GO NAVY BEAT ARMY

GO NAVY BEAT ARMY

'87 Sir

Thirty years of service ----USNA Class of 1987 '87 Sir

Tuesday, September 18, 2012

Mitt Romney tells truth...scandal ensues.

Yep, that's right...best quote of the morning from Tucker Carlson while listening to my usual WMAL morning show-"Well, that's a real scandal in this town..telling the truth."  I'm paraphrasing a little, but I love it nonetheless.

What truth do I speak of?  Well the lamestream media will be absolutely BREATHLESS with angst over Mitt's comment taped by those crack undercover reporters at Mother Jones...who of course can't seem to find all those guns the DOJ let loose on Mexico...or find those pesky terrorists who attacked our embassy...or can't find that crazy Cabinet Secretary who violated the Hatch Act...but I digress.

NOPE, what has the likes of Brian Williams, Matt Lauer and Chris "Legs" Matthews all uptight today (or business as usual) is this quote:

There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what…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. Forty-seven percent of Americans pay no income tax…And so my job is not to worry about those people. I’ll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives.

This will no doubt cause heads to explode and mouths to foam at ABCBSMSNBCWAPONYTKOS land...because it's TRUE...100% TRUE...let's review this video for a moment.


This is, of course the CLASSIC Obama voter....bar none...

Now, before picking this little tidbit apart, let's remember when Obama decided he didn't need the white, blue collar Reagan Democrat vote, shall we?

President Barack Obama's 2012 re-election campaign will be the first in modern political history to abandon white working-class voters, strategists claim.
For decades, Democrats have been losing more and more blue collar whites. Their alienation helped lead to the massive Republican wave in 2010, when the GOP wooed 30 percent more of them than the Democrats could.
Democratic strategists say President Obama is focusing his attention, instead, on poor black and Hispanic voters and educated white professionals.
So, clearly both candidates, most political pundits, and even your own Grouchy Historian know that this election is about turning out the base and convincing those mushy, middle road "independent" voters that either Obama isn't as incompetent as he is or Romney isn't a mean as he seems. 

But, really, where is Romney wrong...factually incorrect, that is...of course liberals think he's wrong, and mean, and rich, and white and Mormon...any of which makes him a racist, homophobic, xenophobic meanie poopoo head.  But seriously, what about it? 

Here's the facts:

  • Unemployment has also soared and stayed above 8% for nearly 40 months..and this is using the BS statistics that the Labor Department cooks by showing people "dropping out of the workforce and not looking for work".  That's about the most bogus crap I have ever heard.  Here's the facts...."So, while Obama claims an unemployment rate of 8.3 percent, the real unemployment rate is 10.8 percent. Because ultimately, Obama’s unemployment rate decreases are the perverse result of the destruction of American’s hope of finding work and their abandoning the workforce."

  • I really think it's worse than that...if you use the U6 numbers (The U-6 unemployment rate includes the total unemployed, plus all marginally attached workers, plus total employed part time for economic reasons, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus all marginally attached workers)- the real no kidding unemployment rate is nearly 15%
So, is this okay with Obama and the Dems?  And, for goodness sake, how, EXACTLY is taxing the crap out of everyone with a job (you know those RICH people in Obama's America), going to solve our myriad of problems.

Answer--it won't...but Obama's got nothing else except class envy and the class struggle of the proletariat versus their capitalist oppressors:     

So, I hope Romney has the guts to stand up and say "Hell, yea I said that...we have too many people on welfare, food stamps and disability...they need jobs, we need to cut our entitlement expense...and they GO HAND IN HAND..."

This is what I don't understand...why can't anyone see the relationship between unemployment and the deficit?  This seems pretty obvious to me...the more people that are working...are paying taxes...and spending money...which generates more taxes...and they AREN'T collecting food stamps or welfare...and they are PRODUCTIVE again....

Hmmm...kinda makes ya wonder why Obama gutted welfare reform..dudn't it?

Strap in...it's gonna be a fun week.

Oh, hey and that whole China-Japan thing...nahhhhh, don't worry about that...pay no attention to the war coming to Asia....



UPDATE: 

The awesomeness continues...more scandal...er, I mean truth telling by Mitt:
Palestinians have no interest whatsoever in establishing peace, and that the pathway to peace is almost unthinkable to accomplish. Now why do I say that? Some might say, well, let's let the Palestinians have the West Bank, and have security, and set up a separate nation for the Palestinians. And then come a couple of thorny questions. And I don't have a map here to look at the geography, but the border between Israel and the West Bank is obviously right there, right next to Tel Aviv, which is the financial capital, the industrial capital of Israel, the center of Israel. It's—what the border would be? Maybe seven miles from Tel Aviv to what would be the West Bank…The other side of the West Bank, the other side of what would be this new Palestinian state would either be Syria at one point, or Jordan. And of course the Iranians would want to do through the West Bank exactly what they did through Lebanon, what they did near Gaza. Which is that the Iranians would want to bring missiles and armament into the West Bank and potentially threaten Israel.

oh, and this gem...
The president's foreign policy, in my opinion, is formed in part by a perception he has that his magnetism, and his charm, and his persuasiveness is so compelling that he can sit down with people like Putin and Chávez and Ahmadinejad, and that they'll find that we're such wonderful people that they'll go on with us, and they'll stop doing bad things. And it's an extraordinarily naive perception.

Yup...Mother Jones is SHOCKED, SHOCKED that an American politician does not feel the need to pander to a bunch of murderous thugs...

(Peace) Initiatives, the so-called peaceful solutions, and the international conferences to resolve the Palestinian problem, are all contrary to the beliefs of the Islamic Resistance Movement. For renouncing any part of Palestine means renouncing part of the religion; the nationalism of the Islamic Resistance Movement is part of this faith, the movement educates it members to adhere to its principles and to raise the banner of Allah over their homeland as they fight their Jihad: "Allah is the all-powerful, but most people are not aware.

This is only getting better.......

17 comments:

Anonymous said...

While of course it is true that 47%pay no "income taxes," most of these people are subject to payroll taxes -- FICA and social security -- which are income taxes in the normal sense that they take money from people's income. So even someone making $25,000 and paying no income taxes can still be paying 15% or more in payroll taxes. In this case, they would have the same effective tax rate as Mitt Romney does on his millions (because his income is from capital gains, which is taxed at a lower rate than, for example, salaries and book royalities). The 47% also includes seniors that may have no income (hence no income taxes), people who were unemployed for the year (hence no income), and some military personnel in combat zones. It also, by the way, includes several thousand people in 2011 that had incomes in excess of 1 million dollars but somehow paid no income taxes. Imagine that. So he is techincally correct, but the implication that these are freeloading moochers who contribute nothing was questionable. Furthermore, one reason many low income people pay no income taxes is the Earned Income Tax Credit...any guess what president gave us that?

Anonymous said...

Oh, and I would ad that I plan to vote for Obama and I have never gotten a food stamp, a medicare/medicade reimbursement, an uneployment check or an agricultural subsidy. I earned $90,000 last year in salary and book roylaties. Between income tax, FICA and social security, my effective tax rate was 23%. That is 8% higher than Mitt's. No mention of that oddity to his donors. Now that annoys me!

Grouchy Historian said...

So, to be clear, yes Mitt did say income taxes, which indeed does not include payroll taxes or state income taxes..which if you live in the People's Republic of Maryland can be significant. And yes, the EITC is an aid to low income earners. And yes, I know about the unemployed and retired.

BUT, as broadbrush as Mitt was, the fact of the matter is that more people are on food stamps and have been unemployed for longer under Obama than ANY OTHER President.

What I find funny is that so many people want to tax dividends and capital gains as ordinary income. OK, let's do that...of course I wouldn't want to sell my home after that..or cash in any of my 401K or other retirement INVESTMENTS.

Of course it doesn't make any difference if Obama wins..between killing those evil Bush tax cuts, all the new taxes in Obamacare and goodness knows what other new taxes, we will all be paying 50% of our income in taxes...at that point, maybe it does make sense to just say screw it and go in disability.......

Anonymous said...

I love the notion that some income is "ordinary" while other income is what? Extraordinary? Yes, I want a more equitable treatment of income. The money I earn by working and writing is as much mine to keep as the money someone else earns from investments. I favor a flat tax for people above the poverty level with all paying the same rate whether their income comes digging ditches, waiting tables, teaching, writing or investing. And taxes should include all the money we send to government based on our income without some articial distinction between incomes taxes and other kinds.

Grouchy Historian said...

Wow...I agree a flat tax is the way to go. That way you only get taxed once. Let's do it!!

Anonymous said...

Capital gains included and taxed at the same rate?

Grouchy Historian said...

Ahh, the classic liberal conundrum? How many times do you get to tax income? If I make money (on which I pay taxes), buy a house with that money and then sell the house for a profit, do I have to pay taxes again?

Or, to put it in redistributionist terms if we each make $100 (after taxes of course), but you spend $100 and I only spend $90 and invest $10...on which I make $5..should I have to pay taxes again on the $5?

WHY?

NO, you should pay taxes on income once..whether that is in stock options or bonuses..but that's IT. Savings, investments, and capital gain should not be endlessly taxed.

It's all about CHOICES..and liberals profess to LOVE choice, no?

People who save and invest should not be penalized with more taxes on top of their income taxes.

This, of course is the joy of a flat tax...a W2 is all you need.

And yes, for those folks like Mitt Romney.....and the Kennedys....and John Kerry....and most of Hollywood, they would pay perhaps less tax if all they did was live off their OLLLD family money...but most millionaires aren't the Kennedys or Rockefellers or Warren Buffet...at some point they had to work for a living....

I personally have never been given a job by a poor man...so why rich people are endless demonized I don't know. The endless BS about the rich not paying their fair share is not only patently false but absurdly nauseating.

Top 10 Percent of Earners Paid 71 Percent of Federal Income Taxes

Source: Internal Revenue Service.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/your-taxes-work-all-you-need-know-about-who-pays-what-taxes-us

Class warfare is a crappy tactic for any politician...instead of fighting over how to divide up the bacon...we should be making more bacon..to use my favorite food analogy.

OR as the liberal saint JFK said "A rising tide lifts all boats."

Anonymous said...

Was that a yes or a no?

Grouchy Historian said...

No. You should only tax income once. Whether you CHOOSE to invest or spend it should be your choice.

Anonymous said...

1. Capital gains does not tax income twice. The money you initially invest is taxed once when you first earn it. The money you invest is not taxed again. After that, it is only the GAINS on investments that would be taxed. If there are no gains, the initial investment is not taxed again. This is the same as the taxes that apply to the interest on my savings. The principle is taxed once before I deposit into my account. This money is not taxed again... it is only the interest earned that is subsequently taxed. Nothing is taxed twice.

2. No capital gains taxes means that people who earn all their income from investments would end up paying no income taxes. They would be part of the 47%. This would not be a flat tax. It would one tax rate for some kinds of income (salary, royalties, rent, etc.)and another tax rate (0%) for another type of income (investment income).

Grouchy Historian said...

Ok, well we'll see how well that works out...

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2008/03/tax-cuts-not-the-clinton-tax-hike-produced-the-1990s-boom

Grouchy Historian said...

Tax Only Earned Income

Another part of the flat tax philosophy is to remove double taxation, by only taxing earned income. Things like dividends, interest on savings, or capital gains that result from investment or increases in asset value would not be taxed under a pure flat tax system. This is seen as increasing the fairness and simplicity of the system, as well as encouraging investment.


http://taxes.about.com/od/statetaxes/a/Flat-tax.htm

Anonymous said...

"Seen as increasing fairness." You may see it that way; I do not. I do not think it is "fair" that someone who earns $70,000 as a teacher pays 23% in taxes but someone who earns $10,0000,000 as an investor pays not a penny(if that is all their income that year) simply because of this odd distinction between "earned" and "unearned" income.

Does eliminating taxes on investment encourage investment? Sure. Would eliminating taxes on work encourge people to work more? Sure. Would eliminating taxes on royalities encourage people to write more books? Sure. But taxes have to come from somewhere. If you think it "fair" that all other desirable economic activites are taxed except investment, we will just have to agree to disagree on the meaning of fairness.

Anonymous said...

And I still to not understand how taxing captial gains it double taxation. Assume I make $10,000 dollars in salary in 2010. I will pay taxes on that. If I then invest it in stocks which sell in 2013 for $40,000, it is only the gains ($30,000) that will be taxed. The original $10,000 is not taxed again. Where is the double taxation?

Grouchy Historian said...

It's a matter of semantics I guess and who you assume generates economic activity.

If you assume government creates jobs and economic growth then you would favor progressive taxation, including taxes on dividends and interest. So capital gains taxes make sense.

If you believe private investment generates jobs, then you encourage people to save and invest, ala 401Ks. Therefore you shrink government to meet a reasonable tax rate, not try to furiously tax everyone and everything to pay for more and more programs of dubious economic worth.

I believe in the latter. Also I consider it double taxation because you paid taxes on the $10,000. ANY investment you make with that money should be your business and you should not get taxed again.

Again I say at some point Mitt Romney paid income taxes on his money before he invested it. Not everyone is a Kennedy who can live off their family money.

Anonymous said...

I do not assume that government spending creates jobs (though Romney does, as he has offered that as part of his case for not cutting defense spending...lost jobs).

I assume that taxes are a regretable necessity and I see no reason why some should be exempt. And I do not favor progressive taxation. I favor a single rate of taxation on all forms of income. You are the one who favors differnential tax rates depending on how they earn their income. If you are a teacher, ditch digger, author or landlord, you pay X%. If you are an investor, you pay 0%.

You persist in this idea that capital gains that were never taxed are being taxed "again." If you want to argue that capital gains should not be taxed at all because of the importance to economic growth, then make that argument. But do not argue that taxing capital gains is taxing income twice.

I have no idea what taxes Romney paid. How do you know?

Grouchy Historian said...

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/romneys-release-taxes_652850.html
Mitt gave almost 30% of his income to charity. Wow he really is the greedy out of touch millionaire the Huffpo says!!!

Well, if we were to go with a single flat tax rate on all forms of income, I suppose that would be a fine compromise over the Byzantine system we have know.

BUT, I doubt it will ever happen, sadly. Of course I would also favor a single lower corporate tax rate as well, while eliminating all that corporate welfare as well. (I know, surprising, huh.)

Sadly, both liberals and conservative politicians the current tax system as it is, probably because too many of them are lawyers...Shakespeare was right when it comes to lawyers.