Vanity - Help for Rush on the meaning of the 47%

Myself | 10/15/2012 | Me

[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.

[muawiyah]

Odds are good that Warren Buffett doesn't pay much in the way of federal personal income taxes on earned income. He won't care one way or the other. On the other hand he does pay a lot of taxes ~

Where do you get this idea that people with earned income are deep into class warfare and despise the idea that somebody might earn less than themselves?

Weren't you a child once? Won't you be old eventually? Have you never fallen on hard times? Weren't you a disabled veteran brought low to life in a bed in a dingy ward due to severe combat injuries in defense of America?

Just who are you to hate it that some other guy might hand over less loot to the federales than you do?

[Dusty Road]

What the hell are you talking about and why is that addressed to me?

[muawiyah]

You are the one who said the issue would be a game changer ~ but your opinion is in error, as is your understanding of the tax code, Conservatism (Ronald Reagan himself championed limiting the income tax to higher income people), and so on.

That's why that response was directed at you ~ it's obvious you need it.

[editor-surveyor]

You’re right, TV just isn’t that useful.

[Dusty Road]

I’m sorry I still don’t know why you directed that comment at me, it had nothing to do with your response. Heres an idea, show me the error in what I said and then we’ll talk. How in the hell you got Reagan in there I haven’t a clue of and please explain how my comment had a damn thing to do with the tax codes.

[muawiyah]

you said:

"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. AT: 80 posted on October 16, 2012 8:33:29 AM EDT by Dusty Road

The issue is what it means ~ and it doesn't mean they don't pay income tax ~ they don't pay federal personal income tax, and it was Ronald Reagan who got the ball rolling on relieving low income people of paying federal personal income tax.

The program is a REPUBLICAN program ~ which is why it won't be brought up by OUR SIDE and the other side is certainly aware that Ronaldus Magnus sponsored it ~ and they'd love to ram it down Romney's throat if he does.

For some reason there are a bunch of ill informed people who think it's a crime that a tax designed to hit only the top couple of percent of wage earners now applies to 53% ~ or more than 26X the number of people originally targeted.

So, what is it? You want blood from turnips or what?