The secret Romney tapes

[spartan]

The bit about caring? He stated that it wasn't his job to worry about trying to convince those who are obviously not going to vote for him. What's wrong with that? You could even say it is a judicious use of his time, money and resources.

If you're referring to the map thingy, completely different conversation.

[CBWx2]

The bit about caring? He stated that it wasn't his job to worry about trying to convince those who are obviously not going to vote for him. What's wrong with that? You could even say it is a judicious use of his time, money and resources.

It's actually a false, delusional mischaracterization that, at best, illustrates how completely out-of-touch his mentality is towards his own base and at worst, shows an elitist, prejudiced, devil-may-care attitude towards half of the citizens of the country he hopes to lead.

If you're referring to the map thingy, completely different conversation.

It's really the same conversation. It illustrates the comment above.

[spartan]

The bit about caring? He stated that it wasn't his job to worry about trying to convince those who are obviously not going to vote for him. What's wrong with that? You could even say it is a judicious use of his time, money and resources.

It's actually a false, delusional mischaracterization that, at best, illustrates how completely out-of-touch his mentality is towards his own base and at worst, shows an elitist, prejudiced, devil-may-care attitude towards half of the citizens of the country he hopes to lead.

If you're referring to the map thingy, completely different conversation.

It's really the same conversation. It illustrates the comment above.

Point 1. Particularly this close to the election, if you know someone is not going to vote for you come hell or high water, what is the point in trying? Folks that are on the fence or might be wavering, sure, but folks like you? Total waste of time. How much campaigning has Obama done in Texas? Sure, he has had a few fund raisers in places like San Anthonia and Houston, but is he making any kind of effort to win that state? No, is that because he is prejudiced and and couldn't give a crap about Texans? or does he just realize it would be a waste of his time and resources to try and do so?

Point 2. Illustrates your point I agree. Problem is, your point isn't what the thread is about.

[CBWx2]

Point 1. Particularly this close to the election, if you know someone is not going to vote for you come hell or high water, what is the point in trying? Folks that are on the fence or might be wavering, sure, but folks like you? Total waste of time. How much campaigning has Obama done in Texas? Sure, he has had a few fund raisers in places like San Anthonia and Houston, but is he making any kind of effort to win that state? No, is that because he is prejudiced and and couldn't give a crap about Texans? or does he just realize it would be a waste of his time and resources to try and do so?

Point 2. Illustrates your point I agree. Problem is, your point isn't what the thread is about.

spartan, the thread is about what Romney said, and here is what was said...

There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you name it. That that's an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what.

You are framing Romney's remarks to fit your own narrative. His actual remarks plainly characterize the 47% of people who pay no income taxes as Obama supporters who don't want to take personal responsibility and want government to take care of them. The fact of the matter is, the majority of that 47% actually would be more likely to vote for Romney than Obama, as they are mostly made up of rural or working class whites who tend to poll more favorably for conservatives. Like I said, at best, it illustrates how completely out-of-touch his mentality is towards his own base and at worst, shows an elitist, prejudiced, devil-may-care attitude towards half of the citizens of the country he hopes to lead.

[spartan]

Point 1. Particularly this close to the election, if you know someone is not going to vote for you come hell or high water, what is the point in trying? Folks that are on the fence or might be wavering, sure, but folks like you? Total waste of time. How much campaigning has Obama done in Texas? Sure, he has had a few fund raisers in places like San Anthonia and Houston, but is he making any kind of effort to win that state? No, is that because he is prejudiced and and couldn't give a crap about Texans? or does he just realize it would be a waste of his time and resources to try and do so?

Point 2. Illustrates your point I agree. Problem is, your point isn't what the thread is about.

spartan, the thread is about what Romney said, and here is what was said...

There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you name it. That that's an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what.

You are framing Romney's remarks to fit your own narrative. His actual remarks plainly characterize the 47% of people who pay no income taxes as Obama supporters who don't want to take personal responsibility and want government to take care of them. The fact of the matter is, the majority of that 47% actually would be more likely to vote for Romney than Obama, as they are mostly made up of rural or working class whites who tend to poll more favorably for conservatives. Like I said, at best, it illustrates how completely out-of-touch his mentality is towards his own base and at worst, shows an elitist, prejudiced, devil-may-care attitude towards half of the citizens of the country he hopes to lead.

Ok, I get your point, I think. But I guess how it is interpreted depends on if you listen to the whole conversation rather than to word by word. I think he has a valid point and see it from that perspective. The point being Obama has a solid unmovable block of voters, and he has a solid unmovable block of voters and they are fighting over the ones in the middle.

[CBWx2]

Ok, I get your point, I think. But I guess how it is interpreted depends on if you listen to the whole conversation rather than to word by word. I think he has a valid point and see it from that perspective. The point being Obama has a solid unmovable block of voters, and he has a solid unmovable block of voters and they are fighting over the ones in the middle.

I agree that both sides have an unmovable constituency that the other side would be better served not to divert resources to, the problem with his remarks is that he completely mischaracterized that constituency, on both sides. That was my only point. I also think that the number of unmovable voters is far less on each side than 47%. Don't have exact numbers to support that, but that's just my feeling on it.

[Durango 95]

I hate it when people agree.

[Brahmal]

Ive got an even better map for you, this breaks down by state the amount of people who pay no income tax by percentage. 



So Willard (and the conservative elite in general) is even more of a fool than we thought.

[Durango 95]

People in the South don't wear mittens?

[spartan]

Ive got an even better map for you, this breaks down by state the amount of people who pay no income tax by percentage. 



So Willard (and the conservative elite in general) is even more of a fool than we thought.

Quickie for you. Where do Northerners go when they retire? Now look at the map again.

[Durango 95]

Ive got an even better map for you, this breaks down by state the amount of people who pay no income tax by percentage. 



So Willard (and the conservative elite in general) is even more of a fool than we thought.

Quickie for you. Where do Northerners go when they retire? Now look at the map again.

Miami Beach?

[CBWx2]

Ive got an even better map for you, this breaks down by state the amount of people who pay no income tax by percentage. 



So Willard (and the conservative elite in general) is even more of a fool than we thought.

Quickie for you. Where do Northerners go when they retire? Now look at the map again.

25% of all elderly individuals in the entire country live in one of three states: Florida, California, and New York. Only one of those states pays less in federal taxes than they get back: Florida.

The next 25% of elderly Americans live in 6 other states: Illinois, Michigan, New Jersey, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Texas. None of those states pay less in federal taxes than they get back, but only one is ranked in the top 10 in non-taxpayer states: Texas.

[spartan]

Here are the top 10 cities to retire:

Birmingham, Ala.   <=== South
Tucson, Ariz. <=== South
Manchester, N.H.
New Orleans <=== South
Spokane, Wash.
Charleston, S.C. <=== South
Knoxville, Tenn. <=== South
Winston-Salem, N.C. <=== South (ish)
St. Louis
Palm Bay, Fla <=== South.

Now look at that map. Now, I am not saying this is the one and only cause of the above, but merely indicating that the map by itself doesn't explain a whole bunch of things, or take into consideration trends. Could be the south is in fact a bunch of moochers. But, and I may be splitting hairs here, elderly doesn't necessarily mean retired. Elderly could mean elderly and working, but retired in Florida probably means sitting on the beach with my really great North Eastern Union pension (jk) and taking 3 cruises a year.

[CBWx2]

Here are the top 10 cities to retire:

Birmingham, Ala.   <=== South
Tucson, Ariz. <=== South
Manchester, N.H.
New Orleans <=== South
Spokane, Wash.
Charleston, S.C. <=== South
Knoxville, Tenn. <=== South
Winston-Salem, N.C. <=== South (ish)
St. Louis
Palm Bay, Fla <=== South.

Now look at that map. Now, I am not saying this is the one and only cause of the above, but merely indicating that the map by itself doesn't explain a whole bunch of things, or take into consideration trends. Could be the south is in fact a bunch of moochers. But, and I may be splitting hairs here, elderly doesn't necessarily mean retired. Elderly could mean elderly and working, but retired in Florida probably means sitting on the beach with my really great North Eastern Union pension (jk) and taking 3 cruises a year.

These places you named are individual cities in broader states. I'd venture to guess that in places that have a high 65+ population that aren't in the south, that it isn't because most of them are still working. Conversely, I'd venture to guess that even a state like Florida, with it's high retiree numbers, has a large number of 65+ citizens that are still in the workforce. Although I'm not completely discounting your argument, I simply don't think it gets you very far. There is a more direct correlation between median income levels and states that pay negative income taxes than there is among number of retirees and states that pay negative income taxes. Blue states on average have higher median income rates than red states.

[spartan]

Which is because they are heavily taxed locally and thus a higher cost of living. Bit of a vicious circle really.