Romney's Message Is Changing/Romney Secret Tape (merged)

[JenniferJuniper]

The Heritage Foundation? Really? That would be like me putting a Mother Jones article up to prove something to a republican. Give me a break. Do your own research and to really do that, you MUST come out of the choir room. At least occasionally. I used to be a republican and still read regularly right-leaning publications and blogs. I'm not afraid of the truth, no matter what the facts might be.

Here's CNN's very basic analysis of the Romney lie.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/23/politics/ ... index.html

Key quote:

So where did the notion of a major welfare reform overhaul come from?

Where it didn't come from is Washington but rather from Utah, Nevada, California, Connecticut and Minnesota.

These states, some with Republican governors, asked the federal government for more flexibility in how they hand out welfare dollars. Their purpose was to spend less time on federal paperwork and more time experimenting with ways to connect welfare recipients with jobs.

The Obama administration cooperated, granting waivers to some states from some of the existing rules.The waivers gave those states some flexibility in how they manage their welfare rolls as long as it produced 20% increases in the number of people getting work.

You can confirm this truth on hundreds of other politcal fact checking sites, including legitmate conservative ones (i.e. not Fox News and the Heritage Foundation, because as even my 10 year old knows, they lie nearly as much as Romney himself does.)

[formergothardite]

Romney says he won't cut taxes on wealthy Americans: http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/romn ... ction.html

Can you explain, Jericho?

Quoting this one, since it has appeared to be missed by jericho.

[Linnea]

Here's another source debunking the Obama-guts-welfare-reform lie:

http://www.factcheck.org/2012/08/does-o ... re-reform/

Under the new policy, states can now seek a federal waiver from work-participation rules that, among other things, require welfare recipients to engage in one of 12 specific “work activities,†such as job training. But, in exchange, states must develop a plan that would provide a “more efficient or effective means to promote employment,†which may or may not include some or all of the same work activities. States also must submit an “evaluation plan†that includes “performance measures†that must be met — or the waiver could be revoked.

Ron Haskins, a former Republican House committee aide who was instrumental in the 1996 overhaul of the welfare program, told us the Obama administration should not have unilaterally changed the work-requirement rules. But Haskins said the Romney claim that Obama’s plan will “gut welfare reform†is “very misleading.â€

“I do not think it ends welfare reform or strongly undermines welfare reform,†said Haskins, co-director of the Brookings Institution’s Center on Children and Families. “Each state has to say what they will do and how that reform … will either increase employment or lead to better employment†of recipients

[emmiedahl]

Ah Jericho, I see you are back.

Could you possibly be so kind as to address the point I made yesterday? You know, the one about how trickle down doesn't work and how Romney's policies are the same policies we are currently experiencing in the UK and are failing, royally.

Much appreciated.

That's not how Jericho works. He comes and spouts lies; when they are proven wrong he fails to address his dishonesty and instead spouts more lies. When he is out of lies for the day, he disappears. Next time there is a political discussion, it is Finnegan begin-again. This is the only way to remain conservative in the recent past: deny truth, embrace lies.

[JenniferJuniper]

That's not how Jericho works. He comes and spouts lies; when they are proven wrong he fails to address his dishonesty and instead spouts more lies. When he is out of lies for the day, he disappears. Next time there is a political discussion, it is Finnegan begin-again. This is the only way to remain conservative in the recent past: deny truth, embrace lies.

I'd recommend he be banned for constantly lyin' and runnin', but I think the accurate smack downs he gets do a wonderful service to those who don't have time to keep up with lies of Romney and the Fox News spin cycles.

[Buggaboo]

That's not how Jericho works. He comes and spouts lies; when they are proven wrong he fails to address his dishonesty and instead spouts more lies. When he is out of lies for the day, he disappears. Next time there is a political discussion, it is Finnegan begin-again. This is the only way to remain conservative in the recent past: deny truth, embrace lies.

Emmie, I really respect you and I try not to go against your word, but you clearly missed a step. It should be:

1. Deny truth

2. Embrace lies

3. Place head firmly up own ass

4. Repeat

;)

[jericho]

Just curious, Jericho: I know nothing about your age or family status, but when/if you have children, do you plan to take the deductions for them that our tax laws allow? How about if you or your kids go to college, will you deduct the cost of their education? Do you deduct your mortgage interest, if you have a mortgage? Depending on your income, that could put you into Mitt's despised 47%.

Do you plan to collect social security and medicare when you are eligible? If you serve in the military, would you accept VA healthcare? If you experience a natural disaster, will you accept FEMA money? Those things are all "government handouts", you know.

Last time I looked at my paycheck, the government was taking social security and medicare out of it. That's not a handout. Yes, I take deductions that are legally allowed when I file taxes. How stupid would I be to say "oh here ya go government, a donation. I hope you use my money wisely." This is not the same as a handout though. Do I need those deductions, no. Would I vote for all those deductions and credits to continue, no. But if the government is going to let me take it, I'd be an idiot not to. I'd rather use it and invest in my Roth IRA for retirement (so I actually have something when Social Security and Medicare bite the dust) than let the government splurge it away. I don't take deductions/credits because I NEED them. I take them because I can be more productive with that money than Uncle Sam can.

[Witsec7]

http://blog.heritage.org/2012/09/19/watch-checking-the-facts-on-obama-administrations-welfare-waivers/

Thank you for proving my point. A state opting out of the work requirement was a compromise made with the republicans. Opting out is not dismantling. Words have meaning.

[linnea27]

Wrong wrong wrong. First of all, there are many spoiled rotten kids of rich parents who blow their money and waist their life away. That's a right the freedom of this country gives individuals to do. What is not a right is government handouts. Government rights were established to keep people from being unjustly brought down, NOT on a guarantee of rising them up.

I do agree with the idea of a voucher system for K thorugh 12 schools though. If you are going to have tax money going to public schools anyway, give people the option of using their tax money on their choice.

Jericho, it strikes me as ironic that you seem to worship the "bootstrap" mentality, and yet overwhelmingly reject the presidential candidate who came closest to meeting that ideal. Mitt was the one who had everything handed to him and by your logic doesn't value any of it, and yet he's the one you want running your country.

[JenniferJuniper]

Last time I looked at my paycheck, the government was taking social security and medicare out of it. That's not a handout. Yes, I take deductions that are legally allowed when I file taxes. How stupid would I be to say "oh here ya go government, a donation. I hope you use my money wisely." This is not the same as a handout though. Do I need those deductions, no. Would I vote for all those deductions and credits to continue, no. But if the government is going to let me take it, I'd be an idiot not to. I'd rather use it and invest in my Roth IRA for retirement (so I actually have something when Social Security and Medicare bite the dust) than let the government splurge it away. I don't take deductions/credits because I NEED them. I take them because I can be more productive with that money than Uncle Sam can.

You do realize Social Security and Medicare deductions are not income taxes?

I'm willing to bet you are in the 47% that disgust Romney so much.

[shesinsane]

Under US tax law, you can claim dependents and get deductions on the amount of taxes you owe. For children, anyone under age 19 can qualifiy, or anyone under 24 that is a full time student. Assuming College Minus is a full time online school, 18 Duggar children can be claimed on the Duggar taxes. Between income from real estate (not taxed at the same rate as wages are) and all those deductions, is it in any way possible that the Duggars are not part of the 47% in the US that don't pay taxes?

They were Santorum spreaders anyway, rather than vote for the Mormon or the black guy, they should all stay home on election day. ;)

[Witsec7]

I'd recommend he be banned for constantly lyin' and runnin', but I think the accurate smack downs he gets do a wonderful service to those who don't have time to keep up with lies of Romney and the Fox News spin cycles.

I'd not reco a ban of J, for all the usual reasons, and simply because we don't ban trolls. But I enjoy it every time Emmie smacks him down. I'm thinkin' that Jericho drinks so much kool aid he's purple.

[synchroswimr]

Here is the story from a less biased source. http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/23/politics/ ... index.html Conservative red state governors want more leeway (because red states are the ones with more poverty) and Obama gave them to right to do so under certain circumstances. STATES RIGHTS????? Aren't you a huge fan of that? Or is that only when states' rights would make birth control illegal?

Once again, conservatives come whining for more money, most of which comes from liberal communities.

Not just birth control -- also for forbidding teh ghey from having equal rights.

[JenniferJuniper]

Under US tax law, you can claim dependents and get deductions on the amount of taxes you owe. For children, anyone under age 19 can qualifiy, or anyone under 24 that is a full time student. Assuming College Minus is a full time online school, 18 Duggar children can be claimed on the Duggar taxes. Between income from real estate (not taxed at the same rate as wages are) and all those deductions, is it in any way possible that the Duggars are not part of the 47% in the US that don't pay taxes?

I'd say it's very possible Jim Bob doesn't pay income taxes. He makes most of his money off investments and has, as you point out, tons of deductions.

If he is paying income tax now, it's likely based on his TLC earnings. But as soon as they stop he likely will pay no income taxes until he runs out of kids to claim.

[Sprocket]

Last time I looked at my paycheck, the government was taking social security and medicare out of it. That's not a handout. Yes, I take deductions that are legally allowed when I file taxes. How stupid would I be to say "oh here ya go government, a donation. I hope you use my money wisely." This is not the same as a handout though. Do I need those deductions, no. Would I vote for all those deductions and credits to continue, no. But if the government is going to let me take it, I'd be an idiot not to. I'd rather use it and invest in my Roth IRA for retirement (so I actually have something when Social Security and Medicare bite the dust) than let the government splurge it away. I don't take deductions/credits because I NEED them. I take them because I can be more productive with that money than Uncle Sam can.

Oh, so you get a tax refund check when you file your yearly taxes? You do know that puts you in the 47% Romney was talking about, right? You make so little that after your deductions that you are in a 0% tax bracket? According to Romney, you should be voting for Obama. How does it feel to be a big ole' moocher?

[Guest Anonymous]

So when jericho gets free money that's not a handout, but absolutely anything else is a handout and it's EVIL!!!11!

[Witsec7]

So when jericho gets free money that's not a handout, but absolutely anything else is a handout and it's EVIL!!!11!

Jericho also seems to think that disabled workers and military are also getting a handout. The stupid burns.

[Buggaboo]

I'm thinkin' that Jericho drinks so much kool aid he's purple.

Yep, I found Jericho on line....let me see here....got it:

Ironically enough, if memory serves, the purple one is Tinky Winky......whom the fundies thought was gay. Cause, ya know, puppets and fictional children's characters can have a sexuality. And apparently they think about sex allll the time......no wait that's the fundies. Nevermind.

[Linnea]

47% of people pay no income tax and around that same amount are on government assistance.

Last time I looked at my paycheck, the government was taking social security and medicare out of it. That's not a handout.

Here's a source for your "around that same amount" in the first quote: 49% of Americans live in households were at least one member receives government assistance. http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2012/05/ ... -benefits/

Notice that that 49% includes people on social security and medicare. So if you plan to take those benefits, you'll be one of those people Mitt Romney doesn't want to worry about.

Quit moving the goal posts.

[formergothardite]

Quoting this one, since it has appeared to be missed by jericho.

Crickets chirping on this question......

Is Mitt going to cut taxes on the rich or not? Was Jericho wrong about something?

[emmiedahl]

Last time I looked at my paycheck, the government was taking social security and medicare out of it. That's not a handout. Yes, I take deductions that are legally allowed when I file taxes. How stupid would I be to say "oh here ya go government, a donation. I hope you use my money wisely." This is not the same as a handout though. Do I need those deductions, no. Would I vote for all those deductions and credits to continue, no. But if the government is going to let me take it, I'd be an idiot not to. I'd rather use it and invest in my Roth IRA for retirement (so I actually have something when Social Security and Medicare bite the dust) than let the government splurge it away. I don't take deductions/credits because I NEED them. I take them because I can be more productive with that money than Uncle Sam can.

1. Most people get back far more social security and medicare than they pay in, which is why those programs still cost us money. Last time I checked, it took about 3 years and everything beyond that was taxpayer money. Do you plan to stop receiving SS and Medicare after you have received what you paid? If not, it's government assistance. Sure, you paid into them. My husband worked and paid taxes for decades before he needed any kind of social assistance; similar to social security, he paid into a social safety net and is using it now that we need it. How are these things different?

2. Those deductions are government largesse intended to help middle class American families a bit. You taking those is no different than a poor family taking food stamps.

3. Republicans spend more than Democrats, so vote Obama if you are tired of seeing your money "splurged away". Romney can talk all the shit he wants--every conservative does--but the fact is that conservatives spend more and red states receive more aid. The hard-working liberals who pay your bills get tired of you whining about government spending while voting in jerks who basically put it in the pockets of the wealthy.

[jericho]

Oh, so you get a tax refund check when you file your yearly taxes? You do know that puts you in the 47% Romney was talking about, right? You make so little that after your deductions that you are in a 0% tax bracket? According to Romney, you should be voting for Obama. How does it feel to be a big ole' moocher?

Getting a tax refund does not mean I didn't pay any federal taxes. It means I overpaid.

[Guest Anonymous]

Are you here to answer the questions that FJers have asked you on this thread?

Let me guess. Is the answer "no"?

[jaynie]

Are you going to answer Sola's question, Jericho? Because I'm really interested to hear why tax cuts and decreasing services will work for Romney when it hasn't worked at all in the UK (or anywhere or any-when else it has been tried). I would also like to know why it is that countries with very high taxes and many social programs have more stable economies and more upstart businesses (and better success for those businesses), and why this wouldn't work in the USA.

(Why do I get the feeling I'm talking to myself here?)

[Witsec7]

Crickets chirping on this question......

Is Mitt going to cut taxes on the rich or not? Was Jericho wrong about something?