Romneys Greatest Deception: Swingers Discussion 208806

SwingLifeStyle Swingers Personal Ads. | SwingLifeStyle Swingers Clubs

Busy Swingers Forum

Everything you always wanted to know about swingers.

TOPIC: Romney's Greatest Deception

Created by: TheGhost_and_MrsMuir Original Starting post for this thread:
Mitt Romney has been widely panned for blaming 47% of the public for its sense of entitlement, its demand that government redistribute wealth downward, away from rich people who earn their money honestly and down to poor and middle-income Americans who just want handouts. While observers have rightly pointed out that most Americans work hard and take responsibility for their circumstances, less attention has been devoted to the deceptive premise behind Romney's remarks, namely that government redistributes wealth downward from the rich to the poor. In fact, our taxation system funnels money from the bottom up to the top. It's the rich who get the handouts. Either Romney doesn't understand that, or he's not telling the truth about it. Consider housing. Romney would probably prefer that the Department of Housing and Urban Development not spend its budget of about $50 billion per year, much of which subsidizes low-income housing. From Romney's point of view, the federal government provides housing handouts by redistributing money downward and subsidizing residences for the poor. But when we step back and look at overall federal spending on housing, it becomes clear that the federal government spends a lot more money subsidizing housing for the rich than for the poor. In fact, the federal government collects taxes from the poor and then re-allocates those funds as housing subsidies for the rich. How does this work? To understand how this particular mechanism as well as the tax system more broadly funnels money from the poor to the rich, it's first necessary to point out that when the federal government decides to spend $1 dollar, that is exactly the same as a decision not to collect $1 dollar in taxes. From the point of view of the federal budget, both decisions cost $1 dollar. The first is a direct expenditure and the second is a tax expenditure. But aside from having different names, they are the same.

Created by: TheGhost_and_MrsMuir
Original Starting post for this thread:

Mitt Romney has been widely panned for blaming 47% of the public for its sense of entitlement, its demand that government redistribute wealth downward, away from rich people who earn their money honestly and down to poor and middle-income Americans who just want handouts.

While observers have rightly pointed out that most Americans work hard and take responsibility for their circumstances, less attention has been devoted to the deceptive premise behind Romney's remarks, namely that government redistributes wealth downward from the rich to the poor. In fact, our taxation system funnels money from the bottom up to the top. It's the rich who get the handouts. Either Romney doesn't understand that, or he's not telling the truth about it.

Consider housing. Romney would probably prefer that the Department of Housing and Urban Development not spend its budget of about $50 billion per year, much of which subsidizes low-income housing. From Romney's point of view, the federal government provides housing handouts by redistributing money downward and subsidizing residences for the poor.

But when we step back and look at overall federal spending on housing, it becomes clear that the federal government spends a lot more money subsidizing housing for the rich than for the poor. In fact, the federal government collects taxes from the poor and then re-allocates those funds as housing subsidies for the rich. How does this work?

To understand how this particular mechanism as well as the tax system more broadly funnels money from the poor to the rich, it's first necessary to point out that when the federal government decides to spend $1 dollar, that is exactly the same as a decision not to collect $1 dollar in taxes. From the point of view of the federal budget, both decisions cost $1 dollar. The first is a direct expenditure and the second is a tax expenditure. But aside from having different names, they are the same.

GoTo Page: 1 2

1 to 10 of 11

End

User Details are only visible to members.	Tbr: Then what was the point of your quote about capitalism being the worst economic system, except for all the rest..." when you really want a social-capitalist system? Which really is just socialism. The problem with socialism in the US, is that so many think that it is giving people who can work free stuff. No system does this by intent and every system uses capitalism as its core ideals, even a resources based system where by you are allotted x amount of food, electricity, air, water, ect... Allows for you to trade what you have in excess for what you want. In all systems except radical humanitarian systems, the recipiants are expected to work for or be working to obtain employment. (showing up to an assigned duty station for work assigned by local government or attending class) unless otherwise injured or disabled. Accountability over saftey of the worker limits what the government can expect a former teacher to do... (such as not having the skills to ark weld) What I would love to do is to take a few hundred unemployed people on welfare in Philadelphia and train them to do welding on the scrap docks which are cutting up our world war one and two war ships which are rusting away on the docks. This gives them both the sense of Self worth and skills to gain employment in the welding fields. (sadly I am disqualified due to saftey... I have a color shift in my eyes which officially ranks me as color blind.... Other wise I would have already gone ti such schools. I know this limitation as the air force refused me this education on these grounds) Additionally, there are major projects which would never be started that are shovel ready. Examples are taking empty lots and turning them into basket ball courts, or sitting areas with tables for the local communities. The problem with this is under capitalism, this raises the rent on the local homes and will force people barely hanging on into the street. To combate this, I would take another group who would build cheap housing. Appartments meant for size and disabled persons such as appartments for families with 1,2or3 kids. (located on the second floor) the first floor would be fire those with disabilities. Again, this would give the welfare recipiants skills in construction fields. Those who are more educated or physically useless as strong back jobs can be further educated by college courses to be site supervisors or other managment. Sadly I am called a dictator for suggesting to put abled bodies to work on projects which can not be funded at a rate that private business is willing/able to do it at.
Hazle Township PA			Username hidden (4810 post)

User Details are only visible to members.	But in fact, Robert, we do not have a purely capitalist system. Our system, like most, is a mixed system, with both capitalist and socialist features. Any pure system is doomed to failure. You seem to want us to migrate towards a more purely socialist system, while many others here want a more purely capitalist system. I would like a little more of both. In some areas, we need more capitalism, others more socialism...
Lakeside CA			Username hidden (15722 post)

User Details are only visible to members.	This is a perfectly humorous synopsis of why Willard is so determined to become executiver officer of the USA: Original Bankster Stickers Available Today! Mitt Romney (or RMoney, as his Highlife Homies call him) is relying on a resume of alleged financial acumen to propel him into the White House. Unfortunately, his expertise lies more in the area of sucking the wealth out of companies, terminating employees, and sending those jobs overseas - along with his own lavish proceeds so as to avoid contributing his fair share to America's prosperity. Romney is the quintessential candidate of the GOP (Greedy One Percent) who callously admits that he likes to fire people, that his wife drives two Cadillacs, that corporations are people, and that he's not concerned about the poor. He advocates an agenda that reeks of plutocracy, favors the wealthy, and if I can quote Ice-T, he's "Dazed by the game in a quest for extreme wealth." He's OB - The Original Bankster.
Treasure Is FL			Username hidden (6109 post)

User Details are only visible to members.	Willard Mitt Romney is morally deficient and a vulture capitalist who disdains America, an expatriate. He avoided military service during the Vietnam invasion and occupation era, receiving an exemption from the Mormon Church for missionary duty in France promoting America's premier false religion. He has insulted every Vietnam era veteran who was drafted into military duty.
Treasure Is FL			Username hidden (6109 post)

User Details are only visible to members.	Tbr: Nice statement, but all the bluster of praise for a system is meaningless if it can not preform... And for a growing number of people... Capitalism isn't performing. You cannot build a people around a system, rather the system must be built around the people. Capitalism maybe in fact the best system on paper... It may have been the best system at one time... However it isn't working now. When you have 47% of any given population unable to earn enough to pay taxes, and to impose taxes upon this % would be to contract the spending which will further contract the economy... Your system has stopped revolving around the people and now you are demanding the people to revolve around the system... Every group of people forced to live by a system, either grows angry and starts revolutions or simply stops advancing itself. We are currently seeing both situations occur. The question is, which dog have we fed the most? Anger? Or sloth?
Hazle Township PA			Username hidden (4810 post)

User Details are only visible to members.	Robert, Capitalism is the worst economic system there is. Except for all the rest...
Lakeside CA			Username hidden (15722 post)

User Details are only visible to members.	ht tp://w ww.youtube.c om/watch?v=hDTT1yRNsFE
Flat Rock NC			Username hidden (2807 post)

User Details are only visible to members.	Lets say Rommey is right, that he won't get 47% of the people's vote... That they are addicted to the governments tit. Now lets apply capitalism to the equasion. Capitalism is an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations, especially as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth. How do you attract investors? By selling the idea. So how does Capitalism sell the idea that it is better to that 47%? If These people wish to live in a competitive world... then they must learn to compete. This means that if a new says such as Socialism comes around and replaces Capitalism... then all is good. Capitalism died because it couldn't compete, it couldn't make the lives of the people better. Any system which can only sell an idea to a ever decreasing number of people, is a system that is doomed to failure. Either these capitalist need to get off their asses, tighten their belts and without a forced hand provide a lot more in wages and benefits to their workers... or these Capitalist must pick up shop and move the the only lands that will have them... I think Antarctica is open for business... You'll have to populate it first.
Hazle Township PA			Username hidden (4810 post)

User Details are only visible to members.	THIS bears repeating: So when Governor Romney said that 47% of Americans are irresponsible and simply want handouts, he was tapping into and in fact reinforcing the public's ignorance of the federal tax system as a cash cow that transfers a lot more money from the poor to the rich than the other way around. To frame poor people who require health care as free-riders while giving a free pass to rich people who demand tax cuts (tax expenditures) is a sleight of hand. I wonder if Romney understands the deception or not.
East Fishkill NY			Username hidden (2772 post)

User Details are only visible to members.	Now consider the home mortgage interest deduction, a tax expenditure that costs the federal treasury approximately $130 billion per year. According to the Atlantic, 75% of this tax expenditure is given to the top 20% of income earners. What this means is that the federal government spends almost $100 billion per year subsidizing large homes for upper middle class and wealthy people. Middle-class people get a tiny piece of this pie. Poor people get nothing. But where does the government get $100 billion to pay for this tax expenditure for the rich? From mostly-poor renters of course, in other words tax payers who receive zero mortgage interest deduction. The home mortgage interest deduction is simply a transfer of wealth from mostly poor renters to mostly well-off home-owners. And that isn't an isolated program, as Republicans have been gaming the tax system for years to enable just such maneuvers. One of Ronald Reagan's great successes entailed cutting marginal tax rates on the rich, and then using social security taxes, which are paid disproportionately by low and middle income earners, to subsidize the budget hole caused by his tax breaks for the wealthy. So when Governor Romney said that 47% of Americans are irresponsible and simply want handouts, he was tapping into and in fact reinforcing the public's ignorance of the federal tax system as a cash cow that transfers a lot more money from the poor to the rich than the other way around. To frame poor people who require health care as free-riders while giving a free pass to rich people who demand tax cuts (tax expenditures) is a sleight of hand. I wonder if Romney understands the deception or not. When Clint Eastwood famously addressed an empty chair at the Republican National Convention, Jon Stewart observed that the Republicans have been running against an Obama who only they can see (Muslim, foreign-born, socialist, etc) and who is invisible to the rest of America. According to Stewart, Eastwood literalized that dynamic by addressing an invisible Obama. But as Romney's comments about the 47% illustrate, the Republican predilection for distortion and projection extends beyond Obama, and includes a make-believe fantasy about the government's role in the redistribution of wealth. If Republicans were honest about the way government works, they might realize that government helps everyone, and that the debate we should be having is not about moochers versus earners, but about what distribution of government support can minimize suffering and promote the public welfare.
East Fishkill NY			Username hidden (2772 post)

GoTo Page: 1 2

1 to 10 of 11

End

TOPIC: Romney's Greatest Deception

		HELP
FORUMS: General Discussions: Politics: Romney's Greatest Deception