So, anyone in the 47%?

[Anonymous]

people don't pay CURRENT taxes on social security benefits, I believe. Plus, it is a government check given to you - or "handout" in the crazy vernacular.

But isn't social security also a pay-as-you-go system? It isn't like a bank account for everyone to throw their money into - I believe the current workers are paying the benefits of the current retirees.

[Anonymous]

My mother is an example that proves the fatuous ignorance and utter bullshit that is the disaster known as Willard Romney.

I just filed her 2011 Federal tax return. Federal income tax due = $0.

She has a seven figure net worth and had a six-figure total (not taxable) income last year, but with some medical deductions in addition to her usual, no income tax due.

She's not a leech. But there are many far richer than her in the same boat, some of whom were probably in that room in Boca Raton figuratively sucking Willard Romney's tiny dick & encouraging his massively warped and incoherent view of America and Americans.

[Anonymous]

PP here... and btw, she wouldn't piss on a turd like Willard Romney if he was on fire....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Your lack of planning is not my fault

Well, we all hope you remember that one day when you are disabled on the job or in a horrific dibilitating car crash, and your lifetime limits on your health insurance run out, and you have no income anymore, and need help. Hopefully your church or parents will be there to pay for your lifelong care. Jerkoff.

Omg, 47% of america is either disabled from working or car crashes? We better tell everyone to stop working and driving.

Again you liberals think any tiny exception should be wide open for abuse and the rule of law. Private charities could handle the far off exceptions like real disabilities and injuries.

Watch daytime tv and notice all the disabled people on judge judy and all of the scumbag lawyer / structured settlement ads.

This independent non-liberal wishes ... May karma bite you on the ass (or balls, if you have any) and put you in the position to need help from an attorney and a society that has far more compassion than your sorry ass clearly does. Pathetic asshole.

[Anonymous]

A lot of new college grads are in the 47% and will be for a long time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Your lack of planning is not my fault

Well, we all hope you remember that one day when you are disabled on the job or in a horrific dibilitating car crash, and your lifetime limits on your health insurance run out, and you have no income anymore, and need help. Hopefully your church or parents will be there to pay for your lifelong care. Jerkoff.

Omg, 47% of america is either disabled from working or car crashes? We better tell everyone to stop working and driving.

Again you liberals think any tiny exception should be wide open for abuse and the rule of law. Private charities could handle the far off exceptions like real disabilities and injuries.

Watch daytime tv and notice all the disabled people on judge judy and all of the scumbag lawyer / structured settlement ads.

This independent non-liberal wishes ... May karma bite you on the ass (or balls, if you have any) and put you in the position to need help from an attorney and a society that has far more compassion than your sorry ass clearly does. Pathetic asshole.

It's scary that conservatives form their opinion of the world from daytime television.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:17:40, please explain how that is Obama's fault.

I don't think I ever implied it is Obama's fault. I do think that our tax laws are messed up. I don't think her husband should be allowed to claim her since she makes well over six figures tax free.

On a different note: I do think that too many people take advantage of the system. If you're not disabled or elderly, you should not be on welfare for more than 2 years. I once knew a single mom living in public housing, getting food stamps - but made over 80k under the table as a bartender.

It strains credulity that with your obvious lack of social skills and disdain for everyone that you would have gotten close enough to this single mom you "once knew" for you to find out all about her personal finances. Let me guess. You "knew her" but no longer know her because she figured out pretty quickly that you are a complete asshole

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone who is currently on Medicare, Medicaid and/or Social Security is in the 47%. If you have a parent who died and you received SSDI, you were in the 47%. If you are deployed military in theatre or in rehab at Walter Reed, etc, you are in the 47%. If you have a special needs adult child with health coverage under Medicaid, you are n the 47%. If you are a family of five with household income less than 50%, you are in the 47%.

The vast majority of folks in the 47% are hard working white folks, some still working, others retired. Many will still vote for Romney, not realizing that Ryan is salivating at the prospects of ripping away their hard earned benefits as quickly as he can. Alas, people can be working two jobs in this country, paying their local/state taxes as well as payroll taxes, but still, according to the GOP, not have "skin in the game."

If a person works 35 years and pays into Social Security the entire time (because required to do so), then receives a monthly pension from Social Security, how has that person not paid taxes? That's quite different from qualifying to receive assistance through Medicaid.

That person is still part of the 47%. The PP's point, I think, is that many hard working and taxpaying people at one point or another receive a "hand out" (which in most cases isn't a handout but Mittens thinks it is if you receive ANY help) or are in the 47%.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:


If a person works 35 years and pays into Social Security the entire time (because required to do so), then receives a monthly pension from Social Security, how has that person not paid taxes? That's quite different from qualifying to receive assistance through Medicaid.

Sure, but the 47% figure is not paying taxes in a given year, not not paying taxes EVER.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:17:40, please explain how that is Obama's fault.

I don't think I ever implied it is Obama's fault. I do think that our tax laws are messed up. I don't think her husband should be allowed to claim her since she makes well over six figures tax free.

On a different note: I do think that too many people take advantage of the system. If you're not disabled or elderly, you should not be on welfare for more than 2 years. I once knew a single mom living in public housing, getting food stamps - but made over 80k under the table as a bartender.

How do you make 80k under the table? I would think with that salary, the employer would want to write her salary off as an expense.

[Anonymous]

20:02, my guess is that you did not watch former President Clinton's speech at the DNC. The face of Medicaid is actually quite diverse, including elderly white seniors who never took a "handout" from the government, yet have exhausted their resources and receive assistance to cover their long-term care. Medicaid also provides health insurance for adult children who are Down's, autistic, or unable, due to special needs, to hold a job that offers benefits. You may not have a child in that category, but if you visit the special needs forum on this board, you may learn about parents, who will, one day, need to pursue this coverage for their children. Unless Veep Ryan rips away that safety net as well through block grants.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:20:02, my guess is that you did not watch former President Clinton's speech at the DNC. The face of Medicaid is actually quite diverse, including elderly white seniors who never took a "handout" from the government, yet have exhausted their resources and receive assistance to cover their long-term care. Medicaid also provides health insurance for adult children who are Down's, autistic, or unable, due to special needs, to hold a job that offers benefits. You may not have a child in that category, but if you visit the special needs forum on this board, you may learn about parents, who will, one day, need to pursue this coverage for their children. Unless Veep Ryan rips away that safety net as well through block grants.

20:02 here. I believe you misunderstood my post because I do understand the diversity of Medicaid recipients and often help parents access that coverage for their special needs children. I was just pointing out the difference in receiving a benefit based on need and receiving a pension after years of working and required (forced) payment of a tax into a system.

[Anonymous]

Not in the 47% now, but I was for the first half of my life. We're probably in the top 2-3% now and we have been for many years. We also pay in the six figure range on taxes and I feel like it's a way of paying it forward. (It also drives me crazy to see people richer than me getting away with paying less.) The American people definitely got their money back and I am very proud to have been able to return on the investment and grateful for the help. I feel very strongly about delivering on the faith that the U.S. taxpayer put in me and I don't begrudge anyone who needs my help now.

[Anonymous]

6:07, regardless of whether you think payroll taxes are coerced, you do understand that today's Social Security and Medicare beneficiaries reap more in benefits than they ever paid into the two programs, right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:6:07, regardless of whether you think payroll taxes are coerced, you do understand that today's Social Security and Medicare beneficiaries reap more in benefits than they ever paid into the two programs, right?

Of course I understand that, as I am an educated person who pays attention to things. Sorry, no "gotcha" moment for you. Of course, one could argue that as a percentage of their income, taking into account inflation, etc. etc. etc., they are really getting back what they put in. It isn't the fault of old people that modern medicine and improvements in the quality of our lives (brought about in large part by that generation's hard work and innovation) means they will live longer than what was originally assumed when Social Security was created.

But that is irrelevant. The point is that they paid into the system and have upheld their end of the bargain. To now characterize them as "victims" who live off the government is a disgusting insult and lays bare the utter contempt Republicans have for the average working American.