Posted on 10/15/2012 11:21:41 AM PDT by 2 Kool 2 Be 4-Gotten
Driving around today and heard Rush struggling to get his mind around the 47% charge, the meaning thereof, and how to counter these meaningless charges. Part of me wanted to phone in because I know what he is missing. But I've tried before and never gotten through.
In the hopes that Rush Freeps or if not then somehow ideas can percolate up to the great Maha-Rushi - here's my attempt to help him out.
The RATS think that the "47%" line is the RATS golden chalice their keys to the kingdom. All they really have to do is bring it up in the debates and power is theirs forever. Rush was thinking that there was an easy way to rebut this and in my mind there is.
There are two basic flaws in the RATs argument that need to be pointed out and the issue goes away. Here they are:
1. Implicit in the RATS arguing about the 47% is that this purports to show that Romney only cares about 53% of Americans. This is NOT what he said. He said that as a matter of political STRATEGERY it did not make sense to actively expend campaign resources to go after the VOTES of the dependent class. It's the difference between political stragerery and policy. As president, I feel sure that Romney would govern with the interests of the entire country in mind. But as candidate, he has to expend resources where they will do the most good. In short the dems would have you believe that the "47%" is about policy. It's not. It's about strategery and tactics.
2. Implicit in the RATs attack (and now explicit) is that their candidate is "for the 100%". This is demonstrably false both in terms of strategery AND more importantly with regard to governing. He has proved this over and over. He truly is the purely partisan hack, with every political and policy move being viewed through a partisan prism. Thus their attacks are pure projection as is the case about 100% of the time.
People who need social security will get it. Those who don’t need social security will not. In other words, it will be treated like it always should have been - a welfare benefit.
Obligations to Americans? Americans have stupidly voted for politicians who sold them a bill of goods: that they can pick the pocket of somebody else & have all their needs/wants taken care of. It’s time for reality.
“The problem with socialism is that sooner or later you run out of other people’s money.”
Now if the federal gov’t has vast assets that it can sell to pay back all the money it owes, great. Let’s get started. Let’s start with selling off all federally held land in the west. I’m sure there are lots of things we can do to ameliorate our current debt problem. None of them will have universal support. But it will still mean dealing with our untennable entitlement problem.
Where the people getting it paid for it.
Doesn't sound like any sort of welfare to me. I think you're just trying to evade your debts.
SS was a bad idea to begin with. It’s been made worse over the years & is now a critical problem for the country, budget-wise. It’s a pity more people don’t understand that.
What Romney said is 47% pay no income tax and would not care about his low tax message If I were Romney when Obama mentions the 47% I would just say we arent talking about the 47% that cant and need help we are talking about those that wont and are taking advantage. We will eliminate waste save money and be able to help those that really need it more.
It is not true that all the 47% receive “crumbs” most just don’t pay federal income taxes. It is also not true that the 47% will all vote for The Disaster. Romney will get a lot of votes from that group because many will realize that they have NO chance with The Disaster but will with R/R. This is especially true when he explains how they are currently getting screwed.
I don’t particularly care what The Disaster does in this debate, he has no chance.
Talk about a target rich environment, Romney has to be careful not to get confused about which club to whack him over head with.
It is not as though there was a limited number of choices.
The lower 50% of the population in terms of income could be taxed 100% of everything they've got, and the top 50% would not benefit thereby, which just about everybody understands, so arguments to raise taxes on the poor don't go over well among the poor, nor do they go over well among the rich! Romney can't get a single additional vote demanding a tax increase on the lower 50%, or by kvetching about their foibles.
I know just about everybody who watches FOX has been subjected to Hannity's campaign to raise taxes on the poor for most of a year ~ but please, always remember this, he says he's not a Republican, and not a Democrat, and not a Conservative (he believes in income taxes and that takes you out of the main stream of Conservative thought right there), so what is he?
I suspect he's still mad at the first boss he had who tried to push him off a roof
Social Security isn't a budget problem ~ the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT is a budget problem ~ they spend too much.
The solution isn't to whack Social Security, or raise taxes on the poor, or the middle-class, or the rich ~ the solution is to CUT SPENDING.
Who said anything about taxing the poor.you don’t need more taxes you need more taxpayers one way its create more jobs more taxes no tax increase second replace the income tax with a national sales tax you would encourage more saving because you would tax people would only new taxed when you spend money also you would add everyone that is paid under the table to the tax base well.
*thumbs up*
Hannity clearly advocated expanding the reach of the federal personal income tax down to the last dime of the poorest person in America ~ even called it having skin in the game.
BTW, no one here believes someone who posts at FR doesn't watch FOX.
Yep, pretty good, nice and succint without lending credence to the whole assertion.
>> “BTW, no one here believes someone who posts at FR doesn’t watch FOX” <<
.
I can’t believe that there are many here that are stupid enough to be schmucked by Fox. I don’t watch those stupid faggots.
Still, even you know there are ‘stupid faggots’ on FOX and there’s only one way to know that ~ WATCH FOX!
>> “SS was a bad idea to begin with.” <<
.
Having a federal overnment was a bad idea to begin with. They should have just stuck with a treaty confederation.
I have not watched Fox for about 10 years.
I mostly don’t watch TV anyway.
Cutting off all immigration before 1828 would have been an excellent idea ~ but folks seemed to want more land settled and industry established than could be done by the locals.
When you are down to a limited resource like vision, you husband the resource by applying it to the most useful activity.
And Sean hannitys opinion becomes law how and matters to me why? Any one who thinks Romney is not conservative enough and would willingly take Obama as the alternative is crazy, full of sh*t, a troll or all of the above
but lets for a minute talk about what 47 really means to the American people...
Thats why I suspect the 47% won’t be rought up, once the American people realize that 47% really don’t pay income tax that will be a game changer.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.