Advertisement

Archive for Thursday, September 20, 2012

Editorial: Uncomfortable fact

September 20, 2012

Advertisement

Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney is catching all kinds of fire and condemnation for statements he made at a private fundraising gathering last May in Florida.

In it, he noted that about 47 percent of Americans “are dependent upon government” and “believe that they are victims.”

He said, “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 and to you name it, that that’s an entitlement and the government should give it to them. And they vote for the president no matter what.”

The facts are correct. There are millions, 47 percent, who pay no income tax, and a record number of Americans who receive food stamps.

Obama and his spokespeople are again using the “fear factor” and telling voters if they vote for Romney, they will lose all their federal assistance. In addition to Obama and his aides, the major media also are engaged in what they can do to paint Romney in a negative manner.

It is good for Romney to acknowledge the battle he faces in trying to get voters to know and accept the fact that 47 percent of Americans pay no income tax. Perhaps he now wishes he had said this in a different manner, but it was important to deliver that sober message.

However, this does not mean that if he were to be elected, he would cut this aid, only that he is fighting an uphill battle in getting many of the 47 percent to vote for him because of the fear Obama has instilled in them. Perhaps the best chance for a high percentage of those in the 47 percent to improve their earning power would be for Romney to be elected and the nation’s economic situation to improve.

Romney didn’t say anything that wasn’t true, but in a hot, tightly contested election for the presidency, it often is dangerous to tell the truth, whether it be about the danger of the national debt, the unemployed, the under-employed, the drop in median household income, the number of people receiving food stamps, our stature abroad, the fact that new business startups are at the lowest level in 30 years and many other ugly and dangerous indicators.

Comments

George Lippencott 1 year, 7 months ago

Just a minor clarification to the very misleading chart above

The chart is in tax units not money. The senior benefit is only available to those who take a standard deduction – mostly those with no income but Social Security – maybe somewhere between 10 and 20 K – truly in the poor range. Lots of them but with little tax gain as they pay very little to begin with.

The EIC – a credit - is used by families with children with incomes as much as $50K to essentially reduce their federal income tax burden to zero. Exactly why should an elective decision to have children lead to no taxes for a family making over $4K per month?

Subsidizing children while demanding sacrifice to address climate change is simple pandering. Fewer people is less - much less - carbon

What started out as a good idea has become a major boondoggle exempting almost 30 million people who are not poor from any burden to support the operation of the federal government – and oh by the way vote their own pocketbook – for those who push that benefit.

We can return to the original intent of the EIC on budget through benefits payments to those deserving for less cost and without placing the tax burden on half the population (the upper half of the middle class)

The rest of the above is almost criminal and should have been terminated long ago. But then exactly where did all the tax preference come from - the Congress - with both parties very willing participants.

0

jafs 1 year, 7 months ago

Romney's statement, again, is a conflation of 3 different groups - likely Obama voters, those who pay no federal income taxes, and those who receive assistance from the federal government. The 3 groups are for the most part distinct, with a little overlap.

Most likely Obama voters are well educated, and well off (middle class) working folks, so his conclusion is completely unwarranted.

He also ascribes a certain mindset of entitlement to almost half the country, without any particular evidence of that.

So, his statement is factually incorrect, and ascribes motivations and mindsets without any evidence. Unfortunately, this sort of thing is rather popular these days, and gets a lot of traction with a lot of people.

And, of course, by saying it's "not my job to worry about those people", he's showing his clear lack of interest in representing them as president, which means he'd be the president of little more than half the country if elected.

0

tange 1 year, 7 months ago

ok, now that we had that little moment, I just had to pull this out, as I find it absolutely mystifying.


tange: The properly attributed uncomfortable fact is that the Republican Presidential candidate has openly expressed contempt for half of Americans, perpetuating bigoted falsehoods in the process.

Moderate: I don't think so....

tange: Romney's words:
The 47% "...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...."
Certainly no falsehood or contempt in that, eh, Moderate?

Moderate: No just a gross oversimplification....

tange: [reditterate]

Moderate: In your opinion not mine....


What is the mechanism which prevents the characterization of a broad class of Americans—HALF—as being victim-mentality moochers from being interpreted as anything other than contempt? I suppose it's no wonder Kansas has earned the slogan...

In black and white

In black and white by tange

0

George Lippencott 1 year, 7 months ago

Well in my youth there were vacuum tube computers at the college computer center. Our first "home" computer (Apple II) came in our thirties.

Remember, that was back when the student or their parents paid most of the cost of college.

.

0

George Lippencott 1 year, 7 months ago

You know Tange, you are creative but tho e pictures eat up bit rate.

0

Achmed_McGillicutty 1 year, 7 months ago

  1. Record welfare
  2. Record debt
  3. Unprecedented credit downgrade
  4. Sustained 8 % (+) unemployment
  5. Worst housing market since the 50's
  6. Middle east on fire
  7. Corrupt Attorney General
  8. Bogus "green" adventures costing us millions
  9. Failed stimulus
  10. Healthcare folly rammed down our throats, behind closed doors in the middle of night.

Yeah, I can see why the committed Obamamania media would ruminate on every little things that comes out of Romney's mouth, as true as it may be.

Let this disaster be over in 45 days.

0

George Lippencott 1 year, 7 months ago

Only about 12.5% are poor. What are the rest doing paying no taxes??

0

tange 1 year, 7 months ago

The properly attributed uncomfortable fact is that the Republican Presidential candidate has openly expressed contempt for half of Americans, perpetuating bigoted falsehoods in the process.

/ and "bigoted as you think" KANSAS likely still will cast its votes red-handed

2

George Lippencott 1 year, 7 months ago

M errill.

What is note worthy about a Democrat supporting Democrats. It is the democrats that want to double the tax on the upper half of the middle class in order to expand the goodies for those who vote democratic.

Wayne Maxwell Swan (born 30 June 1954) is the Deputy Prime Minister of Australia. He has been an Australian Labor Party member (read Democrat) of the Australian House of Representatives from 1993 to 1996 and since 1998, representing the Division of Liley, Queensland.

0

Richard Heckler 1 year, 7 months ago

The Australian treasurer, Wayne Swan, in an unusually blunt criticism of US politics weeks before the presidential election, said "cranks and crazies" had taken over the Republicans and posed the biggest threat to the world's largest economy.

Swan, one of few world leaders able to boast his country had avoided recession during the global financial crisis, also labelled the Tea Party wing of the Republicans as "extreme".

"Let's be blunt and acknowledge the biggest threat to the world's biggest economy are the cranks and crazies that have taken over the Republican party," Swan said in a speech to a conference in Sydney.

The Republican party's position on the US budget had led a year ago to the deadlock in negotiations, Swan said, to prevent the looming "fiscal cliff" – nearly $600bn in planned spending cuts and tax hikes that will bite early next year.

Congress had been debating whether to increase the US borrowing ceiling but the Republicans would not budge.

"Despite President Obama's goodwill and strong efforts, the national interest was held hostage by the rise of the extreme Tea Party wing of the Republican party," he said.

Australian politicians rarely launch such blunt criticism of their counterparts in the US, a key strategic ally.

Swan, named by banking magazine Euromoney as its finance minister of the year in 2011 and treasurer of a centre-left government, also called on the US Congress to resolve an agreement on the budget to support growth in the short term.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/sep/21/wayne-swan-republicans-cranks-crazies

0

George Lippencott 1 year, 7 months ago

Half of us do not contribute to the operation of the federal government. Of that about half are considered poor. Of that about half turnover while the rest remain on government assistance. Are all of those remaining on government assistance (12.5% (35 million)) unable to work? Katara this data came from you. I suspect this group is the set drawing Mr. Romney’s comment.

Of the half not poor – incomes above about $25K - why are they exempt from paying for the government many demand? The tax rate at that point is 10% and with normal deductions that effective tax would be a few percent.

Why are the people making $60K to $120K paying the vast majority of the costs of operating the government? They are not rich. For the most part they receive only the same services everyone else receives. If we can take as much as 30% ($30000) of their income, it would seem only proper that we take 5% (an average of $1500) from the set making between $25K and $60K.

By the by that would suggest that with that level of progressivity we take 55% from those making over $500K and so on.

0

empty_chair66052 1 year, 7 months ago

Leadership from the chair in the oval office is mostly vacant.

0

Alyosha 1 year, 7 months ago

If this is what passes for thinking in the editorial offices of the LJW, God help them as they try to maintain their business.

2

Kate Rogge 1 year, 7 months ago

I noticed several Lawrence Democrats have posted on the New York Times' article about the end of moderate Kansas Republicans:

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/19/the-end-of-a-kansas-tradition-moderation/

Nice to show the flag and remind ourselves, and the rest of the country, that Kansas also has Democrat voters. At least until Kobach figures out how to disenfranchise us all...

2

Richard Heckler 1 year, 7 months ago

Some of the workers have been employed at this site for 33 years.

"Welcome to Bainport, a taste of the Romney economy." That’s the message on one of the banners that greets you at the tent city where we broadcast from in Freeport, Illinois.

"Bainport" is an encampment set up by workers who face losing their livelihoods when their workplace closes its doors in November and moves to China, taking 170 jobs with it.

The workers’ plant, Sensata Technologies, is owned by Bain Capital, the firm co-founded by Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney. Democracy Now! first spoke to the Sensata workers when we met them at the Republican National Convention in Tampa, Florida, where they unsuccessfully tried to meet with Romney.

Now, they have returned to Freeport and set up a protest camp in a bid to save their jobs. We speak to "Bainport" workers Dot Turner and Cheryl Randecker.

http://www.democracynow.org/2012/9/20/bainport_a_taste_of_the_romney

1

Richard Heckler 1 year, 7 months ago

We broadcast from just outside a Freeport, Illinois, factory owned by Bain Capital, the private equity firm co-founded by Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney. Workers at Sensata Technologies have set up an encampment called "Bainport" across the street from the facility to protest the company’s plan to close the plant and move it to China, taking 170 jobs with it. The workers have been trying to get Romney to save their jobs.

We’re joined by two Sensata workers — Mark Schreck and Tom Gaulrapp — and Freeport Mayor George Gaulrapp, who has supported the encampment and fended off calls for it to be shut down.

http://www.democracynow.org/2012/9/20/bainport_live_from_illinois_plant_where

1

Richard Heckler 1 year, 7 months ago

Mother Jones Reporter David Corn on Revealing the Secret Romney Video That’s Upended the 2012 Campaign.

Mother Jones reporter David Corn joins us to discuss how he released the now notorious video of Mitt Romney telling a crowd of wealthy donors in Florida that he does not worry about the 47 percent of Americans who are "dependent" on government and see themselves as "victims." Romney’s comments have divided Republicans, with some saying he should stand by his statements and others suggesting he should renounce them.

http://www.democracynow.org/2012/9/20/mother_jones_reporter_david_corn_on

0

Richard Heckler 1 year, 7 months ago

Conservatives such as Brownback and Romney are big spenders while handing out tax breaks at the same time. Romney and Brownback are reckless conservatives NOT fiscal conservatives.

Conservatives such as Brownback and Romney love big government in spite of the nonsense rhetoric coming from conservatives.

Neither true republicans nor democrats can afford the Brownback/Koch/Romney conservative in any capacity. These thinkers are a threat to job security,wages and residential property values. Easy to document.

This ENTITLEMENT - Bailing out The Reagan/Bush Savings and Loan Heist aka home loan scandal sent the economy out the window costing taxpayers many many $$ trillions (Cost taxpayers $1.4 trillion), Plus millions of jobs, loss of retirement plans and loss of medical insurance. http://rationalrevolution0.tripod.com/war/bush_family_and_the_s.htm

This ENTITLEMENT Bailing out the Bush/Cheney Home Loan Wall Street Bank Fraud cost consumers $ trillions, millions of jobs, loss of retirement plans and loss of medical insurance. Exactly like the Reagan/Bush home loan scam. Déjà vu can we say. Yep seems to be a pattern. http://www.dollarsandsense.org/archives/2009/0709macewan.html

This ENTITLEMENT - Bush/Cheney implied many financial institutions were at risk instead of only 3? One of the biggest lies perpetrated to American citizens. Where did this money go? Why were some banks forced to take bail out money? http://www.democracynow.org/2009/9/10/good_billions_after_bad_one_year

RECKLESS Tax cuts = THE ENTITLEMENT program for the wealthy which does nothing to make an economy strong or produce jobs. Tax cuts are a tax increase to others in order to make up the loss in revenue = duped again. Bush Tax Cuts aka THE ENTITLEMENT program for the wealthy at the expense of the middle class = duped one more time. http://www.dollarsandsense.org/archives/2001/0301miller.html

0

Richard Heckler 1 year, 7 months ago

Dwight Eisenhower was last Republican President to preside over a balanced budget. He had a balanced budget in 1956 and 1957. Since then, there have been two presidents to preside over balanced budgets, LBJ in 1969 and Clinton in 1998 through 2001. During the last 40 years there have been five budget surpluses, all five were under Democratic Presidents: 1969, 1998, 1999, 2000, and 2001.

Of course Pres Obama has increased the debt. Every president has increased the debt. Then again Obama inherited a destroyed economy which is going to require more debt to bring it back to life. Using borrowed money to create jobs is smart.

To clarify, congress authorizes the budget. Between 1955 and 1981 Democrats held majorities in both chambers of Congress. From 1981 - 1987 republicans controlled the Senate, while Democrats held onto the House and then regained the Senate while holding controlling the House as well from 1987 -1995.

So the question is misleading in that the president alone cannot balance a budget. Congress has authority over financial and budgetary matters.

One point that is often misunderstood is that the budget for a President's first year in office is set by the prior President. Thus the balanced budget of 1969 was due to LBJ's budget even though Nixon was president for most of the year.

Eisenhower actually also balanced it in 1960. Before him there were three years after WWII b/c the war spending had stopped but the taxes and war controls were still in place. Before that it was Hoover in 1930 and before that it was Coolidge 1924-1929 (last president to balance it every year) and Harding 1921-1923.

Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Which_republican_president_balanced_a_budget#ixzz26ZnxrBpJ

1

bad_dog 1 year, 7 months ago

On a related note, I'm sure all will be pleased to know the Topeka Capital Journal is reporting Orly Taitz filed suit seeking to have Obama removed from the ballot in Kansas.

0

Trumbull 1 year, 7 months ago

Romney was not be candidly truthful, aside from the 47% figure. If he really were, he might have said something like this:

"47% of Americans do not pay Federal Income taxes. Many of those who do not pay income taxes are those who are retired, children, and people who are amongst the working poor who do not earn enough. There are also those who take child deductions and exemptions, home mortgage deduction, earned income credit, and other tax loopholes designed to help the middle class. And also there are some people who have fallen on hard times, are handicapped or disabled, then there are some who are unemployed and looking for a job, there are active military members, and last but not least there are a minority who take advantage of the system."

3

Dispersant 1 year, 7 months ago

All this back and forth is so tiresome. "You suck!" "No, YOU suck!" The fact of the matter is the government will always be in the hole. That's how the system's set up. The central banks lend the money to the government and we have to pay it back at a price. Good job, though, playing along. It's funny how quickly things change. Remember Dick "deficits don't matter" Cheney?

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal/2011_09/remember_deficits_dont_matter032197.php

0

bevy 1 year, 7 months ago

Best part of this seemingly interminable election cycle? Observing all the ways the Mittster finds to shoot himself in the foot. It would be sad if it wasn't so funny.

1

George Lippencott 1 year, 7 months ago

Wow, Dolph knows how to get hits.

Half of us do not contribute to the operation of the federal government. Of that about half are considered poor. Of that about half turnover while the rest remain on government assistance. Are all of those unable to work? I suspect this group is the set drawing Mr. Romney’s comment.

Of the half not poor – incomes above about $25K - why are they exempt from paying for the government many demand? Why does having children – elective – lead to the rest of us providing you with a get out of federal income tax pass (the Earned Income Credit) . The tax rate at that point is 10% and with normal deductions that effective tax would be a few percent. Why can those above $25K not pay a few hundred dollars a year in federal income taxes?

Why do you get to make the people paying from $60K to $120K pay the vast predominance of the federal income taxes? They are not rich! Why did Mr. Obama not raise taxes on the really rich in the fall of 2009 when he controlled the Congress? Why is he only asking for a 10% tax increase on the supper rich?

The vast majority of the posts on here are at best very misleading and highly partisan.

0

Cait McKnelly 1 year, 7 months ago

Silly people that think they're entitled to food. What's the world come to?

2

Paul R Getto 1 year, 7 months ago

Mr. Romney describing nearly one-half his fellow citizens as dependent is not news.  Representative Akin dropped the other Republican shoe when he talked about sexuality, women and government control of our intimate and often tragic lives.  We know  where both parties stand.  People need to make up their minds and make sure they vote.  The most important voters are the one-half who don't show up.

4

Paul R Getto 1 year, 7 months ago

I often wonder if the "givers" want to trade places with the "takers" so they avoid income tax. I doubt they do. Living on a few hundred dollars a month is nothing to recommend just to avoid taxes.

6

scaramouchepart2 1 year, 7 months ago

Does Mitt Romney and the republican party wants all democrates killed off after they are no longer viable working people? Remember Logan's Run. The movie where everyone, not worth anything, we're deciminated at the age of 30. Those people living off the dole are mostly hard working Americans who paid their dues and had their retirement wiped out by corporate greed under the Bush Administration. Obama was not president when corporate greed caused this depression. It has to be a depression with 47% not working and milking those poor corporations. It was a democratic presidents who did not listen to Ms. Brooksley Born when she pushed for regulations on derivatives. Both parties are quilty and it will take both parties working together to clean up this mess and regulate an entity that has no moral compass. Yes Liberty corporations do exist, but they are not a person. They demand people's rights, but do not practice people responsibilities. Corporations have done far to much damage to be a fantasy.

4

verity 1 year, 7 months ago

I thought Mr Simons editorialized on Saturday.

Or maybe this is the new guy?

2

JohnBrown 1 year, 7 months ago

Funny how Republicans now hate people who don't pay taxes.

And Rockchaulk 1977, did you know that the Republicans piled up 3/4ths of that national debt? They piled it up when times were good. Now we are in deep economic do-do and need government spending to stimulate the economy 'cuz the banks that did it the Bain Way broke our economy and there's no one else that create the demand for products so companies can hire and make more stuff.

"Job creators"? Hah! No company with tons of cash is going to create one single new job unless there is demand for their products. The only way there will be demand now is if the government continues the stimulus...which requires, in the short term, more spending.

Usually, one would hold off piling up government debt until times when its required, such as now. But the Republicans created the debt during good economic times and set up the sorry state we are in debt-wise.

Even Wall Street agrees that austerity needs to come after more stimulus and once the economy has a steady heart beat.

JohnBrown

5

scaramouchepart2 1 year, 7 months ago

If Mr. Romney is a moderate, and there has been little proof ( the Koch brothers support him), he would not be accusing the people of being lazy and demanding to live off the government. Americans have one of the strongest work ethics in the world, but being turned into shovel ready slave labor is not conducive to continue that strong work ethics. The Journal World editor who wrote this nonsense is just as quilty as all the other businesses who took tax breaks in order to fund their own egos. Why does one person have to have one more plane than all the others who were using American mortgages as chess pieced in a money grab game. The JW has chopped so many people that they are not growing, but moving into a smaller building. I cannot understand why Americans should, like sheep, be so appreciative for shovel ready jobs, after workiing hard for a degree that would give them a decent pay for their families and a nice home they can no longer afford. We should be grateful for jobs that do not fit our training. We should be grateful for living in smaller rented cramp homes. We should be grateful for a president who wants to continue to call them lazy while he gives tax breaks ( that means those who have not been paying equal share) are given more and more.
I agree that corporate owners are not lazy, they spend a lot of time figuring out the next money making scam! They spend thousands or millions in hiring lobbyists to give favors to the elected officials. That is the tax dollars that could be used to develop a better product and give decent pay to decent working Americans.
We know who is really not paying taxes. Frank-Dodd Act wa forced on the corporate world because they cannot and will not comply to ethical standards. The EU parliament has forced legislation on derivatives and instrument bundling for the world corporations who have no ability to act ethically. Corporations demand tax breaks, they are so poor, they cannot provide decent paying jobs as they spend millions on lobbyists and one more house and another plane. Americans are not lazy, but they are not sheep.

3

rockchalk1977 1 year, 7 months ago

Obama went on the Letterman show and told Dave that he didn’t remember how much the National Debt was. Imagine how this would be treated by the mainstream media if Mitt Romney had a similar lapse in memory about such a fundamental issue. The National Debt is a staggering $16 trillion and increased by about $5+ trillion in Obama’s first term alone. It also “now exceeds 100% of the nation’s Gross Domestic Product. However, Obama also thinks there are 57 states.

http://www.inquisitr.com/337614/obama-to-letterman-i-dont-remember-how-much-the-national-debt-is-video/

http://usdebtclock.org/

Obama is no leader. Romney-Ryan 2012!

2

tbaker 1 year, 7 months ago

It’s no big secret. Mr. Obama is a Nanny State guy who wants government to redistribute wealth and help take care of people by sending them money from the treasury. Mr. Romney is more of a self-reliance kind of guy who sees government’s role as helping people take care of themselves.

The folks drawing some form of government assistance are far more likely to vote for the guy who promises to continue providing it. That’s all Romney said.

What puzzles me is why are liberals upset by Mr. Romney pointing-out the huge Nanny State Mr. Obama has built? It is his single greatest achievement. A lot of people voted for him and will again because of this.

The simple fact is we need to have this debate because the US cannot afford the spending anymore. A large and growing part of the country depends on some form of government assistance. A shrinking minority has to work to pay for it. We borrow 41 cents of every dollar the government spends ($2 million every minute) We have accumulated a massive and very dangerous amount of debt. The Federal Reserve is now printing money to buy US debt and devaluing the US dollar. How crazy is that? Right now the federal and state governments are spending nearly a trillion dollars a year on means-tested entitlements. Those are payments OTHER than Social Security and Medicare. More than 46 million Americans are now receiving food stamps. That's a record. Nearly nine million Americans are now on federal disability, another record. And more than 100 million Americans, 35 percent of the population, are living in a household receiving some kind of welfare.

Is government going to rob from Peter to pay Paul, saddle our kids and grandkids with massive debts and “take care” of people, or is government supposed to help people take care of themselves? Our country needs this debate.

1

Constitutional_Malfeasance 1 year, 7 months ago

First of all, this is an interesting forum. Why is this comment by Romney such a big deal? It seems the chaos over in the middle east should be front and center right now at least. The writer (why is there no attribution who wrote it?) does make a good point that Romney spoke the truth. Will it hurt him? Probably, maybe. And another thing, personally and with most people I talk to, they worry more about this administrations seeming lack of regard for the constitution, all the way from top down. There is more and more coming out about Obama's past too. Seems he was a child of privilege when he represents himself quite differently. Obama represented slum lords in Chicago who kicked out renters and was fined a small amount, like $500 for a few minor infractions when in fact Obama's client was a very shady character to say the least. It seems Obama is not what many want to believe he is.

1

jafs 1 year, 7 months ago

There's an interesting article on my home page today, that goes into a bit more detail about the 3 groups Romney is lumping together.

The groups are likely Obama voters, those who pay no federal income taxes, and those who receive benefits from the government.

For the most part, the groups are in fact distinct, although there's a little overlap.

Likely Obama voters tend to be well educated, and generally well off working folks, so Romney's conclusions are clearly unwarranted.

3

KansasLiberal 1 year, 7 months ago

"The facts are correct. There are millions, 47 percent, who pay no income tax"

Come on, LJW. Get your facts straight. Last year 47% of Americans paid no FEDERAL income tax, but that's only because of a lot of factors coming together at once that won't happen again. Most of that 47% paid state income taxes and all of them paid payroll taxes, not to mention all of the sales taxes that everyone pays.

5

CountyResident 1 year, 7 months ago

I am tired of Romney or anyone else referring to senior citizens that draw social security benefits and medicare as some kind of free loader. These people paid both of these taxes all of their working lifes and are entitled to these benefits just as they are entitled to receive distributions from their IRA or any other retirement plan that they may had contributed to. These benefits are not some government hand out.

6

Fred Whitehead Jr. 1 year, 7 months ago

The fact is very simple. Candidates like Romney and Akin in Missouri have clearly stated the ideals of the republican facist party. Nothing could be clearer. So why all the blah, blah, blah. Romney and Ryan would be a disaster for this country. But try telling that to the bucolic rubes in Western Kansas who are addicted to the" Kool Aid Tea" they are hearing from "God's Anointed Pioliticians" and the devil's sidekickl. Rush Limbaugh . Check this out with Bfrownbackwatrds, God's spokesman for the Kingdom of Heaven.

3

tange 1 year, 7 months ago

Yesterday, on a more personal note, I posted this:


On the 47% who do not pay Federal Income tax...

Not long ago, I was asked by a friend to assist with income tax preparation. I had the software, so I verified some numbers. I already had completed my own return, and, even after having large sums withheld from my earnings, I ended up writing a sizable check to the IRS.

Interestingly, not only did my friend NOT pay any Federal Income taxes s/he received a whopping tax credit. It occurred to me that my tax payments had effectively provided my friend's tax credit—the sort of "wealth redistribution" that folks with "R" affiliations seem incessantly to whine about. But not so, for me. As it turns out, my friend works as hard as I do (each of us serving others in some regard), often putting in MORE hours than do I. In the end, we're both able to maintain comfortable lifestyles, albethem with incomes nowhere approaching triple-digits nor, at the other end of the spectrum, facing realities confronting the working poor.

So, one of us represents the 47% and the other apparently the 53.
We are virtually indistinguishable in terms of productivity and service to others.


Here's an irony: I, who pay enough taxes to fund my friend's tax credit (and more) NEVER would vote for so diminutive an example of a human being for President; however, my friend probably will. So, I find NO meaningful content in Romnoid's reductive remarks. They exist only to perpetuate ignorance and to manipulate (—something, BTW, we've already witnessed from that runt of a running mate he's recently pushed into the spotlight).

7

tange 1 year, 7 months ago

What a pathetically desperate attempt to defend the indefensible.

_

6

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 1 year, 7 months ago

So, our local 0.1% newspaper editor sides with Romney as he panders to his peers, the angry, radical rich.

"Two recent movements have transformed the political landscape. The Occupy movement literally operates in the light of day. The other movement operates in secrecy, with money as its "speech" rather than ... well, you know, speech.

The Romney video offers us a rare glimpse of the other movement. This movement of the extremely rich is full of rage, ruthless, and radical. And it's on the rise."

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/09/19-8

6

Trumbull 1 year, 7 months ago

I don't know why Romney and other Republicans always strip off Federal Payroll taxes when saying these things. It is there own way of misrepresenting things. The fact is, roughly 75% of Americans pay Federal Income taxes and/or Federal Payroll taxes. The majority of the remaining 25% are those who have retired and most likely worked all of their lives.

2

chocolateplease 1 year, 7 months ago

This is a terrible editorial. Did the writer even watch the video of Romney speaking or read the transcript which contains factual corrections to what Romney said as he lied about Obama? The 47% may be fact, but when you break it down, you learn that these people are mostly falling into the categories of poor, elderly, students, and working poor. And then there are the small percentage of extremely rich who pay no income taxes.

To hear the attitude from Romney, to hear how his job "isn't to worry about them", is shameful. His solution is to pull out the safety net, turn more money over to the wealthiest among us (not even use it to lower the debt. no, he is not a fiscal conservative) and this is who you want running the country?

Please watch the man speak for himself, and read the transcript too since it mentions some factual corrections to the things he said. http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/09/secret-video-romney-private-fundraiser

5

Trumbull 1 year, 7 months ago

How does Romney know that 47% of Americans believe they are victims? How can the writer of the editorial conclude this is a fact?

7

headdoctor 1 year, 7 months ago

Romney says it, so did Fox News, the right wing nut jobs and now the Journal World so it must be true. Never mind that this 47% was a fowl swipe at retired people who have paid taxes all their life, elderly and unemployed who may not be able to work, the military personnel who are receiving combat pay, lower middle class and lower class families along with very small business owners who are paying payroll tax or the 15.3% self employment tax as well as other applicable taxes.

5

Yahushua_in_Chief 1 year, 7 months ago

Of income earners, the top 50 percentile pay roughly 95% of all personal income taxes to the US government. The bottom 50 percentile pay roughly the other 5%. It puzzles me why our government would want to punish the top 50%. It puzzles me, until I remember what ideology is behind it, or possibly how absurdly naive they are---or both.

0

jhawkinsf 1 year, 7 months ago

I apologize in advance, but I'm going to paint with a very wide brush here in my use of liberal/conservative. Hopefully, no one will get too offended.

Yesterday, on another thread, there was a discussion about how much taxes were paid by the big oil companies compared to their record profits. One of our more liberal frequent posters here provided a link to an article that spoke to that issue. The gist of the article was that the amount of taxes paid "depended upon how you count". Wow. What happened was a liberal think tank looked at only one tax, the corporate income tax, while the oil companies looked at all taxes they paid. Juxtapose that with the discussion here about the 47% and you will see both sides flip flop. Liberals now want to look at all taxes paid by that 47% while the conservatives want the more narrow focus of just the one tax, the Federal Income Tax. And he's my broad brush - I think the more liberal you are, or the more conservative you are, the more likely you'll be dug into your position, which is hypocritical. You can't have a narrow focus when it comes to individuals and then seek a broad focus when it comes to corporations, or visa versa, while maintaining a consistent philosophy. The only way to reconcile the hypocrisy, it to introduce your own sense of what is right or wrong, or that ever elusive notion of what is "fair". What's fair to you won't be fair to me, so we finish the circle right where we began, with a lot of words and nothing solved. And in that case, Washington reflects us exactly.

0

jaywalker 1 year, 7 months ago

Sure, there was truth in what Romney said, but he said it extraordinarily poorly, not surprising considering he was pandering at a $50k a plate fundraiser. There probably is a solid 47% that are going to vote for the President no matter what; Romney jumped the rails when categorizing them all as "entitled" and in essence, the big part of the problem. Blanket statements are always a bad idea, but in the case of a Presidential campaign we may just have witnessed the final nail in Mitt's coffin. Can't say that bothers me in the least. The fact he was the best the Republican's could come up with after these past four years just proves how weak and clueless the right side of the aisle is.

3

SageonPage 1 year, 7 months ago

HERE HERE BRAVO!! Yes we do have to begin teaching many Americans what it means to be an American and this statement by Romney and this editorial is correct and right on target! Let's get adults back in charge of this country before it's too late!

0

Ken Lassman 1 year, 7 months ago

Dolph's editorial spin seems to me to be just a shotgun response to the major gaffe in the presidential campaign that squarely puts Romney right where the democrats have been trying much less successfully to put him: as an elitist multimillionaire with little understanding or even interest in the majority of US citizens. Romney's own words have done more to firm up this negative image of Romney than any democrat has been able to do, and it also bolsters the fear of the Main Street folks that a Romney Administration has its eyes on protecting Wall Street more than Main Street.

Dolph's attempt at diverting folks from this message doesn't seem to have any more traction than Romney's own attempts at "clarifying." My prediction is that we're in for Plan B: Romney's minions will initiate a smear and mud campaign against Obama, the likes of which he so successfully waged against his fellow Republicans in the primaries. He has nothing to lose in the ensuing melee, and the resulting fact-bereft attacks will only serve to taint Obama's next administration so that these guys can continue to block any democrat initiatives during the second term.

It's a sad phase our country is going through. Will true leadership rise to the occasion and actually decide that bipartisanship is healthier for our country than polarization?

10

Yahushua_in_Chief 1 year, 7 months ago

To see what's going on with this election, like the past election:

http://www.mrc.org/

It's simple. It's right there in front of you. It's a reality.

0

Yahushua_in_Chief 1 year, 7 months ago

It is uncomforting as it means 47% of the popular vote is likely going to Obama right out of the gate. Romney may have well said, "We all know at least 47% of Americans who vote are going to vote for Obama and I'll be lucky to win this election".

0

Mike Ford 1 year, 7 months ago

ljworld.....spinning is a sea of denial.....I paid in $1250 in federal taxes and close to $500 in state taxes and I make less than $18k.The gpp doesn't live in the denial of romney weakness does it?

4

anotherview 1 year, 7 months ago

It's not only those with low income that are not paying any federal income tax. For example: A married couple filing a joint income tax return with $3,000,000.00 invested in stocks that pay an average dividend yield of 3% would have $90,000.00 of annual income. This couple would also fall into the 47% that are not paying federal income taxes. That means there are millionaires that pay no federal income taxes nor do they pay any payroll taxes.

7

WilburM 1 year, 7 months ago

What's truly amazing about this editorial is that (compared to many of the above comments), it doesn't take into account the extensive discussion of the 47% and all the analyses that have been put forth on this complex issue. Nope -- just grab a "fact" and run with it. A waste of time, but a great insight into "the writer" (sic) of this piece.

7

Phillbert 1 year, 7 months ago

As David Brooks wrote earlier this week, the majority of the 47 percent who are either retired or don't earn enough money to pay more than payroll taxes, are Republicans just like Dolph. That number even includes millionaires, and if you look at it by state, it sure seems they all cluster in Republican states.

If people who are retired or work and don't earn enough to pay income taxes are going to vote for Obama, then Mitt has some problems in the Republican South.

If people who are retired or work and don't earn enough to pay income taxes are going to vote for Obama, then Mitt has some problems in the Republican South. by Phillbert

8

Peter Macfarlane 1 year, 7 months ago

I'm pretty sure that most of the 47% would just as soon take responsibility for their own well being. That said, for many, there are "social contracts" between some or most of the 47% and the government, especially in areas like Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.

8

jhawkinsf 1 year, 7 months ago

In American politics, if a politician tells the truth, he's blasted. So they spend most of their time skirting around uncomfortable truths. Between that, and a 24 hour news cycle, the presidential election has become little more than a soap opera.

We're in the process of getting the government we deserve.

1

Keith 1 year, 7 months ago

I thought cutting taxes was a Republican goal. So now they've cut some folks taxes down to zero. Are they now going to break their pledge to Grover Norquist and raise taxes?

9

cowboy 1 year, 7 months ago

A sorry editorial steeped in spin. The problem is we all have eyes and ears and can hear the contempt in Romneybots voice describing "those people". Those people are vets Those people are elders Those people are the one blessed with diabilities Those people are folks not born to Romneybots wealth and privledge

I noticed another poster commenting on the complete lack of coverage of Thurston Howells utter failings this past week , politicizing the death of our state department heroes yet you have the time to bring forth this pathetic defense of republican drivel.

Yesterday the chickenhawk Republicans voted down a veterans jobs bill that would have benefited our returning warriors with job opportunities in national parks , conservation , police and fire positions. How pi$$ poor can you get GOP.

The light is shining bright on the right wings values and you are being soundly rejected by American public.

13

Flap Doodle 1 year, 7 months ago

The national debt hit $16 billion recently, but hey, look over there, Romney! (howling mob dashes away to chant talking points)

0

grammaddy 1 year, 7 months ago

The Republicans promised JOBS would be the #1 priority. Yesterday they killed a Veterans' Jobs Bill. Vote them ALL out.

14

grammaddy 1 year, 7 months ago

Our enlisted men in the battle zone also do NOT pay income tax.Would you call them irresponsible or unwilling to take responsibility?? RMoney doesn't have a clue how the 99% live.

10

Kate Rogge 1 year, 7 months ago

So this is why the LJW didn't run an actual news article about Romney's video? So Simons could write a spin editorial?

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/20/opinion/kristof-it-takes-one-to-know-one.html?hp

" Romney has proved himself right: We manifestly do have a problem with people who see themselves as victims even as they benefit from loopholes in the tax code. One is running for president."

8

average 1 year, 7 months ago

The only way you get anywhere near that '47%' number is by including Mr. and Mrs. AARP cardholder, the majority of retirees not paying any federal income tax. There's no other way to interpret what he said other than saying "most senior citizens consider themselves entitled victims".

Oh, yeah, and he really needs to win Florida somehow. Good luck with that one.

10

WristTwister 1 year, 7 months ago

"Romney didn’t say anything that wasn’t true, but in a hot, tightly contested election for the presidency, it often is dangerous to tell the truth..."

I disagree. We need to have this conversation. It seems that the left is unaware or just plain don't care about our serious fiscal problems. Our spending is out of control and it's going to take painful measures to avoid a financial disaster. This election offers a clear choice to the voters. A vote for Obama will be a vote for the status quo and continuance of the drunken sailor spending that has run up our national debt to dangerous levels over the last 12 years. A vote for Romney/Ryan will be a vote for return to fiscal sanity. Too many have their hand out to the government and Obama is all too willing to "buy" their vote with the promise of more entitlements. Socialism is a proven failure wherever it's been attempted. This President has been busy re-distributing the nation's wealth, dividing the citizens and apologizing to the world for America's greatness. Our credit rating has been down graded twice under this President---this is unprecedented. Do we really want to continue the same policies that have created this mess? I say it's time to put an end to this madness.

0

atiopatioo 1 year, 7 months ago

Uncomfortable fact for your pocket book.......

What is the Fiscal Cliff?

By Thomas Kenny, About.com Guide

The Fiscal Cliff Explained

“Fiscal cliff” is the popular shorthand term used to describe the conundrum that the U.S. government will face at the end of 2012. U.S. lawmakers have a choice: they can either let current policy go into effect at the beginning of 2013 – which features a number of tax increases and spending cuts that are expected to weigh heavily on growth and possibly drive the economy back into a recession – or cancel some or all of the scheduled tax increases and spending cuts, which would add to the deficit and increase the odds that the United States could face a crisis similar to that which is occurring in Europe.

http://bonds.about.com/od/Issues-in-the-News/a/What-Is-The-Fiscal-Cliff.htm

0

Carol Bowen 1 year, 7 months ago

It is also not correct that the same 47% of Americans would vote democrat. It is difficult to determine a single percentage, but the number is significant. Again, see factcheck.org.

6

Carol Bowen 1 year, 7 months ago

Folks who make less than $27,000 may not pay income income taxes after deductions, but they pay payroll taxes. That's half of Romney’s 46.4 percenters. The rest pay no federal income tax due to tax benefits and credits. Here’s the rest of the breakdown:

  1. 22 percent receive senior tax benefits — the extra standard deduction for seniors, the exclusion of a portion of Social Security benefits, and the credit for seniors. Most of them are older people on Social Security whose adjusted gross income is less than $25,000.

  2. 15.2 percent receive tax credits for children and the working poor. That includes the child tax credit and the earned income tax credit. The child tax credit was enacted under Democratic President Bill Clinton, but it doubled under Republican President George W. Bush. The earned income tax credit was enacted under Republican President Gerald Ford, and was expanded under presidents of both parties. Republican President Ronald Reagan once praised it as “one of the best antipoverty programs this country’s ever seen.” As a result of various tax expenditures, about two thirds of households with children making between $40,000 and $50,000 owed no federal income taxes. -factcheck.org

  3. The rest ended up owing no federal income tax due to various tax expenditures such as education credits, itemized deductions or reduced rates on capital gains and dividends. Most of this group are in the middle to upper income brackets. In fact, the TPC estimates there are about 7,000 families and individuals who earn $1 million a year or more and still pay no federal income tax.

11

Ron Holzwarth 1 year, 7 months ago

"The facts are correct. There are millions, 47 percent, who pay no income tax, and a record number of Americans who receive food stamps."

That's factual, but it's not factual that those 47 percent will never pay income tax when the economy gets better, but they do pay other taxes right now, and it's not necessarily the case that the use of food stamps will only go up.

There's a lot of fear mongering that's going on in this election, that's for sure. Here's a look in the rear view mirror at why we are facing a couple of today's problems:

The Federal budget deficit? The invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq has a lot to do with that, and as I recall, we had a Republican President when those wars got started. And exactly what was accomplished?

The housing crash that led to much larger economic problems? Wasn't that because the housing bubble was inflated to an absolutely unsustainable level while we had a Republican for a President?

I'm not convinced that the President of the United States can control the economy nearly as much as some media makes it appear. But for starting wars, yup, I think the President of the USA has far too much power. I'm not a constitutional expert by any means, but my opinion is that the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were started by a Republican President that exceeded his constitutional authority.

I think the Constitution is being torn to shreds in secret back rooms, and I have no idea how that can be rectified.

9

Richard Heckler 1 year, 7 months ago

In fact, by the time the second Bush left office, the national debt had grown to $12.1 trillion:

This ENTITLEMENT - Over half of that amount had been created by Bush’s tax cuts for the very wealthy.

This ENTITLEMENT - Another 30% of the national debt had been created by the tax cuts for the wealthy under Presidents Reagan and George H.W. Bush.

This ENTITLEMENT - Fully 81% of the national debt was created by just these three Republican Presidents. http://www.dollarsandsense.org/archives/2010/0111orr.html

This ENTITLEMENT - Starting in 2003, George W. Bush destroyed the world economy by encouraging U.S. banks to make loans to those who could not afford them, through schemes such as the "American Dream Downpayment Initiative".

Also through the destruction of oversight, such as lawsuits to prevent state securities laws from being enforced on Bush's watch.

Once Bush's policies led to their inevitable result of economic collapse, the United States found itself in a situation where it had to take on debt in order to restore the economy.

http://www.reaganbushdebt.org/CalculationDetails.aspx

4

Richard Heckler 1 year, 7 months ago

Are you better off now, than you were 4 years ago??

Reagan asked that question and by the time he and GHW Bush were finished millions upon millions were out of jobs and many had to come out of retirement because the Savings and Loan scam put their retirement money up in smoke. A lot of people lost their homes about this time. People in their 60's and older don't get hired easily.

GW Bush and Cheney pulled off a repeat performance. ...... Both republican episodes cost taxpayers many trillions of dollars. Reagan/Bush savings and loan debacle cost taxpayers $1.4 trillion. Of course taxpayers never have a say they are the losers under these republican schemes.

And republicans have the gall to put forth this question? Excuse me....

5

Richard Heckler 1 year, 7 months ago

No one should discount the potential destructiveness of a victory for Mitt Romney. The widespread media assumption that he’s really a “Massachusetts moderate” who adopted extreme positions to placate the Republican electorate before resetting his Etch A Sketch would be irrelevant even if it were true.

A Romney victory could be accompanied by GOP control of all branches of government, with the party’s right-wing majority in the House driving the agenda.

As Grover Norquist argues, “We are not auditioning for fearless leader…. We just need a president to sign this stuff.”

The “stuff” they would pass—already endorsed by Romney—includes repeal of the modest reforms enacted to police corporations after the Enron scandal and banks after the financial collapse

Repeal of healthcare reform, stripping some 30 million people of coverage.

Budget cuts that would gut almost all domestic functions of the government, from education to child nutrition to safeguarding clean air and water; and an end to Medicare and Medicaid as we know them. Taking place as we speak....beware.

These draconian measures would be used to pay for increases in military spending and tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy.

Under the Romney plan, those making over $1 million a year would receive an average tax break of $250,000.

A Romney victory would buoy a Republican right eager to roll back social progress.

Constrict voting rights and exacerbate racial divides in an era of middle-class decline.

The offensive against labor and workers’ rights would escalate.

And Romney’s bellicose foreign policy would make George W. Bush look dovish.

If Romney wins, we will spend four years fighting to limit the damage he will inflict on the nation.

http://www.thenation.com/article/168264/politics-99-percent[/

6

Commenting has been disabled for this item.