The Romney Tape

[MasterOfPuppets]

i wonder how many of those welfare recipients are on welfare because the mittster sent their jobs to china ?

here's 170 more future welfare cases...

Bain Capital Partners, private equity firm founded by GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney, is shipping 170 U.S. factory jobs to China
Workers at Sensata Technologies plant in Freeport, Ill., have to train their Chinese replacements

GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney says he’s not the outsourcer-in-chief, but the private equity firm he founded is shipping 170 U.S. factory jobs to China in November.

Adding insult to injury, workers at the Sensata Technologies plant in Freeport, Ill., have to train their Chinese replacements.

“This is a business that makes a lot of profit,” Tom Gualrapp, a 33-year worker who was pink-slipped after Labor Day, told Democracy Now on Thursday. ( shut up tom you non taxpaying , freeloading scumbag ... )

“The Chinese government is providing them with a plant and a cheaper work force,” he said. “A dollar seems to be more important to them than any community responsibility.”

Workers have pleaded with Romney to save their jobs and presented a petition to Bain Capital Partners, which has owned the plant since 2006. But so far, their pleas have fallen on deaf ears.

A Romney spokesman did not respond to an email asking whether the candidate plans to intercede on behalf of the workers.

But the timing of the Sensata layoffs couldn’t come at a worse time for Romney, whose campaign has been reeling after he was secretly recorded dismissing 47% of the country as freeloaders dependent on government handouts.

Romney has said repeatedly on the campaign trail that he hasn’t made any management decisions at Bain since he retired as CEO in 1999.

Critics, however, say Bain has made a mint closing down U.S. factories and shipping good-paying jobs abroad — and that Romney continues to get a share of the company’s profits.

“Not only is Bain taking away these workers’ incomes and livelihoods, the company is forcing them to train their replacements from China,” Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.) said earlier. “That’s outrageous.”

On Wednesday, Gualrapp and other Sensata workers hounded their local congressman — Republican Rep. Bobby Schilling — at a town hall meeting and demanded to know if he would support a bill that would punish outsourcers.

Schilling fled the room and left his flack to say no. But in July, Schilling asked the CEO of Sensata, which makes sensors and controls for car companies like Ford and General Motors, to reconsider moving the production plant to China.

In the meantime, Sensata workers have set up a “Bainport” encampment outside the doomed factory to protest the closing of the plant. The newest edition to camp is a Dumpster bearing a sign that reads, “Romney Trashes American Jobs.”

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/elec...#ixzz27EaRUuUB

[cubanstogie]

Originally Posted by SCMom

You have an incredibly misguided view on people who are on welfare. Are there people who abuse it? Of course, but your description is straight up FoxNews/Rush propaganda. In fact, there's a good number of people on some type of assistance who actually pay federal income taxes (I was one of them for a time), and (as far as I know) most states have work requirements...despite the lie that Obama did away with those.

The 47% isn't about people on foodstamps though...it's about people who don't pay federal income taxes...and the majority of those people are either low income, will be future tax payers, or have paid into their benefits.

It would hardly be misguided when I see the abuse on a daily basis. I work in the 911 system so I am in a lot of these peoples homes. I see 50 inch tv's and cars with 24 inch rims with 5 kids sleeping on the floor and these people hanging out drinking 40 ouncers all day. Sure there are people who deserve foot stamps and welfare, but I see plenty who come from Eastern Europe who get free stuff including healthcare and don't even try to get a job let alone learn our language. Its all about perspective, when I lose 15 percent of income and will be taxed on my healthcare under Obama its hard to swallow when I see all the freeloaders he caters too. Sure Romney is wealthy but he earned it and should hardly be penalized.

[SCMom]

Originally Posted by cubanstogie

It would hardly be misguided when I see the abuse on a daily basis. I work in the 911 system so I am in a lot of these peoples homes. I see 50 inch tv's and cars with 24 inch rims with 5 kids sleeping on the floor and these people hanging out drinking 40 ouncers all day. Sure there are people who deserve foot stamps and welfare, but I see plenty who come from Eastern Europe who get free stuff including healthcare and don't even try to get a job let alone learn our language. Its all about perspective, when I lose 15 percent of income and will be taxed on my healthcare under Obama its hard to swallow when I see all the freeloaders he caters too. Sure Romney is wealthy but he earned it and should hardly be penalized.

Your personal experiences does not equal the majority on welfare abuse the system. It doesn't work that way. I have to remind you too that all or most states have work requirements. I've had to go through it myself in the past. You don't go to the job training classes and apply for jobs, you don't get the welfare. Interesting that you would know all those personal details about their lives though from answering a 911 call.

Again though, this isn't about people on food stamps. This is about the 47% comment. And as I stated before, the majority are people who are low income, elderly, disabled, or will be future taxpayers. I'll point out again as well, that the states with the highest number of non taxpayers are red states. http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...ral-taxes.html

So yes, way to ****ing go Mitt. Hope that shoe tastes good.

Misconceptions and Realities About Who Pays Taxes
By Chuck Marr and Chye-Ching Huang
Updated September 17, 2012

Contrary to "Entitlement Society" Rhetoric, Over Nine-Tenths of Entitlement Benefits Go to Elderly, Disabled, or Working Households

Executive Summary
Close to half of U.S. households currently do not owe federal income tax. The Urban Institute-Brookings Tax Policy Center estimates that 46 percent of households will owe no federal income tax for 2011. [1] A widely cited figure is a Joint Committee on Taxation estimate that 51 percent of households paid no federal income tax in 2009.[2] (The TPC figure for 2009 also is 51 percent.) [3]

These figures are sometimes cited as evidence that low- and moderate-income families do not pay sufficient taxes. Yet these figures, their significance, and their policy implications are widely misunderstood.

The 51 percent and 46 percent figures are anomalies that reflect the unique circumstances of the past few years, when the economic downturn greatly swelled the number of Americans with low incomes. The figures for 2009 are particularly anomalous; in that year, temporary tax cuts that the 2009 Recovery Act created — including the “Making Work Pay” tax credit and an exclusion from tax of the first $2,400 in unemployment benefits — were in effect and removed millions of Americans from the federal income tax rolls. Both of these temporary tax measures have since expired.

In 2007, before the economy turned down, 40 percent of households did not owe federal income tax. This figure more closely reflects the percentage that do not owe income tax in normal economic times.[4]

These figures cover only the federal income tax and ignore the substantial amounts of other federal taxes — especially the payroll tax — that many of these households pay. As a result, these figures greatly overstate the share of households that do not pay federal taxes. Tax Policy Center data show that only about 17 percent of households did not pay any federal income tax or payroll tax in 2009, despite the high unemployment and temporary tax cuts that marked that year.[5] In 2007, a more typical year, the figure was 14 percent. This percentage would be even lower if it reflected other federal taxes that households pay, including excise taxes on gasoline and other items.

Most of the people who pay neither federal income tax nor payroll taxes are low-income people who are elderly, unable to work due to a serious disability, or students, most of whom subsequently become taxpayers. (In years like the last few, this group also includes a significant number of people who have been unemployed the entire year and cannot find work.)

Moreover, low-income households as a group do, in fact, pay federal taxes. Congressional Budget Office data show that the poorest fifth of households paid an average of 4.0 percent of their incomes in federal taxes in 2007, the latest year for which these data are available — not an insignificant amount given how modest these households’ incomes are; the poorest fifth of households had average income of $18,400 in 2007.[6] The next-to-the bottom fifth — those with incomes between $20,500 and $34,300 in 2007 — paid an average of 10.6 percent of their incomes in federal taxes.

Moreover, even these figures greatly understatelow-income households’ totaltax burden because these households also pay substantial state and local taxes. Data from the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy show that the poorest fifth of households paid a stunning 12.3 percent of their incomes in state and local taxes in 2011.[7]

When all federal, state, and local taxes are taken into account, the bottom fifth of households pays about 16 percent of their incomes in taxes, on average. The second-poorest fifth pays about 21 percent.[8]

It also is important to consider who the people are who do not owe federal income tax in a given year.

TPC estimates show that 61 percent of those that owed no federal income tax in a given year are working households.[9] These people do pay payroll taxes as well as federal excise taxes, and, as noted, state and local taxes. Most of these working households also pay federal income tax in other years, when their incomes are higher — which can be seen by looking at the low-income working households that receive the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC).

The leading study of this issue found that the majority of households that receive the EITC get it for only one or two years at a time, such as when their income drops due to a temporary layoff, and pay federal income tax in most other years. The study examined the filers who claimed the EITC at least once during an 18-year periodand found that they paid a net of several hundred billion dollars in federal income tax over that period.[10] This finding shows that while some households will receive refundable tax credits in a given year whose value may exceed their payroll tax liability, they pay significant federal income taxes over time in addition to the payroll and state and local taxes they pay each year.

The remainder of those who pay no income tax are primarily elderly, disabled, or students.

The fact that most people who don’t owe federal income tax in a given year pay substantial amounts of other taxes — and also are net income taxpayers over time — belies the claim that households that do not owe income tax in a given year will form bad policy judgments because they “don’t have any skin in the game.”
Furthermore, although the federal tax system is progressive overall, state and local tax systems are regressive and undo a significant share of that progressivity. There is nothing wrong with having one part of the overall tax system shield low- and moderate-income households, who pay substantial amounts of other taxes and generally pay federal income tax as well in other years.

To substantially increase the share of households that owe federal income tax, policymakers would have to take such steps as: lowering the personal exemption or standard deduction — which would tax many low-income working families into, or deeper into, poverty; weakening the EITC or Child Tax Credit, which would significantly increase child poverty while reducing incentives for work over welfare; or paring back the tax exclusion for Social Security benefits, which would subject more seniors with modest fixed incomes to the income tax.

*For more details, keep reading* http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3505

[ricardisimo]

I honestly don't think that any of this matters. Incumbency + gajillions of corporate dollar$ = Barack Obama in the White House for four more years. That Romney is an idiot probably helps him more than hurts him (cf. our last president) but Obama would have to rape an eight-year-old white boy on television to lose this one.

How does anyone get the idea that Obama can lose this one? Mind you, I'd like nothing more than to see that sadistic slimeball kicked out of office, but it ain't gonna happen.

[Atlanta Dan]

Originally Posted by ricardisimo

I honestly don't think that any of this matters. Incumbency + gajillions of corporate dollar$ = Barack Obama in the White House for four more years. That Romney is an idiot probably helps him more than hurts him (cf. our last president) but Obama would have to rape an eight-year-old white boy on television to lose this one.

How does anyone get the idea that Obama can lose this one? Mind you, I'd like nothing more than to see that sadistic slimeball kicked out of office, but it ain't gonna happen.

Since I am fairly confident the Green or Libertarian candidate will not win if Obama loses, I doubt kicking in Romney to replace Obama is going to result in a less bellicose foreign policy

But I am with you that the murder by drone policy that I assume is at least part of the reason for your "sadistic slimeball" characterization is awful

My concern is Romney is all in with regard to not only murder by drone but has no problem with the "enhanced interrogations" that the previous White House occupant blessed

Good takedown of the drone policy in this linked article

The Seven Deadly Sins of John Brennan
What Obama's high priest of targeted killings doesn't want you to know.

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/article...f_john_brennan

[tony hipchest]

[ricardisimo]

Originally Posted by Atlanta Dan

Since I am fairly confident the Green or Libertarian candidate will not win if Obama loses, I doubt kicking in Romney to replace Obama is going to result in a less bellicose foreign policy

But I am with you that the murder by drone policy that I assume is at least part of the reason for your "sadistic slimeball" characterization is awful

My concern is Romney is all in with regard to not only murder by drone but has no problem with the "enhanced interrogations" that the previous White House occupant blessed

Good takedown of the drone policy in this linked article

The Seven Deadly Sins of John Brennan
What Obama's high priest of targeted killings doesn't want you to know.

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/article...f_john_brennan

I think at this point it's safe to assume that they are all sadistic slimeballs. You can't get anywhere near the White House unless you have somehow demonstrated sociopathic tendencies to the nation's owners.

The article looks good. I love how the author juxtaposed the "We will kill them all" quote from Brennan with the "you can't kill them" synopsis. Fortunately our leaders don't let little things like facts or reason get in the way.

[BlockMonsta]

Yeah I was just wondering what Obama has improved in his four years? I mean aside from creating a huge deficit?

[Atlanta Dan]

Originally Posted by Vis

Pawlenty has now stepped down as co-chair of Romney's campaign. Always a good sign....

Further evidence why we are screwed

“I went to Wall Street and told them to get their snout out of the trough because they are some of the worst offenders when it comes to bailouts and carve-outs and special deals.”

That was Tim Pawlenty, the former Republican governor of Minnesota, just over a year ago while running for president, railing against big banks.

So what’s he up to now?

Last week, he was named president of the Financial Services Roundtable, one of Wall Street’s most influential lobbying organizations. In his new job, in which his predecessor was paid $1.8 million annually, Mr. Pawlenty will spend his days shuttling around Washington, trying to convince lawmakers that those “carve-outs and special deals” really are beneficial for the nation’s banking system, though presumably without putting his “snout in the trough.”...

“In Washington there is an old saying, ‘Where you stand depends on where you sit.’ ”

Sadly, no truer words have ever been said about the influence of money on our nation’s capital.

http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2012/09/.../?ref=business

[MasterOfPuppets]