What's new
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

Obama XXIV: Forward ... pause ... rewind ... play

Re: Obama XXIV: Forward ... pause ... rewind ... play

What an idiot Mittens is. Country Club, born on 3rd base and thought he hit a triple Republican. Yikes. Hey Mitt, don't you realize all those freeloading old people drawing Social Security like the mooches that they are most likely are Republicans? How about disabled people? I mean, can this guy's campaign get any worse? Total A-hole. David Brooks sums it up well as "Thurston Howell Romney":

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/18/opinion/brooks-thurston-howell-romney.html?_r=1
 
Last edited:
Re: Obama XXIV: Forward ... pause ... rewind ... play

You're right, of course. But it's also telling that various "tax credits" are now widely considered to be "government social programs." What it means is that the government controlling your paycheck is now the natural state of things, and that whatever you get back from it after taxes is simply a favor to you by their benevolence. Silly!
I looked askance at the list myself when I saw "Mortgage Home Interest Deduction" near the top. The government keeping its grubby paws off of a particular portion of my income is not a social program! Upon closer inspection, though, I do agree that most of those are social programs. The others are certainly attempts at "Social Engineering" by the government, but do not rise to the definition of a social program in my mind.
 
Re: Obama XXIV: Forward ... pause ... rewind ... play

I don't think there's any chance it hurts his (nonexistent) chances of being elected. But, it could help him gain a few more states. A dose of honesty does him some good among the same crowd that agrees 100% with what he's saying and weren't going to vote for him because he wouldn't (previously) come out and say it. I know these people (or "bitter clingers", if you prefer). They were hoping he would show this kind of "straight talk" at some point before the election.

So it will do Romney more good than harm, but obviously not enough to affect Obama's reelection.

A dose of honesty? Nothing has been more lacking in Mitt's campaign than honesty and the comments caught on video are more of the same. The heaviest concentrations of low tax payers are red states.
http://s822.photobucket.com/albums/zz148/telfish/?action=view&current=nonpayersbannertaxfound.jpg

Romney doesn't need no stinkin' facts. He just panders over and over again.
 
Re: Obama XXIV: Forward ... pause ... rewind ... play

I looked askance at the list myself when I saw "Mortgage Home Interest Deduction" near the top. The government keeping its grubby paws off of a particular portion of my income is not a social program! Upon closer inspection, though, I do agree that most of those are social programs. The others are certainly attempts at "Social Engineering" by the government, but do not rise to the definition of a social program in my mind.

Its the Bill Bennett "Everything is vice except for the things I like to do" (gambling in his case) effect. All govt payments are handouts to shiftless people except the ones I get dammit!!! NPR had a great interview with some farmer spouting the anti-govt line until they asked him if he was getting farm aid. "Uhhhh...yeah, but that's not very much of my income" was his brilliant response.

Where this is going to kill Mittens is 1) it reinforces the stereotype of an out of touch millionaire with no clue what regular people are going through and 2) its p ! sses off old people, the core of the GOP voters, by telling them all the SoS that they worked for their entire lives now qualifies them as moochers. I know old people and they don't take slights very easily. Can't wait until the next time the Mittwit campaigns as a senior center in Florida. He better be wearing shin guards to protect against all the canes they'll be swinging at him.
 
Re: Obama XXIV: Forward ... pause ... rewind ... play

Its the Bill Bennett "Everything is vice except for the things I like to do" (gambling in his case) effect. All govt payments are handouts to shiftless people except the ones I get dammit!!!
So if you're in favor of social programs, and tax reductions are social programs....then, logically.....

A WITCH!!!!!!!!!!
 
Re: Obama XXIV: Forward ... pause ... rewind ... play

Where this is going to kill Mittens is 1) it reinforces the stereotype of an out of touch millionaire with no clue what regular people are going through and 2) its p ! sses off old people, the core of the GOP voters, by telling them all the SoS that they worked for their entire lives now qualifies them as moochers. I know old people and they don't take slights very easily. Can't wait until the next time the Mittwit campaigns as a senior center in Florida. He better be wearing shin guards to protect against all the canes they'll be swinging at him.

You know it I was thinking that it would be interesting to hear Romney's thoughts on a breakdown. Whether the groups are heavily reliant on govt services or not, it would encompass many seniors, many students, many women and many Hispanics. This more specific targeting of the 47% would be a direct blow of the constiuancies he's trying hardest to attract.

I looked askance at the list myself when I saw "Mortgage Home Interest Deduction" near the top. The government keeping its grubby paws off of a particular portion of my income is not a social program! Upon closer inspection, though, I do agree that most of those are social programs. The others are certainly attempts at "Social Engineering" by the government, but do not rise to the definition of a social program in my mind.

The list is largely bad by inclusion of tax breaks, which makes it unusable IMO. But I have little doubt that the point is still valid.

You clear the tax breaks out of the list...and sum those taking advantage of some other service and you'd have a large majority of those claiming they use no govt services still using govt services anyways. Frankly the inclusion of both social security for seniors and student loans for 20/30somethings would encompass two entirely different groups pretty much guarenteeing that it will cover a vast majority of the populous.
 
Last edited:
Re: Obama XXIV: Forward ... pause ... rewind ... play

SNL was impressively prophetic about Obama's secret weapon: Mitt's mouth.

The October surprise is letting Romney speak. :)

This is what happens when a party's discourse is conducted completely within its own bubble among a small set of true believers. When they come out of their basement and try to mimic human behavior, they come across as at best insincere and more likely completely bonkers.

The Dems had the disease in the 80's, and the GOP does now.
 
Last edited:
Re: Obama XXIV: Forward ... pause ... rewind ... play

Major,

The breakdown from NY Magazine:

Who, Exactly, Are the 47 Percent?
• By Kevin Roose

This has nothing to do with tax policy, it's just a hilarious photo.
The politisphere is blowing up this afternoon following the publication of a devastating series of clips from a private Mitt Romney campaign fund-raiser in which the GOP nominee makes a Marie Antoinette-esque statement about the 47 percent of Americans who, according to him, "pay no income tax."
"My job is not to worry about those people," Romney said. "I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives."
Setting aside the political implications of implying that roughly half of America is negligent and lazy, Romney's almost right about the first bit. According to the Tax Policy Center, 46.4 percent of American households paid no federal income tax in 2011. So, although it's been covered again andagain, since Romney's "47 percent" remark is likely to become a late-campaign meme, it's worth asking yet again: Who are these people paying no taxes?
Well, for starters, it's not accurate to say that 47 percent of Americans pay no taxes at all. Most people pay state taxes, local taxes, and property taxes. Almost all pay sales tax, and most pay payroll. According to the TPC, only 18.1 percent of American households paid zero or negative federal income taxand zero or negative federal payroll tax in 2011.
But back to the 47 percent. There are two primary ways to pay no (or negative) federal income taxes. The first is to be poor, and the second is to be elderly. In 2011, of the 18.1 percent of American households who paid no federal tax (meaning, no federal income or payroll tax), more than half were elderly, and most of the other half were non-elderly people making below $20,000 a year. The other sliver, roughly one in twenty non-payers, were people who made more than $20,000 in household income.
The reason being poor helps is because, with a combination of tax credits (like the earned income credit and the child credit) and deductions, many people earning under $20,000 a year can zero out their overall rate. The primary reason being elderly helps is that Social Security benefits aren't taxed as income, so if all (or most) of your income comes from your monthly Social Security check, your taxable income is marginal or nonexistent.
There, are, of course, some exceptions to the old-or-poor rule. As Bruce Bartlett noted last year, roughly 12 million households making over $33,542 in 2011 paid no federal income tax. And there are an untold number of illegal tax evaders who haven't paid a dime either. (Like Wesley Snipes!)
But the most egregious members of the 47 percent are the 3,000 people who made more than $2,178,866 in 2011 (putting them in the top 0.1 percent of taxpayers), and yet paid no federal income taxes.
Those people are likely hedge fund managers, real estate investors, or other wealthy financiers whose income comes primarily in the form of capital gains, which is taxed at a much lower rate than ordinary income. Combine the capital gains rate with a magical thing called a "tax-loss carryforward," which allows an investor to use last year's big loss to offset this year's gains for tax purposes, and voila — no federal income tax.
The Tax Foundation mapped the non-payers of federal income tax in 2008 by state, and found that the leading states for zero or negative income tax liabilities also tended to be Republican strongholds. In Mississippi, for example, a full 45 percent of households paid zero or negative federal income tax. In Texas, it's 39 percent.
So the moral of the story is: If you want your federal income taxes to be zero, be broke in Biloxi, elderly in Alabama, or a hedge fund manager in Miami.
 
Re: Obama XXIV: Forward ... pause ... rewind ... play

I thought we already covered populous/populace a couple weeks ago.

Populous-the-beginning.png
 
Re: Obama XXIV: Forward ... pause ... rewind ... play

Here is the map from the article you cited:

nonpayers.banner.taxfound.jpg

Absolutely devastating.

I don't get Mittens. At least the Paul Ryan Generational Warfare budget had the hope of drawing more oldies who were getting the benefits to come out and vote GOP. Now he's telling those people they're all freeloaders if they're not rich. Ooookaaayyyy.
 
Re: Obama XXIV: Forward ... pause ... rewind ... play

The remarkable thing is that Romney will still draw about half his support from the very people he's demonized. Keep the government out of my Medicare.
 
Re: Obama XXIV: Forward ... pause ... rewind ... play

Shocking that all the freeloaders vote GOP.


The Tax Foundation mapped the non-payers of federal income tax in 2008 by state, and found that the leading states for zero or negative income tax liabilities also tended to be Republican strongholds. In Mississippi, for example, a full 45 percent of households paid zero or negative federal income tax. In Texas, it's 39 percent.

So the moral of the story is: If you want your federal income taxes to be zero, be broke in Biloxi, elderly in Alabama, or a hedge fund manager in Miami.
 
Last edited:
Re: Obama XXIV: Forward ... pause ... rewind ... play

Shocking that all the freeloaders vote GOP.

The Tax Foundation mapped the non-payers of federal income tax in 2008 by state, and found that the leading states for zero or negative income tax liabilities also tended to be Republican strongholds. In Mississippi, for example, a full 45 percent of households paid zero or negative federal income tax. In Texas, it's 39 percent.

that doesn't seem to make sense. If the national average is 47%, why are there fewer, comparatively, in Mississippi and Texas? They would seem to be more reliant on gov't services, not less than average. :confused:
Or is it that they don't pay income taxes because of poverty, but also don't accept food stamps etc. as much as the northern states? I don't get it.
 
Re: Obama XXIV: Forward ... pause ... rewind ... play

that doesn't seem to make sense. If the national average is 47%, why are there fewer, comparatively, in Mississippi and Texas? They would seem to be more reliant on gov't services, not less than average. :confused:
Or is it that they don't pay income taxes because of poverty, but also don't accept food stamps etc. as much as the northern states? I don't get it.

Let's not deconstruct those figures too much. After all, lots of, uh, minorities in Texas and Mississippi.

Old Pio Annecdote Alert: While on an assignment to the Mississippi state capital in Jackson, I had occasion to use the men's room. The governor at the time was Cliff Finch. And on the wall of my stall it said: "If you voted for Cliff Finch you can't sh*t here, your a*shole is on the 4th floor." Still funny.
 
Re: Obama XXIV: Forward ... pause ... rewind ... play

that doesn't seem to make sense. If the national average is 47%, why are there fewer, comparatively, in Mississippi and Texas? They would seem to be more reliant on gov't services, not less than average. :confused:
Or is it that they don't pay income taxes because of poverty, but also don't accept food stamps etc. as much as the northern states? I don't get it.

The chart and the 47% can't be apples to apples. Otherwise half the states (roughly) would be over 47%.

The chart says "filers." Maybe that's the difference.
 
Back
Top