The 47%: Makers vs Takers

[ElNono]

What happened to the 47 percent? Nevermind, say Republicans
The right used to lament over the millions not paying federal income taxes. Now they want to cut millions more from paying them.

By Brian Faler
03/13/16 04:39 PM EDT

Remember the 47 percent?

It wasn’t that long ago when former Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney famously bemoaned the fact that almost half of all households did not pay federal income taxes.

Now, in a striking about-face, the Republican presidential contenders are proposing to dramatically increase the number of people who don’t pay.

Marco Rubio wants to cut an additional 10 million households from the rolls. Ted Cruz would drop 18 million.

Donald Trump would go further than both, proposing to excuse 33 million. That would push up the share of all households that don't pay federal income taxes to almost two-thirds.

What makes it even more unusual is that Bernie Sanders, the self-proclaimed socialist on the Democratic side, would add more taxpayers to the rolls (though his campaign has said the benefits they will gain would outweigh that).

“The debate has gone 180 degrees,” said Len Burman, head of the Tax Policy Center, which estimates the effects of the candidates’ tax plans.

It has also quieted what had been a raging debate, especially in conservative policy circles, over the significance of having so many nonpayers — which some Republicans had portrayed as “makers” versus “takers.”

“It was a stupid debate,” Grover Norquist, the influential anti-tax activist says. He is quick to note that the poor pay all sorts of other taxes.

“It may not be the federal income tax, but they pay sales taxes and excise taxes and they read that little tax at the end of the phone bill,” he said. “You talk to low-income people and they will list the taxes they pay.”

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/0...blicans-220650

[ElNono]

lmao at the end of the article:

Of course, not all Republicans agree with paring the tax rolls.

Ben Carson had proposed charging everyone a $100 minimum tax, and Bobby Jindal tried to make his plan to charge the poor at least 2 percent the centerpiece of his tax reform proposal.

“He didn’t even make it to Iowa,” said Ryan Ellis, a Republican tax consultant.

“When you’re running for president,” said Ellis, “it’s probably not a good idea to go around saying that half the country is a bunch of lazy moochers.”

Jindal

[Winehole23]

no need to pick a lane when you can change your tune without turning off your supporters.

electoral politics is less about conservative/liberal values than it is about hating -- and beating -- the other side. whatever you have to say to win, your supporters will generally abide, as long as you win.

[pgardn]

I believe this was probably Romney's biggest error. And he knew it was disingenuous.

This time around Trump probably has a fairly large group of voters who fit into Romney's category and they don't even realize it.

[Wild Cobra]

What happened to the 47 percent? Nevermind, say Republicans
The right used to lament over the millions not paying federal income taxes. Now they want to cut millions more from paying them.

By Brian Faler
03/13/16 04:39 PM EDT

Remember the 47 percent?

It wasn’t that long ago when former Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney famously bemoaned the fact that almost half of all households did not pay federal income taxes.

Now, in a striking about-face, the Republican presidential contenders are proposing to dramatically increase the number of people who don’t pay.

Marco Rubio wants to cut an additional 10 million households from the rolls. Ted Cruz would drop 18 million.

Donald Trump would go further than both, proposing to excuse 33 million. That would push up the share of all households that don't pay federal income taxes to almost two-thirds.

What makes it even more unusual is that Bernie Sanders, the self-proclaimed socialist on the Democratic side, would add more taxpayers to the rolls (though his campaign has said the benefits they will gain would outweigh that).

“The debate has gone 180 degrees,” said Len Burman, head of the Tax Policy Center, which estimates the effects of the candidates’ tax plans.

It has also quieted what had been a raging debate, especially in conservative policy circles, over the significance of having so many nonpayers — which some Republicans had portrayed as “makers” versus “takers.”

“It was a stupid debate,” Grover Norquist, the influential anti-tax activist says. He is quick to note that the poor pay all sorts of other taxes.

“It may not be the federal income tax, but they pay sales taxes and excise taxes and they read that little tax at the end of the phone bill,” he said. “You talk to low-income people and they will list the taxes they pay.”

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/0...blicans-220650

If you left wing voters keep wanting to subsidize the poor, then maybe we need a socialist who understands how to properly do it.

[boutons_deux]

If you left wing voters keep wanting to subsidize the poor, then maybe we need a socialist who understands how to properly do it.

[ElNono]

If you left wing voters keep wanting to subsidize the poor, then maybe we need a socialist who understands how to properly do it.

you mean GOP voters?

[boutons_deux]

If you left wing voters keep wanting to subsidize the poor, then maybe we need a socialist who understands how to properly do it.

but you're all for taxpayers subsidizing BigCorp, esp your beloved, dearest MIC, just as corrupt as Congress and SCOTUS.

[boutons_deux]

Paul Ryan shrugs off Ayn Rand? Speaker renounces his past ‘makers and takers’ talk as ‘just wrong’

In his speech Wednesday calling for civility in politics, House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI) dramatically backed away from his own past rhetoric against people on welfare — which to many people seemed like the foundation of his entire political agenda for many years.

“I’m certainly not going to stand here and tell you I have always met this standard,” Ryan said. “There was a time when I would talk about a difference between ‘makers’ and ‘takers’ in our country, referring to people who accepted government benefits. But as I spent more time listening, and really learning the root causes of poverty, I realized I was wrong.”

“‘Takers’ wasn’t how to refer to a single mom stuck in a poverty trap, just trying to take care of her family. Most people don’t want to be dependent. And to label a whole group of Americans that way was wrong. I shouldn’t castigate a large group of Americans to make a point.

So I stopped thinking about it that way—and talking about it that way. But I didn’t come out and say all this to be politically correct. I was just wrong.”

This seems to be a marked shift away from Ryan’s past devotion to the author Ayn Rand, who used the term “looters” for people relying not only on government benefits but even private charity and support from others.

Here is a video of Ryan in 2009, singing the praises of Rand and her epic novel Atlas Shrugged, the story of which involved wealthy businesspeople fleeing society to their own secret community (which Ryan jokingly mentions here) in order to bring down the entire economy and the welfare state:

And here is a montage of Ryan’s past “makers and takers” talk, compiled in 2012 byMother Jones, including denunciations by Ryan of such past waves of the social welfare system as the New Deal and the Great Society.

http://www.rawstory.com/2016/03/paul...e+Raw+Story%29

[Th'Pusher]

Paul Ryan shrugs off Ayn Rand? Speaker renounces his past ‘makers and takers’ talk as ‘just wrong’

In his speech Wednesday calling for civility in politics, House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI) dramatically backed away from his own past rhetoric against people on welfare — which to many people seemed like the foundation of his entire political agenda for many years.



“I’m certainly not going to stand here and tell you I have always met this standard,” Ryan said. “There was a time when I would talk about a difference between ‘makers’ and ‘takers’ in our country, referring to people who accepted government benefits. But as I spent more time listening, and really learning the root causes of poverty, I realized I was wrong.”

“‘Takers’ wasn’t how to refer to a single mom stuck in a poverty trap, just trying to take care of her family. Most people don’t want to be dependent. And to label a whole group of Americans that way was wrong. I shouldn’t castigate a large group of Americans to make a point.

So I stopped thinking about it that way—and talking about it that way. But I didn’t come out and say all this to be politically correct. I was just wrong.”

This seems to be a marked shift away from Ryan’s past devotion to the author Ayn Rand, who used the term “looters” for people relying not only on government benefits but even private charity and support from others.

Here is a video of Ryan in 2009, singing the praises of Rand and her epic novel Atlas Shrugged, the story of which involved wealthy businesspeople fleeing society to their own secret community (which Ryan jokingly mentions here) in order to bring down the entire economy and the welfare state:

And here is a montage of Ryan’s past “makers and takers” talk, compiled in 2012 byMother Jones, including denunciations by Ryan of such past waves of the social welfare system as the New Deal and the Great Society.

http://www.rawstory.com/2016/03/paul...e+Raw+Story%29

Interesting. So he admits to being wrong about referring to the working poor as takers. Any change in his policy recommendations or was this just a semantic error?

[spurraider21]

good move by ryan, tbh

[spurraider21]

Interesting. So he admits to being wrong about referring to the working poor as takers. Any change in his policy recommendations or was this just a semantic error?

nah, he flat out said he was wrong...

"But I didn’t come out and say all this to be politically correct. I was just wrong"

[boutons_deux]

but you rightwingnuts, and Repugs in general, esp Repugs in red and slave states, still believe, absolutely know, that the knitters are lazy, cheating Welfare Queens in Cadillacs, right?

But ignore that the majority of people on public assistance are white.

[Th'Pusher]

nah, he flat out said he was wrong...

"But I didn’t come out and say all this to be politically correct. I was just wrong"

I guess my point wasn't clear. Have his policy solutions to make the working poor less dependent changed?

[boutons_deux]

Kansas bans welfare recipients from seeing movies, going swimming on government’s dime

The measure — called the HOPE Act by supporters — “provides an opportunity for success,” Brownback said in a statement after signing the bill. “It’s about the dignity of work and helping families move from reliance on a government pittance to becoming self-sufficient by developing the skills to find a well-paying job and build a career.”

the legislation was designed to pressure those receiving Temporary Assistance for Needy Families to spend “more responsibly.”

“This is about prosperity. This is about having a great life.”

The measure — which limits TANF recipients from withdrawing more than $25 per day from ATMs — also forbids recipients from spending money at a:

…theme park, dog or horse racing facility, parimutuel facility, or sexually oriented business or any retail establishment which provides adult-oriented entertainment in which performers disrobe or perform in an unclothed state for entertainment, or in any business or retail establishment where minors under age 18 are not permitted.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...ernments-dime/

Wisconsin GOP Advances Bills Controlling How People On Welfare Eat And Pee

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/0...n_7283654.html


Republican lawmaker wants to ban welfare recipients from buying steak and lobster

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/02/23/republican-lawmaker-wants-to-ban-welfare-recipients-from-buying-steak-and-lobster/

Arizona caps welfare benefits, will drop over 1,600 families from rolls

http://america.aljazeera.com/article...s-welfare.html

More Than 500,000 Adults Will Lose SNAP Benefits in 2016 as Waivers Expire

http://www.cbpp.org/research/food-as...waivers-expire

Repug talk is as cheap and dishonest as ever.

[ElNono]

Flip flopper

[Splits]

Flip flopper

[FromWayDowntown]

Flip flopper

I thought the same thing -- and in the same way.

[boutons_deux]

At AIPIC, Paul Ryan And Company Showed They Love Israel More Than America

Ryan said at AIPIC that "A confident America stands by its allies." It's just a shame the GOP doesn't stand by the American people.

Ryan said at AIPIC,

“That is why my first overseas trip as speaker will be to return to Israel.“And that is why I can pledge to you tonight that as long as I am speaker, I will not allow any legislation that divides our countries to come to the House floor.“

It is action and deeds that builds trust. And our friendship is too important—the dangers we face are too real—to let there be any misgivings between us.“Like my House colleagues, I understand that America is not safer when we back away from Israel. America is safer when we stand with Israel.

So if there’s one thing I want you to take away from tonight, it is this:“My colleagues and I will do everything we can to strengthen our friendship—not just with words but with concrete achievements. No taking friends for granted. No leaving them in the lurch. A friend is a priority. And America’s leaders should act like it.”

Americans are wishing Ryan would let any legislation come before him for a vote. The GOP-run House under first Boehner and now Ryan has given ‘do nothing’ a whole new dimension of meaning.

http://www.politicususa.com/2016/03/...iticus+USA+%29

Ryan grovelling for Jew $10Ms.

[TeyshaBlue]

Interesting. So he admits to being wrong about referring to the working poor as takers. Any change in his policy recommendations or was this just a semantic error?

Seems like a fairly recent epiphany. Time will tell.

[baseline bum]

Seems like a fairly recent epiphany. Time will tell.

Setting himself up to come out of a brokered convention the nominee?

[TeyshaBlue]

Nah....dont Get that vibe tbh.