Analysis: "47 percent" lament belies Republican tax credit support

Comments (41)

Crazy how the focus is always on income tax – then ignores that all wage earners contribute payroll taxes — including a social security tax that is inexplicably phased out for high incomes. This idea that the poor and elderly and lower middle class don’t pay taxes is bunk.

Oct 19, 2012 1:33am EDT  --  Report as abuse
flashrooster wrote:

The thing to be taken away from Romney’s 47% comments is that Romney is an arrogant, elitist, SOB, who’s had it made all his life, thinks he’s better than everyone else, and most importantly, Romney cares nothing for the American Middle Class. Romney and Ryan both are dyed-in-the-wool Ayn Rand trickle-down enthusiasts. There is absolutely no reason to believe that Romney will do anything but hurt the Middle Class. It’s actually obvious to those who aren’t wearing blinders. Romney doesn’t care. He has no reason to care. He doesn’t have a dog in the fight. He just wants to be President, and after that he’ll do whatever his party and his donors tell him to.

When Romney says that his tax plan won’t increase the deficit, he’s lying. Ask him to prove that he’s not, he can’t. With the deficits we have and the growing debt, it’s irresponsible to talk about tax cuts. We can’t even afford the Bush tax cuts, much less additional tax cuts. It just can’t be done without increasing the deficit. Several economists have shown that it can’t be done, and no one can show how it CAN be done. It’s Romney’s plan and HE can’t even explain how it can be done. That’s because it can’t.

The plan is to grow the deficit and the debt so big that the Republicans will be able to scare the American public into drastically slashing government spending across the board–the Ryan plan. They’ll say everyone has to sacrifice. The problem with that is that the Middle Class has been sacrificing for over 3 decades now and the wealthy will NOT be asked to sacrifice ANYTHING. That’s clear. We know taxes on the wealthy will not go up under a Romney administration. So when they say everyone has to sacrifice, what they’re really saying is they’re going to screw the Middle Class some more. This is not rocket science.

The disproven rightwing philosophy is that if you cut taxes on the wealthy, they’ll create jobs. The truth is that we tried that under Bush. We went from surpluses to record deficits, and Bush has the worst job creation record of any President over the last 70 years. US corporations are sitting on over $2 trillion dollars. Why would more tax cuts create jobs when corporate America is already sitting on over $2 trillion? So the deficit increases, the Middle Class suffers more, and corporate America sits on $4 trillion dollars, instead of “just” $2 trillion. Now I ask you, is that really a good economic plan?

Oct 19, 2012 1:48am EDT  --  Report as abuse
SanPa wrote:

GOP> Bankrupting America one election at a time.

Oct 19, 2012 2:15am EDT  --  Report as abuse
SanPa wrote:

GOP> Bankrupting America one election at a time.

Oct 19, 2012 2:15am EDT  --  Report as abuse
SanPa wrote:

GOP> Bankrupting America one election at a time.

Oct 19, 2012 2:15am EDT  --  Report as abuse
SanPa wrote:

GOP> Bankrupting America one election at a time.

Oct 19, 2012 2:15am EDT  --  Report as abuse
lie_detector wrote:

I see the 47% is well represented in this thread.

Oct 19, 2012 3:56am EDT  --  Report as abuse
QuietThinker wrote:

It is not unknown for Republicans to complain about conditions that they help create. As noted in the article, their policies created net non-payers of federal 1040 income tax (as opposed to payroll taxes which they forget are also a tax on income). They try to eliminate funding to catch things like Medicare fraud, then complain about how much Medicare fraud there is. Note the increase in Medicare fraud caught under Obama (despite problems with Congress).

Of course, there is the biggy. Republican policies from the years that they controlled the Presidency and both houses of Congress led to the greatest economic crisis since the Depression. Now they want to blame Obama for not fixing it, while the Republicans in Congress block his every effort. Unfortunately those with very short memories may vote for Romney.

Oct 19, 2012 4:06am EDT  --  Report as abuse
saoud wrote:

I read a lot about both presidential candidates, as I am very disillusioned by the popular media because of their bias. Now this is only my own personal views, I have noticed that Gov. Romney actions throughout his life strongly favors The Mormon community, while President Obama strongly favors The African- American community (just read both gentlemen history). I have no problem with that if the two were leaders of their communities. What I find disconcerting, is that both are running for the presidency. They are running to represent, care and be fair to ALL Americans regardless of their faith (or lack of it), color, affiliations, gender etc. Going back to my initial point and with both gentlemen strong deep believes, I feel that these will affect their decisions unless the media have the courage to be straight forward in asking them directly about this issue. As I said this is my personal view; I know it will anger many in both side, but please let us be mature and civilized in debating the above. Thank you

Oct 19, 2012 4:14am EDT  --  Report as abuse
flashrooster wrote:

That’s great, lie_detector. Now try contributing to the conversation and try refuting what’s been said. Republicans seem to really have a tough time doing that. Hmmm…wonder why?

Oct 19, 2012 4:15am EDT  --  Report as abuse
sylvan wrote:

Thank you Reuters for shining a light on the enigma of the the current GOP. Now do an article on who created the huge deficit that sends the tea partyers scurrying to change their government supplied diapers at its mention. Today’s GOP is a hypocritical, nonsensical, angry mob of whiners.

Oct 19, 2012 6:08am EDT  --  Report as abuse
rokid wrote:

We’re subsidizing the low wages paid to the working poor through tax credits. If businesses provided the working poor with a living wage, they’d be able to pay income taxes.

Oct 19, 2012 6:35am EDT  --  Report as abuse
BillDexter wrote:

Is the issue here the hatred of Republicans or the hatred of the truth in Romney’s 47% statement? Of course the Republicans ‘helped’ create this. Policy is always ground out in the back room (committees) and agreed upon by both parties. When concessions are made by Republicans, usually the taxpayer funded giveaways that the Democrats use to buy votes, the Democrats concede to the Republican backed fiscal policies – and then take advantage of those policies themselves. The ‘tax breaks for the poor’ was agreed to by both parties along with the ‘tax breaks for the rich’. I defy anyone to name a single PBS liberal or college professor that does NOT take full advantage of the tax breaks they claim to hate.

The Tea Party recognized this and informally broke with party line Republicans one single issue – the size of the Federal budget. I know, the social conservatives pile on and spew their bile and I am really sorry about that, but people, we need to get our debt under control. Romney does not have any intention of doing it and the Democrats certainly don’t, but we have to.

Is there ANYONE who claims to be a Democrat that understands this?

Oct 19, 2012 7:46am EDT  --  Report as abuse
americanguy wrote:

When I see those cheap foam sandals you wear at the beach, I think “flip flops”, then I think of Romney, king of flip flops.
Romney has never met a change of view for votes, that he did not like.
Romney says the dumbest things, stands behind them to look tough, then changes his views after things have cooled down.
The guy is ridiculous, and has no honor.

Oct 19, 2012 8:46am EDT  --  Report as abuse
CMEBARK wrote:

Republicans yearn for the good ole cold war days when it was clear who was the enemy and there weren’t all these damn social issues.

Oct 19, 2012 8:57am EDT  --  Report as abuse
Parker1227 wrote:

Good thing Reuters is fact checking an old quote from a Romney red meat fund raiser – while avoiding the dozens of lies coming out of the Obama White House this very moment regarding the death of an Ambassador in Benghazi, Libya.

Oct 19, 2012 9:09am EDT  --  Report as abuse
spoc69 wrote:

“Instead of advocating the credits’ demise, one senior aide said, they are protesting the lagging wage growth during the last four years under Obama and the overall increase in the slice of the population receiving government payments.”

Why is it never discussed in conservative circles that lagging wage growth for the middle class started in the 1980′s, not with the election of Obama?

Oct 19, 2012 9:26am EDT  --  Report as abuse
BillDexter wrote:

spoc69, it IS discussed in conservative circles. We discuss relentlessly how changing our national immigration policy in the late 70ies from work based to ‘diversity’ lottery based and exponentially increasing the number of immigrants would affect middle class wages. We discuss relentlessly how imposing ever-more costs and regulations on manufacturing thru the 80ies and 90ies has driven manufacturing out, affecting middle class wages. We discuss relentlessly how allowing unlimited numbers of illegal aliens to undercut the labor market while Democrats fall over themselves to hand free medical care and welfare to them has affected middle class wages.

And yes, we discuss Republican guilt in these policies. Clearly, the ‘tax breaks for sending jobs overseas’ is an excellent example of an issue that SHOULD be broached in a bipartisan manner, however, both parties profit from allowing it.

I have heard that particcular issue broached amonst the Tea Party, though.

Oct 19, 2012 9:49am EDT  --  Report as abuse
SanPa wrote:

EITC has been very popular with the non-voting block in Cell Block A. Once time has been fully served, several of these current residents are expected to return to society and join the ranks of Sing-Sing Republicans.

Oct 19, 2012 11:13am EDT  --  Report as abuse
AlkalineState wrote:

Romney regarding 47% of Americans: “It’s my job to not worry about those people.”

That’s his job? Good work if you can get it.

Oct 19, 2012 11:39am EDT  --  Report as abuse
mjp1958 wrote:

No doubt – Romney meant his “47 percent” comment — no matter what he says now!

Oct 19, 2012 11:41am EDT  --  Report as abuse
AlkalineState wrote:

For Romney to try an pin the shrinking middle class on the most recent President is like blaming Gerald Ford for the Korean War. You can do it, but it’s inaccurate and you end up looking stupid.

The diminished purchase power of wages and reduced standard of living within the middle class has been going on for about 40 years now. It began when tax breaks for the wealthy became the new republican pet cause. In the 1950′,s people like Mitt Romney paid around 70% in overall tax. Now they pay 14%, and that top 5% wealth segment of the population is 30 times richer, even after adjusting for inflation. It’s no mystery where the wealth in the United States is going. Up to the suits and then out into the Cayman Islands.

Oct 19, 2012 11:57am EDT  --  Report as abuse
BillDexter wrote:

It was okay to blame Bush, though, right?

Oct 19, 2012 12:06pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
AlkalineState wrote:

Well, when you increase those tax cuts to the wealthy even further and start two wars on a credit card and then provide a trillion dollar medicare drug benefit to pharmaceutical companies…. yeah, you are definitely a big part of the problem. And to re-elect someone like Bush was stupid. Sorry to hurt your feelings.

Oct 19, 2012 12:20pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
todnwth wrote:

I say raise taxes back to the 2000 level and cut the subsides to the oil companies and corporations and no one should get rebate if they do not pay taxes whether an individual, family, or a corporation, and many corporations do, in fact GE got 3.4 million dollar rebate after making 10 billion in profit last year!!!

Oct 19, 2012 12:32pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
bgamble1 wrote:

I’m not worried about what Romney does with his money. I’m worried with what Obama does with mine. Seems to me he’s content on giving it all to his buddie’s failed green businesses getting kickbacks in return. I want this FRAUD out of the White House now! Oh, and wealth envy is a real disorder brought upon by relentless class warfare. Put down the Reuter’s Kool Aid.

Oct 19, 2012 12:36pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
GLK wrote:

First of all, you’d think by all the Liberal vitriol being spewed only Republicans are rich. Guess again. As far as Romney’s personal taxes are concerned. You pay thousands and Romney pays millions. Same as George Clooney and every other rich Left Winger out there who are conveniently protected from the Liberal Hate Machine.

Secondly, Flashrooster said, “He just wants to be President, and after that he’ll do whatever his party and his donors tell him to.”

Sounds exactly like what Obama has already done and will continue to do if re-elected. Which, by the way, isn’t going to happen.

Oct 19, 2012 12:39pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
BillDexter wrote:

What isn’t done on a‘credit card’? I don’t recall you criticizing President Obama’s stimulus plan, which essentially grew the size of the permanent government bureaucracy to secure public union votes – while the private sector that has to pay for it was bleeding to death. You always vilify tax cuts for anyone making more than you but you never vilify the permanent spending increases. Sure, you may not want to pay for actions in the middle east, and for what it’s worth I agree with most of your rational (that I have seen), but wars end by policy. How will our welfare state end? Romney’s 47% comment is exactly true. If we were to tax the rich at 75% today what would happen? Would Democrats suddenly say “great, now let’s stop increasing the handouts and balance the budget”? NO! They would be calling press conferences to announce critical new social programs. I am not a fan of Mr. Romney, AlkalineState, but I am deeply worried about the debt incurred by public subsidy – because THAT is the debt that keeps on taking. If we tax the rich into poverty, how will we pay for our social programs then?

Oct 19, 2012 12:56pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
checkthefacts wrote:

@ flashrooster
What does it say about obamas comments about whites clinging to their guns and religion?
You talk about his tax plan being impossible but not all the details have been released. Not only that economists disagree about the validity of his plan.

And can you tell me obamas plan? His plan is to raise taxes. You are against romneys plan because it MIGHT raise taxes but Obama is asking to raise taxes and you support that??

@ sanpa
Obama promised to cut the deficit in half. Instead he broke records for how much debt he has incurred. He spent more in 4 years than bush did in 8. Please who is bankrupting the country?

Oct 19, 2012 1:38pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Saywhaaaaa wrote:

@BillDexter. Historically over the last decades starting with Reagan Republican administrations have outspent Democratic administrations and yet have cut taxes every time they have increased spending. Your argument about tax increases and new social programs is a Norquist view which is very inaccurate when you compare the spending and taxes of both parties. Ironically under Obama government jobs have decreased for the first time since the turn of the century. The big increases started under Reagan who added over a million government jobs during his presidency, increased slightly with the next two administrations (Bush Sr & Clinton) and then surged during Bush Jr. who added over a half million new government jobs and greatly increased unemployment. I disagree with Romney’s statement in that the biggest tax any citizen can pay or offer their country is their life. People like Romney and Bush Jr who dodged military service under dubious means but are chicken hawk war mongers for election and power make sure they will never pay that tax. The so called Tea Party had no problem with the deficit,trillion dollar Bush medicare increase, unpaid wars or ballooning debt under the Bush Jr years and then became concerned citizens when a Democrat was elected? If the Tea Party started up in 2005 they would have some validity but they are for the most part extremists and I hate to say racists that need to find a reason any reason of why they don’t like this president. I agree we need to balance the budget, like we were on our way to doing so before Bush Jr., but doubling down with Bush Jr. policies,which really put the debt mess in overdrive, with Romney is definitely not the answer.

Oct 19, 2012 1:43pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
BillDexter wrote:

Saywhaaaa the federal budget has never decreased. Ever. The rate of increase fluctuates and the relationship to debt does depending on the state of the economy but every administration has outspent it’s predecessor. Period. If you listened to conservative talk radio Bush’s ‘homeland security’ money grab was roundly criticized by half if not most of us. It is precisely because of him that the Tea Party broke from the folds of the party line Republicans. The original slogan (that I knew of) was ‘we need to fix the Republican party before the Republican Party can fix the country’.

Your little synopsis seems to exclude President Obama’s stimulus package and Healthcare act – the biggest increase of all. Any reason?

Oct 19, 2012 2:19pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
JLWR wrote:

GOP carry a bag full of lies and hypocrisy. You cannot trust them with truth as they do not recognize truth. If they saw thrught they would only twist and distort it to fit their agenda. They only know how to lie and scam to get what they want and the heck to everybody else. Never vote Republican. Never ever!

Oct 19, 2012 2:38pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Saywhaaaaa wrote:

@BillDexter I do believe I was referring to the federal debt and the federal deficit.Bush Sr did start policies and taxes to slow the growth of the federal deficit and debt. But the federal debt decreased dramatically under Clinton and the federal deficit was running a surplus after Clinton. In regards to the Tea Party they didn’t protest when Bush Jr lost 8-12 billion in cash his administration shipped to Iraq and Representative Issa stated on tape that it wasn’t a lot of money. The Tea Party didn’t criticize at all any of Bush’s non paid expenditures or Cheney’s words that “Reagan proved deficits don’t matter”. The Tea Party didn’t come in to existence until after the 2008 election and failed to decry or denounce the very liberal spending Republicans during the Bush Jr. admin like Ryan who voted for every deficit increase, Medicare Advantage and war expenditure that was put forth by his party. In regards to the stimulus package, part of that was to be paid with increase in taxes on the top earners (of course that didn’t go through) but it is a recognized fact that the US infrastructure of banking and finance was at stake as well as some key industries.Bush initiated TARP(no outcry from the Republicans)and Obama continued and expanded it.(then there was an outcry from Republicans) Reagan passed a stimulus package as well and increased the federal budget deficit to over three times what it was when he came in to office so percentage wise Obama isn’t doing that bad especially considering this past recession was worse than Reagan’s. The Tea Party Republicans don’t see this as being hypocritical. Reagan also raised taxes over 11 times to at least to attempt to control his runaway spending but mainly did it by taxing the middle class through payroll taxes and increasing the federal gas tax by 125%. As for the Healthcare Act, the cost of that is slightly more than the Medicare Advantage but it covers millions of more Americans while Medicare Advantage covered no additional people and was a buy off for the senior vote and pharmaceutical companies.The very Republican that wrote and sponsored the bill went to work directly for the pharmaceutical industry after he successfully got the bill passed.The major difference between the two is the Healthcare Act is paid for (the fiscally conservative thing to do)as SCOTUS called it a tax while Medicare Advantage wasn’t paid for in the slightest like the two wars and the Bush tax cuts. Our original question goes to fiscal conservatism and I don’t believe the Bush years or Romney’s outline address those issues if they can’t point them out as a major result of the consequences we are economically facing today. @BillDexter. I thank you for the civility of your commentary though we disagree.

Oct 19, 2012 2:53pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
BillDexter wrote:

Saywhaaaa I would go so far as to speculate that you are aware of the consequences of reaching the limit of one’s credit. What shall we do when the Chinese impose terms of austerity upon us as a condition to further loans? Also, I am not really sure what it is that you claim we disagree about. My blunt observation of the current state of social spending, perhaps? If that is it, perhaps you could provide an explanation of what (other than permanent dependency and votes for Democrats) we actually get for our money?

I’m not trying to be derisive. It is my opinion that social spending along with unchecked immigration will be the death of our Republic, and I’d like to get your take on that.

Oct 19, 2012 3:35pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
JLWR wrote:

Hypocrisy is the GOP’ first name. Liar is their last name.

Oct 19, 2012 3:43pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
keylawk wrote:

We all hate paying, especially “taxes”. But this is OUR Government we are talking about. It is US giving money to ourselves, to an entity we own and our elected agents operate. Stop hating US. Stop “starving” US.

Oct 19, 2012 3:53pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
AlkalineState wrote:

Romney is slipping in the polls again. Still no full set of tax returns. Still no economic details of which exemptions will be cut to pay for his tax cuts and ‘balance the budget.’

He did offer this, however: “Government does not create jobs.”

Then 11 minutes later: “Vote for me and I’ll create 12 million new jobs.”

Gee, what a deal.

Oct 19, 2012 4:05pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
fred5407 wrote:

Pointing at a one time comment and building a position on it is like building a house on the beach without a foundation. I would like to see all you know it all snide commentors tell us what you paid in taxes last year and tell us that you are more of the leaches who live off of handouts.

Oct 19, 2012 4:06pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
AlkalineState wrote:

Romney has been forced to disclose now that he is an investor in the State Bank of China. But he will not say how much he has invested there. Regardless of the undisclosed amount, is it not clear the man is batting for the wrong team? When you’re running for President of the United States, it’s time to hop on team America, no?

I don’t trust the guy.

Oct 19, 2012 4:56pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Saywhaaaaa wrote:

BillDexter. I guess we both agree spending needs to be tempered and their needs to be deficit and debt reduction plans. The main differences on the social programs I see with the present Republicans has more to do with their overall increase in spending (in particular under Bush) and their ignoring of deficit expenditures social and business wise. That is why I bought up Medicare Advantage and the unfunded wars. The HealthCare Act I believe is a good response to Reagan’s EMTALA act which meant free medical care to those that are insured and even to those unresponsable enough to be uninsured. In fact trading a unfunded social program with one that is funded is a good move in the right direction. Farm subsidies and oil subsidies need to be looked at just as much as social welfare programs though I will acknowledge Social Security and Medicare make up a lot of the government expenditure but the Bush era Republicans doubled down on that with Medicare Advantage and tooting Reagan’s EMTALA Act rather than the problem. When Clinton was in office the Republican led Congress wanted to put forth a balanced budget amendment but that idea lost steam when Bush Jr was appointed to the White House and then didn’t become an issue until the Democrats won the White House in 2008. If the Republicans hadn’t been hypocritical and followed through with their balanced budget amendment in 2000 we would be at a totally different place right now. I guess we both agree that social spending is an issue but in the words of Reagan and now Obama we do have to make sure everyone is paying their fair share or at least their proportional fair share of the federal budget. As for immigration, do what you do with drugs, go after the users. Illegals wouldn’t be here if they weren’t being employed so go after the employers. Unchecked immigration on lower jobs keeps wages lower and also takes money out of the federal coffers. Not saying legal immigrants don’t contribute but unchecked immigration needs to be addressed with immigration reform. Another issue that has been debated but not acted on since 2000. I simply think Bush Jr and the Republican stalwarts like Ryan who during the Bush Jr years was not fiscally conservative were never capable of making the hard choices and that failure is what is now biting us in the behind. I don’t expect anything different from Romney with unchecked military spending, unchecked deference to his friend Netanyahu and the belief that we don’t have to pay for our wars, our corporate subsidies or social programs like Reagan’s EMTALA.

Oct 19, 2012 4:57pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Saywhaaaaa wrote:

BillDexter. I guess we both agree spending needs to be tempered and their needs to be deficit and debt reduction plans. The main differences on the social programs I see with the present Republicans has more to do with their overall increase in spending (in particular under Bush) and their ignoring of deficit expenditures social and business wise. That is why I bought up Medicare Advantage and the unfunded wars. The HealthCare Act I believe is a good response to Reagan’s EMTALA act which meant free medical care to those that are insured and even to those unresponsable enough to be uninsured. In fact trading a unfunded social program with one that is funded is a good move in the right direction. Farm subsidies and oil subsidies need to be looked at just as much as social welfare programs though I will acknowledge Social Security and Medicare make up a lot of the government expenditure but the Bush era Republicans doubled down on that with Medicare Advantage and tooting Reagan’s EMTALA Act rather than the problem. When Clinton was in office the Republican led Congress wanted to put forth a balanced budget amendment but that idea lost steam when Bush Jr was appointed to the White House and then didn’t become an issue until the Democrats won the White House in 2008. If the Republicans hadn’t been hypocritical and followed through with their balanced budget amendment in 2000 we would be at a totally different place right now. I guess we both agree that social spending is an issue but in the words of Reagan and now Obama we do have to make sure everyone is paying their fair share or at least their proportional fair share of the federal budget. As for immigration, do what you do with drugs, go after the users. Illegals wouldn’t be here if they weren’t being employed so go after the employers. Unchecked immigration on lower jobs keeps wages lower and also takes money out of the federal coffers. Not saying legal immigrants don’t contribute but unchecked immigration needs to be addressed with immigration reform. Another issue that has been debated but not acted on since 2000. I simply think Bush Jr and the Republican stalwarts like Ryan who during the Bush Jr years was not fiscally conservative were never capable of making the hard choices and that failure is what is now biting us in the behind. I don’t expect anything different from Romney with unchecked military spending, unchecked deference to his friend Netanyahu and the belief that we don’t have to pay for our wars, our corporate subsidies or social programs like Reagan’s EMTALA.

Oct 19, 2012 4:57pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.