Has anyone else noticed: the line Romney handed his donors--and via a surreptitious recording, the rest of the American people--is the same trotted out on Election night, not by Romney, but by Bill O'Reilly on Fox News. It was O'Reilly who blithered on first about why the election was going Obama's way: those "gifts and stuff" Obama had given out to blacks, Hispanics, women, the poor and the middle class.
Romney was simply parroting the nastiness of Fox News and then going further to all but say that 52% of the electorate was dependent on government largess, so of course they voted for Obama. What's a poor powerless multi-multi-millionaire going to do?
Is the Romney-O'Reilly contention true?
What is this "stuff"? Both O'Reilly and Romney speak as if these were bribes given to greedy people, in order for them to vote for Obama. However, when they mention specifics, what do they list: immigration reform, contraception for women, same-sex marriage and higher taxes for, er, "job creators". Unmentioned, except in the Republican primaries was the expansion of Food Stamps (officially SNAP), which has become critical to survival for a lot of people chronically unemployed.
Are these bribes, or are these policy intentions? Immigration reform is something this country has needed for a long time, since it's estimated we have 12 million illegal aliens living in the shadows, and a lot of hiring "under the table," which may work to employers' advantage, but is not a sustainable policy. Is immigration reform a "gift," or is it a needed reform of a broken system?
What is democracy, anyway? Some conservative wags have suggested that Rove and Adelson would have been better off just distributing the money they spent for political ads on directly buying votes. Hah hah.
Same-sex marriage has become something a majority of people feel is justified. So, is Obama's endorsement of it a gift, or a response to changing cultural attitudes?
Contraception for women, paid for by insurance in the ACA, may be seen by O'Reilly as a gift to unmarried women (who voted for Obama by a large margin), but contraception is necessary for women of childbearing age, in order for them to control their own lives. The subsidy means that poor women as well as wealthy ones can decide on their own. Republicans apparently want them "barefoot and pregnant."
So, "gifts" were Democrats offering substantive policies--and Republicans were offering what? God's blessing on a child of rape?
Fox News, it turns out, was giving Romney his lines. Fox is the perfect representative of the .001%, the media arm of our contemporary Roman Senatorial class. Romney's remark about the 47% was how he really thinks. Only now it's 52%, and aren't we lucky enough people knew this, or intuited it, that they didn't vote for this empty shirt!
Showing posts with label 47%. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 47%. Show all posts
Monday, November 19, 2012
Tuesday, September 18, 2012
99%,1%,47%,13%
If you pay no income taxes and receive Social Security and Medicare, both of which you paid for over a long history of work, then you are, according to Romney, one of the 47% who expect government to take care of you--he has no use for you.
What if you've paid $12,000 in property taxes, and have income of no more than $36,000? You are paying an effective tax rate of 33%, but you still pay no income tax, so you're one of the 47%. What if you earn $40,000, on which you pay payroll taxes of 7.65%, and you also have a property tax bill of $10,000. Then your effective rate is about 32%.
Mitt Romney says he paid "about 13%" of his income in "taxes," but didn't specify which taxes. The one tax year that he deigned to show us included a $77,000 tax write-off for what someone referred to as a "dancing horse" and he paid just over 13% on income taxes. While most people in the middle-income brackets pay at about that rate, Romney's no middle-income taxpayer.
In any case, the video revealing his statement about the 47%, brings up the question: is he one of the 47%, as well as one of the 1%? Many corporations pay no income tax, including GE, for example, and like the average for the bottom quintile of income earners, it had a negative rate of tax--it received subsidies that more than cancelled out any taxes due.
More than ever, Romney should release his past tax returns, if he wishes to appeal to more than a minority of American voters. But maybe he can't, because those returns would reveal either: a felony, like voting fraud--claiming Massachusetts residence to vote and California residence for tax purposes in 2008; or he paid no income taxes in some of the past years, despite multi-million dollar incomes.
Is he a member of the 1%? Certainly. Does he get it that most people struggle? No. He sees them as dependents on government (a projection?), and apparently would treat them that way.
He's a true Roman Senator, although instead of owning slaves and serfs, he's had no compunction driving workers from their jobs, and forcing others to accept dramatically reduced incomes, while he made millions.
The fact that he's ready to double-down on his 47% statement is even more eloquent. It demonstrates that he believes he can--and should--win election with only white males, only those who ascribe his statement to 'others' (minorities, especially), and only those who believe they "made it" on their own. It's a piece with Republicans' "we built that" misinterpretation of Obama's reference to government's role in creating the infrastructure necessary for wealth-creation.
If, despite all this, Romney manages to buy and/or steal the election, anyone not in the 1% will get a government that is actively opposed to their interests.
What if you've paid $12,000 in property taxes, and have income of no more than $36,000? You are paying an effective tax rate of 33%, but you still pay no income tax, so you're one of the 47%. What if you earn $40,000, on which you pay payroll taxes of 7.65%, and you also have a property tax bill of $10,000. Then your effective rate is about 32%.
Mitt Romney says he paid "about 13%" of his income in "taxes," but didn't specify which taxes. The one tax year that he deigned to show us included a $77,000 tax write-off for what someone referred to as a "dancing horse" and he paid just over 13% on income taxes. While most people in the middle-income brackets pay at about that rate, Romney's no middle-income taxpayer.
In any case, the video revealing his statement about the 47%, brings up the question: is he one of the 47%, as well as one of the 1%? Many corporations pay no income tax, including GE, for example, and like the average for the bottom quintile of income earners, it had a negative rate of tax--it received subsidies that more than cancelled out any taxes due.
More than ever, Romney should release his past tax returns, if he wishes to appeal to more than a minority of American voters. But maybe he can't, because those returns would reveal either: a felony, like voting fraud--claiming Massachusetts residence to vote and California residence for tax purposes in 2008; or he paid no income taxes in some of the past years, despite multi-million dollar incomes.
Is he a member of the 1%? Certainly. Does he get it that most people struggle? No. He sees them as dependents on government (a projection?), and apparently would treat them that way.
He's a true Roman Senator, although instead of owning slaves and serfs, he's had no compunction driving workers from their jobs, and forcing others to accept dramatically reduced incomes, while he made millions.
The fact that he's ready to double-down on his 47% statement is even more eloquent. It demonstrates that he believes he can--and should--win election with only white males, only those who ascribe his statement to 'others' (minorities, especially), and only those who believe they "made it" on their own. It's a piece with Republicans' "we built that" misinterpretation of Obama's reference to government's role in creating the infrastructure necessary for wealth-creation.
If, despite all this, Romney manages to buy and/or steal the election, anyone not in the 1% will get a government that is actively opposed to their interests.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)