A secret recording from a fundraiser obtained by Mother Jones catches Mitt Romney saying "shocking things" about 47 percent of the electorate. Former Ohio Governor Ted Strickland and Washington Post columnist E.J. Dionne discuss the tape with Ed Schultz.
Mitt Romney is defending comments secretly recorded at a private fund-raiser in which he criticized supporters of President Barack Obama as people "believe they are victims" who are dependent on government.
The newly leaked video, first obtained by Mother Jones, was shot from a concealed camera without Romney's knowledge as he spoke at a $50,000-a-plate fundraiser at the Boca Raton, Florida, home of private equity mogul Marc Leder in May 2012.
When Romney was asked how he's going to convince voters that they need to take care of themselves, he responded:
"There are 47 percent who are with [Obama], who are dependent on government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has responsibility to take care of them, who believe they are entitled to food, to housing, to you name it. It's an entitlement and that the government should give it to them, and they will vote for this president no matter what."
Where does Romney get 47 percent?
"These are people who pay no income tax."
Romney is probably referring to a 2011 study by the Tax Policy Center that fully 46 percent of Americans would pay no federal individual income tax.
Conservatives have often cited percentage, leaving the very false impression that nearly half of Americans pay no taxes at all.
Right-wing blogger Erick Erickson, for example, used it to start a "We are the 53 Percent" campaign in response to "We are the 99 Percent" movement launched by Occupy Wall Street.
However, many of those who don’t pay a federal individual income tax do pay plenty of other taxes, including federal payroll taxes, state/local sales taxes, gas taxes and excise taxes.
Many are seniors who've left the workforce, Americans with disabilities who can't work, students who have not yet entered the workforce and low-income and middle-class families who take advantage of tax credits Republicans have traditionally supported.
Check out the chart to the right from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities and click here for a series of excellent charts from the Washington Post's Ezra Klein and The Atlantic's Derek Thompson.
So who are these 47 percent of Americans "who are dependent on government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has responsibility to take care of them, who believe they are entitled to food, to housing, to you name it" that Romney refers to?
Is he talking about people who receive government entitlements, such as Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, SNAP (food stamps), Affordable Care Act (Obamacare), veterans benefits and unemployment insurance?
If so, most of those programs are both paid for by and benefit the working middle and lower classes. They are not moochers.
As Ezra reports, only about 7.9 percent of households are not paying any federal taxes at all. That’s usually because they’re either unemployed or on disability or students or are very poor.
Ed will have more charts, plus analysis from David Cay Johnston of Reuters tonight on The Ed Show tonight at 8pET on MSNBC.
Leave a Comment:
Funny since Mitt Romney doesn't pay very much federal income tax either and wants a plan with Ryan that would have him pay just a tiny 1%. Yeah Republicans you know why those people don't pay income taxes? Because they don't make harldly any money.
GOP solution to unemployment:fire government workers
GOP solution to tax fairness: Tax people in financial hardship into further poverty so you can lower the rates on those with most. Those who will be least affected but still bitch the loudest.
True American Pat - This is a government of the people, by the people and for the people. Does that help answer your question as far as if the gov should help?
Cynical Citizen,
...how true.
If the tax rates for the 1% and the most wealthy among us were lowered, these elitists would still remain dissatisfied. They would clamor for even lower tax rates. These "self-entitled" folks will not be satisfied into they oppress most Americans into serfdom.
sad isnt it.
they have no idea how to use Arithmetic.
its really simple percentages and all.
I am sure I would fall in his 47%, and I probably pay more taxes than he has in 10 years and that is why........
We want to see his tax returns.
I would even bet that I gave more to my Church and to charity percentage wise than he has.
TM, #2.1 Yeah, you probably do; I know I buy food for our local church's food bank every month at a rate that surely outdoes Romney's contributions by percentage. He is known to be a tightwad.
And that doesn't include our weekly church offerings! I am happy to be able to help. That's what a Christian is expected to do! Romney hasn't got a Christian bone in his greedy, selfish body.
I want to see 10 yrs. of his tax returns. No less. I just know its bad for his campaign. He whines about the POOR not paying, and doesn't mind the millionaires like himself not paying! I could scream.
Hey PS...TM...India...I think it is great that you folks help the poor....That is the best way to do it....Person to Person....I don't believe that God wants our government to help the poor....(Too Corrupt).....He wants Us to help the poor......That's just my opinion....Maybe I'm wrong....Please shed some light if you think I am wrong..
If Mitt Romney had his taxes doubled, he'd only pay 24%.
How much would you pay?
And don't blame god for your own decisions.
God want those able to help, to help. The Gov't is the most able to help the most people. And WE are helping, EVERYBODY pays taxes.
Chris....we all know you want to redistribute the wealth in this country....and it sounds great on the onset...sure I'd love to get my cut....but what you don't seem to understand is that the rich have the means to move away and take their wealth with them.....
I don't get the "don't blame God for my own decisions" comment but I will say this.....forcing people to provide goods and services against their will seems almost like the definition of slavery.....Why can't we help each other out on our own....without the middle man (Government) wasting it? I believe in the people of this country.....not the ability of our Corrupt Government to manage money.
As you always like to say, "show me" where I said I want to redistribute the wealth.
That's the asinine horse@!$%# belief that righties like to think so they can call anyone that believes in tax fairness a socialist.
And as far as "we all know", you don't speak for anyone on this blog or in this country.
And the nonsense of "Why can't we help each other out on our own...." is as stupid as that idiot Republican Sue Lowden a few years ago saying you should pay your doctor with chickens. The fact that we can't help millions of people out "on our own" is why the government does it.
Furthermore, if you believe we have a corrupt government, I assume you won't be voting this year. Though for some odd reason, conservatives can't wait to be a part of our corrupt government. Maybe that's what attracts them.
TAP. So can you personally afford to pay a disabled/poor/out of work/elderly/veterans med. bills and pay for their rent & food? I can't. I don't think God has anything to do with it. That's why there are social programs from the government.
So Chris ....you would be ok with just a Flat Tax? Everyone is treated the same.....or maybe a Progressive Flat Tax....that has a competitive top tax bracket and zero tax for below poverty?....If so we can agree on something.....My question is why hasn't Obama done this?
FYI .... I will be voting .....to get the corrupt out.....
Chris,
That belief of TAP's is a fallacy that he needs to examine closely. Only the government, through its many agencies can possibly take care of all the people who for various reasons, need government help.
It is a simplistic argument based on misinformation and fallacies. This country is not Mayberry RFD. It never was.
TAP, if you vote to get the corruption out, you probably shouldn't vote for a vulture capitalist who wants his own taxes lowered to 1%. A Wall Street toady who cares NOTHING for 150 million people, including YOU!
KV....private charities can and if the government wasn't taking so much.......those charities would be receiving much more money....because I believe in the American People....not more Government.
True, The Bible places the obligation for charity on the individual, not the Government. You and the ladies are right about that. Of course Obama and Michelle know little of that obligation.
Hello TAP.
".I don't believe that God wants our government to help the poor."
well TAP the poor/rich/middle class or in another words We The People ARE the Government.
so who does god help again?
2sleazy, you don't speak for the president or his wife. And there aren't any "ladies" that said they did.
And TAP, you live in a fairy tale land of wishes and make believe. You and sleazy can exchange wishes and stories.
TAP. Private charities? Not trying to be snarky here, but you seem to be unrealistic. Do you know how high med. bill get for a disabled person?
Hey India....where did you hear that Mitt wants to lower his tax rate to 1%? Also, I'm not in the 46%....I Pay federal income tax.
KV and Chris....so what your saying is that Americans are going to not give as much to charities as they are to the government to pay for the benefits you speak of?....So who do you believe in????The American People or Government?
I believe in both. Not everyone can give to a charity. I can't, but I pay taxes to the gov't for these programs.
TAP, #2.11, and #2.16
The American people, last I heard, are who make up our government!
Get serious, think how big this country is TAP with a median income of around $45,000.00 a year. Who could afford to keep all the soldiers, the elderly, the poor, the victims of disaster fed, housed and clothed for God's sake, and that's just the beginning. Most people are only able to help themselves and their own families.
Get over this nonsensical view of reality! Stop watching Fox.
His own tax plan is the answer to where I heard that his tax rate would be 1%.
I realize I am talking to a Fox loving brick wall. No more response, TAP. Sorry.
India.....you asked ...who could afford to keep all the soldiers, the elderly, the poor.....housed and clothed....we are paying for it now....In addition we are paying for a bunch of corrupt government agencies full of waste. I would argue my way is much more affordable and would help the folks who need it the most.
You are on ignore now. I have no time for arguing with brick walls.
You're wrong. End of story.
Do some research. Read the stats. Quit Fox. Get the facts.
I don't know what else to say to you. Besides, it wouldn't matter what I or any of us said. So vote for the SOB.
TAP - the reason that liberals preach fairness with the tax code, yet reject the fairest form of all, a flat tax, is because their idea of fairness is subjective rather than objective. Fairness is not just about everyone paying an equal amount or percentage of taxes - but rather who they (liberals) feel is most deserving to either pay for or receive government benefits they deem as a necessity or right.
So, as you can see they feel that anyone that has achieved what they deem as a certain level of financial success has a moral obligation to the government to pay a higher level of taxes than those who have not reached their determined levels of success.
And like Chris said - they do want to "redistribute" the wealth, they simply want to determine who they thinks owes what to whom and then take from those who they feel are most deserving to take from and give to those who they feel most deserving to give to in the name of fairness and equality. Wait, that sounds exactly like redistribution...never mind.
India....Instead of calling you a brick wall....I will say.....let's agree to disagree....no hard feelings here. No need to get nasty...I thought we were having a friendly debate.
Hey TLC....Liberals want to be the micromanagers of everything....Just remember big government knows best.....and they are pure, honest and trustworthy. If they have a D beside their name....
LC-I'm not going to be slandered by you. Show me where I said
TAP couldn't-and neither can you.
Moulinyan....Thanks for the comment....It is an idealistic view and It may not work....However, what we have now is not working either......The poor are sucked into a permanent trap that is spreading like wildfire.....
Chris, I am pretty sure Thankful and Kathe are Ladies. And Chris, I didn't speak for the President and First Lady, I simply commented on their lack of knowledge of their Charitable Obligation. Have you ever seen what they collectively Donate to Charity? It is Shameful to have so much and give so little to those in need. Ok Chris fire back with some Name Calling.
So Chris...you don't want to raise taxes on the Rich?
Yep. Thankful never mentioned it and Kathe isn't on this blog.
Chris - I meant to say "they do NOT want to redistribute wealth" my mistake, I did leave out the 'not."
However, I stand by what I said - you may have not have said "redistribute" specifically, but isn't that what your advocating? You want to take from a certain group of people what you, and others like you, think is fair and to give to another group that you feel is more fitting and deserving. You can play it as "fairness" if you like, as it does sound better than "redistribution," but it is the same thing.
well there is many who dont mind paying more, matter of fact they even have said it.
in reality there seems to be a small amount of the rich who really dont want to help out.
so i say they are the double speakers.
oh i dont want redistribution of wealth i just want them to pay their share. yes how about 35% not many rich lost money country did well. capital gains can go to 20% seeing thats where the money is.
so cry all about wa fairness wa what is it wa wa.
oh well you know they could maybe pay the workers who make them the money better so they can pay some more taxes.
as he didn't builded it I DID!! as in the AMERICAN WORKERS!! you know WE THE PEOPLE !
oh so maybe redistribution means being treated and paid better!!
Moulinyan - I agree, it is simply a semantics game. Terms like fairness, equality, etc. sound better than redistribution, but it is the same thing no matter how it is spun.
"so cry all about wa fairness wa what is it wa wa"
Yes, Pilot we are the ones "crying" about fairness. Are you completely unaware that your entire post was basically demanding "rich" people pay more in taxes because they have victimized you and everyone else in some way, so therefore owe it to you and the government?
And terms like "redistribution, socialism," sound better than taxes, which is all anybody but the right-wing is talking about.
It's a little asinine for millionaires, billionaires and CEOs of of fortune 500 companies to characterize themselves as "victims" , but Romney was stupid enough to tell a group of unemployed people a few months ago that he was unemployed, so I guess being filthy rich leads to fantasizing.
LMAO @ you
really, that's how you see that, no wonder you are always sucking the bottom of the canal water.
just a putz for the few rich who you think will just fall over them self's for you cause you blindly follow their lies.
only victim here is you and your sock collection!
Pilot - the difference between you and I is I don't expect anyone, the "rich," the government, etc., to fall over themselves for me, or however you want to phrase it. Guys like you expect government is going to make everything fair and just - if you just give them more power, money, etc. I don't want or need the nanny state people like you crave. I don't care how rich someone is.
LC....Amen
TAP - the point that liberals like Pilot don't seem to grasp is that we don't vote Republican because we expect some handout from the rich, or that we are going to be magically rich if we vote that way...we just want more freedom and less government in our own lives.
They love to call guys like us idiots because they think we are sheep to the rich or the Republicans when we should be sheep to big government and the Democratic party like them. They don't understand that we aren't sheep in the wrong flock, it is that we are not sheep and do not want to be sheep at all.
LMAO at you LC
you are slow on the up take are you not? also you seem to have this whacked out though process. as there is a lot of difference between me and you. and you dont even know what i grasp or not.
as it is obvious that your grasp is not only yours alone but its wrong! NOT one has ever asked for Government hand outs, NO ONE every goes on programs for the easy life.
so get that stupidity out of that small thinking brain of yours. and maybe turn off noise machine and get out and look to see just what America is all about!
are their people who abuse the programs F--K yes does that make the programs worthless F--K NO!!
Pilot - I don't think I am slow at all, in fact, I just hit the nail on the head with how you and other liberals think. But please, keep up with the childish insults...
mutt thinks the world is divided by winners and losers. He thinks he is a winner....ROTFFL
Thankful mom, #3
I believe he would be wrong about that. This man is no winner. In fact, I believe his comments cinched the race for Obama.
I'm afraid we pay much higher taxes than Mitt Romney and his millionaire friends. So we are not in the 47%. However, I wouldn't vote for Romney if he lowered my taxes to ZERO.
If you look at a map of the red states, virtually all from FL through Texas are red. These are his t-party base. These are largely the 47%, which in effect means he just insulted the T-party and his entire base. I hope they smell the bus fumes and wake up before they get thrown under.
They won't.
Mitt Romney wants to liquidate the poor for fun and profit.
Paul Krugman - our most knowledgable economist - stated republicans will not solve our economic problems and may make things worse.
Declining consumer demand is our problem and liquidating the poor will not help. The poor are out best consumers because all their income is spent on consumer goods (vehicles, fuel, rent, food, ...).
Taxing the rich does not harm the economy and has helped the economy in the past (click here).
At least 1.7 million immigrants left the US between 2006 and 2010. That reduced consumer demand.
Loss of millions of immigrant consumers reduced consumer demand by billions of dollars, starting with abandoned housing and vehicles that began in 2006.
Bush shifted the funding for post-911 enforcement to immigrants by raising documentation fees from about $100 to over $1,000 for immigrants that pick our fruits and vegetables.
Immigrants can earn as much as $200 per month at $0.10/pound, so the new $1,000 fee is unaffordable. That creates "illegal immigrants".
The Real ID Act of 2005 prohibits immigrants from obtaining drivers licenses if they are too poor to afford the new immigration fees.
The response by police has been to auction vehicles in order to profit from immigrants that cannot afford to pay for post-911 US border security.
A related outcome is that food prices began to rise as soon as immigrant labor shortages began impacting US farming.
go to sbpdl.com and you will see a big portion of the 47%
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/09/18/professor-romney-sounded-like-a-cross-between-ebenezer-scrooge-and-marie-antoinette/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheRawStory+%28The+Raw+Story%29
#4.1 Go to a nursing home you'll see a lot of the 47% there too.....damn leeching old people earning their retirement........leeches
And what does Mitt Romney pay in taxes? He won't even reveal his tax forms to the people that he pretends he wants to represent. He just wants the title of "President" without any of the hard work that goes with it. He is a disgrace to our country and anyone who votes for him is also.
Yes, and he wants to talk about what other do or do not pay. What good for the goose is good for the willard. Confession is good for the soul........
"For by your words you will be justified & by your words you will be
condemned"
Mitt invests his money offshore, and insults half the country. And then he thinks we're going to let him run it.
Federal Income Taxes fund a wide range of Federal Programs (Military, Transportation, Education, Environment, Government Employees pay and benefits, Government Employee Retirements, etc... not funded by other Taxes. Pay Roll Taxes specifically fund Social Security, Medicare, and Unemployment Benefits. While it is true this 47% referred to does pay some other Taxes, Pay Roll Tax. Sales Tax, as well as various Fees imposed by Federal, state, and local Governments, it is just as true they do not pay Federal Income Tax. They benefit from Federal Programs supported by Federal Income Tax but they simply do not contribute to those programs. 53% are paying for the other 47%, those pulling the wagon and those riding on the wagon. Do you think the 53% paying Federal Income Tax are exempt from Sales Tax, Property Tax, other Taxes and Government Fees? Romney was and is right on the money.
By the way, remember when Obama's campaign gave up on White Working Voters? I guess the Left has no problem with a racist after all.
No, we have a problem with you.
Chris, I assume you are suggesting I am a racist. What have I ever written that would lead to that conclusions. Obama did in deed write off Working White Voters, that in my opinion is racist.
If there was income equality the poor would virtually not exist.
If there were income equality there would be no Middle Class, but we would continue to have the Elite Wealthy Ruling Class. Perhaps we should return to Equality in Opportunity, where merit, character, ethics, ingenuity, and individual responsibility determine Income?
sleazy, you should stop contradicting yourself.
And if all those things mattered, we'd have to get rid of the Republican party.
Duh! OMG Its just trying twist out of this and there isn't a way out this time. More to the top and cut the workers that's what you call trickle down in action! Duh working good for years now Duh!
Chris and XXX, If you will recall Middle Class Incomes increased by 17% from 1979 to the Obama Administration. The collapse of the Middle Class was under Obama. Why do you think people call him the Food Stamp President?
Because propaganda is how the right-wing disguises their actions.
No Chris, They call Obama the Food Stamp President because of the increased number of people enrolled in the Food Stamp Program during his administration. If less people were on Food Stamps now than when Obama took office, it would be Propaganda.
Keep ignoring the causes of things, that's why the right-wing keeps saying "stop blaming Bush!"
"Why do you think people call him the Food Stamp President?"
LOL well only really stupid people call him that. which one are you?
newt
Chirs, I understand the causes. Democrats abolishing the Glass Steagull Act, Democrats modifying the Community Reinvestment Act, and Democrats forcing Banks to make loans to people that couldn't pay them back. You on the Left refuse to accept the facts as to who is responsible.
The act that abolished Glass-Steagal was written by three Republicans.
And the Republicans had 6 years of total control of the government to reinstate it, but didn't.
Bush started two wars without paying for them, and oversaw the transfer of America's manufacturing infrastructure to overseas, resulting in the joblessness and homelessness Obama has to deal with.
When you make loans to people who can't pay you back, it's called loan sharking. And no one forced them to do it.
Accept that.
Chris, While the Bill may have been initiated by three Republicans in was passed with bipartisan support in the House and Senate, and signed into law by a Democrat president. The Democrats also had majorities in the House and Senate for years and failed to reinstate the Act. And yes Chris, the government did in deed force banks to make bad loans by threatening legal action for discriminatory practices. Also the ability to pay back a loan has nothing to do with Loan Sharking. Lastly I have to say it is nice that you understand the GOVERNMENT and its Regulations are responsible for our current Economic Situation. I just don't know why you would think the very GOVERNMENT that got us here will do anything but make the situation worse.
The republicans didn't need any bipartisanship to repeal glass-steagal but ultimately that's irrelavent.
So you recognize repealing glass-steagal was a bad thing to do which you blame on the dems yet you support the group that still believes repealing glass-steagal was a good thing and that we need even less regulation.
The dems made moves to re-regulate the financial sector with Dodd-Frank which is essentially a baby glass-steagal. The right has promised to repeal this as well because apparently it's too much regulation. So here you are saying the repeal was bad but the people should support the right who believe a bill that was weaker than its original model(dodd-frank) is too much regulation. Glad you thought that through.
On banking no you're lying again the gov't didn't force the banks to gamble away people's mortgages through the securities and commodities market.
I think the technically term is "predatory lending" but yes that's pretty the situation. I can't imagine why it's so difficult for these folks to realize if the banks hadn't gambled theose mortgages that this wouldn't have blew up the economy. It wasn't the lending that screwed everyone it was that they lost at the roulette table.
Then there's the fact that predatory lending has been a crime long before now. There was predatory lending and trading where these banking firms would con their clients knowing full well that the deal was crap for the investor. The Robo-signing they were proven to have done was also a crime. Most disturbingly the bankers haven't been held accountable for their obvious crimes by the DOJ. This is one of the reasons Eric Holder should have gone a long time ago they took no real action on this and took months to even start knocking out these illegal voter ID laws......took way to long for them to get to that because they were too busy carrying on the tradition of the previous administration of inventing legal things to justify the powers in the patriot act.......
Wallstreet was no victim of mainstream it was the other way round. After bailing them out and cleaning up the mess whilst being slowed by GOP congressmen who stood in the way for the sake of politics over people. Boo hoo for the people who committed crimes and crashed the economy and got off scot free. Boo hoo.....gimme a F******* break.......
The banksters learned nothing, JP Morgan Chase just literally lost somewhere between $2-$9 billion. They lost it, as in they had no idea where the hell they went wrong and the GOP senators practically fellated Diamond in that the hearing. Jamie Diamond still getting to stick on the reserves board that are supposed to keep his bank honest. Diamond and others still get to be in charge of the people who are supposed to keep them inline. The LIBOR anyone? Huge deal people!!!!!!
Almost every interest rate in the world is in part calculated with LIBOR, it is one of the foundation stones of banking and they cheated it, the nations, and investors.........prosecutions? Of course notthe dems still need wallstreet since the GOP has put laws to reduce the amount of unions to support candidates while unfairly expanding what corporations can do so they're politicians and of course the bastards want to get re-elected. Then you've got the Republicans who worship at the feet of these investment banks
When do you plan on blaming the people who got us here? Then explain how the GOP will make it better through further deregulation.....
Cynical, You wrote, "The republicans didn't need any bipartisanship to repeal glass-steagal but ultimately that's irrelavent." I agree it is irrelevant as the Act was abolished in a bipartisan effort and signed by a Democrat President.
The Dodd Frank Bill was passed during Obama's first two years in Office when he had majorities in both the House and the Senate. Obama and the Democrats had two years to reinstate the Glass Steagull Act and failed to do so. By the way, the Dodd Frank Bill was not a "Baby Glass Steagull Act" as you suggest.
" no you're lying again the gov't didn't force the banks to gamble away people's mortgages through the securities and commodities market." Cynical, the Government did in deed force bank to make bad loans. The reason Banks started to lend to unqualified applicants was the "Policy Statement on Discrimination in Lending" published in the Federal Register April 15, 1994. The result was a 94% increase in approved loans to low and moderate income earners. The Policy Statement threatened Banks with civil and criminal suits for discrimination. As you probably know there is a significant difference in the income levels of Black, Hispanics and Whites. Criteria for approving a loan frequently denied loans to low income applicants, the majority of which were Black and Hispanic. The Policy Statement threatening Banks, in essences forced Banks to establish new criteria, resulting in the approval of loans of previously unqualified applicants, to prevent law suits. The end results, more low income earners received home loans they could not pay, and the foreclosures started. The foreclosures subsequently reduced the property value of other properties, which are now under water. The "Policy Statement on Discrimination in Lending" can be found at www. occ.gov/news-issuances/federal-register/94fr9214. There is a definite correlation in the publishing of the Policy Statement and the increase in loans to low income applicants.
One way the Republicans will improve the economy and create jobs through deregulation is to remove or restrict the Authority of the EPA. This will open the door for the Oil and Coal Industries. This will benefit both areas as it will create jobs and reduce energy costs and as such the cost of every product people buy.
By the way how are you doing with that reading retention and conprehention problem?
And tthe GOP had how many years after they got it repealed to bring it back? The rest of clinton and six under bush....any effort there? No because they have no plans of bringing it back they do not want it back they are against bringing it back. So the efforts of one side that screws up their ideology and can only barely fix that problem becomes rather irrelevant when the other side doesn't believe there was a mistake to begin with. So you talk about who did what but it isn't about blame. So lets get this straight repealing glass-steagal was bad and the dems haven't brought it back which is why people should support the GOP who don't want it back
So glass-steagal=good and we should bring it back by electing people who promise to do the opposite? Are kidding me? Are you sure you're thinking this through?
dodd-frank<glass-steagal......dodd-frank>level of regulation for republicans.......so that means glass-steagal>regulation for the right
That is the most laughable argument I've heard in a while
The banks were victims of no government plot, they did not have to issue bad loans, they didn't. A bank does not give a loan unless they think they can profit no matter what the law will say...which by the way they're usually happy to break for an extra buck. These potential lawsuits win they were won by the plaintiffs they didn't force the bank to issue them a mortgage. The banks issued them because they make fast money off subprime loans and individuals will see the interest rates and advertising which brings in more business for them.
Combine that with their gambling on it is what was the last straw......things were going fine which is how they made so much money but they got cocky and lost which had a domino effect on the whole economy. You can blaim the subprime loans on gov't or anyone you want but it doesn't matter because if the banks hadn't been gambling with those mortgages this may not have actually happened...hence glass-steagal....separate investment and commercial banks meaning the investing side wouldn't have had those loans to gamble in the first place
Not to mention their other crimes that the entire leadership in DC will let them get away with, these include:
robosigning: Illegal. They are legally bound to read those things before signing. We have conclusive and admissions that the banks didn't. That's a crime, and if the DOJ would do something about it would be a slam dunk
predatory lending: It's illegal for banks to lie to their investors. Conclusive proof they sold "peice of S!%^ deals" as if they were sound though they knew damn well they weren't
Gambling on us again: We bailed out the banks to save the economy which began as a giveaway at the end of bush but was modified by Obama to require the entities we loaned money to had to pay it back with interest. The Bush plan just gave them the check. So we the tax payers who are the victims here saved them despite their indiscretions....for what? NOTHING. They nothing, the administration got cozy with them through Tim Geithner aka the congressman for banks in DC and that is indeed literally what the bankers called him. The settlement was good in that it actually happened however we should have demanded a hell of a lot more money or threaten to prosecute them for their crimes. We had them against the rope and yet no one used any leverage on either side. We had them by the balls and we deserved to but they got off a hell of a lot easier than they should have.
Cry me a river and then I'll care....well actually.....that's not true 'cuz I wouldn't care about then either
And then they have the nerve to start gambling again??????? JP MORGAN CHASE JUST LOST BETWEEN 2-9 BILLION DOLLARS IN INVESTOR MONEY! I SAY THAT BECAUSE THE BANK DOESN'T KNOW HOW MUCH THEY LOST. After all that should people feel alright when seeing this massive loss, now in the banking world it isn't much but none the less, by one of the "good" bankers?? Should they be okay with the GOP praising him Jamie Diamond and ask him what regulations he wants to have? When you get a speeding ticket do you tell the officer how much you tell them you will pay? When did the bankers get the power to write the laws to keep them in check?
Deregulation is bunk. There is no domestic energy crisis and most of the land they've secured from the fed isn't used for drilling. They don't really use it for anything, basically it's to protect from a spill to give the oil somewhere to flow out for spills. There will be no change in energy prices here since they don't have any responsibility to spend it here. It will not belong to us it will be the companies property. If china will pay more rest assured they'll start selling to china more
Not only that but the fact mining is dangerous. Coal mining is one of the most dangerous jobs, people die all the time and you think people will jump for joy to rush to these jobs? Not to mention the health consequences from more smog and in the case of the miners black lung which is fatal. Lastly you assume for whatever reason that business hires to create happiness and magical unicorns. Well newsflash that isn't how it works you don't hire unless you need to. If they're making profit as is why change that? Hiring more workers decreases your profit margins
Cynical, It appears we agree the Glass Steagull Act was abolished by a Bipartisan effort. We agree Republican failed to reinstate the act when they had majorities in both the Senate and the House and that Democrats also failed to reinstate the Act when they had majorities in the House and Senate. While I understand neither Republicans nor Democrats want to reinstate the Act, you seem to believe there is a difference between the two. It is like you are saying no one wants to reinstate it but Republicans don't want to reinstate it more than Democrats don't want to reinstate it. Both Parties have demonstrated they do not support reinstating the Act, so if some one was to base their vote exclusively on a Parties stance on the Act, I guess we what both be looking for a Third Party.
Your Greater Than Lessor Than equations are a moot point. Neither Party has reinstated the Act. Just because Democrat are for more Regulations doesn't mean any thing. Bad Regulation or Too Much Regulation is just as harmful if not more so than no Regulation at all. Look at the after math of the Abolishment of Glass Steagull, an economic disaster. On the other hand go to New York and try to buy a 42 oz. Coke. Federal Regulations also pushed Oil Wells into deep water, and we both know the results of that. What was one of the first things the Banks did after Dood Frank passed, they increased charges and Fees. Business in many cases have similar properties as water, they take the path of least resistance. Banks will find away to make money, more regulations all too ofter impeded the process but they don't stop it. As always the consumer ends up paying for it in the long run.
As for Oil Drilling on Federal Property and where the oil produced is used or sold, could that not be determined by the contract or lease language. The Federal Government could very well lease land with specific requirements placed on the Lessee, i.e. x percentage of oil produced will be refined in the US and sold on the private market in the US at a predetermined price. Leases can be written to benefit both the Lessor and the Lessee.
I think being in the military these days is far more dangerous than mining. In fact driving is for more dangerous but no one is promoting the abolishment of the Car. The fact is our society and standard of living is possible only because of energy. Energy fro Oil, Coal, and Natural Gas. Green Energy is but a very, very small percentage of the energy we use. It will take decades to develop alternative forms of energy.
You're back to that comprehension problem again. What did I write that led you to believe it was my opinion businesses existed to create Happiness? Businesses are typically started to generate revenue, Make Money. I would like to ask you why you think workers in Coal Mines want to keep their jobs any less than a UAW member? Of course Miners will flock to new mining jobs. As for Black Lung, I am pretty sure there are some significant Respiratory Protection requirements for miners these days. Of course most miners are Union and they probably don't wear the required personal protective equipment.
Cynical, By the way, you can avoid my comments about the correlation between the 94% increase in loans to low and moderate income earners and Clinton's "Policy Statement of Discrimination in Lending" but that does little to change the Fact that the Government, specifically Democrats in the Government forced Bank to make Bad Loans. You see Government Regulation can be good or it can be bad. In the case of the Housing Crisis we have two Government Policies that created the destruction, the repeal of the Glass Steagull Act followed by the Government forcing Bank to make loans to low and moderate income earners that couldn't pay their mortgages. And your answer is more Government Intervention, haven't they done enough?
How are we sure Romney is not part of the 46% that do not pay tax? The only way to prove us wrong is for Romney to release his taxes from 2005 to 2010 and let us judge whether he is a free loader, a name he called the 46%. Romney benefits from capital gain tax benefits and many other tax loop holes, he himself claimed he enjoyed. My song is this: "all we are saying, Romney must release his federal tax returns"
David S,
I am certain he has not and I want to see that SOB's tax returns for at least ten years.
Any millionaire who is so greedy as to put his money in Swiss banks and in the Cayman Islands rather than pay the proper taxes in his own revenue starved country should never inhabit the white house.
And that's the least of my worries about this monster inhabiting the white house.
Not only the Caymans and Switzerland, but Australia, Germany, Ireland, Luxembourg and Bermuda! What does he need all those tax havens for? I'm betting that he's worth a lot more than a quarter billion! I still say there is money the IRS knows nothing about.
The 47 percent, WOW!!!, I wonder if the Romney voters know the real meaning of trickle down economics, well it goes something like this. Imagine the one percenters at the dinner table, lets see 30oz. steak, caviar, lobster, shark fin soup and grey poupon, and after a quick trip to the toilet, well there you have it trickle down, must take some real dedication to be on the receiving end of that!!!!!!
I think it means the stuff that falls off the table onto the floor.
John McCain said Woolard is struggling to get the vote! I would agree!
Obama's best plan to beat Woolard....let him keep talking!
xxxooo, I just hope his entire base and the T-party mind that he has just called 99% of them a bunch of bums.
He wasn't insulting this Obama supporter!
Mitt doesn't do his homework.
Romney did not call anyone "bums"
Stop making stuff already, can you?
P.O. Quit trolling me with your nonsense. I am sorry I opened that comment. I won't again.
Fire away. I won't see it.
Ho. He basically did. Maybe you should watch the video again.
Ho's afraid of the competition.
Coming from our favorite bum who pulls things out of his......bum......
But yeah that's essentially what he said and this is absolutely something the right believes. Conservative media has rallied to defend the Romney comment. It is a long standing far right belief that if you're in this 47% you're not doing well because you want to be and you don't try or do any work and the rich people are the only ones who have ever done work....that half the country wants to be poor so they can live on $3-$4 a meal food stamps and shoddy government housing.
And hard working people like Paris Hilton and Mitt Romney who inherited a ton of money worked so hard to inherit that. Admit Romney was just born with a silver foot in his mouth.....well no....he put that foot there all by himself with no help from anyone else.
Oh look the special ed show gang.
Hey how far do you think you're gonna get with that cap gun?
Children need to play. And Wholly Crap doesn't have any friends. So he plays with his enemies.
I grew up thinking people should help each other and that the government is there to help us and to see someone striving to be president not wanting to strive to help others goes against what i believe in. Why shouldn't the government help people who need it the most?
I am part of the 53% but Romney will never get my vote. I
make six figures, have two degrees, a house that has equity and insurance, but
I also understand some basic principles.
1.Everything I have achieved is a blessing yes I
worked hard but had it not been for my parents, teachers, friends and employers
that I had supporting me I would not be here now. 2.I understand that I am just one layoff from
losing my insurance and job.
3.In addition, the biggest reason is that I was
raised to care about other people and put myself in their place. It saddens me
that we seem to care more about our pets than other people.
Jay, I am in a very similar position and agree with much of what you write. I would add I was brought up to believe not only to put myself in their place, but that I had an Obligation to help others, that Charity was my responsibility. While both of the Candidates are wealthy beyond my wildest dreams, I do find my notion of Charity is shared by only one of them. In the years prior to Obama running for the Senate he and Michelle reported donating about 1.2% of their income to Charity. Once Obama became involved in politics their Charitable Donations increased significantly to 5%. Romney's Charitable Donations for both 2010 and 2011 was 16.5% as reported on Federal Tax documents. Obama professes to care about the less fortunate but on a personal level he has failed to demonstrate compassion. Romney on the other hand is portrayed as ruthless and greedy, void of compassion, yet his actions are indicative of a very caring and giving man. When it comes to my views and values concerning Charity, Obama doesn't come close.
Geographically, the states that have more of the 47% are Texas and the deep south.
I wish Bill Clinton would go down there and campaign on this issue, both for Obama and for local candidates (like Paul Sadler the Democratic Senate candidate in Texas.)
It would seem that the states with the highest non-income-tax payers are all right to work states as well
An open letter to Candidate Romney
Dear Mr. Romney:
I am a member of the 47% of Americans who did not pay income taxes last year. I am a member of the 47% of Americans that you believe will be voting for Mr. Obama this coming November. I am a member of the 47% of Americans you refer to as feeling entitled to health care, food and housing. I would like to tell you that you are completely right in that assumption. After working my ass off 40 to 50 hours every week, I believe I am entitled to a salary that will allow me to acquire health care, food and housing for myself and my family. During the course of the last 20 years, that has rarely been the case.
Tell me exactly how lowering the taxes of the upper middle class and the wealthy, while raising my taxes and removing any social safety net I could possibly avail myself of when yet another greedy employer lines his pockets (and the pockets of his shareholders) while refusing to raise my compensation enough to keep pace with cost of living and inflation is going to help me?
My parents are also members of the aforementioned 47%. My mother is 70 years old. She pays no income tax now, because she paid those taxes during a 30 year career and now lives on the social security benefits THAT SHE PAID INTO for those 30 years.
My father is deceased. He died at the ripe old age of 59. But in the final years of his life, he paid no income taxes either. He was a Vietnam Veteran, who retired after 23 years of service in the military. He paid no income taxes as part of an agreement with his government to exempt him from paying taxes on his retirement pay, in return for the loss of both of his legs and a messy death after several years of illness and extreme suffering that were a direct result of his military service.
No, I will not be voting for you. Not because I expect Mr. Obama to give me any 'free stuff', but because he has made an attempt to at least pretend to understand my point of view, and to represent me to the best of his ability. You, on the other hand have shown you have no understanding of my life, my struggles or my point of view and you have no intention of even trying to represent me in any way.
Signed,
One of the long term unemployed who would invite you to trade places with me for a week.
At the age of 47, I had to choose between a place to live, utilities, food, etc and my prescriptions. Of course the prescriptions lost. I have employer provided health insurance but their prescription plan only covers generic prescriptions. If I were to be able to get them they would cost me nearly $900 for one month and over $600/month for the next two months. I do not receive any pubic assistance.
Mr. Romney I do not know how you can sleep at night or look at yourself in the mirror. You have no conscience. To me, the biggest evil in the world is greed, and you have that in spades. I hope you will, one day, find yourself in a similar position to the people you ridicule. When you wake up one day and find you have nothing then maybe you will understand.
That will never happen. He'll always be rich, and he'll never care.
i have some thoughts here, i have looked at the charts, numbers and figures, which to me raises some interesting questions and observations.
1.i think every democrat running for any city,country,state or federal office shoud be branding their republican opponent as a member of the republican party that it's presidential nominee has written off 47% of the citzens of the united states.
2. every democrat should be expllaining to people whom the 47% romney has written off are and how they are included in this 47%. make it clear and understood that despite that they have prior thought, they are indeded included i8n the 47% and mitt has nothing but distain for them.
4.make iut clear that it is mitt that is really redistributing income , not president obama
5. the democtics should create and distribute flyers,brocedures and other printed materials with information to eduducate people and such should contian citations, web links , so as the content may be verified and researched.
When ever you look at taxation of people you have to look at several factors together. One is the price of basic cost of living such as food, rent, and transportation. The northeast and California are high cost areas while smaller cities in the Midwest or rural areas are can be cheaper to live in but not always. The other factor you have to look at are the income of the household and the total taxation in proportion to their income. Poor households with families earning $20,000 but pay 15% or of the income in sales, state income taxes, and other taxes are hit much harder than a millionaire paying 15% for capital gains.
The conservatives always forget to point out that the 47% who do not pay federal income taxes almost always pay federal payroll taxes, state income and excise taxes, local property taxes, plus a whole range of fees for licenses, mandated liability insurance. Also we have college students, Seniors, and retired veterans in this group too. The low income workers pay fees on many local services that are either mandated or regulated by city, state or local governments. Special assessments for property are also forgotten or hidden as a many fees such as federal and state fuel taxes. So its totally false and misleading for the conservatives to say that the 47% those who pay do not pay federal income taxes don't pay federal taxes.
I am opposed to the Bush tax cuts for all Americans. We need to eliminate all the Bush tax cuts for all Americans even the middle class and poor. The meager tax cuts under Bush for the poor and middle class do not justify keeping huge tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires. If we need to extend the Earned Income tax credit or other tax deductions for low income people that is another issue but it might just be a better idea to have stronger unions and raising the minimum wage to a living wage. Corporations are making huge profits and middle class people have no mechanisms for raising their standard living even education and job training seem to help little. But the Bush tax cuts need to go away for all Americans. If you ever want to close the budget deficit the Bush tax cuts have to go period.
Middle class taxpayers need to pay a little bit more in federal income taxes. Rich people need to go back to the Clinton era or higher for federal income taxes at about 39%. Capital gains taxes need to get raised to 40% because the wealthy like Mitt Romney, take their income as capital gains at 15%. Corporate subsidies for mature industries, such as oil and gas companies need to be eliminated. Corporate tax shelters in the Cayman Islands need to be eliminated. Social Security and Medicare caps need to also be raised to at least $250,000 annually as Senator Sanders proposes.
Those who complain about raising the income cap for Social Security and Medicare need to remember that these two programs funnel massive amounts of money into cash registers of Main Street businesses. Nearly every dollar of Social Security and Medicare or Medicaid goes into wages, salaries, or to pay for services and goods purchased in Main Street businesses. We need to tax corporate profits at high rates but could offer substantial benefits for buying interest paying and tax free bonds for investments in our country. Trillions of dollars is reported to be sitting offshore waiting for an investment. We could form private-public partnerships or private-public corporations that could be used to funnel offshore money into bond sales for infrastructure, mass transit projects, bullet trains, and for green energy projects all across the country. Andrew Young did this public-private partnership to build the Atlanta airport and many other infrastructure projects that paid for the Olympics held in Atlanta. Little public money was spent on the Olympics in Atlanta. We should shut down those Cayman Islands tax shelters and build bullet trains, green energy projects, and infrastructure upgrades right here on Main Street America. Wall Street can form the money machine for these tax free interest paying infrastructure bonds that will create jobs all across America.
http: //www.youtube.com/watch?v=oVlimQOvNfE
http: //www.youtube.com/watch?v=9WEcwGT1NDc
Here are some website for the Good Works website that promotes development around the world. Why not use some of the ideas used overseas for nation building here at home?
http: //www.goodworksintl.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=section.home&id=1
http: //aysps.gsu.edu/welcome-from-andrew-young
I can tell you this, 47% used to have good paying jobs.
Before Corporations pulled the jobs out of this country folks depended less on the Government. Current state of the economy is a result of Romney types taking control of what we the people once had ( Jobs). We are seeing what is called the 1 2 punch and these so called Republicans are blind to why and how our country and people are in need of assistance by the Government.
If Corporation were people, Jobs would still be here in the United States!