There are a lot of numbers getting thrown around this election year. About the only sure figure anyone can agree on is that -- if by some stroke of luck and cosmic reorganization we come together as a people -- there'd be 100 percent of us.
But we seem to have fallen far short of that, with Americans lumping themselves or being lumped into various fractions this election year. There's Mitt Romney's 47 Percenters -- victims happily suckling at the government teat -- or the 99 Percent, the broadly suffering majority paying the bill for the free-spending excesses of those at the top of income distribution in America, the uber-rich One Percent.
Which percent are you? I guess we're 99 Percenters, not out of any shared idealism, though many of their arguments make sense, but because that fraction safely covers our lot in life while we avoid anything that smacks of the stigma of 47 Percent victimization, and because our jaws still drop at the price of milk. One Percenters, we have it on good authority, live in palaces and get their milk from cows with golden udders.
Since we depend on our employment for our incomes I guess that makes us workers, and since we pay far too much in taxes I guess that excludes us from membership in the One Percent. So it's the 99 Percenters for us. Up the proletariat.
Where doth thou lie, Lamorinda? I would imagine mostly with us worker bees, with a healthy smattering of the (hopefully) charitable One Percent. We'll see, as the idea for this little story was sprung this morning by readers eager to sound off online about "The Mitt Tapes" and candidate Romney's broad characterization of half of the country's population.
"Some will see this as a clear window into his true evil soul," one reader penned. "I find his comments remarkably candid and sensible…. I think he should embrace and underscore much of what he said."
Okay, we'll use that opinion as a launching pad for the rest of you. Pick your percent...
NOTE: Before you waste time chafing your bony little fingers pik-pokking us threats of violence and obloquy, we know the video of people commenting on candidate Romney's words came from the Obama-Biden camp. It was chosen solely for its production value and on-screen transcript of candidate Romney's comments. That's it. No favoritism of any candidate implied or intended.
most of this comes down to a choice between spending now vs continuing to have a reasonable (not excessive as we do now) safety net for future generations. so far i don't see that we have the national gumption to make the right choices for our kids. we have santa claus running again for president (who i voted for) against a ticket that should be able to have an open and honest dialogue with the country, but so far is failing to do so in a coherent way. as a result, it is much easier to re-elect santa claus bearing gifts paid for with borrowed money and our childrens future...
In addition, Republicans say they don’t want government managing citizen’s lives. HOWEVER, you do want to overturn Row V. Wade so the government can “dictate” our family planning business. Talk about socialism or communism – it doesn’t get more “hitler-ish” than that. So, keep your hands off our uteruses! Come on smart women, vote Obama and keep your right to choose.
Contrast the fiscal issues which are 100% in play. We need a grown up assessment of the current and future economy, not "Godwin's Law"-validating hectoring imbued with eye-bulging fanaticism. If your arguments seem to work best when shouted through a distorted bull horn, perhaps have another look at their grounding in reality....
Contrast that with fiscal issues. Does anyone think that the policies of the next 4-8 years won't matter?
I have no problem banning the procedure on ethical grounds. However from a financial standpoint, outlawing abortion makes no sense, as taxpayers will be forced to support even more children under the hue & cry of "we can't let them starve" when in all honesty if a child starves the primary fault lies with the parents, not society's unwillingness to be an endless deep pocket. Admittedly it's a harsh reality but Mitt seems to recognize the value of expressing harsh realities.
Per Ezra Klein's Wonkblog, that is what candidate Romney owed in federal taxes in 2011. He apparently INCREASED his tax liability by claiming only a portion of his charitable contributions so that he would not contradict what he had promised on the campaign trail, namely that he had not paid less that 13 something percent in the last 10 years. Of course, it's not a win-win scenario for the candidate. He looks generous, even magnanimous, but he is still an uber rich guy who only OWED 11% in taxes and who is promising to fight to lower the taxes of the uber rich, a measure Democrats oppose. And, given the way the polls are starting to gradually tilt, that largesse may just sting a bit come mid-November. Thanks, Mitt.
Food for thought: If someone made $5 million and gave it all to the United Way, he would still face a $850K tax bill given limited deduction on charitable giving. ABC, MSDNC, CBS and CNN would say he only paid 16% tax rate. The actual rate given he gave it all away would be infinite.
Is this an example of his financial acumen? I ask you, is this a guy who wants to defend his principles? He either believes 11% is defensible or he doesn't. You can bet he wouldn't have paid 14% if he didn't have to disclose it. Conservatives need to get their act together and find better candidates. The finger pointing has started 50 days BEFORE the election.
I have not heard this objection advanced from the left. The only "argument" I have heard is "14 is a low number and 11 is a lower number"-- without any meaningful context. Percentages don't pay for social welfare programs, dollars do. How about focusing on how many DOLLARS Romney has paid into the Treasury in his life.....
I do have opinions on these issue, but neither I nor the government should impose my (or their) views on anyone.
My POINT is that if he is unwilling to defend the current tax rates for millionaires as fair, how can he sell the nation on extending them or lowering them? If he thinks 11% is fair why does he dress it up as 14%? He is simply unwilling to defend the actual rates as fair, except by using unfounded platitudes. And don't worry about Mitt. He can file an amended tax return on November 7 and get his proper deduction.
It's ignorant to keep using the 11% argument like the Obama supportive media. His "in the real world" tax rate was 25%. In the real world you don't get dinged for tax on money you give away, i.e. don't keep. The total tax on what he didn't give away was 25%. Using your illogic, someone who gave away 100% of their earnings would still be paying an 11% tax.
Per USA TODAY today: During a South Carolina primary debate in January, Romney said he had only paid "the taxes that are legally required and not a dollar more." "I don't think you want someone as the candidate for president who pays more taxes than he owes," he said. Romney told ABC News in July," Frankly, if I had paid more than are legally due I don't think I'd be qualified to become president. I'd think people would want me to follow the law and pay only what the tax code requires." Once again, it is Romney vs Romney. The new Romney has a new position on paying more than he owes.
Your last post was beyond ignorance, like ignorance with a dash of stupidity.
J.D., how about another topic? I need another good laugh.