driving up debt, inflation, lowering labor participation, continued high unemployment, ME is imploding (the great unifier in action).

Keep pull that lever though.

1.) Debt increases are largely due to the financial crisis and its fallout combined with the fact that we went into two wars and passed Medicare Part D without paying for them.

2.) Inflation? Like the massive blowout inflation that Peter Schiff has been calling for since 2009? Nope.

3.) Unemployment and Lowered Participation Rate: Do you think this has more to do with Obama or with massive structural issues in our economy and the fallout from the financial crisis? But, oh yeah, further cutting taxes will fix it. (hint: no it won't.) We have a demand problem and major structural issues that won't get fixed overnight. And, like it or not, Obama's got a better job creating record than W did over eight years.

4.) The middle east is imploding? Wait, I thought neocons wanted to spread democracy throughout the Middle East? Sudden change of heart from the right, I see. Jon Stewart had a great segment on this.

Furthermore, what the fuck are we supposed to do? When Libya started fighting a civil war to overthrow a dictator, should we have sided with the dictator because we don't like what they'll vote for democratically? I mean, give me a fucking break. The only people who ever said Obama would supposedly be a "great bringer of Peace to the middle east" were assholes like Sean Hannity. The same shithead who was defending the hard work of spreading democracy in Iraq back in 2005 - 2006 that now thinks that we should never try and spread democracy.


And, honestly. Anyone who hears the shit Romney says in this speech and somehow says "yeah, half the country consists of a bunch of takers!" needs to do a little research. For one, about a quarter of the folks not paying any income taxes do so because they make so little money that they qualify for tax credits and deductions that bring their tax burden to zero. Many (if not all) of these tax policies were championed by Conservatives for DECADES. Now, these are lazy people? Which is it? Another quarter of them are retired people.

Not to mention, I read a stat that said that 9 out of the 10 states that pays the least taxes in the entire country are DEEP RED conservative voting states. So, he more or less called the base of the modern GOP a bunch of leeches. Fantastic.

I've since watched the entire video, and what really struck me most was the inane nature of the questions his audience asked him. These people dropped tens of thousands of dollars for this kind of access, and they asked such complete garbage. "Durrr, why do you let the President attack you for being successful durrr?" Just asking about imagined problems and bullshit instead of talking about actual policies. How is he going to fix the economy? How is he going to further cut taxes without further increasing the deficit and debt. Or are Republicans in Congress suddenly not going to give a shit about raising the debt ceiling if they have to to get tax cuts. What I heard when I watched this was a group of people who live in a bubble and never experience anything outside of it. Ever.

What a joke.

 

Also, Romney's whole spiel about the need for more defense spending is such garbage. We build the defense apparatus that the DoD asks for based upon current and projected defense needs.

Hearing the garbage he spewed, you'd think that Obama himself blew up the Lockheed Martin plants that were going to build the F-22s (that were cancelled because the DoD chose to cancel the program, a wasteful and duplicative program given the existence of F-18s, the JSF, and the age of the UAV.)

 
TheKing:
Also, Romney's whole spiel about the need for more defense spending is such garbage. We build the defense apparatus that the DoD asks for based upon current and projected defense needs.

Hearing the garbage he spewed, you'd think that Obama himself blew up the Lockheed Martin plants that were going to build the F-22s (that were cancelled because the DoD chose to cancel the program, a wasteful and duplicative program given the existence of F-18s, the JSF, and the age of the UAV.)

I agree. Every year, DoD receives more in funding than it asks for from Congress. Even this year, when the House was deciding what to cut from the defense budget, the final number was still more than what the DoD proposed.

 
I would assume that of the people on welfare programs that are linked to poverty and not age, a sizeable majority would favor Obama over Romney and this is more what he's talking about

You are right (only considering poverty-linked welfare vs. all welfare) but that was never my point.

My point was just that people don't vote entirely based on their current socioeconomic status (as Romney's speech implied). Especially among poor voters- things like race, religion and wishy-washy ideas like "freedom" and "America-loving" matter too. It's called a third-variable problem. Something that is correlated to poverty is also a reason to vote for/against Obama.

That's why these June 2012 Gallup numbers make sense to me: White non-hispanics voters, Income http://www.gallup.com/poll/157508/romney-support-among-lowest-income-vo…

Think about it- 34% of all people who make LESS than $24,000 would vote for Romney.

 

One more thing before I forget:

On what planet does Romney live where he thinks its acceptable to call 47% of Americans takers and moochers who are "dependent on government" while simultaneously being pro-bank bailout? The cognitive dissonance required to say this sort of shit is through the fucking roof.

 
TheKing:
One more thing before I forget:

On what planet does Romney live where he thinks its acceptable to call 47% of Americans takers and moochers who are "dependent on government" while simultaneously being pro-bank bailout? The cognitive dissonance required to say this sort of shit is through the fucking roof.

What the fuck are you talking? The number is higher than that. A large majority of people don't pay enough taxes for the services they use (assuming certain public goods like defense are averaged across the population).

It's not cognitive dissonance - it's fucking reality. The sad reality is that someone who makes 40K/year probably doesn't cover their education cost (K-12, possibly college/graduate school), discretionary federal/state/local budget, and SS/medicare.

The US tax burden is ~30% of GDP with state and local rolled up - how many people do you think pay that as their average tax rate after EITC/mortgage deduction/child tax credit?

There really is no argument against this - it's mathematical feature of having the top 10% pay 71% of federal income taxes (and yes, I understand this number goes down when payroll taxes are included - but not enough to invalidate anything).

The bank bailout was on net better for the median income of the US. Don't do the bank bailout and the average joe gets fucked more. That's not to say it couldn't have been done better. But a simple binary judgement of the bailout certainly proves its value.

 
PetEng:
TheKing:
One more thing before I forget:

On what planet does Romney live where he thinks its acceptable to call 47% of Americans takers and moochers who are "dependent on government" while simultaneously being pro-bank bailout? The cognitive dissonance required to say this sort of shit is through the fucking roof.

What the fuck are you talking? The number is higher than that. A large majority of people don't pay enough taxes for the services they use (assuming certain public goods like defense are averaged across the population).

It's not cognitive dissonance - it's fucking reality. The sad reality is that someone who makes 40K/year probably doesn't cover their education cost (K-12, possibly college/graduate school), discretionary federal/state/local budget, and SS/medicare.

The problem with your logic is that it only includes the direct benefits of education, ss/medicare, infrastructure, etc. to the individual directly receiving the services.

Are you telling me that Zuckerberg doesn't benefit from having an educated population from which to hire talented engineers, on the backs of whom he built his business? From having roads in place so they can get to work? His taxes are paying for these services from which he indirectly benefits, to the point that it has enabled a bright individual with a lot of luck to succeed.

I'm tired of the individualistic bullshit that doesn't hold water under the slightest scrutiny.

 

The bottom 40% of the American population collectively owns 0.3% of the country's wealth. Meanwhile, the top 20% of the American population collectively owns 85% of the country's wealth.

If we are counting only those that pay no income or payroll tax and aren't retired (effectively the "lazy" group Romney is referring to), only 6.9% of Americans fall into this bucket.

These are the facts. Context is important, but Romney is not entitled to his own reality.

http://www.people.hbs.edu/mnorton/norton%20ariely%20in%20press.pdf

http://www.businessinsider.com/mitt-romneys-47-who-are-dependent-on-the…

 

The same planet where Obama says Americans cling to their guns and bibles, thereby alienating a massive % of Americans. Both politicians say shit in private that they otherwise wouldn't say. I blame neither of these guys since trying to appease everyone is impossible.

I just get sad thinking about 4 more years of clown-bama. Only thing that warms me inside is that 4 more years of him will end up hurting the morons who vote for him more than me.

How is minority unemployment looking right about now? Bang, pull the lever.

Oh, Democrats want to fight states enforcing illegal immigration? Who do illegal immigrants take jobs from? What group has disproportionate unemployment stats? Bang, keep pulling the lever.

Oh, Obama will help me, I am poor! CPI keeps climbing, gas, food, energy keep going up. Inflation is driving this. Bang, keep pulling the lever.

Increase taxes more. I cut all charity donations in response. Bang, keep pulling the lever.

Give the man 4 more years to get the job done and if he doesn't we will blame Bush or the fairy god mother! Bang, keep pulling the lever.

Obama will save us! House stays red, Senate goes red, nothing gets done. Bang, keep pulling the lever.

 
TNA:
The same planet where Obama says Americans cling to their guns and bibles, thereby alienating a massive % of Americans. Both politicians say shit in private that they otherwise wouldn't say. I blame neither of these guys since trying to appease everyone is impossible.

I just get sad thinking about 4 more years of clown-bama. Only thing that warms me inside is that 4 more years of him will end up hurting the morons who vote for him more than me.

How is minority unemployment looking right about now? Bang, pull the lever.

Oh, Democrats want to fight states enforcing illegal immigration? Who do illegal immigrants take jobs from? What group has disproportionate unemployment stats? Bang, keep pulling the lever.

Oh, Obama will help me, I am poor! CPI keeps climbing, gas, food, energy keep going up. Inflation is driving this. Bang, keep pulling the lever.

Increase taxes more. I cut all charity donations in response. Bang, keep pulling the lever.

Give the man 4 more years to get the job done and if he doesn't we will blame Bush or the fairy god mother! Bang, keep pulling the lever.

Obama will save us! House stays red, Senate goes red, nothing gets done. Bang, keep pulling the lever.

Nice talking points.

Care to actually explain how Romney specifically intends on tackling our major structural and demand based economic issues. Or how he intends on cutting the debt and deficit while simultaneously lowering tax rates. With specifics?

Callng Obama "Clown-bama" won't change the fact that he entered office with the country falling apart and the foundation of our economy completely shattered.

 
TheKing:
TNA:
The same planet where Obama says Americans cling to their guns and bibles, thereby alienating a massive % of Americans. Both politicians say shit in private that they otherwise wouldn't say. I blame neither of these guys since trying to appease everyone is impossible.

I just get sad thinking about 4 more years of clown-bama. Only thing that warms me inside is that 4 more years of him will end up hurting the morons who vote for him more than me.

How is minority unemployment looking right about now? Bang, pull the lever.

Oh, Democrats want to fight states enforcing illegal immigration? Who do illegal immigrants take jobs from? What group has disproportionate unemployment stats? Bang, keep pulling the lever.

Oh, Obama will help me, I am poor! CPI keeps climbing, gas, food, energy keep going up. Inflation is driving this. Bang, keep pulling the lever.

Increase taxes more. I cut all charity donations in response. Bang, keep pulling the lever.

Give the man 4 more years to get the job done and if he doesn't we will blame Bush or the fairy god mother! Bang, keep pulling the lever.

Obama will save us! House stays red, Senate goes red, nothing gets done. Bang, keep pulling the lever.

Nice talking points.

Care to actually explain how Romney specifically intends on tackling our major structural and demand based economic issues. Or how he intends on cutting the debt and deficit while simultaneously lowering tax rates. With specifics?

Callng Obama "Clown-bama" won't change the fact that he entered office with the country falling apart and the foundation of our economy completely shattered.

No, but it will make me feel better.

 

Those 47 percent who pay no income tax do pay payroll taxes as most of them are employed, and don't pay income taxes due to deductions and cuts passed by Republicans.

The sad thing is, the payroll taxes they pay mean that how much they actually pay in taxes (~15%) is higher than Romney's rate (~13%)

 
Khansian:
Those 47 percent who pay no income tax do pay payroll taxes as most of them are employed, and don't pay income taxes due to deductions and cuts passed by Republicans.

The sad thing is, the payroll taxes they pay mean that how much they actually pay in taxes (~15%) is higher than Romney's rate (~13%)

Didn't realize we were talking about payroll taxes. Also, Romney might pay a lower BLENDED rate, but his actual tax rate is top bracket.

Love when people try and throw shit like that around without at least being honest about it.

Tsk Tsk

 
TNA:
Khansian:
Those 47 percent who pay no income tax do pay payroll taxes as most of them are employed, and don't pay income taxes due to deductions and cuts passed by Republicans.

The sad thing is, the payroll taxes they pay mean that how much they actually pay in taxes (~15%) is higher than Romney's rate (~13%)

Didn't realize we were talking about payroll taxes. Also, Romney might pay a lower BLENDED rate, but his actual tax rate is top bracket.

Love when people try and throw shit like that around without at least being honest about it.

Tsk Tsk

Isn't the blended (effective) tax rate = actual tax rate?

 
TNA:
Khansian:
Those 47 percent who pay no income tax do pay payroll taxes as most of them are employed, and don't pay income taxes due to deductions and cuts passed by Republicans.

The sad thing is, the payroll taxes they pay mean that how much they actually pay in taxes (~15%) is higher than Romney's rate (~13%)

Didn't realize we were talking about payroll taxes. Also, Romney might pay a lower BLENDED rate, but his actual tax rate is top bracket.

Love when people try and throw shit like that around without at least being honest about it.

Tsk Tsk

We're talking about taxed income. Romney's assertion that 47% contribute nothing is patently false since the amount actually paid (not just the effective rate) is a greater percentage of their income than Romney's.

At least, that's the case from what I have read. I'm no accountant.

 

YOU LIBERALS DON'T UNDERSTAND! Utilizing no government loans, TNA graduated from Villanova and entered the unproven field of finance. In an industry receiving no government assistance, he has created, despite the government, a profit. This profit is a complete result of his own abilities and hard work.

In deed, drop Mr. TNA into any other country and watch him replicate this success. Born into a working class family? No time to study? No available and affordable higher education? or even public schooling? He'll learn it himself. No capital markets system or wall street in existence through a history of government support? TNA will make his own wall street. Hell, he'll make his own government, make a firm that will be a primary dealer, and set up a world-class financial services system around it. He'll develop the city, subsidize the communications and transportation system, hell he'll recreate the fucking internet. And if he gets sick- well he'll build his own fucking emergency hospital.

 

Wow, wonderfully over dramatic post. I suppose when people talk about limited government and reduced taxation your brain shuts off and you think of Somalia. I mean God forbid there was something in the middle.

And frankly, you really don't know jack shit about me.

But yawn. I've see this type of thinking and hyperbole before on this site. Plenty of members with liberal views who can argue and articulate them better.

 

I really don't get the uproar. I mean I understand Obumbles supporters looking for anything to rage about, but Romney has been talking about widening the tax base for a bit, through eliminating deductions. Deductions are simply spending through the tax code.

If you look at the 47% of tax payers paying no taxes, about 1/3'rd of that half pay nothing because they are poor or old on SSI. The rest don't pay because of offsetting deductions. Child tax credits, mortgage interest deductions, marriage tax credits, etc. By eliminating these, the rich will pay more and the middle class / lower middle class will pay some also. The poor still wont pay.

I'm not looking for everyone to pay, but I sure am looking for more than just 50% to pay. You need skin in the game.

I just don't get the uproar. Mortgage interest isn't deductible in Canada. We shouldn't be incentivizing people to have children. Marriage should not be paid for by the government. Get rid of farming credits, corporate credits, etc. Just tax income and be done with it.

@PetEng - Loving you bro. Good stuff.

 
TNA: Wow, wonderfully over dramatic post. I suppose when people talk about limited government and reduced taxation your brain shuts off and you think of Somalia. I mean God forbid there was something in the middle.

And frankly, you really don't know jack shit about me.

But yawn. I've see this type of thinking and hyperbole before on this site. Plenty of members with liberal views who can argue and articulate them better.

I'm glad I hit a nerve. But unlike your claim that the Obama administration is socialist- this wasn't hyperbole. Wall Street would not exist without the US government- even before the bailout, much less without it. And other developed countries that provide all the things I mentioned which you invariably take advantage of? They generally all require higher taxes than this one.

As for not knowing who you are: unless you're Ben fucking Franklin, you owe this country and the people who created it a lot more- something you can repay by paying it forward- supporting just a modicum of government spending on social services. It's the greatest deal in the world.

At a time when the inflation-adjusted minimum wage is the lowest its been in 1957, when wealth disparity is the highest since before the Gilded Age, where the top income bracket effective tax rate is lower than almost every other developed country, when the unemployed are vilified for their supposed laziness- when MORE families need support but the # qualifying for TANF is LOWER than it was in 1996. This is the age you're living in.

My colorful story was meant to put government social services spending into perspective by describing all that you get.

 
ReadLine:
Wow, wonderfully over dramatic post. I suppose when people talk about limited government and reduced taxation your brain shuts off and you think of Somalia. I mean God forbid there was something in the middle.

And frankly, you really don't know jack shit about me.

But yawn. I've see this type of thinking and hyperbole before on this site. Plenty of members with liberal views who can argue and articulate them better.

I'm glad I hit a nerve. But unlike your claim that the Obama administration is socialist- this wasn't hyperbole. Wall Street would not exist without the US government- even before the bailout, much less without it. And other developed countries that provide all the things I mentioned which you invariably take advantage of? They generally all require higher taxes than this one.

As for not knowing who you are: unless you're Ben fucking Franklin, you owe this country and the people who created it a lot more- something you can repay by paying it forward- supporting just a modicum of government spending on social services. It's the greatest deal in the world.

At a time when the inflation-adjusted minimum wage is the lowest its been in 1957, when wealth disparity is the highest since before the Gilded Age, where the top income bracket effective tax rate is lower than almost every other developed country, when the unemployed are vilified for their supposed laziness- when MORE families need support but the # qualifying for TANF is LOWER than it was in 1996. This is the age you're living in.

My colorful story was meant to put government social services spending into perspective by describing all that you get.

Meanwhile - back on Bizarro World. You seem to think that 47% paying no income tax is a good thing?

I don't ask much - I just don't want to pay for other people's stupid fucking decisions. I don't mind paying taxes to help people out who meet the basic following criteria:

1) Don't have kids they can't afford. 2) Don't do drugs. 3) Don't commit crimes. 4) Have a high school diploma.

You have to get all four. I know that's a high bar for the seething masses of degenerates in this country - but it's the bare minimum for me. If you can pass that test you can get help. Oh, you had a kid while you were in high school? Too fucking bad. Should have thought about that ahead of time. Turned into a junkie? Fuck you. Are a felon? Fuck you. Dropped out of high school? Fuck you.

That's it. It's not a high bar. But it's a bar nevertheless.

 
ReadLine:
TNA: Wow, wonderfully over dramatic post. I suppose when people talk about limited government and reduced taxation your brain shuts off and you think of Somalia. I mean God forbid there was something in the middle.

And frankly, you really don't know jack shit about me.

But yawn. I've see this type of thinking and hyperbole before on this site. Plenty of members with liberal views who can argue and articulate them better.

I'm glad I hit a nerve. But unlike your claim that the Obama administration is socialist- this wasn't hyperbole. Wall Street would not exist without the US government- even before the bailout, much less without it. And other developed countries that provide all the things I mentioned which you invariably take advantage of? They generally all require higher taxes than this one.

As for not knowing who you are: unless you're Ben fucking Franklin, you owe this country and the people who created it a lot more- something you can repay by paying it forward- supporting just a modicum of government spending on social services. It's the greatest deal in the world.

At a time when the inflation-adjusted minimum wage is the lowest its been in 1957, when wealth disparity is the highest since before the Gilded Age, where the top income bracket effective tax rate is lower than almost every other developed country, when the unemployed are vilified for their supposed laziness- when MORE families need support but the # qualifying for TANF is LOWER than it was in 1996. This is the age you're living in.

My colorful story was meant to put government social services spending into perspective by describing all that you get.

1) Did I say Obama was socialist?

2) Hit a nerve? No.

3) I pay taxes. My debt to this country is done. Furthermore, the founding father fought for self determination and taxation with representation. Transport them to nanny state USA with taxes on everything and anything and I think they would have a different opinion of things.

4) You mix terms and issues. You cannot have a nation build on the backs of 50%, with the other 50% not paying. If you want to have a 70/30 split, cool, but 50/50 is bullshit. Wealth disparity has a number of issues, beyond the scope of this argument. You compare historic periods and then countries, not apples to apples. I could care less what other countries pay and do.

And you are twisting the shit I say. You can shrink government without cutting social programs. Eliminating deductions won't just hurt the poor, it will hit everyone and make things more "fair" (in the true sense of the word, not the Obama definition).

 
PetEng: It's not cognitive dissonance - it's fucking reality. The sad reality is that someone who makes 40K/year probably doesn't cover their education cost (K-12, possibly college/graduate school), discretionary federal/state/local budget, and SS/medicare.

There really is no argument against this - it's mathematical feature of having the top 10% pay 71% of federal income taxes (and yes, I understand this number goes down when payroll taxes are included - but not enough to invalidate anything).

You can't compare people like that. i.e. Say you have an MBS structurer circa '06 making millions a year and a public teacher for developmentally disabled kids making $40k. Which cost society more relative to what they make? There are numerous others.

The bank bailout was on net better for the median income of the US. Don't do the bank bailout and the average joe gets fucked more. That's not to say it couldn't have been done better. But a simple binary judgement of the bailout certainly proves its value.

Again, flawed logic. i.e. if someone blackmailed you- give me $ X or you'll lose your job. Then giving them the money makes you better off than you would have been otherwise. And the blackmailer is certainly better off than he would have been otherwise. Does that make it a good thing- or would it have been better if it hadn't been necessary in the first place?

 
ReadLine:
You can't compare people like that. i.e. Say you have an MBS structurer circa '06 making millions a year and a public teacher for developmentally disabled kids making $40k. Which cost society more relative to what they make? There are numerous others.
Don't get me going on finance because I'm sure I'm far more negative on finance than you are. The optimal profession for me is that of a high technical innovator. Someone who probably makes 80-130k/year with a PhD in a STEM field. Those are the most valuable people in the US economy. Alas - they are not paid as such for a multitude of reasons. However, they are paid pretty damn good for a relatively low risk occupation and relatively stable employment. However - even so - these professions likely subsidize other lower earners because of the way our tax system is structured.
Again, flawed logic. i.e. if someone blackmailed you- give me $ X or you'll lose your job. Then giving them the money makes you better off than you would have been otherwise. And the blackmailer is certainly better off than he would have been otherwise. Does that make it a good thing- or would it have been better if it hadn't been necessary in the first place?
Like I said - I'm more anti-finance than you. However, if the pre-2008 world is set in stone than the the bank bailout is a forgone conclusion. It's a necessity.

Considering that very few people were calling for action prior to 2008 (Shiller, et al) then it's hard for me to fault the powers at be (or even the bankers). That's because people aren't omniscient.

 

TheKing and Gomez have presented some pretty good stats on who exactly uses the welfare programs and the actual tax burden. That argument is basically settled - Romney is blaming the elderly and the ones making http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/05/house-and-senate-unanimous…

 

Sure. Only old people and dirt poor people pay no federal income tax. Oh wait, here is a report and the actual data behind it.

http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/2011/08/31/Who-Pays-No-Taxes-and…

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/UploadedPDF/1001547-Why-No-Income-Tax.pdf

Page 1

"Just 54 percent of all tax units will pay federal individual income tax in 2011, leaving about 46 percent paying no federal income tax or receiving a net refund. The significant fraction of tax units that do not pay income tax has become a topic of public debate."

"Of all nontaxable units, half would still owe no tax in 2011 if all tax expenditures were repealed and only these standard income tax provisions applied. The other half owes no tax because of tax expenditures."

You cannot have half this country not paying federal income taxes. Leave the poor and the elderly alone, fine, but that are not the entire 46%. Remove tax expenditures and simply tax income.

and L O L at "because there is no real logical way to support their candidate's or their party's position on taxation.". Thanks for clearing things up. Glad to know we have gotten to the one real truth. Romney should just go home now that we have uncovered the absolute knowledge of things.

Praise be to Obama, for he hath delivered us from evil. His tax plan is golden, his economic plan is golden, fuck, he shits gold.

Keep pulling the lever.

I can't wait to see the sycophants line up to defend the President after 4 more years, when we have $20+ trillion in debt, endless printing, inflation and an economy in even more shamble. Oh and a ME policy that is simply Bush 2.0.

 

Note that I said "no income taxes and social taxes" - not just income taxes. I hope you know the distinction between the two. Happy to repeat if needed.

On the foreign policy front - are you disagreeing with Bush's policy now? What would you rather have the US do -be isolationist?

As for my comment on taxation - I was referring more to the claim that reducing taxes on the rich will magically boost the economy. Have looked for empirical data and the reports seem to suggest that there is no clear link.

Another criticism of Romney - I have yet to figure out what his economic plan is beyond cut taxes ... care to teach us?

 
Sure. Only old people and dirt poor people pay no federal income tax. Oh wait, here is a report and the actual data behind it.

http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/2011/08/31/Who-Pays-No-Taxes-and-...

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/UploadedPDF/1001547-Why-No-Income-Tax.pdf

Page 1

"Just 54 percent of all tax units will pay federal individual income tax in 2011, leaving about 46 percent paying no federal income tax or receiving a net refund. The significant fraction of tax units that do not pay income tax has become a topic of public debate."

"Of all nontaxable units, half would still owe no tax in 2011 if all tax expenditures were repealed and only these standard income tax provisions applied. The other half owes no tax because of tax expenditures."

You cannot have half this country not paying federal income taxes. Leave the poor and the elderly alone, fine, but that are not the entire 46%. Remove tax expenditures and simply tax income.

I'm not sure who said that only the poor pay no fed income tax? I had posted figures on this in the "fair tax system" thread a while ago in response to your poor-pay-no-taxes bitching then. It's majority low income. But well-off people skirt taxes too, true.

Though I'm glad you're reading from the TPC. You should read more of their PDFs especially in relation to the (many revised) Ryan plans. Maybe you'd change your mind.

And "leave the poor and elderly alone"? Finally- great! It took you a while.

But this:

Remove tax expenditures and simply tax income.

See this is your right-wing libertarian BS again. No details. Do you think that simplicity always =fairness? That the moral solution is the most simple one?

Remove what tax expenditures?-mortgage interest, charitable donations, medical expenses, child/dependent care, 401k contributions, student loan interest, education expenses, job expenses- what? Just all of them- without studying the effect? Yeah that's fucking responsible.

What does just "simply tax income" mean? one single direct flat tax? With no progressive scale??? I assume that's what you mean since that's the most simple thing I can think of. Idiocy. And Let me ask you- have you ever even thought about the difference between a direct tax and an indirect tax and which is more fair in what situation? Start from there. in terms of direct taxes, what about the various types of income taxes? e.g. capital gains? In terms of corporate taxes what about non-income tax? In terms of wealth taxes what about homeowner taxes? Now for indirect taxes- what about customs, excise or sales taxes? This is even more tricky as you're affecting world trade by your tweaks. And sales taxes? The wealthy will clamor to keep them in place- realize why?

Personally, do I think the tax code is too complex? Absolutely. Is getting rid of all deductions and simply imposing a flat direct tax rate for everyone the responsible answer? I'm not a tax expert or policy analyst- but almost surely "No".

 
ReadLine:
Sure. Only old people and dirt poor people pay no federal income tax. Oh wait, here is a report and the actual data behind it.

http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/2011/08/31/Who-Pays-No-Taxes-and-...

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/UploadedPDF/1001547-Why-No-Income-Tax.pdf

Page 1

"Just 54 percent of all tax units will pay federal individual income tax in 2011, leaving about 46 percent paying no federal income tax or receiving a net refund. The significant fraction of tax units that do not pay income tax has become a topic of public debate."

"Of all nontaxable units, half would still owe no tax in 2011 if all tax expenditures were repealed and only these standard income tax provisions applied. The other half owes no tax because of tax expenditures."

You cannot have half this country not paying federal income taxes. Leave the poor and the elderly alone, fine, but that are not the entire 46%. Remove tax expenditures and simply tax income.

I'm not sure who said that only the poor pay no fed income tax? I had posted figures on this in the "fair tax system" thread a while ago in response to your poor-pay-no-taxes bitching then. It's majority low income. But well-off people skirt taxes too, true.

Though I'm glad you're reading from the TPC. You should read more of their PDFs especially in relation to the (many revised) Ryan plans. Maybe you'd change your mind.

And "leave the poor and elderly alone"? Finally- great! It took you a while.

But this:

Remove tax expenditures and simply tax income.

See this is your right-wing libertarian BS again. No details. Do you think that simplicity always =fairness? That the moral solution is the most simple one?

Remove what tax expenditures?-mortgage interest, charitable donations, medical expenses, child/dependent care, 401k contributions, student loan interest, education expenses, job expenses- what? Just all of them- without studying the effect? Yeah that's fucking responsible.

What does just "simply tax income" mean? one single direct flat tax? With no progressive scale??? I assume that's what you mean since that's the most simple thing I can think of. Idiocy. And Let me ask you- have you ever even thought about the difference between a direct tax and an indirect tax and which is more fair in what situation? Start from there. in terms of direct taxes, what about the various types of income taxes? e.g. capital gains? In terms of corporate taxes what about non-income tax? In terms of wealth taxes what about homeowner taxes? Now for indirect taxes- what about customs, excise or sales taxes? This is even more tricky as you're affecting world trade by your tweaks. And sales taxes? The wealthy will clamor to keep them in place- realize why?

Personally, do I think the tax code is too complex? Absolutely. Is getting rid of all deductions and simply imposing a flat direct tax rate for everyone the responsible answer? I'm not a tax expert or policy analyst- but almost surely "No".

From a purely theoretical standpoint, all of those deductions are horribly inefficient and distort markets. The mortgage-interest tax deduction is costly in the direct sense of lost tax revenue and also fueled the housing bubble we are still recovering from.

I think we progressive taxation in the sense of transfers of wealth from the wealthy to the poor to help support them. But these deductions and subsidies and the like are not the way to go about improving our society and should be scrapped.

 

libertarian BS ha. Yeah right. Tax income with no exceptions beyond maybe something for the elderly or poor below an income line. If you need a tax credit to raise a kid you shouldn't have one.

So let me understand something from the other side of the isle (since I am a libertarian fulled with "BS" arguments).

You don't want religious nuts telling you what to do with your body, but you expect people to be financially responsible for what you do with your body? Sound right?

Remove tax credits and keep it simple.

 

The burden of proof is always on the person wanting to increase taxes. Theft by government decree needs to be justified and proven effective beyond a shadow of a doubt and only after all cuts possible have been made. I have an absolute right to what I earn.

Tax the rich = take from someone who has more than I do. A poor moral argument.

 

So all those rich people at that function were in one room with that Romney guy - someone who spent the best two years of his life at HBS - and no one cared to ask him how many chicks he banged with his HBS jersey and his PE club t-shirt? Instead of asking him questions about what it felt like being a demi-god to Wellesley girls and sitting at the top of the social scene in Boston, they preferred to talk about nerdy topics like the economy, taxes, and other boring crap. No wonder America is going downhill.

 

TNA, the more you post about politics the more I think you're some fuckng joke, seriously, you can't be an educated grown man. Post about MSFs and regain some credibility bro, you haven't posted one relevant fact that disproves any of King's (and some of the other liberal posters) points. Your constant "Obumbles" and "The anointed one" references are tired dude, just you parroting Fox News. It's funny you ask me to post insightful responses regarding politics when all you post is pointless garbage. NoBama is pretty much the only conservative that seems to have a modicum of knowledge when he posts. Pull the lever? really? is that supposed to be some fucking buzz word that supports your argument? lol dude.

 

Yeah man, because I didn't post an actual break down of the people who pay no Federal Tax, how half of the 46% do so because of tax expenditures, which Romney has been talking about reducing and/or eliminating.

So half of the 46% pay nothing because they are very low income. Fine. The other 23% are doing so because of government spending through the IRS code.

Sorry if I don't spoon feed you man. Grow up.

**

And what the hell are you talking about? I looked back at the post that TheKing made disagreeing with my points that I originally listed.

1) I disagree with TheKing that inflation is not an issue. Food and energy prices have been increasing steadily. The Fed's endless printing is influencing this.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/ubs-issues-hyperinflation-warning-us-and-…

While ZeroHedge is a rather dour source, they are pulling from UBS data.

2) The ME is imploding.

Obama was elected on the promise to "re-build" the US's reputation overseas. This was a selling point because the reputation was low with Bush. Since Obama has been elected the US hasn't closed Gitmo, is still in Afghanistan, helped in the overthrow of Libya, has expanded the drone campaign, has seen Russia become more confrontational, has seen China become more confrontational and now we have embassies being attacked and protests firing up all over the ME.

So when Obama bashes Bush for his foreign policy and then acts like Bush-lite, I think it is fair to throw criticism his way.

3) Unemployment and Labor Participation

Presidents are figure heads. But if you want to run the show you take the blame. I do believe this is structural and a long time coming, but Obama could have done more. Bush 1 lost re-election because of a bad economy as have other Presidents. Obama is on the hook for this. He is also selling the declining unemployment rate, while ignoring the decreasing labor participation.

He is the President, things are bad/getting worse, he deserves blame.

4) Debt Increase

TheKing mentions past things which increased our debt. He is correct. But I didn't say Obama is responsible for all of the debt. Obama IS responsible for running $1.3T deficits.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57400369-503544/national-debt-ha…

I won't blame Obama entirely for the 1st year since he inherited a mess from Bush, but he has keep spending at this inflated level and is making his own mark on the debt. By White House projections, if Obama is re-elected, the national debt will be over $20T and then some, before our deficits lower to ~$600B per year.


I've discussed this throughout this thread, as well in countless other threads. TheKing makes fine arguments, he doesn't need a cheerleader waving pom pom's.

And I frankly could careless what you think. I've debated this countless times and you really just don't agree with me. Fine, but your insults and the fact that you ignore my counter points simply show your bias.

Fact is Obama cannot run on his record. He might look better compared to Bush or a hypothetical Romney, but standing alone he looks like crap. Obama's entire campaign is basically "I suck, but not as much as Romney". It might win him the election, but how far has he fallen since 2008.

Oh the anointed one. I feel bad for him :(

 
  1. Romney seems to want MORE foreign intervention and not less, so IDK how you're associating him with isolationism.
  2. The ME has always hated us, but Europe also hated us in the Bush era, Obama has largely fixed that. Also, much of the commotion in the ME has nothing to do with our foreign policy. Are your really trying to blame the president for some stupid cartoon that YOU defended? Are you saying you don't want drones while in the thread discussing the recent violence in the ME you espoused bombing them from afar, you said there was no point in ground troops. Isn't that what drones are for?
  3. No one is arguing Obama didn't increase the debt, TheKing is arguing that Romney will do nothing different, except reallocate spending. In fact, Romney doesn't have a budget, whereas Obama has a tangible plan, whether ppl voted for it or not isn't the point.
  4. The other 23% is not the same as 47%, you supported the 47% number with no tangible facts to support your opinion, then when proven wrong by hard numbers, you talk about the 23%... ridiculous
 
BigBucks:
1. Romney seems to want MORE foreign intervention and not less, so IDK how you're associating him with isolationism. 2. The ME has always hated us, but Europe also hated us in the Bush era, Obama has largely fixed that. Also, much of the commotion in the ME has nothing to do with our foreign policy. Are your really trying to blame the president for some stupid cartoon that YOU defended? Are you saying you don't want drones while in the thread discussing the recent violence in the ME you espoused bombing them from afar, you said there was no point in ground troops. Isn't that what drones are for? 3. No one is arguing Obama didn't increase the debt, TheKing is arguing that Romney will do nothing different, except reallocate spending. In fact, Romney doesn't have a budget, whereas Obama has a tangible plan, whether ppl voted for it or not isn't the point. 4. The other 23% is not the same as 47%, you supported the 47% number with no tangible facts to support your opinion, then when proven wrong by hard numbers, you talk about the 23%... ridiculous

1) Can we discuss Obama without Romney or Bush? I personally support isolationism (or something close to that), but you can also continue with our current strategy more effectively. Obama isn't doing as good a job as he sold us on during 2008. Of course it isn't all Obama's fault, just like it isn't all every Presidents fault, but you run the show, you take the blame.

2) Reports are coming out that this was planned and coordinated. We've also had other attacks. Frankly, I don't think it is coincidence that this happened in Libya after we supported the overthrow of the government and acted to help in this.

And yes I support it. It is freedom of speech. We should not have our liberties curtailed because of threats and radicalism.

3) Once again, I want to judge Obama on Obama. The deficit is a function of lower tax revenue (because of a weaker economy) and over spending. I think over spending will occur no matter what (politicians are incentivized to spend). I personally think Romney will focus on the economy and will do better. That will increase receipts.

I also think Republicans will take the Senate and since the Tea Party, fiscal conservatism will be pushed. If Republicans fall back into their Bush ways I will happily condemn them all.

4) Please tell me what is incorrect with Romney's 46% statement? Once you get behind the statement you see the whole picture, but I am not going to fault Romney for not being specific. I won't fault Obama for it either. Sucks, but people don't care about details.

So 46% don't pay Federal taxes. 23% wouldn't pay if all expenditures were eliminated, but the other 23% would. I am not saying all of them should have to, but I think everyone can agree that too many government deductions and spending through the tax code is happening, both corporate and individuals. Romney wants to reduce deductions, which will hurt rich and poor alike. It will widen the base.

5) Unemployment and participation is not 100% Obama's fault, but he can't take credit for a declining rate while ignoring participation. Obama could also focus more on the economy. If you take credit for a strong economy you take the blame for a weak one.

A president, all presidents, cannot have it both ways.

I reiterate, Obama might and I say MIGHT, be better than Romney (who really knows), but it is very interesting how the campaign message changes. Hope and Change has been replaced by "I suck less".

I am voting for Romney because I don't think Obama will do anything much better in another 4 years.

As for my pulling the level meme, it is the mindset of too many votes. Look at minority unemployment rates, look at food prices and energy prices, things that impact lower income individuals the most, look at the broken promises and deflated hype.

Too many people are just pulling the lever for Obama. Fine, vote for him again, but don't JUST pull the lever. Get in his face, get your voice out, make him do something.

 
TNA:

4) Please tell me what is incorrect with Romney's 46% statement? Once you get behind the statement you see the whole picture, but I am not going to fault Romney for not being specific. I won't fault Obama for it either. Sucks, but people don't care about details.

So 46% don't pay Federal taxes. 23% wouldn't pay if all expenditures were eliminated, but the other 23% would. I am not saying all of them should have to, but I think everyone can agree that too many government deductions and spending through the tax code is happening, both corporate and individuals. Romney wants to reduce deductions, which will hurt rich and poor alike. It will widen the base.

Why are we still quoting this 47% number? - 28% pay payroll taxes - that's an income-based tax, paying into Social Security and Medicare.

That leaves 18% left of the population. - 10% are elderly and on social security. Should we tell grandma and grandpa to get off their lazy asses and get a job? I think not.

The remaining 8% pay no payroll or income tax. They make less than $20K per year. At 100M US households, at most this group is earning $160B per year. Tax them at 10% and you get $16B in tax revenues out of this group. Compare with the US budget $3.7 trillion. It doesn't matter how wide the tax base is on the working poor, it's not going to make a dent on anything. They don't have any money.

 

What's wrong with Romney's statement? What's wrong is the view that not paying income tax = not taking personal responsibility.

Quoting you, the main statement: "There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That that's an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what…These are people who pay no income tax.

"M]y job is is not to worry about those people. I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives."

Let's re-visit the facts. 47% Don't pay income tax - 28% pay payroll tax = have jobs - 10% elderly and collecting social security = had jobs - 8% under $20K income = potentially have jobs, might not

What part of that shows no personal responsibility? These are working Americans. These aren't people waiting on government handouts. They are working and paying into Social Security and Medicare. These are the exact people that the president of the United States should be worrying about.

At best this is just further proof of Romney's ignorance and disconnect to the working class, at worst this just finally shows Romney's PE-side and willingness to write-off the segment of the country he sees as a losing investment. Unfortunately, leading a country isn't the same as an investment, where you can ignore unprofitable customers and double-down on the most promising segments. Being president means leading the entire country and all of its citizens, from the poor to the rich.

 
freeloader:
What's wrong with Romney's statement? What's wrong is the view that not paying income tax = not taking personal responsibility.

Quoting you, the main statement: "There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That that's an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what…These are people who pay no income tax.

"M]y job is is not to worry about those people. I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives."

Let's re-visit the facts. 47% Don't pay income tax - 28% pay payroll tax = have jobs - 10% elderly and collecting social security = had jobs - 8% under $20K income = potentially have jobs, might not

What part of that shows no personal responsibility? These are working Americans. These aren't people waiting on government handouts. They are working and paying into Social Security and Medicare. These are the exact people that the president of the United States should be worrying about.

At best this is just further proof of Romney's ignorance and disconnect to the working class, at worst this just finally shows Romney's PE-side and willingness to write-off the segment of the country he sees as a losing investment. Unfortunately, leading a country isn't the same as an investment, where you can ignore unprofitable customers and double-down on the most promising segments. Being president means leading the entire country and all of its citizens, from the poor to the rich.

Not to mention, a lot of the people that don't pay federal income taxes don't because of deductions. Deductions that were pushed and passed by Republicans in the first place. It's like, the Republicans pushed plans to reduce people's tax burdens and then complain about it when their plans work. It's a complete joke.

 
TheKing:
freeloader:
What's wrong with Romney's statement? What's wrong is the view that not paying income tax = not taking personal responsibility.

Quoting you, the main statement: "There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That that's an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what…These are people who pay no income tax.

"M]y job is is not to worry about those people. I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives."

Let's re-visit the facts. 47% Don't pay income tax - 28% pay payroll tax = have jobs - 10% elderly and collecting social security = had jobs - 8% under $20K income = potentially have jobs, might not

What part of that shows no personal responsibility? These are working Americans. These aren't people waiting on government handouts. They are working and paying into Social Security and Medicare. These are the exact people that the president of the United States should be worrying about.

At best this is just further proof of Romney's ignorance and disconnect to the working class, at worst this just finally shows Romney's PE-side and willingness to write-off the segment of the country he sees as a losing investment. Unfortunately, leading a country isn't the same as an investment, where you can ignore unprofitable customers and double-down on the most promising segments. Being president means leading the entire country and all of its citizens, from the poor to the rich.

Not to mention, a lot of the people that don't pay federal income taxes don't because of deductions. Deductions that were pushed and passed by Republicans in the first place. It's like, the Republicans pushed plans to reduce people's tax burdens and then complain about it when their plans work. It's a complete joke.

Oh now, so no Democrats pushed deductions? Or no deductions are supported by both sides? Lets be fair and say each side pushed their own deductions which lead us to this mess.

And 46% don't pay Federal income tax. 46% benefit from living in America, but do not pay federal income tax. When you expect something for nothing, you think you are entitled to it. And when you pay less for a benefit you expect to receive you are relying on government.

Now of course, when you really look at the data you can see how not much will be gained from taxing these people or that they need the service or whatever, but to crucify a guy for using factual data and just being vague is BS.

So if you want to be against Romney fine, but what he said was truthful, but not in depth. This was a fund raising speech and he was giving the crowd what it wants.

And you know what, the working class is broke, seeing prices increase, wealth gone and elected Obama because he promised change. He hasn't changed anything. And while I empathize with needing more time, you are elected to do things in 4 years, not 8. Maybe if he had entirely focused on the economy for 4 years, gave in to some Republican demands and tried harder, things would be different.

And FYI - large segments of this country ARE losing investments. The ship is sinking. Trying to save everyone will not help or work. People have known forever now that being uneducated and unskilled was a prison sentence of low wages and no job security. If you want to help and save them, go do it. Go volunteer, donate money, whatever. But how about you don't nuke the economy because of pity and misplaced sympathy.

 

Yeah, Obama is going to pounce on this on his class warfare campaign. While Romney is sending a couple million to the government, the 46% who pay nothing will cast blame.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/04/obamas-2011-tax-returns-sh…

So Obama is worth over $2MM and paid only 20%. Romney paid less, but it is his blended rate since he gains more income through investments than salary. Of course this is beyond 2+2 so the proletariat wont be able to understand this.

Romney paid nearly a nearly 14% higher tax rate than the majority of Americans. Interesting when you frame the statement this way isn't it.

 
Nobama88:
Look, Mittens pays taxes:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/romneys-release-taxes_652850.html

$1.2MM in taxes paid. Over $4MM in Charitable donations.

And a summary of his taxes for the past 20 years:

In each year during the entire 20-year period, the Romneys owed both state and federal income taxes. Over the entire 20-year period, the average annual effective federal tax rate was 20.20%. Over the entire 20-year period, the lowest annual effective federal personal tax rate was 13.66%. Over the entire 20-year period, the Romneys gave to charity an average of 13.45% of their adjusted gross income. Over the entire 20-year period, the total federal and state taxes owed plus the total charitable donations deducted represented 38.49% of total AGI.

Weighted average or simple average over 20 years? Everyone knows averages are misleading.

 

Not enough. Unless he gives 100% he isn't paying his fair share. I mean Obama pays a lower rate than I do, but hey, he is the community organizer.

Glad to know he is kicking it with Jay Z while unemployment is 3% and we have a robust economy without a lick of inflation.

Oh, wait.

I got 99 problems, but giving a shit about the economy ain't one.

 

Also, on what basis are you saying he "wielded his power poorly?" Because he didn't do what YOU want him to do? Look, you'll never like anything he does. I'm not sure there exists a viable Presidential candidate who would do the things you want done. So, calling what Obama did "poor" is beyond belief subjective and laughable from someone who is a hawkish neoconservative.

 
TheKing:
Also, on what basis are you saying he "wielded his power poorly?" Because he didn't do what YOU want him to do? Look, you'll never like anything he does. I'm not sure there exists a viable Presidential candidate who would do the things you want done. So, calling what Obama did "poor" is beyond belief subjective and laughable from someone who is a hawkish neoconservative.

Whoaaa Whooaaa Whoaa.

You said in your original statement that Republicans were simply obstructionist and Obama tried to negotiate with them, fact, as you say.

I then rebutted your argument with NPR which showed Obama being less than diplomatic in the first two years.

So while I am not trying to portray him as Stalin, Obama really didn't give a crap about the Republicans in the beginning. And he only had a majority, not enough to pass whatever he wanted. And yes, ramming things through when you have power, ala Wisconsin, is politics, but when you try to do this, ala Wisconsin, don't cry when it bites you in the ass.

Republicans overwhelmingly took the midterm elections. And then the stone walling started. Obama tried to be nice when he was forced to, but when he didn't have to he was a jerk. This is what I mean about wielding his power poorly.

So lets look at the facts.

1) Obama is a rich, Ivy educated dude. Romney is just richer. Both paid low ass tax rates. 20.4% is below what I pay.

BUT. Half pay nothing. Yeah, I know, good reasons why, but half pay a zero rate. Romney and Obama both pay more than the majority of Americans. So what is the issue. Now Romney's taxes are coming about and the guy is paying his fair share and donating a shit load to charity. Man, sounds real nice to me.

But in the end, Obama will get the vote of the common man, while Romney, who is donating to people and helping their lives will be seen as Mr. Evil. Politics, yes, but bullshit all the same.

2) Obama pissed a lot of people off in the beginning. It came to bite him in the ass. Just as the NPR article says. I don't blame him, but I do blame him for blaming others. He did this.

3) The economy sucks, not all his fault, but he is the guy in charge. Presidents from the start of time have faced the public's wrath over bullshit. People are dumb. But that is why I would never want to be a politician. He chose that path and should suck it up. The economy blows, he has had 4 years and frankly, the only thing he can say is he needs 4 more to get it done.

Fine, I got you, but you weren't elected to get shit done in 8 years, you were elected for 4.

So if Obama wants to run a campaign of "I suck less", fine, he might win. But I'd like to see Obama supporters simply admit that their idol, Mr. Hope and Change, really is just a normal dude with mediocre plans.

This entire debate is really just a thought exercise. Either one of these clowns will benefit me or at the worst, wont hurt me. So I really don't care. Personally I would like to see someone other than Mr. Blame Game running things, but oh well, I am not going to starve. But the only way to truly help the 46% or whatever is to fix this economy and get our fiscal house in order. So whoever wins I really hope they focus on that because unless someone does we are all fucked.

 

Compromise, compromise, comprise... Congress is compromising all right, compromising away liberty and compromising against the constitution, all for the sake of unnecessary (and economically harmful) regulation and building a handout nation.

There's not much Congress or the government can do to improve upon the free market. If Congress kept government small and constitutional, there wouldn’t be these issues requiring congress to "Come together and compromise!" - no massive deficit to tackle, great recession to “fix,” federal programs to revamp, etc. If Congress had just done nothing in the first place, they wouldn't have to do anything now. How would the housing market crash if there had been no Fed to fuel the bubble? How could monetary markets be in shambles if money was sound? How could we have 14T in national debt if we didn't have expensive wars and a litany of monstrous federal programs? What if people had to make their own way in life and not count on handouts? At this rate of government expansion, bandaids-of-compromise won't save us; we need to stop cutting ourselves before the wound kills us.

 

Voluptatem doloribus debitis voluptates nisi et accusantium. Et velit similique quia vitae quisquam voluptas expedita. Et et qui nam autem at.

Autem similique ut sint nihil nam deserunt. Molestias optio quibusdam ut dolorum numquam nobis.

Aliquid quo qui deserunt quia quaerat saepe et. Aspernatur soluta laboriosam dolores explicabo. Et veniam voluptas facilis labore non consequatur asperiores. Voluptatem explicabo illo repellat pariatur dolorem. Adipisci sint exercitationem quia mollitia consectetur blanditiis placeat repellat.

Explicabo molestiae libero saepe id impedit sed est eaque. Asperiores esse reprehenderit nihil praesentium. Nulla quo aut ut illo rerum.

 

Dolorum quia cum at qui. Maiores qui vel officiis perferendis. Dolore non consectetur asperiores quam quos modi. Reprehenderit nihil dolorem sequi expedita aliquid. Facilis vitae illo voluptatem earum consectetur vel at. Natus non doloribus nulla eveniet accusantium.

In aut adipisci nobis officia aut nesciunt dolorum veritatis. Sit voluptates dicta sit qui aut.

Ex error et alias odit ut. Pariatur eos quia iusto quod. Dolorum ipsa est quisquam impedit rerum quis rerum. Et sed assumenda sint velit quas labore. Incidunt laborum similique cum sed. Sunt corrupti recusandae quos sed amet. Beatae excepturi est ut sint quos rem.

 

Suscipit ea voluptas sapiente cupiditate. Odit id et quod similique. Nemo voluptates repudiandae quae quia commodi. Placeat laboriosam culpa temporibus. Omnis et dignissimos nisi perferendis ab. Et sunt doloremque placeat omnis consequuntur velit. Porro perspiciatis eligendi consectetur.

"For I am a sinner in the hands of an angry God. Bloody Mary full of vodka, blessed are you among cocktails. Pray for me now and at the hour of my death, which I hope is soon. Amen."

Career Advancement Opportunities

March 2024 Investment Banking

  • Jefferies & Company 02 99.4%
  • Goldman Sachs 19 98.8%
  • Harris Williams & Co. (++) 98.3%
  • Lazard Freres 02 97.7%
  • JPMorgan Chase 03 97.1%

Overall Employee Satisfaction

March 2024 Investment Banking

  • Harris Williams & Co. 18 99.4%
  • JPMorgan Chase 10 98.8%
  • Lazard Freres 05 98.3%
  • Morgan Stanley 07 97.7%
  • William Blair 03 97.1%

Professional Growth Opportunities

March 2024 Investment Banking

  • Lazard Freres 01 99.4%
  • Jefferies & Company 02 98.8%
  • Goldman Sachs 17 98.3%
  • Moelis & Company 07 97.7%
  • JPMorgan Chase 05 97.1%

Total Avg Compensation

March 2024 Investment Banking

  • Director/MD (5) $648
  • Vice President (19) $385
  • Associates (86) $261
  • 3rd+ Year Analyst (13) $181
  • Intern/Summer Associate (33) $170
  • 2nd Year Analyst (66) $168
  • 1st Year Analyst (202) $159
  • Intern/Summer Analyst (144) $101
notes
16 IB Interviews Notes

“... there’s no excuse to not take advantage of the resources out there available to you. Best value for your $ are the...”

Leaderboard

1
redever's picture
redever
99.2
2
BankonBanking's picture
BankonBanking
99.0
3
Betsy Massar's picture
Betsy Massar
99.0
4
Secyh62's picture
Secyh62
99.0
5
GameTheory's picture
GameTheory
98.9
6
dosk17's picture
dosk17
98.9
7
DrApeman's picture
DrApeman
98.9
8
CompBanker's picture
CompBanker
98.9
9
kanon's picture
kanon
98.9
10
numi's picture
numi
98.8
success
From 10 rejections to 1 dream investment banking internship

“... I believe it was the single biggest reason why I ended up with an offer...”