[billn]

You pay into SS and if you life long enough you get your $ back in the form of a retirement. It is not a ponzi scheme where the $ are gone. It is also disability insurance is you become disable you can draw. If you die your kids and wife might quality for SS benefits so they will not starve to death.

[Goaltender66]

Originally Posted by Trew2Life

Mitt Romney described the 47% in 3 distinct groups:

Those who pay no federal income tax? Yep. That's me. I'm part of the vast majority who have below average earnings; one of the 9 out of 10 who earn less than $50K

People who get federal benefits? Yep. That's me, too. I believe I am entitled to health care and 'you name it'. I've been contributing to health care and 'you name it' for 30+ years.

Likely Obama Voters? Three for 3. Like me, there are many other Obama supporters who may have supported BHO in '08 but may think he's not the man for the job in '12. Well, Mitt Romney proved he's not interested in them either.

47% is a lot of people, about 30 million voters. A small percentage of them receive food stamps (about 16%). An even smaller number of them (about 2%) are actual fraud or abuse.

Mitt Romney choose to denegrate 29.4 Million people for the actions of 600 thousand.

No, he said that people who are either trapped in a culture of entitlement or who buy into it aren't going to respond to a message of lower taxes, less government, more freedom, and more personal responsibility.

And I'd suggest you are proving him correct.

[Averageman]

Those who pay no federal income tax? Yep. That's me. I'm part of the vast majority who have below average earnings; one of the 9 out of 10 who earn less than $50K

People who get federal benefits? Yep. That's me, too. I believe I am entitled to health care and 'you name it'. I've been contributing to health care and 'you name it' for 30+ years.

Likely Obama Voters? Three for 3. Like me, there are many other Obama supporters who may have supported BHO in '08 but may think he's not the man for the job in '12. Well, Mitt Romney proved he's not interested in them either.

And let me understand this,...you are proud of the three above facts about yourself?

[Trew2Life]

Originally Posted by Goaltender66

No, he said that people who are either trapped in a culture of entitlement or who buy into it aren't going to respond to a message of lower taxes, less government, more freedom, and more personal responsibility.

And I'd suggest you are proving him correct.

Huh ?? You must of had your speakers on mute for the first 60 seconds of his comments.

[Goaltender66]

Originally Posted by Trew2Life

Huh ?? You must of had your speakers on mute for the first 60 seconds of his comments.

No, I heard him just fine. Thing is, I heard what he said, not what I wanted him to say.

[tsmo1066]

Originally Posted by Trew2Life

Mitt Romney described the 47% in 3 distinct groups:

Those who pay no federal income tax? Yep. That's me. I'm part of the vast majority who have below average earnings; one of the 9 out of 10 who earn less than $50K

People who get federal benefits? Yep. That's me, too. I believe I am entitled to health care and 'you name it'. I've been contributing to health care and 'you name it' for 30+ years.

Likely Obama Voters? Three for 3. Like me, there are many other Obama supporters who may have supported BHO in '08 but may think he's not the man for the job in '12. Well, Mitt Romney proved he's not interested in them either.

47% is a lot of people, about 30 million voters. A small percentage of them receive food stamps (about 16%). An even smaller number of them (about 2%) are actual fraud or abuse.

Mitt Romney choose to denegrate 29.4 Million people for the actions of 600 thousand.

He didn't describe three distinct groups, as you claim. He described ONE group, people who will vote for Obama 'no matter what', and he then went on to describe WHY that single group will be voting for him (that they pay no taxes, feel entitled, etc.)

That's a critical distinction, and one that you have either overlooked or are deliberately trying to misconstrue.

There are a great many people who pay no federal taxes who will be voting for Romney in November precisely because they DON'T feel entitled and AREN'T looking for hand-outs. These include many retirees who don't want to see their fixed incomed diluted into worthlessness by Obama's QE3 "turn on the printing press" policies regarding the national debt and others who see that rampant spending, coupled with no budget being passed for four straight years is a recipe for disaster.

If you are going to try to describe Romney's statement, please do so accurately.

[Trew2Life]

Originally Posted by Goaltender66

No, he said that people who are either trapped in a culture of entitlement or who buy into it aren't going to respond to a message of lower taxes, less government, more freedom, and more personal responsibility.

And I'd suggest you are proving him correct.

Originally Posted by Goaltender66

No, I heard him just fine. Thing is, I heard what he said, not what I wanted him to say.

Could it be selective hearing? Mitt Romeny was very specific about his number '47'. That isn't just some 'off the cuff' number. 30, 45 is off the cuff. 47 is very specific. If Mitt were referring to those 'who are either trapped in a culture of entitlement or who buy into it', that number is much, much less. Like 2 percent.

Audience member: "For the last three years, all everybody's been told is, "Don't worry, we'll take care of you." How are you going to do it, in two months before the elections, to convince everybody you've got to take care of yourself?"

Romney: "There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe that 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. And I mean, the president starts off with 48, 49, 48—he starts off with a huge number. These are people who pay no income tax. Forty-seven percent of Americans pay no income tax. So our message of low taxes doesn't connect. And he'll be out there talking about tax cuts for the rich. I mean that's what they sell every four years. And so my job is not to worry about those people—I'll never convince them that they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives. What I have to do is convince the 5 to 10 percent in the center that are independents that are thoughtful, that look at voting one way or the other depending upon in some cases emotion, whether they like the guy or not, what it looks like."

[tsmo1066]

Originally Posted by Trew2Life

Could it be selective hearing? Mitt Romeny was very specific about his number '47'. That isn't just some 'off the cuff' number. 30, 45 is off the cuff. 47 is very specific. If Mitt were referring to those 'who are either trapped in a culture of entitlement or who buy into it', that number is much, much less. Like 2 percent.

Audience member: "For the last three years, all everybody's been told is, "Don't worry, we'll take care of you." How are you going to do it, in two months before the elections, to convince everybody you've got to take care of yourself?"

Romney: "There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe that 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. And I mean, the president starts off with 48, 49, 48—he starts off with a huge number. These are people who pay no income tax. Forty-seven percent of Americans pay no income tax. So our message of low taxes doesn't connect. And he'll be out there talking about tax cuts for the rich. I mean that's what they sell every four years. And so my job is not to worry about those people—I'll never convince them that they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives. What I have to do is convince the 5 to 10 percent in the center that are independents that are thoughtful, that look at voting one way or the other depending upon in some cases emotion, whether they like the guy or not, what it looks like."

Romney is stating that 47% of America is going to vote for Obama no matter what (a fact that all pollsters agree on) and that he needs to convince the 5-10% in the middle that he's the better candidate.

This surprises you how?

[Trew2Life]

Originally Posted by tsmo1066

He didn't describe three distinct groups, as you claim. He described ONE group, people who will vote for Obama 'no matter what', and he then went on to describe WHY that single group will be voting for him (that they pay no taxes, feel entitled, etc.)

That's a critical distinction, and one that you have either overlooked or are deliberately trying to misconstrue.

This would almost make sense if he didn't finish out his remarks with, "What I have to do is convince the 5 to 10 percent in the center that are independents"

[Averageman]

Audience member: "For the last three years, all everybody's been told is, "Don't worry, we'll take care of you." How are you going to do it, in two months before the elections, to convince everybody you've got to take care of yourself?"

Romney: "There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe that 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. And I mean, the president starts off with 48, 49, 48—he starts off with a huge number. These are people who pay no income tax. Forty-seven percent of Americans pay no income tax. So our message of low taxes doesn't connect. And he'll be out there talking about tax cuts for the rich. I mean that's what they sell every four years. And so my job is not to worry about those people—I'll never convince them that they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives. What I have to do is convince the 5 to 10 percent in the center that are independents that are thoughtful, that look at voting one way or the other depending upon in some cases emotion, whether they like the guy or not, what it looks like."

Sounds to me like he got it right, so whats your issue? He wants Americans to raise themselves up and become independant and an asset to the country they live in.
As someone who stated three sad facts about themselves earlier and stated them in such a manner that he seemed proud of those sad facts, well; I can see why you would find Romneys statement offensive.

[.264 magnum]

Originally Posted by Trew2Life

Mitt Romney described the 47% in 3 distinct groups:

Those who pay no federal income tax? Yep. That's me. I'm part of the vast majority who have below average earnings; one of the 9 out of 10 who earn less than $50K

People who get federal benefits? Yep. That's me, too. I believe I am entitled to health care and 'you name it'. I've been contributing to health care and 'you name it' for 30+ years.

Likely Obama Voters? Three for 3. Like me, there are many other Obama supporters who may have supported BHO in '08 but may think he's not the man for the job in '12. Well, Mitt Romney proved he's not interested in them either.

47% is a lot of people, about 30 million voters. A small percentage of them receive food stamps (about 16%). An even smaller number of them (about 2%) are actual fraud or abuse.

Mitt Romney choose to denegrate 29.4 Million people for the actions of 600 thousand.

Hmmmmm......sounds like you need a lot of help from others. Obama is definitely the man for you.

[Trew2Life]

Originally Posted by tsmo1066

Romney is stating that 47% of America is going to vote for Obama no matter what (a fact that all pollsters agree on) and that he needs to convince the 5-10% in the middle that he's the better candidate.

This surprises you how?

It doesn't surprise me at all. What surprises me is the number of people who think Mitt ISN'T referring to them when he talks about the people he doesn't care about.

[Averageman]

Originally Posted by Trew2Life

It doesn't surprise me at all. What surprises me is the number of people who think Mitt ISN'T referring to them when he talks about the people he doesn't care about.

He doesn't care for them or he doesn't care to fight for their votes?
Once again the Man gave $4,000,000 to charity last year.

[tsmo1066]

Originally Posted by Trew2Life

It doesn't surprise me at all. What surprises me is the number of people who think Mitt ISN'T referring to them when he talks about the people he doesn't care about.

Romney said he doesn't care about them? Where?

He says he doesn't need to worry about them from an election point of view because they won't vote for him no matter what, but nowhere does he state or in any way imply that he doesn't care about them.

Your statement above is a figment constructed out of thin air.

BTW - As pointed out above, Romney gave 4 million dollars of his own money to those less fortunate than himself just last year ALONE. Over the past decade, Romney has given, on average, over 13% of his earnings to private charities.

How much did Obama give them from his own personal accounts? What percentage of Obama's private income does he give to charity, or does he feel that merely giving away OTHER PEOPLE'S money is what it's all about?

[Trew2Life]

Originally Posted by Averageman

He doesn't care for them or he doesn't care to fight for their votes?
Once again the Man gave $4,000,000 to charity last year.

That's very charitable. Show me the paper work. As a mormon, he's obligated to pay at least 10% of his income in tithes (a.k.a., charitable deductions)

[Goaltender66]

Originally Posted by Trew2Life

Could it be selective hearing? Mitt Romeny was very specific about his number '47'. That isn't just some 'off the cuff' number. 30, 45 is off the cuff. 47 is very specific. If Mitt were referring to those 'who are either trapped in a culture of entitlement or who buy into it', that number is much, much less. Like 2 percent.

Audience member: "For the last three years, all everybody's been told is, "Don't worry, we'll take care of you." How are you going to do it, in two months before the elections, to convince everybody you've got to take care of yourself?"

Romney: "There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe that 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. And I mean, the president starts off with 48, 49, 48—he starts off with a huge number. These are people who pay no income tax. Forty-seven percent of Americans pay no income tax. So our message of low taxes doesn't connect. And he'll be out there talking about tax cuts for the rich. I mean that's what they sell every four years. And so my job is not to worry about those people—I'll never convince them that they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives. What I have to do is convince the 5 to 10 percent in the center that are independents that are thoughtful, that look at voting one way or the other depending upon in some cases emotion, whether they like the guy or not, what it looks like."

And yet, today's Rasmussen has Obama at...47%. Moreover, it's been hovering at or near 47% for weeks now.

Romney was specific because the data bears him out. In this economy, that Obama can pull down 47% of likely voters pretty much makes Romney's case that there is a cadre of people who will vote Obama no matter what...possibly because they are dependent on Government or believe that Government should provide all.

[Averageman]

Originally Posted by Trew2Life

That's very charitable. Show me the paper work. As a mormon, he's obligated to pay at least 10% of his income in tithes (a.k.a., charitable deductions)

Look it up yourself, its public record.
But more to your point..So Tithe doesn't count? Giving your Church money to care for the poor is a viable and logical dontation.
Do you have a problem with that? Is it less noble, or should he be more like Joe Biden who dontated to the tune of a buck and a penny a day to charity last year?
I'm old enought to remember when churches cared for their poor and the federal government wasn't in the business of redistributing wealth. The Churches did it so much better and with less waste and more results.
It would seem to me that whom the charity comes from is less important than the good it does.

But please look it up, you might be very surprised!

[Trew2Life]

Originally Posted by tsmo1066

Romney said he doesn't care about them? Where?

He says he doesn't need to worry about them from an election point of view because they won't vote for him no matter what, but nowhere does he state or in any way imply that he doesn't care about them.

Your statement above is a figment constructed out of thin air.

"And so my job is not to worry about those people" Read the full transcript. No worries = No cares. If he doesn't care about their votes, by what stretch of the imagination should we believe he cares about their representation?

BTW - As pointed out above, Romney gave 4 million dollars of his own money to those less fortunate than himself just last year ALONE. Over the past decade, Romney has given, on average, over 13% of his earnings to private charities.

And as also pointed out, Mitt is obligated to pay 10% of his income to the Mormon church. You know he's writing that off as charitable deductions.

How much did Obama give them from his own personal accounts? What percentage of Obama's private income does he give to charity, or does he feel that merely giving away OTHER PEOPLE'S money is what it's all about?

The Obama's donated about 14% of their earnings to charity in 2011. About 250K.

What's contructed out of thin air is Mitt Romneys compaign. It means nothing and stands for everything.

[frank4570]

If you give people free stuff, then give them the ability to vote for more free stuff, they will.

[tsmo1066]

Originally Posted by Trew2Life

"And so my job is not to worry about those people" Read the full transcript. No worries = No cares. If he doesn't care about their votes, by what stretch of the imagination should we believe he cares about their representation?

Come now, you can do better than that. Romney is speaking of the campaign and VOTES, you are as aware of that as anyone else here. He never states or in any way implies that he doesn't care about the people in question, but plainly states that he can't convince them to VOTE for him. If he didn't care about them as people he wouldn't give MILLIONS to them out of his own, personal finances.

So what percentage of Obama's private income is he giving to charities, anyway?

BTW - The Mormon Church does not require that one pay 10% of one's income to private charities, as Romney does. They suggest that one pays ten percent to the Mormon Church. Romney's millions in donations to numerous private charities are not required in any way by his faith.

[Goaltender66]

Originally Posted by tsmo1066

Come now, you can do better than that. Romney is speaking of the campaign and VOTES, you are as aware of that as anyone else here. He never states or in any way implies that he doesn't care about the people in question, but plainly states that he can't convince them to VOTE for him. If he didn't care about them as people he wouldn't give MILLIONS to them out of his own, personal finances.

So what percentage of Obama's private income is he giving to charities, anyway?

For that matter, what percentage of Trew2Life's income is going to charity? I think it's relevant if he's going to be so dismissive of Romney's charity.

[Averageman]

And as also pointed out, Mitt is obligated to pay 10% of his income to the Mormon church. You know he's writing that off as charitable deductions.
So giving a money to a church to be distributed to the poor is wrong?
BTW he paid his tax and gave 30% of his income away as charity. Hmmmm thats a lot more than tithe's 10% isn't it?

So where did the rest go?
Aint it amazing what a good Man can do when he makes a lot of money and the Government doesn't have it's fingers in the till !
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...WhatsNewsThird

[Trew2Life]

Originally Posted by Averageman

Look it up yourself, its public record.
But more to your point..So Tithe doesn't count? Giving your Church money to care for the poor is a viable and logical dontation.
Do you have a problem with that? Is it less noble, or should he be more like Joe Biden who dontated to the tune of a buck and a penny a day to charity last year?
I'm old enought to remember when churches cared for their poor and the federal government wasn't in the business of redistributing wealth. The Churches did it so much better and with less waste and more results.
It would seem to me that whom the charity comes from is less important than the good it does.

But please look it up, you might be very surprised!

Nothing is wrong with tithes. Churches do great community services. But those charitable donations as tax deductions don't impress me. That's your 'sin tax'.

[tsmo1066]

Originally Posted by Trew2Life

Nothing is wrong with tithes. Churches do great community services. But those charitable donations as tax deductions don't impress me. That's your 'sin tax'.

Romney's charitable donations were NOT merely tithes to the Mormon Church. He currently supports over a dozen different private charities as per his released tax statements and of the 4 million he donated to charities, only about 1 million was to the LDS. He also reportedly donated an additional 1.6 million or so to the LDS that he never even claimed a deduction for.

[Averageman]

Originally Posted by Trew2Life

Nothing is wrong with tithes. Churches do great community services. But those charitable donations as tax deductions don't impress me. That's your 'sin tax'.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...WhatsNewsThird
Read up on it a bit, it's not tithe of 10% and he didnt claim the entire 4 million on his taxes.
There is nothing wrong with good Men doing good things with their money, much could be said for cutting out the Government middle man and giving it to the charities you choose to directly.
He gave 30%, now when I went to Sunday School Tithe was 10%, where did the other 20% go?
And perhaps instead of begrudging him his money, his charity and his opinion you should be thankful Men like him exist to help those who cant help themselves.