Here here Mike there are to many that are along for a free ride

If you look at the "red" states, it's pretty obvious that the poorest and least educated, and most likely to need help from the government are voting for Romney. The people who work and don't make enough to pay taxes still pay some tax. RE tax, SS and medicare tax, etc. Many of the rest are seniors living off SS, disabled, students, military families. OH, and those making over a million dollars with tax loopholes who don't pay taxes. Before you open your mouth, check the facts. Mitt Whitt should be checking his facts too. He will get a big portion of the 47% non-tax payers voting for him. As Rick Santoro said, no one who is smart will vote for Republicans.

Ah, Carol-lee. Spoken like a true MA elitist liberal.

John, why do you say that? You don't believe me? Do some fact checking on your own. I don't want you to just swallow whatever crap is put out there....think and check. It's a fact, Jack! LOL....sorry couldn't help myself.

Carol has a point about income tax not being the only tax, and I do know a lot of people 65+ who have paid taxes their whole life and don't pay taxes now, they feel alienated by Romney and are considering voting for a democrat for the first time in their lives. This country needs a good Republican now more than ever, but Mitt isn't a good Republican, he's going to run the GOP further off course.

Bonnie B
It seems to me that during the downfall of the economy, the 1% got ritcher, the middle and poor classes got poorer. I think Mitt was talking about, people not paying their fair share, I can go along with that, but it seems to me that the 1% don't want to pay there fair share,, as a lot of there money is in off shore accounts, which they don't have to pay taxes on, which is what is is accusing 47% of Americans of not doing..

Dont forget Iron mike that the 47% includes all those millionaires that quit their jobs and sit on their butts investing and then writing off their losses to make sure they dont even pay the 10% tax they should pay. they pay 0%. And some of them include your buddy Mitt who pays next to nothing in taxes on his billions. hes a big leach and lives off all the sneaky laws he and his rich cronies have lobbied for decades to pass in that great congress and senate we have up there in DC. Do your research. Oh ya and these millionaires get financial aid at private schools and colleges too! Ya those laws are written to serve them too.....no income from a paycheck entitles them to a lot of perks....not just a low low tax liability but a lot of other perks too. smart up!

Actually the number should be 100% I don't recall having to send in another check for defense or the subsidies for my water bill. Medicare and Social Security are important. I love Ryan's lack of math skills: Maintain Medicare and Social Security coupled with raising the defense budget along with cutting the budget. Medicare, Social Security and the Defense budget is 90% of the entire budget. It's just math. We need a growth strategy that will cut some programs and raise taxes. Just think of Reagan and Bush I. You can't have it all without paying for it.

Great comments!

You can tell just how bad the liberal weenies reacting to your comments think so much of their great leader's "Redistribution Plan, and thank-god FOX had the guts post this on their website and report the news as "fair and balanced".

Two challenges for the WAPUM Warren Tribe:

1) Take a ride up to Salem and go to the Federal Social Security Office and checkout the lines of hundreds of illegal aliens and transients who claim their child has "ADD" so they can collect a cool $750 per month of SSI benefits.....of course they get a "referral" from their Island Doctor. It makes you sick that these people are here illegally scamming off $$$$ that ONLY WE PAID as US CITIZENS as taxpayers.

2) After you get through that circus ring, take a ride down to your local "Stop and Shop" or Market/Liquor store and check out how many people use their EBT Card to purchase illegal items, such as Fresh Lobsters and Caviar....another scam that your Liberal Loser OSAMA and WAPUM Warren love to endorse.

HOPE ALL YOU LIBERALS ARE HAPPY....YOU PAY FOR IT EVERYDAY! ANd what will happen when all the freddie freeloader funds are gone and not even your SSI check shows up in YOUR account? Hope you are saving all your Plastic Water Bottles, Soda Cans as you'll need it. Maybe your OSLAMA Hope and Change signs will be eligible for a bailout!

He was not telling the truth. Most of those people still pay state and local taxes and sales tax and other taxes. And a big percent of them are the elderly who paid federal taxes when they worked.

WOW someone got a little extra sugar in their cool-aid this morning, what flavor was it ;)

Sean, do you think SS is a handout? That is where the majority of those 47% are. Even so, many of the 47% live in "red" states and are voting for Romney, against their own interests. Unemployment a hand out? The only people who can collect unemployment are people who used to have jobs. Do you think they want to live off the government? Do a fact check on exactly who the 47% are. They are not who you think they are. Military families don't make enough to pay taxes. Working poor don't make enough to pay taxes. They would pay them if they had better jobs. Those making over a million dollars don't pay taxes, they have loopholes and offshore investment accounts. There is a very tiny percent who actually live off welfare and I think those are people you are talking about. Even many of those people work and just need help with day care and food stamps. A great majority of the 47% are working people who don't make enough to pay taxes or elderly.

As I simply stated already several times. The comment taken out of context was one of campaign strategy. His current focus is how to best focus his efforts for the next two months. Deciding where his efforts are most likely to swing votes. This 47% is not where he needs to spend that effort because they will not be swayed.

But to answer your questions I work in affordable housing and can tell you from first hand experience that many people are abusing SS, abusing affordable housing, and abusing unemployment. The money is not all going to the people who actually need it. You'd be amazed how many slightly disabled people in their 20s through 50s are collecting SS when they could work. You'd be amazed how many people with $500,000 - $2,000,000 in personal assets are living in affordable housing. You'd be surprised how many people on unemployment sit at home and play video games all day instead of looking for jobs or getting training. These folks don't want these programs fixed.

And as a former United States Marine you don't need to talk to me about how much military families make.

Sean I agree with what you say about abuse of SS but let's not get carried away with the numbers who are. I have worked in helping folks get their GEDs and I can tell you that all of them wanted to get it and worked accordingly. In my experience it's the minority who abuse - the vast majority just want to get out of it and move on.
On a personal note I had to rely on Government assistance to get through college in the UK like a lot of other working class kids. Very few if any abused the system. We were all grateful and graduated - and paid the fees back in taxes and more.

Carol-Lee, Social Security is YOUR money, not a hand-out. Unless you are one of the hordes who collect social security without paying into it because of disability or whatever.
My opinion: No matter how little someone makes, they should pay something in taxes. I don't care if it is $100 per year, everyone should pay for government, as everyone gets some benefit, whether from a strong defense or from government inspection of foods, or whatever. Everyone should feel the pain of supporting government and, in a perfect world, the pain and amount would increase for everyone as government spending increases. I would bet support for the more goofy government programs would disappear overnight if everyone felt the pinch of taxes.

Elderly people should expect the government to look after them in their old age. They built the country. Also the working poor pay taxes they just don't make enough to pay federal taxes.

It wasn't taken out of context the whole video is there. He was demeaning half the country to impress his billionaire campaign donors.

Brandt, you will get the same gutting from the Obama administration. The only difference is that they will take your money and give it directly to the 47%. That 47% will then use your money to pay the 1% for the apartments they live in, the cars they drive, and the doctors they visit all the time. The middle class is exactly that, caught in the middle. Both parties want to take the working mans dollars and give it to someone else. The only question you need to ask is who do you want them to give it to? Personally I think corporate tax cuts allow companies both small and large to hire and pay more people to WORK while social welfare programs only keep people dependent on the government (i.e. our tax dollars) and do not promote any long term growth.

Sean, corporate tax cuts have not produced jobs. In our consumer driven economy we need to put dollars back in the consumers hands, their increased spending is what creates jobs. When my sales go down, I cut payroll, regardless of what taxes I pay. A tax break has zero effect on my hiring, I just take the extra money to the bank for a rainy day, no new jobs, no investment. But when my sales go up and orders start to back up, I have to hire more people and can afford it. The best thing for my business is to have middle class people spending money, and I think there are plenty of other business owners who would agree. My sales have gone up and my taxes have gone down under Obama, which is why I'm a republican voting for Obama this November. Most republicans who pay attention to their business and ignore the propaganda will agree that Obama has been great for us.

Mary, so your solution is to steal more money from the people who are earning it and give it to the people who are not earning it so that they will spend it with you? Can't you flip this around and say that if more working tax payers are being allowed to keep more of their money they will spend it with you?

Mary, let me see if I get this straight: you'll take tax breaks for your business and bank the dollars for a rainy day, but when sales go up you'll expand your business? It's all about the balance sheet. Use those credits, that are given to you for a reason, to grow your business. And what do you think happens to that money you put in the bank? The bank loans it out and invests it in other businesses. They aren't holding it in a cave under the their branch. The same is true with tax breaks for individuals. They will buy more consumables, invest that money themselves, or maybe even put it in the bank where, low and behold, the bank will invest it. Tax breaks are about freeing capital up instead of giving it to the government which does such a great job of spending it.

I watched an interview with the Prime Minister of Isreal the other day. That guy speaks like a guy that isn't trying trying placate two opposing views. I wish our politicians were able to speak so clearly and directly.

What point are you trying to make Sean?

That I wish our politicians could be as straight speaking.

Doesn't matter when it was filmed. He never should have said such nasty things. But glad it got revealed because it shows everyone what kind of a nasty man he is.

Gail, a truly nasty person is one who sits in a racist and anti-semitc church for 20 years. To sit in a church that names Loius Farrakan as "Man of the Year", where a crazy pastor chants "Its not God Bless America, no no no, its God Damn America", and financially support its with the only charitble donation he makes, tells me all that I will ever need to know about the character of Barack Obama. Character-wise, Obama on his best day, and Romney on his worst, could never measure up to Romney's integrity. It's a fact. Time to elect a an honorable, non racist, to the Oval office and send this bum back from where he came from.

You could look at it that way or you could be thankful for all the frivolous spending they've shutdown

Don't you mean the Democrats and Harry Reid have been blocking the 34 house passed Republican jobs bills by refusing to debate or vote on them? Mire public workers are NOT more people working and paying taxes.. Its a NET DRAIN and a deficit problem.. You take 1000 or tax payer money, pay someone, who intern pays back 200 of it in tax. That's a net loss of 800 to the treasury, is it not?

Hey, the President had two years of super-majorities to get this stuff done. He didn't even try.

I hope it shows voters that Romney will hurt the middle class and help the rich and that is all he will do.

John, once again you spout your nonsense without checking facts. Of the 47% he talks about not needing to worry about...most are seniors living off SS. Another large amount are working poor...those who don't make enough money to pay Federal tax but do pay lots of other taxes. The poverty line for a family of 4 is $23,000. Those people are working, but don't make enough to pay taxes. There are many making a million or more who pay no taxes. I know you just dismiss the facts because most Republicans don't pay attention to facts. Bothersome things. Many of those 47% will vote for Romney.

I don't necessarily think they believe the government owes them. They are simply abusing the system because they can. What Mitty said is out of line and offensive because he's generalizing. I'm sure he's going to lose alot of voters because of this video. Especially amongst those he's painted this general statement over. If he really thought he wasn't going to get any votes from the 47%, he's definitely not getting them now. Those who supports his statement in this video were already going to vote for him anyway.

Agreed. Bottom line is that Republicans stand for personal responsibility. You help your neighbor when they need help, but they should try and do it on their own first.

Then maybe the Republicans should show some concern about the middle class and the poor for once.

Well, that is the ants' side of the story; the grasshoppers' side has the grasshopper winning it all on American Idol, becoming independently wealthy, and starting a business that employees thousands of ants.

Ron, you're right. This story needs to be updated. Take out the multi-platinum hip-hop Grasshopper. This story needs a new villain.

You are calling elderly people lazy grasshoppers? No wonder your side is losing.

Romney is trying to starve poor people so his rich friends and big businesses can have more money.

Mark, you are right on the mark here. I fail to see why so many people are ready to follow Mitt's path to economic doom. I think Mitt want to see if he can out do George W's crash and burn economic policies. George W. started two wars with no income to support them, Mitt wants to add another one and make it three wars on the backs of the middle class.

I know you guys are whipping out the dem talking points but do you really think getting into a war caused the recession? Really? Bush took over in a recession caused by the internet bubble. Obama took over in a a recession caused by the housing bubble. Pretty simple.

Right on!

The deregulation you are talking about happened under Clinton. The auto industry still went through bankruptcy and people still got laid off. And you talking about the 1% proves you are jealous and just playing the class warfare game. Trickle down doesn't work? Have you ever gotten a job from a poor person?

It's not that trickle down CAN'T work, it's that guys like Romney have made a career out of proving it's no longer the most effective way to earn. These guys, in collusion with Gov't sanctioned de-reg, have proven that building a workforce is not where the money is. He's made trickle down obsolete by example with Bain, tearing apart American companies that employed thousands, paying off top heavy execs, cutting the rank & file and walking away as the business goes bankrupt. The concept of trickle down is great, and you and I may believe that it can work, but if you think Romney believes in trickle down, you are high.

And what is obama's economic policy? That's right, wealth distribution which has been proven many times not to work. Mitt may have torn some companies apart but he also created many. How about Staples? Employs thousands of people. I would rather have Mitt do it with private money than obama who continues to give money away to failing green energy companies and other companies that take the money and move those operations overseas.

What about Staples? Even a blind squirrel finds nuts. Romney's record of destroying companies far outweighs his record of building them. Why not mention the Olympics? Romney loves to, but he squandered a small fortune mismanaging that too. How about Kay-Bee Toys, once a strong MA company that Bain leveraged out of existence?

Show me where he destroyed more jobs than he created. To be honest I couldn't care less what he did at bain. He did it with his money and did what any corporation is supposed to do. I guess you don't work for a public company or invest in the stock market.

Actually he did it with his Dad's money and, more importantly, with bank money (many of which failed and got bailed out by all of us, exactly because of this type of bad business). If Mitt's only interest was pursuing his own personal wealth by siphoning money off wherever he could at huge cost to others, yes, he's a shining example of success.

But if you don't care about what he did at Bain, you're not considering him as a presidential candidate and his ability / qualifications. While running for President Mitt is claiming he has the country (and generally speaking) every citizen's best interests at heart - which every President should. There's no argument for a strong America with a handful of Million/Billionaires, while everyone else is poor and/or unemployed. I don't see how destroying companies and eliminating American jobs is good for America, although it's pretty clear how it has worked out for Mitt and his cronies - it made them million/billionaires and put thousands out of work. Need examples? Go to Pittsfield, MA. You'll find plenty.

What I meant was with the companies money. But I am sure you knew that. What were obama abilities/qualifications in 08. Absolutely zero and it shows. Address the point of obama giving away tax dollars to companies going bankrupt left and right or companies taking tax dollars but moving the jobs overseas. I know you won't. I am considering anyone other than obama. He had his shot and he has failed. Jimmy Carter is loving life right now because obama has won the title of worst president ever.

How about Sports Authority? Another successful Bain operation. KayBee toys would never survive as much as they tried. Their business plan was awful. Renting EXPENSIVE space in a shopping mall to sell toys.. Toys R Us is struggling too, and they are doing better because they rent space in the parking lot, not in the mall, which is much cheaper, and they are still struggling. Know a little about business before criticizing the failures of some. I'm sure you go to toys r us instead of Kaybee if you could save $5 on your kids' next videogame.

John, deregulation started under Reagan. It got worse under Bush II. MittWhitt wants to do more deregulation. If trickle down worked, we would all be push with jobs because the richest 1% are wealthier now then ever before in history. If they have so much money now and there are no jobs, why do you think there will be jobs if you give them even more money? How many businesses has he started with his millions in the past 10 years? Would that be none? At least that we know of. There could be some businesses in other countries, but we won't know that because he won't release his tax returns. 0% of his income has to go to the Mormon church. Has he given to any other charities? Don't know, we can't see his taxes. He gave all his daddy's money away AFTER he went to college, started a business and bought a house with hit. His kids all have huge trust funds and have never served in any kind of government job or joined the military or served their country in any way. He himself could have served his country in Vietnam, but he went to France instead after demonstrating to send more troops to Vietnam. He's a wonderful guy. He isn't concerned with the poor (there is a safety net for them....of course he will remove that if elected), he isn't concerned with the 47%....many of them who will be voting for him....he is only concerned with those who pay taxes (not him) or with those rich enough to not pay taxes.

Carol you have been watching too much MSNBC.

Notice how dems like Carol-Lee here refer to it as "giving" the 1% more money. Notice that they refuse to refer to it as letting them keep more of their money. Also notice how they always trying to say that the 1% pays less taxes. They never say that the 1% pay a lower percentage of their overall income in taxes. It does not benefit their politicing to use the dollar amounts. The truth is most of that 1% pay more dollars in taxes each year than many of the rest of us make total each year. But hey, that doesn't villify them enough. They also don't like to mention that some of those 1% make more charitable contributions each year than most of us will ever make in our entire lifetimes.

Mark, I seem to recall doing pretty well under Clinton. You too? Know how he did that? Cut capital gains taxes and cut regulation to free-up businesses to spend on expanding their organizations. Obama wants to raise taxes and has already layered on billions and billions of financial burden through new regulation. Talk about failing to learn from the past. At least I have confidence that Mitt would actually meet with his cabinet more than twice a year.

Trickle down economics is a lie and it's amazing that some people in the middle class and working class still believe it.

I do fact checking John. Try it sometime. Politifact.com, Snopes.Com, Factcheck.com. There are lots of places to check those facts. Why do you suppose the blue states are nearly all the best educated people and those most likely to be paying taxes? The Red states, apt to be the least educated and most apt to not pay taxes? Beauty fades, but stupid is forever (Judge Judy).

Rght on Romney is a spineless greedy rat,

lIve in Mass. and I think the only reason he passed universal health care was because he thought it would benefit him politicaly, he didnt give a crap about poor people it helped

Since you live in Mass you would know health care was going to get passed with or without Mitt. The house and senate had the votes to override his veto.

Nancy,
The person who recorded the comments was the sneaky person, I have not heard Romney try to disavow the comments or back away.

I don't trust Mitt either, he lost my respect, when a ceiling title fell in one of the tunels, thankfully no one was hurt did nothing avout it' but when a ceiling title fell the following year, and a women was killed, and at the time he was running for President, he was all over it yelling at people and firing people . If he would have that concern when the first title fell, she probably would not have died.

Mitt was showing disrespect for the working class and the elderly but he was also saying in private what most Republicans think.

Good point. How do you spell Fannie and Freddie? And Frank? And the gov wants to give ILLEGAL immigrants drivers licenses and in-state tuition. Huh? A murderer a sex change on taxpayer's money. Creepie. Transgender people give up their rights as all do , commiting a crime. Probation Dept. patronage, Big Dig, State Police speeding w/o lights, T issues, wasteful un-needed proposals to replace an historic Chatham drawbridge, Red Hat and Cornerstone clutter. Money for WHAT?

Did anyone see who the 47% were? Apparently not you.

Source: http://media.economist.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/full-width/images/2012/09/blogs/graphic-detail/20120922_woc116_0_0.png

6.9 percent of filers had no liability because they earned less than $20,000, and 10.3 percent were seniors. 29.2 percent (or 63 percent of the 46.4 percent who have no liability among the 80 percent who file >gasping for air<) don't fall into either category.

Ron,
Ron,

Try these facts. The link you provided did not describe in detail the 46.4% in the pie chart:

http://factcheck.org/2012/09/dependency-and-romneys-47-percenters/

Thanks, Christina. I wasn't trying to be deliberately misleading here -- just relying on the most recent data that I had available. The link you sent me is a helpful one worth reading, but I would also like to read the actual Tax Policy Center study. I'll read it and, whether I'm right or wrong, comment on it in the next day or two.

OK, Christina, I have looked at your source, and I must say, that, after reviewing the Tax Policy Center's paper, that your citation actually supports my data. The graph that FactCheck is using pertains only to those who would otherwise pay federal income tax but don't due to special tax breaks or credits. The Tax Policy Paper credits 38 million of the 76 million non-taxable units with falling into this category. Assuming that each non-taxable unit is approximately the same size, that is roughly half of the 46.2 percent who don't pay income taxes but otherwise would. The paper then states that 44 percent of these don't pay federal income taxes because of elderly tax benefits (if you are over 65 check this box, etc.) By my math, that is 10.2 percent (46.2 percent times 50 percent times 44 percent equals 10.2 percent). The graph that I cited states that the amount is 10.3 percent. Just as I wrote. My data are accurate.

Part 2, according to the same paper, about 12.9 million non-taxed units of the 76 million taxable units earn under $20,000 per year. But 8.1 million of these are already counted under the elderly tax benefit. You can count them in one category or the other, but because the total number must add to 100, you can't count them in both. The difference is 4.8 million -- that's the number of units who are not seniors but who earn under $20,000 per year. And 4.8 million divided by 76 million times 100 percent is 6.3 percent -- actually less than the figure that I quoted.

One final comment, though the data do show that only a little more than a third of those who do not pay federal income taxes are either seniors or those who earn less than $20,000, the data do show that Romney's statement is false.

That said, I question the need for Factcheck to investigate a statement that is obviously political hyperbole. If someone were to claim that green is the best color, it would be absurd to say well, actually blue is because it emits in the 450 nanometer part of the spectrum which is necessary for chlorophyllic plants to help sustain life.

Dude, seriously. Sane people recognize that seemingly "factual" statements are actually sometimes statements of preference or even opinion. Romney believes (apparently) that a significant portion of the population will never vote for him because it benefits from a large federal government. To believe that every person who votes for Obama or against Romney because of this is absurd, and I highly doubt that Romney himself actually believes this.

This is hyperbole on the order that the President himself engaged in when he described his detractors as "angry." Sensible people should know that this was meant to be taken figuratively and not literally.

Obama did nothing when he was in the sentate. Obama sent troops into libya and egypt and has continued the war in afghanistan and iraq. Obama has sent jobs oversees with your tax dollars.

In just 44 agonizing months Obama has closed more mines, more factories, and shipped more jobs to China than Romney ever could if he lives to be 100!

So the only republican in the state of Massachusetts did little to nothing when he was governor? Hmm, wonder why that is?

And all Obama's done is give us Obamacare killing jobs and played golf.
Great president you have there

You want a bumper sticker Christine? Buy one. Or make one.

Or are you waiting for someone in government to GIVE you one?

I’m glad most people get it that the ~ 47% who don’t pay federal taxes are exactly that: people who don’t pay taxes because of their income level (most) or by taking advantage of deductions (some). Romney painting these people as freeloaders feasting on the system is as gross, or worse, an exaggeration and insult than the Reagan “welfare queen”. Google “How Much Do We Spend on the Nonworking Poor?” to debunk the myth that handouts are breaking the federal budget.

Keep dreaming. House will remain R and senate will be close. Sucks to be you if you are not in the 1%. I love it.

Salem...I totally agree. What is sad is those who will defend anything Mitt does cannot be swayed by facts. They just believe. It's like a faith with no substance. They will all drink the blue cool aid while handing over their money to the rich 1%. They cannot be Christians because Jesus helped the poor and sick. We are all in this boat together no matter what you think, and if you don't help those around you when they need it, there will be no one there to help you when you need it. I don't like those who use the system, believe me. There are places to close up those loopholes, but the majority of the 47% deserve what they get.

Carol-Lee, nice display of liberal cool aid drinking republican hate mongering. The only ones asking us to hand over our money are the dems. Romney wants us to stop handing it over. Republicans don't want to eliminate all social programs. The only way to close up the loopholes is to tighten the budget. You clearly have never worked with a government budget. The goal each year is to spend every single penny of that budget whether it's needed or not. The only way to close the loopholes is to make each agency have to work within a tight budget. Then they will take the time to figure out how to save money. If by the majority of the 47% you mean 23.51% I agree with you completely. No republican wants to take anything away from those folks. In fact, we want to get the other 23.49% to stop leaching off the system so we can give more to the 23.51%.

Why? Obama's economy is Depressionesque.
The only thing that's improved since he arrived is his golf game.

Hey Karen, you didn't built that. Not one person has mentioned how all of this is going to be paid for.

Oh and Karen, you weren't voting Romney anyway which also goes to Mitt's point. The lemmings will continue to vote for the worst president ever so why should Mitt court them. Obama doesn't court the black vote because he knows he will get it.

Amen Chris! You hot the nail on the head! NEITHER of them are fit to lead this country! My biggest fear is that come November we will be forced to just choose the lesser of two evils when we vote...and that is really no choice at all...

Anna, you said, "I don't know if the numbers are completely accurate but I do know that we are all supporting free loaders, many illegals, and that cannot be denied. "

Anna, let's look at the numbers.

-- If you collect Social Security and don't pay taxes, you're part of the 47 percent and apparently a freeloader.
-- If you get SSI benefits or any similar benefits for the disabled -- as I believe your son does -- you're part of the 47 percent, as is he. That's a double mooch.
-- If you're over 18 and a full-time college student, you're part of the 47 percent, and apparently a freeloader.
-- If you're a member of the armed services and not paying federal taxes, you're part of the 47 percent, and by Romney's standards, a moocher.
-- If you're actually working at a low-wage job, and paying federal payroll taxes plus state and local taxes, but getting an Earned Income Tax Credit, you're part of the 47 percent.

If you want more numbers, then please look here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/09/18/who-doesnt-pay-taxes-in-charts/

Ah yes the Kennedy's. Talk about a war on women.

You are correct. With obama's record and in this economy this should be a cakewalk Reagan style. But this country is completely different then it was 30 years ago. What I find funny is that the media is trying to paint Romney as a right wing guy when he is exactly the opposite. The fact that he got elected gov in the most liberal state in the country proves just that.

Romney got elected in the bluest state in the nation because he lied about everything including where he filed his income tax returns. He is a liar, Massachusetts is NOT voting for him for president. Wonder why? They found out about the flip flopping car salesman in time to not make the same mistake twice.

Actually he got elected because even Massachusetts knows that you need at least one member of the other party to make sure things do not get completely out of control in either direction.

Ron, I know it's early, but please grab another cup of coffee and wake up to the almost comical class warfare being played out here.

In front of a group of high-rolling donors, Romney shuffles out the old "It's us vs. them" argument that tends to play well in red states: "They" -- the hapless dependent class, the freeloaders and the entitled -- want to live off the system and not contribute to it.

The problem is that Mitt just unmasked his own disdain for the middle class by lumping many of us into the same bin as the approximately 8 percent of people who don't pay federal income or payroll taxes. And most of those are eiher on disability, are full-time students or are so far below the poverty level their taxes would be negligible.

And when you say "I guess if someone had the same access to the President, there would be similar comments that could be just as damaging" are you aware that he's the president, in the same kind of campaign, and that every move has been scrutinized since his first run for Senate?

"Romney's point was that many people who do not pay taxes have taken on the attitude of entitlement and since they will never support him, why bother."

Ron, please provide examples of who among the elderly, students, and working poor (who are actually paying payroll and local taxes), the groups who constitute most of that fabled 47 percent have "taken on an attitude of entitlement."

Mike, talk to some people on unemployment. Some would like to find a job again. Others hope that their benefits will keep getting extended because the are enjoying their free time and they are getting enough from their government check plus their under the table job.

Where were you when Reagan was running up the debt by 200% Bush Sr by 60%
Clinton by 40% and Bush Jr by 100%.
Why all of a sudden concerned about the Debt when Republicans ran it up by over 300% in recent years?

True conservatives were complaining about the debt all along. But I am sure you were blasting Bush. Please don't throw out those %'s. obama has given us 6T in debt in 4 years. Bush gave us 4T in 8 years.

He didn't create many jobs in Mass when he was gov. and hasn't created a job since he left office. Any fool can create jobs when the economy is booming but how about when your in a recession?
And speaking about managing money he doesn't know where his own money is, Everything is in BLIND TRUSTS!

What jobs has obama created? Where are they. UE is higher than is was when he took office. If the UE participation rate was the same as when he took office the UE rate would be double digits.

Mitt Romney only created jobs in China!

and then...so is our country.

Well and nobly said!

You're right – the Obama camp doesn't want people talking about the 'Islamist Spring', about our $16 TRILLION DEBT, or high unemployment and the Welfare Presidency of Obama.

Yep, obama is a failure at foreign policy as well.

Ron, when Warren tells you that the system is rigged, I can understand having enough doubt to load a dumptruck. When Obama says the same, I can understand the feeling that he's "just playing to his base" -- despite the fact that his base is the vast middle class.

But when someone like Warren Buffet or the millionaire members of Wealth for Common Good (http://wealthforcommongood.org/) or many of the billionaire leaders of Google, Yahoo and other companies start telling you that the system is rigged, and that they're paying significantly less of a percentage of their income in taxes than most of the people who work for them....maybe it's time to listen.

You're 100 percent right that an economic collapse hurts the poor and middle class more than the rich. We're in complete and total agreement on that point -- but where we differ is on how we got there. I happen to agree that the folks who controlled the economy, who were able to profit wildly from de-regulating it, bear much of the blame.

Unfortunately, the Republican game plan has been to set the middle class against the poor and other marginalized groups, and hope that the mobs with pitchforks and torches ignore the folks up in the castles.

John, that's a great question. How about as a first step we pay down debt by not waging two wars at the same time we engineer a huge tax cut? Think that might be part of the answer?

Then, just for yucks, we return some tax rates back to where they were cut during Reagan's administration, but keep middle-class taxes low to generate momentum for the recovery. Then, once things are stabilized, how about we close some of the ridiculous tax loopholes than allow some corporations and HNW individuals to pay little to no federal income taxes. Jeepers...even Mitt has suggested this, although he refused to specify which loopholes he would close.

OK Mike, not a bad answer. I would argue that taxes are not the only answer. When Bush cut taxes revenue to the .gov increased. The only reason we are taking in less money is because of the recession. We need to get people to work. The more worker the more taxes. I am all for tax reform but we need to do some serious spending cuts and all the entitlement programs need to be reformed as well as cuts everywhere else. I do not think obama is willing to do this. The thing about Clinton was he actually worked with the republican controlled congress and actually got things done. All I see in an obama second term is a lame duck.

Obama is a master at playing on people's emotions. Calls people RICH giving the illusion of 8000 sq ft homes, boats and sports cars. I don't know about you but living in MA, if we were fortunate enough to make $250K (now remember, according to the President, this is RICH) we could not afford any of those luxuries. Preaches the 1% should pay their "fair share" yet will not state what that is. I asked a friend of mine (Obama supporter) what is "fair". No real answer could be given. It's just more.... I still believe flat tax for both individuals and businesses, no deductions, period. This is the only fair way. I'm OK with those in poverty not paying anything.

Again, the comments were made regarding election strategy, not domestic policy. He was stating truthfully what every republican candidate has always known which is that campaign effort for republicans is wasted on that 47% because they want to protect what they have.

Hilarious post, Muriel. Great use of ellipses.

But you might want to actually look at the states with the highest numbers of non-payers of taxes before trying to frame this as Democratic dependency issue...

http://taxfoundation.org:81/sites/taxfoundation.org/files/UserFiles/Image/Fiscal%20Facts/20100524-229-nonpayers-map-.jpg

"Romney also said the 46.4 percent who pay no federal income tax “will vote for the president no matter what,” and, therefore, President Obama starts off with an automatic 48 percent or 49 percent of the vote. But that doesn’t jibe with polling data.

It’s safe to say that most of the 46.4 percent referred to by Romney are in the lower income brackets. According to the most recent Gallup polls of registered voters, 37 percent of those making less than $36,000 a year indicate they plan to vote for Romney. Moreover, as we noted earlier, a sizable chunk of 46.4 percenters are retirees, and among those 65 and older, Romney leads Obama by nine points, 52 percent to 43 percent. According to a Rasmussen Reports poll of likely voters between Sept. 10 and 16, 40 percent of those making less than $20,000 said they plan to vote for Romney; 50 percent of those making between $20,000 and $40,000 said they supported Romney. The Pew Research Center similarly found in its latest poll that 32 percent of those making less than $30,000 and 42 percent of those making between $30,000 and $50,000 support Romney — as do a plurality of seniors." -- factcheck.org

Mary,
Please read Mike's post, we might not agree, but he at least uses some facts. The problem with your post is that it makes assumptions and generalizations based upon your own bias.

Hi Ron
I disagree with you. Both business and Government create jobs. For one thing government, both federal and state, is the largest consumer. This in turn creates many jobs in the private sector. Second, many businesses would not be in existance today if it were not for federal programs, i.e. Internet, Satellite communications and spinoffs etc. etc -the list is endless!
From my point of view Government spending is good for business and good for the economy!

The Obama Cartel isn't subsidizing 'renewable energy'. That whole thing is a fraud.

The Obama Cartel is using your TAX $$ to pay off campaign bundlers, and calling it 'an investment in our future'. [They mean an investment in his re-election!]

Brian ... guess what? you are not alone, me too!!

Mary,
The fact is that the so-called 47% will not be outraged, many will still vote for him just as some of the "other 53%" will not. As far as outrage, in two weeks it will not even me a memory. As I recall Obama's stupid comment about guns and religion did not cost him the election. The problem with news cycles is that the talking heads need new issues each few days. For instance, how quickly did CNN move away from the on-going events in the middle east. It became old news pretty quickly.
You were not going to vote for him anyway, and the people who were are going to anyway.

Mary,
You are now changing your argument, the so-called: 47% are not the middle class. As Mike pointed this group is made up of many different people and not all of them share the same views. I did not say and again please read the comment, that the middle east issues went away. The news coverage cycle has already moved on just as it will with this. He admitted he said it. The side issue is why was Carter there recording the comments and why release them now.

Salemst said: "Bottom line question is "Are you better off today than you were 4 years ago?"

Well, lets see, Salemst...I guess that depends on what was going on four years ago, right? If four years ago, I was cruising to Bimini in my 75-foot yacht to check on where my money was parked, then compared to that, then I'm not so hot.

But what actually happened four years ago THIS WEEK: Lehman Brothers collapsed in the largest bankruptcy in US history. Merrill Lynch, the world's biggest brokerage, disclosed huge losses and was taken over by the Bank of America. AIG, one of the world's largest insurance companies, cratered and threatened to bring down most of the world's credit system, requiring an emergency federal loan.

All in the same week.

So, four years ago this week the world was teetering on the brink of the worst global economic collapse since the US Great Depression, the domestic housing market had crumbled and a major part of the US manufacturing sector was circling the drain led by failing auto companies

Compared to that mess, much of it brought on by rapacious policies and deregulation favored by a certain subset of a certain party, then I'm actually doing fine not having to eat stray puppies and fight off marauding hordes of starving people. We were brought to the brink and came close to falling in...but didn't.

So for those with short memories, I say yes, absolutely, remember where you were four years ago, and where you could have been.

@ Mike, I didn't ask you if the world, a bank, or some guy in Idao is better off today than 4 years ago. The question is are YOU better off than you were 4 years ago?

The answer is I'm definitely not, and 100% voting for Romney. There is no choice between a guy who understands the economy, and the other who never took an economics course or ever ran a lemonade stand.

Salemst, you're missing the point by a few miles.

Actually, the world, most banks, and most people in Idaho are better off today than four years ago, as are we all because we dodged a massive financial bullet. If you honestly think that being on the brink of worldwide financial collapse is better than a slow recovery, then maybe there's some part of "worldwide financial collapse" that eludes you.

People with short memories are destined to repeat the past.

@Mike,

Bottom line is "are you better off today that you were 4 years ago?"
That's the question people will be thinking about prior to voting.
They won't be having some philosophical discussion about wolrd catastophes. Are you better off today than 4 years ago?

According to the ABC/Washington Post Poll last week 20% are better off, 35% worse off, and 45% the same.

So 20% are better off than 4 years ago. If you're one of the 20%, vote Obama.

I'm voting Romney. All you're trying to do is obfuscate the issue making noise cause you know the question is a loser for Obama.

Frankly since 2008 it might be my plan too.

Bill, you wrote: "As has been said, Democracy ceases to exist when people can vote themselves money."

Truer words have never been spoken, and as proof you don't have to look much further than the gradual killing of the Glass-Steagall Act during the 1999s.

Agree Mike - I never liked repealing that bill. Somehow Clinton didn't mention that accomplishment in DNC speech

I hope the Patch forwards your IP address to the Secret Service who is now protecting Romney. We'll see how that works out. By the way, Einstein, he does not drink.

Obama has a Bureau of Labor Statistics U-6 Unemployment rate of 14.7% including all underemployed, unemployed, and those no longer counted.

7.5 Million people have left the labor force

-400,000 jobs created

Income's dropped 4K per worker

22% of mortgages under water

We can't afford any more of this disastrous president presiding over a Depressionesque economy

Mary,
Where in the constitution is health care a right? You have been listening to Edward Kennedy too long. If you are 27 and healthy, you may choose to not obtain health insurance for a variety of reasons, now you either buy it, assuming you not have it through an employer, or you pay a fine; a tax, according to the Supreme Court. Now let's assume that you are an employer, and you cannot want afford any more expenses for health benefits, you can force the cost onto the employees, just start hire people as contractors and not provide benefits, or just not hire anyone. I agree that our system of delivering health care is broken and that some things like pre-existing conditions among other issues, needed to be addressed. But please do not think that once this plan takes hold that there will not be some unintended consequences. As far as taxes, I pay more in taxes than I earned when I first started working and where does it go. I pay for my kids to go to college and ask why is tuition so high. Then I see people on public assistance who work the system for disability payments, who refuse to take jobs because it is easier to not work and they make just as much. I see people who have multiple children and never marry, refuse to learn how to speak English and work the systems like pros. Mary, we could take even more money from the so-called rich and the system would still be broken. However, if we keep spending and punish success, we have no chance.

It was meant for your friend adrienne

I'm as anti-Obama as one can get but I have to disagree with you on this one John. I think its vital for the president to put himself in front of the public through whatever means possible during his entire presidency. During election year it's equally important for his opposition to do so. Many people vote without knowing anything about what they are voting for. Any opportunity for either candidate to speak to any demographic about what they are doing or hope to do is critical.

Anna, you're buying into a narrative that isn't borne out by either reality or numbers. Please look at the actual numbers of those "folks that will not pull themselves up from their bootstraps and simply accept "gifts" given them by our government." I've provided the handy link for you to re-emphasize the fact that these "freeloaders and moochers" are significantly less of an issue than you're being force-fed.

And when you say that you "fully understand and know that certain individuals are not paying their full share of taxes "legally", are you also including the 7,000 millionaires who paid no federal income tax in 2011?

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/09/buffett-rule-rorschach-7-000-millionaires-paid-no-income-taxes-in-2011/245469/

Salemst, you've memorized your media talking points very well. I'll bet it saves some time that would be otherwise wasted actually learning about the issues in some depth.

@Mike,

Obama's supporters are the Government Dream people.

They wake up in the morning not in the least bit interested in looking for a job. They've taken full advantage of the free lunches liberals have placed before them over the last numerous decades and their entitles attitude to the citizenry subsidizing them is "shut up, and keep paying your taxes," which you cheerlead.

Ron, there are myriad legal deductions and loopholes that are crafted especially to shield income, and others that are quasi-legal (routing any taxable income through offshore corporations, carried interest income, and/or receiving any compensation from those companies as capital gains at significantly lowered rates)

Mike,
I am sorry but you never answered the question. I would imagine that you take every deduction to which you are entitled. By the way, if you eliminate the lower rate on captial gains, you will effectively kill the angel funding network. This group are made up of people who have made money and invest in companies that can not get bank funding and need captial to grow. For ever company that succeeds there are three that fail. If they have to pay a large tax on the profits they make on that one company, they will not bother with the investment. Contrary to what George thinks, the only true job growth is in small business. Anna raises a good point later on, even if these 7,000 people paid another 1,000,000 in taxes, the net effect is a drop in the bucket. The issue is that there are two many people who pay nothing, do not work because they chose not to do so and I would imagine that the number is greater the 7,000.

We went back to war in Iraq because we didn't finish the job the first time we were there. Had we finished the job then the world might very well be a different place. With regards to Iran I agree with Benjamin Netanyahu, do we wait until they actually have nuclear capabilities before we take action? When they have their nuke they will start the war you don't want.

Not so fast Sean. We went into Iraq chasing Al-Qaeda whom 11 years ago were behind taking out the twin towers in NY. Like Romney, you got your facts and history mumbo-jumboed showing you have no clue of what your speaking or writing about. Also if Iran should be such a concern here in this country having the ability to warfare nuke, then why does Romney ignore North Korea whom is in a state of war armistice agreement, whom have been threatening the use of weapons of destruction but have been making nuke warhead grade nuclear ballistics and material while we have 20,000 troops stationed in the South Korea not to mention the 7,500 family members of these forces living there too.
Army: 19,755
Navy: 274
Air Force: 8,815
Marines: 242
ROK-US agreed force level: 28,500[2]

Ed, before you attempt to insult me perhaps you should educate yourself a bit more. We went into Iraq in 1991 well before 3000 innocent people were killed in the twin towers. We went BACK after 9/11 almost 10 years later to finish the job. This is because it takes the killing of Americans to convince liberals that the use of force is nessesary. Had we removed Saddam Hussein from power in 1991 when we had the chance it is possible and even likely that the terrorists who succeeded in bombing the towers would have been too busy finding a new pro-terror country to support them to plan the attack and those innocent people would still be alive. You clearly learned nothing from Hitler and WWII. All it takes for evil to succeed is for good to stand by and do nothing.

Poor job speaking? Sir, he has bashed China, Japan, Russia and made the statement he would go and fight in war attacking IRAN. The man has no concept of foriegn diplomacy and speaking with intent to solve issues, but instead pushes towards basically aggravated assault country to country.

Since you NEVER mention the Presidents accomplishments I figured I would help you with that.
- Pushed through and signed the Democratic-sponsored American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, http://1.usa.gov/ibiFSs Spare me your one instance of solar panels.
- The Bush-led Great Recession was costing the economy nearly 800,000 jobs per month by the time Obama took office. But by the end of his first year, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act created and sustained 2.1 million jobs and stimulated the economy by 3.5%. http://reut.rs/i46CEE
- completed the massive TARP financial and banking rescue plan, and also leaned on the banks and others recovering virtually all of the bail-out money. http://1.usa.gov/eA5jVS http://bit.ly/eCNrD6
- Oversaw the creation of more jobs in 2010 alone than Bush did in eight years. http://bit.ly/hrrnjY
- Along with Democrats, and almost no Republicans, implemented an auto industry rescue plan, and saved as many as 1 million jobs. http://bit.ly/ibhpxr
- Through the Worker, Homeownership, and Business Assistance Act of 2009, provided tax credits to first-time home buyers, which helped the U.S. housing market recovery. http://bit.ly/dZgXXw http://bit.ly/gORYfL
There are many many more to list and there is a long way to go still. To your point of building a consensus. Mitt clearly doesn't feel the need to with his remarks.
BTW I probably wouldn't have liked your XMas gift anyways so thats okay ;)
But I would have recycled it!

One instance of solar panels, ever hear of Solyndra? ...

Mostly hand-outs and welfare (redistribution), here are his 4 year stats that matter:

- unemployment then 7.8% now 8.3%
- median income then $54,983 now $50,964
- gasoline / gal then $1.85 now $3.87
- national debt then $10.6 trillion now > $16 trillion
- food stamps then 28 million now 47 million
- ssi/disability then 7.4 million now 8.7 million
- STEALS $716 billion from Medicare
- no plan to balance our budget (dirty Harry has not passed a budget in over 3 years! where is the criticism there?)

Some of your stats, although they maybe true are clearly misleading and do not tell the whole story.
The cost of gas hit a peak in 2008 with prices averaging $4.11 per gallon. Not enough space here to explain to you why they went sharply down and the up again. I'm limited on my characters!
Unemployment rate of then and now. Do I really need to explain to you the reasons for this increase and then a decrease? Or were you asleep for the years 2004-2008? I could go on and on with your "stats" but again I am limited so I'll tell you what you like to do with them instead.
You use your statics to start your argument but you don't tell the whole story. You forgot to include your prelude. You seem to forget where this country was heading economically. Has it really been that long for you? Does the term "heading into another great depression" ring a bell?

ALL my stats are TRUE!

" Not enough space here to explain to you"
-> not enough space to splain but plenty of space to BLAME (Bush), more DEM rot brain!

Sorry I couldn't respond back to you last night. I had to go to bed to get my beauty rest so I could get up this morning and go to work.
Are you suggesting the previuos 4 years (2004-2008) had nothing to do with the last four (2008-2012)? Or should we just ignore it like it never happened?
For the record, I wasn't blaming anyone (unlike you). I was simply stating you can tell a story and leave the beginning part out. Even though you like to try.

@Brian, funny you pick 2010 to talk about Obama's jobs creation omitting 2009 when Obama lost 4.5 million jobs. If you choose just 2 of Bush's years his record looks great, too. Selective years.

Reagan inherited an abysmal economy from Carter and by his 4th year created 1.1 million jobs in one month alone.

About 1/4 of Obama's jobs created in 2010 were temporary census jobs.

@Brian....Brian was kind enough to talk up Obama's accomplishments, he forgot to include improving his golf game.

Here's a short list of Obama's 4 year failures having inherited a bad situation to improve it:

* 43 months of unemployment above 8%
* Bureau of Labor Statistics U-6 unemployment including all unemployed and underemployed people as was calculated pre 1994 is 14.7%
* 4K income drop from 2009-Present
* Gas price risen from $1.62/gallon to almost $4/gallon
* Budget Deficit up from $460 Billion to $1.4 Trillion
* Food Stamps spending now $75.7 Billion
* Food Stamp recipients increased from 32 million to 47 million people
* 1/7 of people now on Food Stamps
* In State tuitions risen 25% since 2009
* 54% of college grads since 2009 under or unemployed
* - 400,000 jobs created
* 1.7% GDP, GDP under 2% average since 2009
* No budgets in 3 years
* Lowered credit ratings to AA-
* Debt's risen from $10.6 Billion to $16 Trillion since 2009
* 22% of mortgages are under water
* 1/6 of people in poverty--highest since 1960's
* Home Repossessions up 8 million since 2009
* Workforce participation dropped from 67% to 63%--lowest since 1981
* 7.5 million workers have left the labor foce since "recovery" June 2009
* Misery Index with unemployment and inflation up from 7.83% in 2009 to 9.71%

* 11.5 million on Social Security Disability, up from 5.5 million in 2009
* Record 40 weeks average unemployment
* 50% of Obama's jobs created are part time, 60% low waged...bars/restaurants, leisure activities, healthcare

And Obama has his presidential shortcomings.

go easy on poor Brian, he was once on my Christmas list ;)

Obama is the only president that will have a * next to his name

then at the bottom of the page it will read
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
* it was Bush's fault

just seeing he (his team/surrogates) finally admit what happened on 9/11 in Libya Jay Carney - "it is, I think self-evident that what happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack"

hmmmm did they "shoot first and aim later", me thinks so!

Everything Mitt's said is the truth. Just politically incorrect to tell the truth around easily offended liberals ruminating and obsessed about others' feelings.

The working poor pay no Federal taxes. Have to earn around 25K.
Capital gains is 15%. I know liberals are making a huge deal of Romney's taxes--he pays 15% which is what he's to legally pay.

Romney made a lazy comment. What he meant was every able bodied working person ascibing to the American Dream and self-reliance, Romney represents.

Every able bodied working person ascribing to the Government Dream and dependence on it, Obama represents.

If they are actually poor they probably don't end up paying any payroll tax. The percentage in their bracket is very low and by the time they take their deductions and apply their EIC their payroll based tax liability is probably 0% of their income. In most states sales tax is only charged on things they don't need. Food, clothing, housing, public transportation, and medical expenses (if somehow they are paying for these things themselves at all) are not subject to sales tax. Everything else they buy should be taxed because actual tax payers shouldn't have to pay for them own their own car (which is a priviledge not a right) and to get their hair and nails done. The "working poor" that you might be referring to is actually called the middle class. Basically the middle class is anyone who ends up paying taxes who isn't making more than $250,000. That's most of us and we're getting screwed either way so just decide who you want to give your money to.

Mary,
FICA is social security, it is not a tax. It is not a payroll tax, the employer pays this.
As far as "but the majority of lower income/poor people are there by no fault of their own, born into bad circumstances, disabled, intellectually challenged, had to quit school to support parents" who quits school to support parents. It seems like you are advocating having generations of families on welfare. I am sorry, but there is rarely an excuse not to work and get an education. Almost everyone has a chance to be self-reliant. Not every job needs a college degree and I would think that most kids who do not finish HS do not finish because they need the money.

Well if you goal is to say he is wrong then you can go ahead. His point was that the FICA $ has a specific purpose (in the old days "people paid in and expected something back for it"; we all know that isn't true going "forward"). I don't have the exact quote (and really don't care) but recall the big blow up was about people paying ZERO federal income tax? Being in the "payroll tax" line of work it should be OBVIOUS they are 2 different issues?

Mary ... your job or not, I think you may be mistaken, FICA never was and is not considered a tax. It is an "insurance" policy we pay into for our retirement. Yes, the employer contributes, and it goes into a fund for our future protection and guess what ... the Gov't. gets to dip its hands into it and use it at their discretion, which is OK, that's what banks do with our money, the difference is that we pretty much always know we can get our hands on our deposits in a bank and that's not so when the Gov't. gets its hands on our money, bankrupting the future of our kids. Listen, Mary, get acquainted with the idea that taking from the rich to pay for the poor may seem like fair thing to do but I wonder how you'd feel if you had to hand over a weekly payment to someone who makes vague promises and doesn't consider how hard you worked to gain your own independence, then reneges or reinvents the original promises. Not all people who have money inherited it, in case you don't know, lot's of them got where they are by working fingers to the bone and doing without for a long time but were determined to achieve a better life for themselves and their families. This wonderful country of ours promises such opportunity to anyone willing to recognize that nothing is free (or shouldn't be) and with hard work they can be rewarded. I'm for giving a hand to those in need but not a handout that goes on forever. I know you feel the same.

no, you are wrong

“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.”

you are twisting in the wind a bit and I bet you think Mitt is the flip flopper?

47% seems high. I've gotten a hand-up (as a boy) so fully understand the need for safety nets (as does Mitt) BUT now I pay my share.

@Mary - and I quote "Again, I was referring to the underlying point of his message." Who are you to say you know exactly what the "underlying point" of his message was? Isn't that called an assumption? We all know what an assumption does don't we? THIS is exactly what the media wanted by using this as a "news story". And to be fair, various news agencies do this to the other side (as there is no doubt they lean one way or another) because they know it will either take the pressure off someone else, or it will get people all riled up about who is right and who is wrong. The point is, you weren't there to hear entire context of Mr. Romney's entire comments back in May, so you have no right passing judgement on what he had to say. You are passing judgement just as you are accusing others of passing judgement on the people they think are abusing the system. I am an Independent (or I guess we are now called "un-enrolled"). I decided to switch from the Republican Party last year, NOT because I don't believe in my conservative values, but I was sick of either party assuming how I would vote. I honestly feel it is something that every voter should do. I think it would scare the pants off the parties and candidates, and maybe they would actually go to work to win votes for a change, instead of relying on the same people in their camp to regurgitate and pontificate their selling points. Too many people rely on this, and media clips to make their decisions. Isn't that the biggest shame?

Mary,

The age is important because you said and I quote "it happens that a child quits school to care for family members. And yes, a high school or college diploma usually (not not always) means you have more options to earn more money" Not going to college is not quiting school. No one has a right to attend college. Everyone has the right to the opportunity. Many chose not to and it is not always a cost issue. Most of the top schools in the country make a effort to meet 100% on the need of a qualified student. You may want to actually take you own advice and read your own comment before you insult others.

Call it a tax if you want. A rose by any other name is still a rose. This is an insurance policy. You pay the insurance premium and in return if you become disabled or you retire you get a check every month back. There is a cap on the benefit you can receive and there is a cap on the amount of your income you have to pay this insurance premium on. As soon as you make over $106k the net percentage of your total earnings you are actually paying goes down. If you are making $212k you are effectively paying 3.1% of your income instead of 6.2%. If you make $106,000,000 a year you are paying 0.62% of your total income. Also, if you are making 100mil a year you are very unlikely to ever apply for SS benefits because really, why would you ever need the 600/month check?

Mary ... my name is "Anna", given me by loving parents whom I honor even long after their demise, it is not "Ann".

so true Brian. We finally see the man behind the mask. So many of his fellow republicans are quickly distancing themselves from him...yet folks on this blog are still trying to defend him.

Obama's new ad is....."bin Laden is dead, and so is the Ambassador"

"Are you better off today than you were 4 years ago?"
No one cares if Mary is better off, if Moran Stanley is better off, if some welfare person in Boston is better off, or if a country that lost 6 pints of blood now on an economic respirator 4 years later is better off.

20% of people according to an ABC/Washington Post skewed poll oversampling Democrats by +4 are better off today than 4 years ago, 35% are worse off, 45 the same.

So if the polling was even instead of Democrat +3 you can figure 15% are better off, 40% worse off. This entire election is a referendum on Obama's presidency. He's a failure. The only thing he's improved, is his golf game.

Mary ... But defend him you do and that is your right and I respect it. Please respect those of us who do not agree. As much as you say things were going down hill back in the day, and I somewhat agree, they were not as bleak as they are now. You may be OK, I am fine, but I can tell you that many live poorer lives today, I witness it daily in my encounters, especially with elderly individuals with low resources other than SS and Medicare, some even having to give up life-long homes to move into housing and using local food banks. I don't remember this in my lifetime and I was born during "the great depression" but I was young and only knew that my family received sustenance from many agencies and thereby provided for us. It was not something they chose to do and was demeaning, but they surged forward and have paid back, as do I, in spades. And, by the way, there has been such little improvement in job growth I think you lose that argument, and according to yesterday's WBZ news, MA's extreme poor is on the rise with no sign of slowing down. No, Mary, I beg to differ with you ... things are not better under Obama's watch who, like a drunken sailor, has thrown our money to the wind, building our debt to an incredible height. But you have strong convictions and there is little anyone can say to gain your trust in what might just be a true picture of how things really are. Be happy in your delerium (sp?).

No one's said Obama hasn't done anything.
He's knocked 5 strokes off his golf handicap

Who is chasing who?
Fact is I haven't seen any facts that tell me Romney would be any better than Obama as President. His record as Governor is marginal at best and his "success" in the private business sector does not translate to political success. Look at his web site. Go back and look at the GOP convention. Lots of hot air and pumping up the tires. All talk but no substance. Which is typical for BOTH parties. If you want to drink the kool aid go ahead.
But you can not call my opinion weak when it is a fact that my family is in better situation than we were four years ago. And no I am not one of Romney's 47%.

Hard to know where to begin with you as you're so partisan you're intransigent.

First, IMO Bush was a below average president. He was an unsuccessful businessman, spent like a drunken sailor, and despite cutting taxes he was horrendous increasing government regulations and mandates. His economy was a Real Estate Bubble caused by Greenspan lowering the interest rates to 1% to deal with Clinton's popped Dotcom/Y2k Scare bubble. Bush was an economically poor president. He saw offshore outsourcing occur killing our own economy recovery, did nothing but encourage it.

So Bush was a failure. But Obama's an incompetent. Clearly never took an economics course, or slept through it. Where Bush was an unsuccessful failure, Obama's an inept inexperienced failure.

Romney is a successful businessman and understands creating a jobs producing environment means lowering taxes and ALSO lowering government mandates and regulations. Plus leveling the playing field with countries like China where companies can employ 9 Chinese per American worker going after them on currency and willing to close tax loopholes eiminating incentive for business to offshore outsource.

Your problem is you see every Republican as George W Bush, and every Democrat as FDR. You're a liberal partisan Democrat. I'm conservative but not a partisan Republican.

Obama cut middle class taxes, changed our economic direction from job losses to job gains, got us out of Iraq, killed Bin Laden, and has the common decency not to think there's a difference between rape and "forcible rape".

80% of Romney's economic advisors were also Bush's economic advisors, and he's on the record as supporting Ryan's plan to turn Medicare into a voucher system.

It doesn't take much to see that Romney will return us to the deficit increasing years of Reagan, Bush, and Bush. Every single one of them ran up the deficit while income disparity increased and the middle class fell further behind.

Pelosi: Raise Taxes On All Workers

The Social Security payroll tax cut should be allowed to expire at the end of this year and lawmakers should turn instead to overhauling the entire federal tax code, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said Friday.

Read more: http://nation.foxnews.com/pelosi/2012/09/22/pelosi-raise-taxes-all-workers#ixzz27FV5qazT

That's the MIDDLE CLASS folks.

Romney Romney he's our man if he can't do it no one can!
- net number of jobs added during the four years Romney was in office was 24,400
- MA ranked 47th in the entire country in jobs growth while Mitt was in office. Fourth from last in case you were wondering.

You'll see how Fox distorts the truth if you compare the original article with the part that Fox used. http://www.sacbee.com/2012/09/21/4842622/pelosi-dont-extend-payroll-tax.html

Also, are you suddenly defending the payroll tax cut that Republicans tried to block, over and over again? Their track record on this one reveals the insincerity of their new concern for the middle class.

Brian, MA was already below the national average unemployment rate during those years. There was less need for growth. It was our new governor that was in office when the unemployment rate went up almost double.

salemst says you should vote for Romney because he has experience running a sucessful business. Well then, if history is any guide, in President Romney's first year you can expect him to ship half our jobs overseas, sell off all our assets to the Chinese, load the nation down with intolerable debt, take a hefty bonus for his friends and himself, and then walk away leaving the rest of us holding the bag. After all thats what he did to become a "successful" BUSINESSman.
Thanks but NO thanks.
And yes I am better off than I was 4 years ago.
And what is your obsession with Obama's golf balls?

hmmm your FACTs are lacking, you can't see that?

unless you are talking about Mr 0:

"ship half our jobs overseas" -> he has been doing a great job on solar panels, NOT, his cronies put Chinese panels on the top of a federal building in clear violation of his stimulus

"load the nation down with intolerable debt" -> $10.6 TRILLION then, > $16 TRILLION now, OUCH

"take a hefty bonus for his friends and himself" -> hmm sounds like Solyndra to me, do you really think that 1/2 a BILLION will not pay off one day for Mr 0 (in addition to the current campaign donations)?

"then walk away leaving the rest of us holding the bag" -> this is yet to happen, with luck he won't walk, he'll run and it will take real leadership to dig us out of his hole

SEE!

ahhhh, it is always a good move to try and deflect the criticism by ignoring the actual facts
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/romneys-bain-capital-invested-in-companies-that-moved-jobs-overseas/2012/06/21/gJQAsD9ptV_story_2.html
and placing the criticism somewhere else ;)

FACT is Mr Clinton said Mitt Romney's business record at Bain Capital was "sterling." I agree with BC, imagine that!

The business world is what grew Mitt up, trained him in what matters, what it takes to be successful, shaped his character, ... Please share some FACTs on Mr 0's growing up activities (pre-presidential activities that shaped his character).

p.s. that article does not have a clue, look into this part "customers were U.S. firms, including Intel, IBM and Lucent Technologies."

You should really listen and hear the whole story before you just grab the headlines on Bill Clintons comments. He also stated his "business experience does not guarantee success" as President.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/jan-june12/clinton_06-05.html

Um what did you expect him to say? Anyone with a brain would take a successful business man over a community organizer. Go look up BC's "this is the biggest fairy tale" comment, HC's blasting of candidate Mr 0, nothing has changed between then and now except BC / HC are swallowing hard and 4 years of FACTs that prove Mr 0 failed (economically and overseas).

Comments of "Anyone with a brain" now that is a good one. I wonder if making comments like that make them feel more intelligent? They are entitled to their opinion as I am mine. I guess we will just half to wait and see how much of the country is brainless. Some people are just too funny that I can't make this stuff up.

I did not try to change your "opinion", if you are so weak in your "opinion" (might be due to it not being grounded in FACTs) then just maybe you should avoid chasing me trying for a gotcha moment because as you can see I tend to base my thoughts on FACTs and try to avoid pure opinion from slipping in but after all I do tend to lean R ;)

Townie ... I don't disagree ... but neither is the Democrat party. Nothing is the same and nothing is forever ... get used to it.

This coming from a guy whose Democrat delegates in North Carolina looked like something out of the Star Wars bar scene

Nope, Massachusetts was 28th his last year in jobs creation,
Averaged 47th during his 4 years.

Remember, we had a dotcom bubble burst and were told repeatedly 2002-3 that we'd lag the nation in recovery due to our dependence on the Internet industry

23,000,000 that are forgotten by President Obama and Democrats. Are these unemployed, underemployed or people that have given up expendable?

Gallup and Rasmussen polling show Romney's comment has no bearing on the polls
Rasmussen stated as much

Lenny, Obama's following in the Clinton "it's all about me and not the country" mind set.

It's the epidemic and pervasive attitude in the country at present. But it's clear Obama is quite immature lacking real life experiences making him devoid of character---whether one agrees with his views or not.

Oh, Lenny ... my thoughts exactly and you expressed them so well. I have been dying a little every day thinking of what's happening in the middle east and it brings me to actual tears. What is this man thinking, doesn't he care at all? So much attention paid to comments by Romney who took a chance in speaking what he believes truth, a man whose integrity cannot be logically questioned, while burning and killing of Americans is happening and here is Obama with half a mind and nothing of worth or weight can be achieved with a disinterested heart and lame mind. I think you are correct, he is basking in celebrity status and getting away with it thanks to the mainstream media, foregoing his Presidential responsibilities and duties. For shame!

You are probably right salemt, but I am actually interested in what the posters here think, because we at least know they are l interested in what goes on in the world. So I would ask again, is it just me, or are others interested in what the subject was of the secret promise Obama passed to Putin through Medvedev?

Mary ... I am not a Republican, I am just bright enough to spot a true patriot who is not afraid to speak some basic facts and is not a liar, says what he thinks and is not afraid to express what he feels may just be a problem that needs fixing. Speaking of arrogance and condescension, your remarks smack of insults and accusations of anyone who does not agree with you and are as bigoted as anything I've ever heard. I for one welcome thoughts from all sides ... you should open your mind and give it a try. I must say, I never observed such hatred coming from anyone who comments here. You just may be one in a million.

Ronald Reagan was down 3 to 8 points in all the polls days before the election and won by 10, do you think the media polls are accurate?
We have almost identical problems as the Carter administration had back in the late 70's.
1) 4 dollar gas prices
2) lack of confidence in leadership
3) our enemies Overseas seeing a lack of leadership here and attacking our people and interests abroad
4) heavily taxed job creators and talking like their not paying their "fair share"
5) Iran making our president look like a idiot and about to become a nuclear power with a leader that has threatened to wipe Isreal off the face of the map and those that support them.
But not to worry, Obama told us that he would negotiate peace with them! ( No reason to consult with all of our living presidents to see that this is impossible ) he's much smarter then them!
I could go on, but you get the point.

Yippee!

I just saw "foot in mouth" Robert Gibbs saying Romney "manipulated his tax rate" by not taking his full deduction for charity.

What fools these (campaign) people are! although I think you have to be a bigger fool to buy it ;)

I agree, China is doing very well applying capitalist principles. They learned from the best, the good old U.S.A.
To bad that we are applying socialist policies, even China knows they don't work!
Maybe the obstructionest democratically controlled senate could vote on the bills before it in the senate to lower the corporate tax rates that are the highest in the industrialist world and then we could all read "made in the USA" on the products we buy.
I too have investments in China due to this, your smart to do so.

That is called character, Mr 0 has NONE! and Joe Biden would not have character in a blockbuster Hollywood movie!

And the leader Obama is, he eagerly takes it.

It's his wallet, not mine, not yours!

Mary,
As Brown asked EW the other night, you can always pay more taxes if you wish. The fact is they have no problem asking others to pay more, and punish success but when it comes to their own money, they do not want to redistribute any of it. I have not seen the president or any prominent dem volunteer to pay more and lead the way, they just want other people to pay more. Mary, how much do you pay over the amount due and how much do you give away every year?

Talk about being short sighted. An entire economy based on giving out money in exchange for nothing. That can't last. An economy can only be sustained when there is an exchange of goods and services. Someone must make or do something for that dollar and when they spend that dollar they must get something for it. You can't just keep expanding handout programs and keep pinching the funds from the people that are earning it. Eventually there would be no more to take and thus no more to give.

right, we don't need no stinking FACTs

c'mon people use your heads, ... geesh, ... ;)

He's had at least 150 rounds of golf played now.
Would you feel better if I mentioned his hob nobbing with entertainers?

Republicans are suddenly mad about golf even though their guy played golf every day when he was president. Then he said he gave it up for the troops which was a lie.

"Sleazy?" Bain has been for years one of the top 2-3 companies to work for according to Business Week and US News and World Report.

Romney's squeaky clean.

Do we really want a guy who passed out far left leaflets on a street corner associating with anti Americans ad terrorists to continue being our Commander In Chief? With all his drug Cocaine drug use could he even attain a secret Clearance level?

And is Obama pro or anti US policy wise?

Mary, as usual, thanks for that fact packed comment!

Mr 0 is almost immune from foot-in-mouth disease thanks to the lame-street media. Research these gems:
- polish death camps
- how long Mr 0 sat in Rev Wright's church (and the theology Rev Wright preaches)
- the current state of the Middle East
- they'll put y'all back in chains
- the FACT that Mr 0 does not have time to meet with BB but has time for the View

I am tired, you get the idea (or at least should).

No, we would rather have someone with extensive experience as a volunteer as our President! Maybe if he actually held a job, he would better understand how things work in the real world.

Mary, that's funny. Isn't that similar to what they said about Reagan..."What, an actor...President?" And look who turned out to be one of the BEST Presidents in history!

Did someone just call Bain a good company and Romney squeaky clean? ha that is funny!

Mary,
what would be a nice change, to not elect a socialist. As we can see, it has worked well in Europe.

And if you don't properly regulate industry and instead allow a group of select elite to operate by different rules, then you end up with an oligarchy. So imagine a world where these business tycoons can make their own rules up, get bailed out by their govt to the tune of $700m (atleast), and can even get the highest court in the land declare that their businesses are "people" for the purpose of allowing unlimited campaign contributions to continue the grand tradition of quid pro quo. And after this group has almost bankrupted the country, we seriously consider electing their poster boy as president?

Regulating industry and business to keep things fair is not communism or socialism.

FACTS are not U

see above, please let me know when you research is complete and you are ready for REAL debate!

Don't let the facts get in the way, just display arrogance and that will shut them up!
I'm a bit confused, I didn't realize that socialists believe in God?

I bet Mary, Brian, ... can't wait for the View!

Sorry Anna, but your totally your wrong on this one. Maybe you can show some character and fess-up to this inaccurate statement.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/dday.asp

Anna that's a lie and maybe you should fact check your chain emails before posting them.

he did not say that about out troops YOU DID!

I will be civil and stop there!

yes I'm afraid that you can't pick and choose who is included in "your" 47%
oh well, I guess your off my christmas list now too :(

I bet you are on the edge of your seat, can't wait for the View, ... sad.

What is the View? I work during the day for a living and wouldn't know. Am I missing something Vincent?

Romney supports boosting defense spending. Obama supports gutting it.
Vets and people who care about defense know who supports it and a strong America, and who doesn't.

He bashed 47 % of the country in order to impress a dozen 1%'ers. That's who he is.

Gail ... Please review my posting of 9/24/12, 6:17 pm, to Greg, in which I retract my previous statement. You are correct, it was foolish of me to pass on information I'd not fact-checked myself and I admit to great embarrassment in believing something I received from someone I considered a very reliable source. How many times would you like me to apologize? However, I stand by my thought that character or lack of character is a great issue in my mind and I see little of it coming from the present administration, top to bottom. Sorry, cannot agree with your other comments. I believe you and Mary are close cousins in that you both refuse to examine possibilities that may bring a brighter future. But, then, we all have to go by our gut and let the chips fall where they may ... we do not, I don't think, need to swing derogatory remarks toward those who think differently than we do, and certainly not toward honorable people who are willing to even consider running for a high office, win or lose. We can argue about who the better man is but we cannot argue that it takes courage to stand and to take hits from the rest of us who simply stand and wait. I give my respect to both candidates for that, I just happen to admire one over the other.

Attached is an eye-opening article about the Romney's charitable donations. You can judge for yourself.

http://www.thenation.com/blog/170105/romneys-ungenerous-donations

"While running for president Romney seems to have suddenly found his inner philanthropist. As George Zornick reports (quoting Romney’s trustee, Brad Malt), “Over the entire 20-year period period [of 1990-2009, the Romneys gave to charity an average of 13.45 percent of their adjusted gross income.” To be a Mormon in good standing one must donate 10 percent of one’s gross income to the Mormon church. If Romney did so, that means he gave only 3.45 percent of his vast fortune to all other charities."

What he doesn't donate directly to the Mormon Church goes into a family trust. You can see where the donations from the trust go - mostly to the Mormon Church. Nice that he donates to his church but many of us do that. That isn't particularly special to me. One thing that really bothers me though - some of his donations have gone to right wing anti-gay groups.

Another quote regarding his 2009 donations:

"So Romney gives $1,000 per year for a cancer center, while his church gets at least 600 times as much and he keeps millions more? He gave virtually nothing to any program that focuses directly on feeding the hungry, housing the homeless or educating the disadvantaged."

Also, the facts about the President's brother, George.

http://www.factcheck.org/2008/10/obamas-brother-in-kenya/

Something wrong with giving to your church and giving up 30% in total of your income to charity. And you have a problem with a family trust? Maybe it is because of the family trust that there aren't any Romney's living in a cardboard box. And, yes that does matter...it is character. Hypocrites complain about how others spend their money while their own family is left to beg because they don't want to part with their wealth. And Christina, I have no idea where you get your information from, but Ann and Mitt Romney have been supporting Mayor Menino's summer youth program since its inception. The Mayor had personally and publicly recognized the Romney's support on many occasions, despite that fact that Menino will be throwing away his vote on Obama.

The point is, you know you are wrong about this. The Romneys have ALWAYS been charitable, the Obama's, after receiving paid by the public educations at Columbia, Harvard, Priceton, and Occidental, only started "giving back" when it was politically expedient. Also, are you seriously going to compare the good work that the Morman Church does with what the Reverend Wright's church has done? Serioulsy? The Obama's, when they first decided to "give back" gave 11K to the Rev Wright's church. That was it. Their entire charitable contribution was to an avowed anti-semitic racist.
If I were you folks, I would abandon the whole "ROmney tax" issue and a debate about character, it is a loser for you.

Romney donates to his church and anti-gay groups. Not real charities.

All of America, I hope.

riiiiight!

care for a President 0 brew?

I think a good example of someone who is self righteous is a person who reads through 300+ comments, then chastises the commenters for having the time to comment. Left or right, these forums are America where debate is welcomed. If you don't like the exercise, than find a hobby that suits you. But I think the truth is that you wouldn't be reading these comments unless you had the same interests as the rest of us, those that you are ridiculing for behaving exactly as you behave. Again, the operative word is hypocrite.

"What he doesn't donate directly to the Mormon Church goes into a family trust. You can see where the donations from the trust go - mostly to the Mormon Church. Nice that he donates to his church but many of us do that. That isn't particularly special to me. One thing that really bothers me though - some of his donations have gone to right wing anti-gay groups." I guess saying it is not "special" is not "blasting" my word, but you are attacking him. I did not say you said nothing about the President, I said the article did not address this. In the call for facts where are the facts about Obama's giving. I have none, but the person who wrote the article did not bother to look either. I am not saying and never made a value judgment about you or Romney based upon this one issue. You may want to go back and read what I said.

"The President gave 20% recently, and only because he is running for office." The Romney's 20 year average was 13.45% according to the summary he released for his tax returns before 2010. If that was the average then he could not have given 30% every year. Do you he think he MIGHT have increased his charitable giving over the last few years to look like a more "generous" candidate. But we really don't know what his charitable giving is for the last 20 years because he won't release his tax returns. The President has made his available for everyone to pick apart just as you have done.

Yes, I know Romney gave up his inheritance when he started out just like I know he and Ann had to sell stocks to make ends meet while he was in college. When my parents were married and in college, my father worked at an ice cream factory and my mother worked at a bank to get through it. No stocks to sell. Mr. Romney was a very fortunate man in his upbringing. He didn't want for anything, went to private schools and his parents paid for college. He was successful in school and ended up making a good living for his family. Great. His narrative shouldn't be to tell us all how struggled like everyone else because he did not struggle. He was raised in a good family where there was always food on the table and access to great education. Those are the things that people like me want for every child in our country.

(Running out of characters so continuing my comment in the next post)

(Response continued)

And quite frankly, this liberal doesn't believe my vote is charity. I think it is kind of insulting that you make blanket statements about people just because you disagree with them. I not only give to charity but have given hundreds of hours as a volunteer throughout my life to a number of organizations. I disagree with you but have not insulted you. It would be great to have debates on the issues without the insults.

And no one said that the Obama's are better people than the Romney's because they support higher taxes on the wealthy. I believe the President just thinks the wealthy should pay the same rate as middle income people. It is just a policy difference.

Christina, the wealthy have already paid more than the rate of the middle class when first it was earned. The rate Romney is paying now is on the capital gain earned on the principal he invested that was earned from wages years ago, wages he paid tax on at the marginal rate of 35 to 39.5% depending on the year it was earned. You can do the same too. Take your paycheck, after the taxes have been deducted, and invest it. If you earn a profit, then all you need to pay is 15%. But remember, if you lose the money, you can't deduct the loss. See why it is fair to reward risk takers with a lower tax rate on earned interest, especially since the money has already been taxed once?

"I believe the President just thinks the wealthy should pay the same rate as middle income people." -> WOW! The wealthy actually pay a HIGHER tax rate, we have a progressive tax system, please take a look at a tax table.

Did anyone else get a glimps of Mr 0 blow the Romney tax rate question today on the view?

Mr 0 stated it is not fair that Romny paid a lower tax rate than someone making 50k per year. The small problem is that the effective tax rate for someone making 50k is 7.8% Romney paid > 14% on investment income, ... simple "arithmetic", guess it is not taught at the big H?

As Lenny pointed out Romney's tax rate is the capital gains rate (after tax $ that someone choose to invest/risk). If Mr 0 raises the capital gains rate then you can only expect less investment, make sense?

I find it ironic that someone who was chastising the President for being on a daytime talk show and mocking others in suggesting that they were going to watch it, actually paid attention to it. I know I didn't. Thanks for the laugh!

Ya laugh away, I caught a clip on TV. Notice the cricket loop on the FACTs.

The Kennedys help out poor people.

I believe a lot of it is racial.

Thank you Lenny for proving my point.

I do not hate our failed President 0 BUT he can't get out of office fast enough for my liking!

Ding, Ding, ding, ding. Gail you win! 393 comments in, and you have thrown the race card. What took all of you othe liberals so long? Allen West, Mia Love, Marco Rubio.....yes we are all racists. Reverend Wright, Eric Holder, Louis Farrakhan.....pals of the President.....not racists? Some of you folks are simply nasty, pathetic, small minded people.

The country is ungovernable because people on the right keep standing in the way of everything and refusing to compromise on anything.

Jeannine,
Of course, I did not mean everyone was hating on the President. I'm just amazed at the disrespect I read or listen to here as well as in other venues. I don't hate Romney...but also, he is not our President. He stands for a lot of what is wrong with America, in my opinion. but I don't think he's a bad husband, father or worker...I'm sure he must work hard .

Lenny

I would be interested to see any links you have for your data on charitable giving for geographical region and political affiliation. I didn't misunderstand the math. The 13.45% figure I mentioned wasn't the Romney's tax rate but their average charitable giving rate for the last 20 years. (See the article I quoted, this figure was in the summary he released on Friday about the 20 years prior) I commented that meant he didn't give 30% every year. According to the data for 2011 and 2010, the Romney's gave approximately 80% to the Mormon church and 20% elsewhere. Again, I'm not faulting him for his giving. My original point was that he is not more philanthropic than most people. He just has a bigger pie from which to donate.

And you don't need to explain to me how his capital gains income is taxed. I actually do know that. I'm sure that since I am liberal in my thinking you would pigeon-hole me as a big government person. I actually believe in a balance between government and the private sector. I think that each has a role to play in our economy and our society. I believe the government plays an important role in providing things like infrastructure, education, defense, a safety net when people fall on hard times, etc.. Of course the private sector plays a vital role in our society as well. As for your comment about "risk takers", I don't think that term should be confined to business owners. Many people take risks in their chosen professions.

Here you go Chistina. I warn you, you won't like what you read here. Will even says something similar to what I said, that liberals tend to justify their lack of charity because of how they vote. Nobody means all liberals are selfish and don't pay thier fair share just that conservatives are demonstrably more charitable.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/conservatives_more_liberal_giv.html

Hi Christina. Just dropping a note to refer you to my earlier comment where I showed that the FactCheck article you cited actually supported my facts. I certainly was prepared to admit I was wrong until I actually read the Tax Policy Center paper your link cited. I was wondering if you, too, are willing to be intellectually honest enough to acknowledge that my data in this instance are, in fact, correct.

Lenny, conservatives are more generous than liberals across all income levels -- rich to poor. And even when you exclude giving to religious organizations, conservatives out-give liberals. Conservatives out-give liberals to every secular institution with the exceptions of museums and libraries, where liberals rule the day. Conservatives donate 44 more percent of their time to charities than do liberals, and conservatives are about 50 percent more likely to donate blood.

That last data point, I think, is most telling. I've been donating blood twice a year for twenty years now, and I never thought anything of it until I read Arthur Brooks' book, “Who Really Cares.” Donating blood is a pretty good indicator because 1) it costs nothing so anyone who qualifies can do it, 2) it's a mildly unpleasant experience with little reward other than that which comes from altruistic emotion, and 3) it helps other people 100% of the time.

Since liberals tend to be richer and healthier than conservatives, you might think that liberals would rule that measure of giving;however, they do not. In the measures that count, conservatives consistently demonstrate that they care more about others.

It has been my experience that liberals embrace liberalism as baseball fans embrace a sports team. They want to identify who is "in" and who is "out." It's just a sport whose goal is simply to get Obama elected, and damn the issues.

You re so right Ron. I think another line in the article that should hit home to liberals is where Brooks notes that the poor are worse off with the liberal mindset because they justify their lack of charity because of programs that are non-existent. How many times have I heard left wingers bemoan the fact that government should be housing this one or feeding that one, when in the meantime a check to the Salvation Army or the Catholic Church who do feed the hungry and house the poor quite effectively never crosses their minds. Also, I think nearly 3 million tax returns are filed each year in Massachusetts yet less than 300 filers checked the box to pay the higher rate, including Professor Warren. I think liberals, particularly the rich ones, treat government like the Kerry's treat the household staff....they want to pay someone to take care of that "helping the poor thing" because they just don't want to get too close to the poor. They claim to be willing to pay more taxes to ease their guilt about not helping anyone directly with their wealth. Yet note that they are also the biggest tax cheats. Rangle, Geithner, Richardson, Dascle, Kerry, McCaskill........all on record wanting to raise our taxes, bad all on record of attempting to avoid theirs. And Democrats have the moxy to accuse Romney of not paying his fair share?

Ron,

I'm not sure which factcheck article you are talking about since the one I referenced on this thread was about President Obama's brother. Can you be a bit more specific about what I was wrong about?

Lenny,

Unlike you who would not read my link, I read your link to George Will's article. I am very open to looking in facts in many different ways, not just to support my opinions. My son is taking a course in college now called "Lies, Damned Lies and Statistics". Basically, anyone can take some statistics and use it to support their point. I think George Will made some good points but I also think there are different ways to look at the data. Here is a link that discusses another study about charitable giving by geographic distribution. It makes some of the same points but also gives some food for thought. Especially when it comes to religious giving. Conservatives tend to be more religious and attend church than liberals (doesn't necessarily make them better people) So a liberal may not be going to church and donating but giving in many other ways but the conservative is giving mostly at church. If the conservative gives more does that make them more charitable? Would the conservative be giving the equivalent if he didn't go to church? Also, giving to church doesn't always go to the needy. A good portion pays administrative costs associated with the church.

http://www.npr.org/2012/08/20/158947667/study-reveals-the-geography-of-charitable-giving

If Republicans are so much more generous then why are they always insulting people who are poor and need assistance?

Ron and Lenny,

And the sweeping generalizations about liberals is very frustrating to me. I could make all sorts of generalizations about you based on your opinions but I don't. This liberal has volunteered a lot of time in her life and has also worked directly with disadvantaged people. I find your assumptions about me very insulting. And just because someone doesn't give blood they are less giving? Come on! We aren't going to begin to solve the problems we face as a nation if we continue to judge others just because our opinions are different. I look for good substantive discussion when I respond on these blogs but I am tired of the judgements.

Firstly Christina, I am not sure I understand the frustration. I have lots of Liberal friends that are charitable, folks who are apparently like you. But it doesn't change facts about the difference between those on the right who are more charitable, and those on the left who are less so. In discussing such matters one can only generalize because we are speaking about group characteristics that have studies behind them. The article by Will, the study by Arthur brooks, and the NPR link you provide all came to the same conclusion. The NPR added texture in that they demonstrated that middle class people of all stripes tended to be more generous then wealthier people, but in both classes, conservatives were far more charitable then liberals. I am not sure why you seem to want to handicap conservative giving, dismissing it because it happens in church. What is the difference? If it is given in a bar, during a parade, or at the front door, why is the delivery of importance? And church admin costs, really? Again here is the big left/right divide. Faith based charity returns a far higher percentage to the needy than any government agency ever does. I don't think you need a link to a study to know I am correct. Lastly, rather than being frustrated with what Ron an I have said about those studies, maybe the frustration should be with the larger number of cheapskates and tax evaders in your party who don't pay their fair share and give your side a bad name.

President Obama has cut taxes for the middle class and Republicans want to raise them.

Christina, I do owe you an apology. I didn't realized that PWC also issued a charitable average along with a tax average. When you quoted 13.45% as the charitiable amount average for 18 years, I thought you were referring to the 13.66 % that was quoted as the lowest tax rate the Romney's ever paid. They averaged 20.2% over the 18 years with 13.45% charity for a total 33.65% average paid in combined tax and charitable contributions. Certainly not the 44.2% for 2011, but substanstially more than any Democratic leader both in value and percentage. I never read your link because I refuse to read "The Nation". It's a rag and I can't stand Katrina Van Der Hueval. I had read the CNN report of the tax release and the PWC summary and as admitted, I missed the line about the cummulative charitable donation when I read it.

YUP! reading comprehension is also KEY ;)

Are you saying Mitt Romney will make abortion illegal? Can't someone who is anti-abortion vote for either guy since neither guy will ban abortion anyway?

No Gail they can't because of the level of restrictions one would have and the other wouldn't. Obama voted for live birth abortions, eugenics writ large. Mitt Romney, a deeply moral person, is against it.

It depends on what that money is used for. What does the Mormon Church do with its money? It does many things with it that are not charitable.

Ah, Gail ... your one-liners are a bit much. What does ANY church do with contributions? Talk about racism ... I think you have shown that you have a bit of a thing about Mormons. Shame on you and your ilk. Be advised, my dear, that most of us are concerned about the future of our technicolor nation, do not care one iota about racial origins or church preferences ... we rational people leave bigotry out of our dialogue and lives ... you take good care of that yourselves, reference the esteemed Rev Wright, the 20+year mentor of Barak Obama, the man you so admire and respect. Who is it you say is racist?

A liar thinks everyone is lying to him. A thief thinks everyone is stealing from him, a cheat thinks everyone is cheating her, and a racist thinks everyone is a racist. There is no racial element here, we dislike the President's policies. They don't work, they harm the middle class and the poor, they compromise the future of our children, they will burden the elderly and the sick, and they will compromise our security. Along with my opposition to his policies, I readily admit that I don't particularly like the president, I believe him to be disingenuous and walking around with a huge chip on his shoulder, but it is not about the color of his skin. I'd crawl over glass to vote for Condi Rice if given the chance and I'd hazard to guess that most posters on this board who oppose Obama's policies would say the same.

Mary, you should have kept going with a shut mouth on the issue of racism. Both you and Gail demonstrate the weakest argument when it comes to your current hero. No one I associate with or speak with EVER brings up the color of the man and I resent any implication that I may be implicated in the "they" you speak of. For one thing you have no idea what color any of us who comment here is. You completely miss the point ... the man was never ready for prime time, even his wife said so before he ran the 1st time, and he has proven his unpreparedness time and again over the past 3+ years. You may say that things are better than before he took office but I'll wager that smart folks saw what was happening to the nation's economy and hurriedly took care of their personal economies in small ways to ensure they'd survive, ie., paying off credit, not accruing further credit, paying down mortgages, avoiding spontaneous luxury purchases, rearranging portfolios, etc., etc. To say that Barak has hastened a recovery is being out of touch with reality and to think it will be better with him continuing at the helm is a simply dilution. Be careful what you wish for and be careful with accusations of racism. It does not apply here.

It is not the color of Mr 0's skin that matters, it is that:

he failed our economy over 4 years (by every available statistic) he offers nothing new to change our direction; he wants to fundamentally change America, "re-distribute" ... so he cannot compromise; he is the "divider in chief" (aka recall how Mr 0-care was written/passed) , ...

oh and foreign policy is no longer a strength; the current state of the middle east is not just "a bump in the road" (don't count on the lame-street media for data/facts on this subject)

Did I mention: Alan West is one cool dude!

“My statement to the United Nations would have been, ‘The future does not belong to those who attack our Embassies and Consulates and kill our Ambassadors. The Angel of Death in the form of an American Bald Eagle will visit you and wreak havoc and destruction upon your existence,’”

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0912/81659.html

Mitt paid 13% but nice try!

Sorry it has been Certified that Mitt Romneys average tax rate over 10 years has been 20%. I REPEAT 20%, TWENTY PERCENT. Another democrat cherry picking a number. You got caught or are just listening to the wrong people.

He hasn't released his tax returns for those years but nice try!

Gail I am telling the Truth. I am going to intentionally draw out this thread so that more people are aware of it.

I challenge you to prove me wrong. Just saying it because you were told by some other democrat is not enough.

Gail. While you are at your assignment, please get John Kerry's tax rate. Also, OMG what was his wife's, didn't she refuse outright to disclose?

Thank you Anna. My old Irish grandmother, immigrated to our great country at the turn of the century and with little more than an elementary school education, was wiser than 99% of the Harvard University faculty could ever be. It was her insight into the nature of those who accuse and why they do so, that I relayed in my post. Sounds like you enjoyed similar old world and age old advice. The world turned upside down with counter intuitiveness invented by ideological driven faculties who tell us we can spend and borrow our way to prosperity, stay home rather than work, and charm fanatics into peaceful behavior, will be the end of us if we don't return to the logic of our grandparents. I think my grandmother would pity many of them because they wouldn't seem "right in the head" to her.

hi Mark, finally a liberal who wants and will take my advice, ha ha ha, just kidding

In the email you get for each notification you should have links at the bottom which allow you to manage which articles you are following, ... if you don't see/get that then: login and go to your account page, on the left there will be a "following" link that should allow you to opt out, ... good luck