Mitt Romney is right; the poor are doing just fine

Originally posted by Drew99GT

Originally posted by intrepid
reply to post by Drew99GT

 

Did you read all of the article that you quoted as stating this is "liberal propaganda"? Here, I'll help you out with that:

In other words, the top 1% share of income grew nearly five times faster than their share of taxes.

*snip*

But it does mean that when pundits and politicians talk about the rich paying “a big chunk,” they should be clear that it’s because the rich earn “an even bigger chunk.”

OK, you got me on that, but this notion that the rich don't pay any taxes is false.

1) its not about the rich not paying taxes, its about all the loopholes that the rich use to lower how much taxes they actually pay
2) corperations raise the cost of goods to offset the taxes they pay, so in the end, the consumer is paying extra for goods
3) some corperations paid nothing in taxes
4) if the billions of dollars that was given to corperations in the past decade was instead given to the American people, they would have bought cars, bought homes, paid bills. The problem there is that the financial sector makes money off of interest and credit. If everyone paid their debts in full, it would have crashed the banking cartel.
5) the number 1 recipiant of bailout money was the banking sector. Of all the people that should be able to manage their finances, shouldn't the BANKS be on top of things???

– Seventy-eight of the 280 companies paid zero or less in federal income taxes in at least one year from 2008 to 2010…In the years they paid no income tax, these companies earned $156 billion in pretax U.S. profits. But instead of paying $55 billion in income taxes as the 35 percent corporate tax rate seems to require, these companies generated so many excess tax breaks that they reported negative taxes (often receiving outright tax rebate checks from the U.S. Treasury), totaling $21.8 billion. These companies’ “negative tax rates” mean that they made more after taxes than before taxes in those no-tax years.
– Thirty corporations paid less than nothing in aggregate federal income taxes over the entire 2008-10 period. These companies, whose pretax U.S. profits totaled $160 billion over the three years, included: Pepco Holdings (–57.6% tax rate), General Electric (–45.3%), DuPont (–3.4%), Verizon (–2.9%), Boeing (–1.8%), Wells Fargo (–1.4%) and Honeywell (–0.7%).

thinkprogress.org...

Originally posted by kaylaluv
Well, I didn't know this thread was about Obama, but... Obama is the one who wants to increase tax on the wealthy while decreasing tax on everyone else. I don't see any republicans wanting to do that.

I can think of one Republican that wants to lower the Federal Income Tax to 0%

Don't see any other politician from either party wanting to do that...

Presidential Candidate Mitt Romney has recently come under fire from the left by saying, "I am not concerned about the poor." Let's analyze that statement for a minute. First off, he knows as does Gingrich that Obama has created millions of safety nets for the poor and that they are dependent on gov't programs that will cater to them for their entire lives.

It seems the poor are doing fine! Yet continue to ask for more government hand-outs.


Furthermore, his comment needs to be taken in Context with what he said, " I'm not concerned about the very poor. They're doing just fine. I’m not concerned about the very rich, they’re doing just fine. I’m concerned about the very heart of America, the 90 percent, 95 percent of Americans who right now are struggling, and I’ll continue to take that message across the nation.”


Oh but any attack against Obama needs to be seen in context. Come on people!

Originally posted by kalisdad

2) corperations raise the cost of goods to offset the taxes they pay, so in the end, the consumer is paying extra for goods
3) some corperations paid nothing in taxes

You just made a great point....but I'm not sure it's the point you meant to make.

I've seen, time and time again, people who are furious that some corporations pay nothing in taxes (your point #3). But when you look at your own point #2, you realize that taxing corporations is REALLY taxing the consumer. So you just supported the idea that we should stop taxing corporations.

4) if the billions of dollars that was given to corperations in the past decade was instead given to the American people, they would have bought cars, bought homes, paid bills. The problem there is that the financial sector makes money off of interest and credit. If everyone paid their debts in full, it would have crashed the banking cartel.

edit on 2-2-2012 by kalisdad because: (no reason given)

I would argue that the government should get *out* of the business of *giving* money to anyone. I agree with you...I don't think money should be given to corporations, but I also don't think we should be giving it out to people.

How about tax us less? Let us keep more of what we earn? That would have the same net effect, only in that case the government isn't picking winners and losers and there is an actual incentive to earn more money.

I'm disappointed at this poll.
It doesn't even mention what perctage of po' folk and OWS protesters actually own an iPhone.

Originally posted by anon72
Yes, they are doing just fine... the ones who know how to "maximize" the benifits.

Not to mention all the days of not having to work. Just sitting around trying to figure out lifes purposes gets you a paycheck in America.....

Doing no job day after day after day..... You either do something about it or you become a victim of it..meaning the free loader life... which of course is the Democratic plan and has been since 1947 (ish).

MORE FOX-NEWS/LIMBAUGH HOKUM

Even after a lifetime of listening to so many American's yammer on endlessly about classes, as if the United States proudly embraces its own caste system, I still cannot help but be astounded by it. Long gone is the praise and reverence for rugged individualism replaced by this strange collectivist ideology of class warfare.

The so called "middle class" has so much ambiguity to its meaning these days it is nothing more than empty rhetoric. It is worth noting, however, that clarity has been offered as to what would fairly constitute - if one must insist on having classes - "the middle class":

The modern sociological usage of the term "middle class", however, dates to the 1911 UK Registrar-General's report, in which the statistician T.H.C. Stevenson identified the middle class as that falling between the upper class and the working class. Included as belonging to the middle class are professionals, managers, and senior civil servants. The chief defining characteristic of membership in the middle class is possession of significant human capital.

Professionals, such as doctors, lawyers, architects, carpenters, and contractors, once largely defined what the middle class was. They, along with managers and senior civil servants are what constituted the "middle class". Managers and senior civil servants are employees. Outside of that scope of employees, all other employes were considered to be of a "lower class" and here is the point I am getting at; it strikes me as wholly antithetical to that long suppressed American Dream for any individual to concern themselves with classes and class warfare. If there is a "middle class" then by extension there are "upper classes" and "lower classes".

Given that under the United States Constitutional principles of the rule of law that everyone is equal under that law, there are no classes, simply People. Further, I staunchly believe that it is each and every individuals right to flourish and prosper. Aspiring to "middle class" status is to put a ceiling on what it means to flourish and prosper. There need be no ceiling placed upon any individual and all have the right to flourish according to their needs and to prosper.

He claims that the poor have a safety net and that's why he isn't concerned about them, the problem is that he also wants to dismantle that safety net. He seems to think we're all morons and don't see right through his BS.

Originally posted by Kali74
He claims that the poor have a safety net and that's why he isn't concerned about them, the problem is that he also wants to dismantle that safety net. He seems to think we're all morons and don't see right through his BS.

I think the number of people classified as poor is 15%.

If those 15% were to tell Mitt how they felt on Election Day, he might get the message.

If you want to be poor, this is the country for you.

Where else on earth do you see so many fat poor people?

What other country provides so much welfare for so many?

Food stamps, vouchers for housing, day care for your kids. Everything is provided.

It's not like you're living in the Ritz, but it's free.

Originally posted by Wildbob77
If you want to be poor, this is the country for you.

Where else on earth do you see so many fat poor people?

Or so many skinny rich people. Cheap food=fatty; expensive food = healthy

What other country provides so much welfare for so many?

Many. Try doing some research.

Food stamps, vouchers for housing, day care for your kids. Everything is provided.

It's not like you're living in the Ritz, but it's free.

So close to utopia...too close to turn and go the other direction... *sarcasm*

Your contempt for the poor is shameful...assuming your above description is how you view the poor.

Originally posted by Wildbob77
What other country provides so much welfare for so many?

Most non-third world nations provide more. Most of Europe consider themselves to be democratic socialist.

the poor around here are happy and have few problem. a lot of them are dependent on the govt though. the middle class on the other hand isn't and then on top of that has all kind of goods pushed on them and standards such as a big house and a fancy car and the banks encourage it, telling them they can afford it when they really can't.

Ole Mitt is an idiot

But he must been talking about me...
Im poor as hell..

But im smart enough it make it

My father and I grow our own food and provide 60% of our substance through out the year...

I barely have a dime for anything...

Matter fact I saved for 3 months to buy a 20 dollar pair of boots...

But im happy as hell

And i live and breathe just fine this way...

... But i know plenty poor folk who arent "fine"

Come to my home town... Welcome to hell
3rd poorest County in America...
I even authored a thread bout it...

Originally posted by GeorgiaGirl

Originally posted by kalisdad

2) corperations raise the cost of goods to offset the taxes they pay, so in the end, the consumer is paying extra for goods
3) some corperations paid nothing in taxes

You just made a great point....but I'm not sure it's the point you meant to make.

I've seen, time and time again, people who are furious that some corporations pay nothing in taxes (your point #3). But when you look at your own point #2, you realize that taxing corporations is REALLY taxing the consumer. So you just supported the idea that we should stop taxing corporations.

4) if the billions of dollars that was given to corperations in the past decade was instead given to the American people, they would have bought cars, bought homes, paid bills. The problem there is that the financial sector makes money off of interest and credit. If everyone paid their debts in full, it would have crashed the banking cartel.

edit on 2-2-2012 by kalisdad because: (no reason given)

I would argue that the government should get *out* of the business of *giving* money to anyone. I agree with you...I don't think money should be given to corporations, but I also don't think we should be giving it out to people.

How about tax us less? Let us keep more of what we earn? That would have the same net effect, only in that case the government isn't picking winners and losers and there is an actual incentive to earn more money.

I absolutely think that the government should stop taxing people, including the corperations that are considered people by the US Federal government...

by lowering these taxes, people would have more of their earned income to support whatever lifestyle they choose, and the corperations could lower the costs of good so that the consumer could afford to by more things

a flat sales tax is a much better source of revenue as it would effect both the manufacturers as well and the consumer(although the corperations would still tack their sales tax expenses onto the retail price an ultimately making the consumer pay the sales tax for them)

I'm poor and I have all this.

74 percent of the poor own a car or truck, 70 percent have a VCR, 64 percent have a DVD, 50 percent have a computer

Because I got them BEFORE I WAS POOR.

70 percent have a VCR?? Really? A VCR?

Why would anybody have a VCR?

You know it's become quite a worrysome observation that year after year, month after month, day after day, ATS members are giving attention, even the slightest bit, to these raving lunatics that call themselves "representatives".

It makes me feel like we'll never get to Type 1 because the majority of the people is still swayed by men in talking suits.

Not to mention it opens the doors for the supporters of these lunatics here. I mean, they already have the MSM...so why give them this place as well?

Oh the poor...One was only riding ones horse through the village, when I came across one of those poor...My, they have changed. It was not long ago that the poor would doff their cap to me as I rode past. They seem to have lost all respect for themselves and for others, Got a little uppity, one thinks. There was a time when they knew their place. What is one to do about those poor?

ya, the "poor" as the gov't defines are doing okay....
but the gov't defination of "poor" really should be updated!!!

and well, even if all the "poor" were doing fine, he really should be concerned a bit about it, since the funds that they are living on are being funneled from the taxpayer, to the gov't agencies, to the "poor"..

and well, got to say, since many of these "poor" do work full time jobs, or at least did till the economy blew up....
well, you tell me, which would be cheaper for the businesses (if they paid their fair share of the taxes to start with)..
just give your employee enough $$$ to live on...
or.....pitch in and help pay for a few thousand or more people to process a ton of claims and distribute checks to their employees????

we should be concerned enough for the "poor" to at least to strike a balance between wage and cost of living, so that we can decrease the size of gov't and lay off some of those thousand or more people working at the various agencies distibuting the funds to the "poor" that they should have earned in thier full time jobs!!!