Archived Story

Who are society’s real ‘takers’?

Published 9:44am Friday, November 16, 2012

This week Mitt Romney explained to his key financial supporters why he lost the 2012 presidential election. The reason? The 47 percent.

As it turns out Mitt meant every word he said to that private audience in March, that he believes 47 percent of Americans are takers, wanting gifts from the government and voting democratic to keep the gifts coming.

In his post-election version of the 47 percent Romney adds in young people, who were given “gifts” of lower student loans and extended time on family health insurance.

These students join women (reproductive care within Obamacare), Hispanics (children of illegals given freedom from expulsion), and African Americans (extended unemployment benefits for the group hardest hit by long-term unemployment) in the “Takers” category.

Now these 47 percent, according to Romney and those who support his views, are also tax deadbeats because they pay no federal taxes (incomes below tax thresholds).

But the facts are quite different according to Citizens for Tax Justice, who cite studies noting total combined federal, state and local taxes.

When all taxes are considered as a percentage of income, those making $40,000 per year pay 27 percent of their income in total taxes, while the top 1 percent pay 30.9 percent, a difference of less than 4 percent. Hardly deadbeats, and hardly “Takers.”

So “Takers” are those who favor taxes to be used to make college more affordable, abortions more rare, unemployment less ruining, and tolerance for those who have parents who broke the law more acceptable. And Takers are those who pay plenty of taxes on tiny incomes, but no federal taxes.

Maybe they are not really the “Takers” at all in American society.

How about these takers:

In 2011 General Electric paid no federal taxes on an income of $5 billion, and an offshore pot of $94 billion protected from owed U.S. taxes.

AT&T in 2011 had a federal tax rate of, get this, minus 6.4 percent. AT&T’s profit for just the first quarter of 2012 was $3.6 billion.

The TARP program, the bail-out for big banking, according to the CBO will have a net cost in 2012 of $32 billion to taxpayers. That is $32 billion and the banks continue foreclosing on consumers daily.

Big oil a decade ago purchased 1,500 Gulf of Mexico leases of publicly owned lands but did not have to compensate taxpayers for 70 percent of those leases, leases now worth billions with oil hovering at $100 a barrel.

At the state level, Oregon recently discovered that several large corporations who claim Oregon as their home base have paid little or no state taxes for years.

Intel made $23.3 billion over the last three tax years and paid Oregon zero in state taxes. Wells Fargo earned $47.9 billion during the same period and paid the state of Oregon 0.7 percent in taxes. McDonalds generated $8.2 billion in profit and paid 4.8 percent in taxes.

In Ohio, Gov. John Kasich has made Ohio a very business friendly state, reducing corporate taxes as much as 63 percent in 2010 and eliminated corporate income tax entirely. At the same time the Kasich administration cut state funding to schools and universities, causing property tax increases across many Ohio communities.

And on a personal tax level, consider the “Takers” who self-identify as hedge fund managers. According to Forbes magazine, the top 40 of these folks collectively made $13.2 billion in 2011, the bottom earner making a mere $40 million. Their tax rate? 15 percent.

So Gov. Romney and his rich protecting friends of big business and big money are correct — America is plagued by the greedy who are “Takers.”

They just are not the hardworking Americans who Romney and friends see as deadbeats. Instead, the real “Takers” are taking from all of us for their corporate and personal greed.


Jim Crawford is a retired educator and political enthusiast living here in the Tri-State.


The Tribune believes it is possible for people with a variety of points of view to discuss issues in a civil manner and will remove comments that, in our opinion, foster incivility. We want to encourage an open exchange of information and ideas. Responsibility for what is posted or contributed to this site is the sole responsibility of each user. By contributing to this website, you agree not to post any defamatory, abusive, harassing, obscene, sexual, threatening or illegal material, or any other material that infringes on the ability of others to enjoy this site, or that infringes on the rights of others. Any user who feels that a contribution to this website is a violation of these terms of use is encouraged to email, or click the "report comment" link that is on all comments. We reserve the right to remove messages that violate these terms of use and we will make every effort to do so — within a reasonable time frame — if we determine that removal is necessary.

  • indieVoter

    I wish the best for your family too. Bye

    (Report comment)

  • mikehaney

    indieVoter November 16, 2012 at 8:25 pm
    I guess if this is the best we can do at civil discussion of big ideas, I might was well follow my initial sentiment and just take a long vacation from this forum.

    Soon enough you’ll have some empty chairs to talk at.
    what’s holding you back indie?

    (Report comment)

  • mikehaney

    Boy,it sure is flying on this one. Wait,let me get my waders.

    (Report comment)

  • indieVoter

    ‘ I notice my glass is empty. I am taking timeout to refresh it. Scotch indie, not bourbon, God forbid. ”

    That’s showing too. I can sometimes tell the difference in you, as you occasionally get a mean edge about you…but don’t worry about it. At least you gave me credit for being BOTH childish AND immature…God forbid I’d only mastered one.

    In any event, maybe you’ll find that you have a different take on things and revise your statement. I’ll be on the lookout for that.

    That doesn’t mean I’m going to come back for more of the nonsense though. I find it disappointing. If that’s all there is to this, I’ll just act like a partisan and wait to come back until there’s an election on the line and we’ll play this little game all over again…to the same end.

    Just like with a lot of constituencies the Republican party NOW wishes it had, you may well find that the window has closed…the time has passed…and the game is over. What a shame. It wasn’t my first choice.

    (Report comment)

  • mickakers

    indie; Your childishness and immaturity not to mention your lack of wisdom is showing.

    (Report comment)

  • mickakers

    Yes indie, as JFK and Robert Frost pointed out “we are dealing with life, the hopes and fears of millions of people.” My compliments. May God hold you and your family in the palm of his had.

    (Report comment)

  • indieVoter

    Mick: “Maybe a comparison of JFK and Clinton is appropriate for you youngsters”

    Well, I’ll see if I can find a way to interpret that which isn’t insulting and dismissive. In the meantime, here’s what I’m doing with some of my spare time between now and the next election.

    One thing I’m doing is compiling a comprehensive database, by year, of who was President that gives an annual breakdown of jobs, national debt, inflation, trade deficits and more. Included in that is a breakdown of who was President and which party controlled each house of Congress.

    I’m also watching a number of hey historical points on video, including:

    Kennedy-Nixon First Presidential Debate, 1960

    Nixon’s 1968 RNC Acceptance Speech

    1976 Jimmy Carter and Gerald Ford Presidential Debate #3 Oct 22

    1980 Presidential Candidate Debate: Governor Ronald Reagan and President Jimmy Carter – 10/28/80

    Presidential Debate 1992 #1

    Bush Vs. Gore 2000 Presidential Debate 10/3/00

    All of which brings us up to right before the Obama era. I’ve already watched most of this (again) and it’s really interesting to see what the respective party’s candidates had to say on various issues and how that compares to what they actually did…not to mention how it compares to what their party “stands for” these days.

    I’m not going to even suggest this for anyone else. I guess I just enjoy this stuff. I love the history of presidential politics.

    What I don’t love, or even enjoy, is the parody of intellect we see here most of the time. I don’t enjoy the personal attacks, the posturing, the rank partisanship and most of all…the apparent need you guys feel to hate anyone who expresses views that are not the same as your own.

    Mick, as for the liquor, while it’s my personal view that hard liquor is a poor decision…I do not think you are a bad man for drinking it. I don’t think you’re going to hell for drinking every night, or whatever it is you do. I understand we live in a country with freedom of religion. Within Christianity itself, I also understand that there’s nothing but varying opinions on how to interpret the Bible.

    So I’m gonna leave it to you guys to judge others and say who’s going to hell and who’s not. I’ll let you sit back and make your own personal decisions that I consider questionable but at the same time preaching morality on another topic to others.

    (Report comment)

    • indieVoter

      Besides, telling an old man not to have his scotch would be just as futile as telling a young woman (or man) not to have premarital sex. You guys are all going to do what you’re going to do, unless somehow God and/or the church helps to intervene.

      Interesting how easy it is to take a stand on abortion when you’re an old man and I don’t know one old man in history who’s ever had one. Maybe your focus should be more on the issues where YOU PERSONALLY can set the example. Just a thought.

      (Report comment)

      • indieVoter

        Upon further reflection I thought it appropriate to come back and make one clarification.

        As one who considers himself to now be something of an “old man”, I take that as a compliment as a general rule. However, after that further reflection, I considered the possibility that my use of that term could be taken otherwise.

        Mick, I did use the term “old man” as a way to insult you. I was using the term to illustrate how far removed you are personally from the issue of abortion. Neither you nor I have to worry about personally dealing with this issue. Maybe someone younger in the family, but not you or me.

        That’s all I meant, lest I be considered guilty of the very thing I despise that’s so prevalent here. I don’t despise Mick though…quite the opposite. I have some appreciation for his life experience, what his intentions are here and what his strategy is for accomplishing it. Let’s just say that some things would SEEM to sound better coming from a “lifelong registered democrat” who occasionally gives praise to a “liberal” concept like the social safety net.

        Bottom line, he’s here to get you to vote republican and he’s using the old Lee Atwater tactic of pushing wedge issues to divide us. The wedge issues? Abortion, same sex marriage and religious freedom.

        I’ve pointed out to him that Roe v Wade was decided on under a republican president.

        I’ve pointed out to him that the majority of Supreme Court justices who voted for Roe v. Wade were actually republican-appointed.

        I’ve pointed out to him that we’ve had 4 republican presidents since Roe v. Wade who did not overturn it or put their full force behind a policy like “personhood.”

        They talk a good game. That’s all, and it’s good enough to keep fooling middle-class voters to vote against their own financial interests.

        If you want America to be a better place folks, go to church and don’t just play games. For those who do it right, a group in diminishing numbers by the way, they have a “certain something” in their lives that is attractive and makes others want what they’ve got. Be that person. Make a difference by setting the right example yourself and then passing along some wisdom.

        Don’t sit back and wait for politicians to restore morality to America. Come on, man!!

        (Report comment)

  • mickakers

    indie; I notice my glass is empty. I am taking timeout to refresh it. Scotch indie, not bourbon, God forbid.

    (Report comment)

  • mickakers

    indie; Your post of 11/16/12 at 2013 was excellent. My compliments. You have much to offer. Your silence would be a loss. When we comment and open our mouths we are subject to criticism. It is important to accept this fact. You and I may disagree on issues, but it is important that we express our opinions as it is important that all people express they’re opinions. We learn from each other even if we disagree.

    (Report comment)

    • indieVoter

      ” When we comment and open our mouths we are subject to criticism…”

      Yes, if we’re conceding that the discussion is among only the dull-minded who can do no better.

      Bright people can discuss or even criticize an idea without going beyond that and saying insulting things about the other person here in the forum who they disagree with.

      Frankly, I got a lot of hate from a few here…more than my fair share…because I made a darn good case for Obama and every single thing I said would come to pass did come to pass.

      They hate that.

      (Report comment)

  • indieVoter

    Next Thursday is Thanksgiving. It’s also the 49th anniversary of the assassination of John F. Kennedy. While history has shown that he was just as “human” as anyone else, I still recall our fallen leader and what was stolen from us on November 22, 1963.

    Here are words he spoke in 1961 that are as appropriate now as they were then.

    “I asked Robert Frost to come and speak at the Inauguration because I felt he had something important to say to those of us who are occupied with the business of government; that he would remind us that we are dealing with life, the hopes and fears of millions of people. He has said it well in a poem called “Choose Something Like a Star” in which he speaks of the fairest star in sight and says,

    ‘It asks little of us here.
    It asks of us a certain height,
    So when at times the mob is swayed
    to carry praise or blame too far,
    We may choose something like a star
    To stay our mind on and be staid.’”

    (Report comment)

  • mickakers

    indie; You seem to have a rather thin skin. You are good at giving it out but not so good at taking it. Maybe, a little maturity is in order.

    (Report comment)

    • indieVoter

      Are you kidding? I’ve reached out for a more friendly and civil debate here time and time again. If I offended you by raising the moral equivalency issue of hard liquor and abortion, I apologize but you are the one who offered up your feelings on hard liquor.

      I’ve come here and stayed throughout the campaign despite being called a socialist, a communist, a woman, a bed-wetter, unpatriotic and a lot more. I’ve come back to the same rude people who did that and forgave it…and tried to get this forum to be more sensible to no avail.

      If I wanted to make this a contest of whose skin was thinner, I promise you that I could have taken a much more unfriendly approach…yes, even with you. But that’s not what I wanted. Apparently, it is what you want. Go ahead and have it…but not with me.

      (Report comment)

  • mickakers

    When JFK and the Kennedy clan first arrived on the scene, it was like a breath of fresh air, young, vibrant and exciting. a touch of class (thanks to Jacqueline when it came to class). The downside was the Catholicism, people feared this, they had concerns that the pope would rule. This ignorance and prejudice was overcome and he was elected. Maybe a comparison of JFK and Clinton is appropriate for you youngsters. When it comes to moral fiber, the Kennedy’s were rather weak. Robert seemed to be the standout.

    (Report comment)

  • indieVoter

    I guess if this is the best we can do at civil discussion of big ideas, I might was well follow my initial sentiment and just take a long vacation from this forum.

    Soon enough you’ll have some empty chairs to talk at.

    (Report comment)

  • indieVoter

    ‘indie; I have been a registered Democrat since October of 1961…”

    I don’t know what the hold up is on giving an honest word on how you felt about JFK’s America back in 60 and 61, but I’ll go ahead and share some “new” information with you anyway. I would never have told you this a month ago because, in the political climate we have today, you can’t trust anyone to be fair and balanced or even “real.”

    You already know I was a Reaganite as a younger man. What you don’t know is that my entire family was entrenched in one political party. Before I turned 18, I made the decision to be an independent voter and simply vote for the better candidate with each election. I felt I owed at least that much to those who died for me to have that right. I just couldn’t wrap my head around the idea of just “voting party lines” rather than critically evaluating each election’s candidates and choosing the one I believed could be America’s next great president.

    Along the way, there were a couple of decisions I made that might surprise you Mick.

    I was born too late to vote for JFK but I was an avid follower of him as a leader and that era for my entire life. I believe that JFK represented a “better America” that was stolen from us when he was murdered on November 22, 1963.

    In my earlier years, I looked for someone who could be that next JFK but I couldn’t find one in the democratic party. I found Ronald Reagan instead and believed him to also be a leader capable of being a great president. I supported him all the way through his years.

    Bush sr. never struck me as much of a leader or impressive in any way as a man. He had a nice resume but was completely uninspiring. Then again, neither was Dukakis. That’s the one election I just sat out, and I regret that now even though it wouldn’t have made a difference.

    In 1992 I saw in Bill Clinton a man who…just maybe…could be the one who’d take the torch left by JFK. I was enthused with him as a candidate in 1992 and supported him as strongly as I did Obama this time. However, I was disappointed in his behavior as President and…naive as this may sound…I still believed it was important that the President of the United States have the “moral authority” to lead. While I believed Clinton was unstoppable in 1996, I still cast my vote for Dole as a protest.

    Continuing this same thread of disappointment with Clinton as I just explained, I also sided with George W. Bush in 2000. Yeah, I voted for Bush.

    I believed him when he said he was “a uniter, not a divider” and all the other stuff. I wasn’t blown away by him as a potential leader but I thought he’d do a decent job and I did not like Gore at all. Needless to say, Bush disappointed me.

    That brings us to now. If you understand my experience with Clinton in 1996, you’d know that my support for Obama in 2012 was not a given.

    When I look at Barack Obama as a man…as a husband…and as a father, I see someone who is EXEMPLARY. Candidly, he’s much more of a “good husband” than JFK was as we know it now.

    Now I know you want to keep talking about abortion but did George W. Bush run on personhood? He didn’t. Republicans have done precious little on all those issues you keep citing over and over. They talk about them when campaigning, but do so very little on those issues if they’re elected.

    We live at a time when the government is being asked to do the job of the church…..when the schools are being asked to do the job of the family…..and when television, video games and cell phones are our childrens’ babbysitters. Where does that lead us?

    (Report comment)

  • mickakers

    indie; You would make a good politician!!! I realize there are times when discretion is the better part of valor. If I lived in fear of my opinions, I would remain silent. An opinion expressed incognito, in actuality, is not worthy of consideration. It is empty rhetoric hiding behind a facade.

    (Report comment)

    • indieVoter

      Mick, for someone who can barely make a comment other than fluff about what’s “commendable” and what’s “lacking” it’s amazing you’d be the one to talk about empty rhetoric.

      As a side point, just because it’s annoying, just go ahead and commend whomever you want instead of saying their remarks are “commendable”.

      Even still, I have some respect for you and have tried to reach out and elevate the discussion here. I guess you prefer all the “Obambi” stuff and find that commendable??

      I guess I find that condemnable, but I won’t exercise the option any more than I have just by saying the words I already have.

      (Report comment)

  • indieVoter

    Should you decide to share your take on JFK back when you were living through those times, I’ll give you some new insight into my past political views that will make it more clear that, at least in the big picture of my entire lifetime, I have been an independent all along.

    (Report comment)

  • indieVoter

    Mick, that’s a fair question. First of all, it’s about ideas and not about me. I offer ideas on their own merit and that’s it. I’ve gotten harassed on here enough for expressing views not consistent with the majority position in this county and I’m not interested in finding out if I could up that to getting bricks thrown through my windows as well. Online harassment is enough for me.

    It’s a pretty safe thing to use your own name if you live more than a thousand miles away and mainly take the majority position here in this paper…if that’s what you want to do.

    If I read you right, you were just a little too young to be with Kennedy in 1960. While your voting straight party lines is enlightening, I was more interested in how you felt about JFK himself.

    Do you want to elaborate on that?

    (Report comment)

  • mickakers

    Jim Crawford; I would like to share this “In a global economy that largely functions to siphon wealth and resources from the world’s poorest to its wealthiest inhabitants, who can say whether it is God or gold that we truly worship? As we steadily ravage the irreplaceable natural resources of the planet and recklessly undermine the fabric of sustainable life on earth—all for the sake of short-term profit.” This is taken from an essay by Robert Ellsberg, publisher of Orbis Books and appeared in the Nov. 5th issue of America magazine (his article; Bartolome de las Casas).

    (Report comment)

  • mickakers

    indie; As a PS: Is there some reason why you don’t use your name? Are you ashamed or embarrassed by your opinions?

    (Report comment)

    • indieVoter

      While I answered your question above, I do want to note that your inclusion of the second sentence was both unnecessary and small. You’re usually better than that. Let’s raise the level of discourse here. Apparently, the empty chairs are gone. Let’s show people how adults discuss issues for a change?

      What say you?

      (Report comment)

  • mickakers

    indie; I have been a registered Democrat since October of 1961 (the first year I was eligible to vote). I have voted a straight Democratic ticket up until recently. The Democratic Parties whole hearted support of the killing of the unborn, Same Sex Marriage and the disregard of Freedom Of Conscience in regard to religious beliefs has been cause for concern. I feel using Federal funds (tax payer) money to support these interests or using Federal laws to support the end of freedom of conscience when it comes to religious beliefs is detrimental to the well being of these United States and it’s people. At the present time (I am still a registered Democrat and will remain so) the only Democrat I can vote for is one who opposes these immoral principles. I have been a member of a Labor Union for fifty plus years, being president of a 350 plus member local for twenty years. I fully realize the beneficence of the Democratic party when it comes to support of the working man and woman. I also realize how detrimental the Republican party has been when it comes to the interests of the common man and woman. This being said, there is a hierarchy of values. At the pinnacle of this hierarchy is the RIGHT TO LIFE, without this right, all other rights are immaterial.

    (Report comment)

    • indieVoter

      Regarding your opposition to abortion, which I share, do you support President Obama’s decision to make contraceptives to college-aged women free of charge. That reduces the number of unwanted pregnancies and, as a result, it reduces the number of abortion.

      I prefer abstinence to pre-marital sex just like I prefer abstinence to hard liquor…but that’s not the point.

      We’re talking about abortions. Obama undoubtedly cut some abortions off at the pass with the decision on contraceptives.

      What say you (and keep it pithy, pal)…lol

      (Report comment)

  • indieVoter

    Mick, you may have mentioned this before but I don’t recall any in-depth talk on it. Were you a JFK democrat back in 1960?

    I’m not looking for a policy thing here. I’m just wondering. If you don’t mind saying, I’d also be interested in knowing if your support for JFK was very strong.

    (Report comment)

  • indieVoter

    I want to float a theory that would explain this question, both sensibly and completely.

    It has to do with how you slice up America’s demographics. There are a LOT of ways you can slice that pie…and you can make it say a lot of things when you do….but I want to focus on only one that’s quite simple.

    The two groups in America I’m talking about right now are “the haves” and “the have nots.”

    The “haves” are comprised of the wealthy born into big money, those who are wealthy by working their way up there, those who weren’t born wealthy but got rich by scamming people and/or using other unethical methods and, lastly, those who don’t make a 7-digit income (over $1 million per year) but have the dream (or delusion) that someday they’ll break into those ranks. I don’t mock them. I just know those odds are very long.

    The “have nots” are the people like most everyone I know. They are comprised of people not born into big money, people who go to a job at least 5 days a week and work hard and, yes, it does include those who just don’t want to work. Maybe that “lazy” group is a lot smaller than some make it out to be….but….any sane person would admit there are SOME lazy people and they’re definitely not going to vote republican….they probably wont get out and vote for anyone in many cases, actually.

    So now the answer to your question is easy, Jim. If you’re in the “haves” then you most certainly see yourselves as the MAKERS. You create the jobs, etc. and so you’re the root of all good in the economy. Now you’d think a “HAVE” would say that the lazy people who don’t work at all are the “Takers” but that’s wrong. According to Mitt (and he’s not being repudiated by republicans in big numbers yet) if you work hard at a job but, in the end, you do not PAY TAXES….that is, if you get all you pay refunded at tax time…then YOU ARE A TAKER.

    If you’re a “have not” and you’re one of the ones who work hard at a job but get all your taxes refunded at tax time….YOU are the one who does all the real work. YOU are the one who interfaces with the customer. YOU are the one who turns the wrench, drives the truck, teaches the classroom, takes the phone calls and…yes…flip the burgers. Really, I’m talking about everyone who signs the back of their paycheck instead of signing it on the front, bottom-right and making less than $1 million per year. If you’re one of these “have not” people then you see yourselves as the MAKERS. You also see millionaires who argue for even lower taxes for themselves…even in time of bad recession AND war on two fronts….and corporations who get corporate welfare as the TAKERS.

    Which side is right? It may sound contradictory, but I say both are right. In one way or another, we’re all “makers” and we’re all “takers.”

    The thing I see as being really bad, really unhealthy for our great nation, is when the name of the game is when one side or another tries to make the other guys look like they’re “the problem.”

    This business of pitting Amercian vs American isn’t good. It’s terrible, in fact, for our country. Anyone remember 9/11??? I’m not talking about scandals, hearings, and wars that came after. I’m just talking about the day itself. Does ANYONE remember.

    I do. I was in a position to leave the office for a few hours and get my kids out of school, as we really didn’t know what the heck was going on in those first hours. At first, I thought only China would try an attack like that and I thought the was was on. After getting home, I called my dad who’s a VietNam veteran himself, and I told him I was going to go sign up to fight if it were China and this was going to be WW3. I went to the store and bought a little American flag. I taped it to the radio antenna on my car that very day.

    I remember, in the coming days and weeks, seeing many more people doing this very same thing. Seeing an American flag flying on the antenna of a flag was a very common sight soon after 9/11. There for a very short while, we put everything else on the back burner and just put AMERICA FIRST.

    I believe we still have this in us. It doesn’t seem like it when we watch people on TV and listen to people on radio who PROFIT when there’s a big controversy we’re all fighting over. Let me say this in a way that will make it clear for many of the readers here.

    Remember Jesse Jackson in the 1980s?? Remember how a lot of people said that he made a living on stirring up controversies and then going to be in the middle of it, being the mouthpeice???

    Well, I’m not re-litigating the Jesse Jackson example but it’s such a fitting example to explain what’s happening today I did go ahead and use it. Here’s why. In the sense that I just explained it, people who personally profit from stirring up controversy and dissent……

    Rush Limbaugh is a “Jesse Jackson”
    Ed Schultz is a “Jesse Jackson”
    Sean Hannity is a “Jesse Jackson”
    Rachel Maddow is a “Jesse Jackson”

    I could go on but this short list gives you a sampling from both political parties, of people who go the extra mile to FIND some point or issue that they can work up into a big controversy that will get us all fighting with each other. The more they succeed at that, the more money they make.

    Sadly, we’re not going to have another Walter Cronkite who can be trusted to be smart, honest, objective and candid. We don’t have news like that anymore. We must evolve in this environment of partisan news.

    I think the “best of breed” from the respective sides is “The O’Reilley Factor” on FoxNews and “Hardball with Chris Matthews” on MSNBC. Hardball is on at 7pm and O’Reilley is on at 8pm so it’s a breeze to watch them back to back.

    Listen, there’s nothing going on now that I’m trying to persuade you to vote for or against. I take the time to type here because I love my country and I just want to contribute in some small way.

    Try my suggestion and watch those two shows back to back. It’s an eye-opener and it’ll give you a glimpse into what they’re both trying to do with/to us. If you don’t educate yourself on what’s happening, and even see it with your own eyes, then you’re a prime suspect to be someone’s “sheep” in elections for years to come.

    God bless America.

    (Report comment)

    • indieVoter

      Something really striking hit me when re-reading this. According to Mitt Romney and people like him, people who don’t pay taxes and/or get all of it back in a refund at tax time are TAKERS. They are in the infamous “47%” from his secret tape that helped him lose the election.

      Here’s what’s interesting and ironic.

      While Mitt’s clearly in the highest tax bracket which Bush lowered to 36%…..Mitt only paid 13% in taxes in the most recent year he gave us the information on. He probably paid even less in years before that. It’s just a guess but there’s DEF some reason he didn’t want to give out his other tax returns and fought it so hard.

      Point is, if he only paid 13% with the tax rate as it is now….and he’d even cut taxes for the rich even more…WHAT IS his ultimate goal??

      Is it for people like him to pay less than 13%….maybe even nothing at all???

      Mitt himself said anyone who paid a penny more than they had to was foolish so it would make sense that he’d take it all the way to zero, for himself surely, and pay absolutely no taxes.

      Now if he’d accomplished that task and gotten his own (top secret, of course) taxes down to ZERO would that have made Mitt and his ilk the actual TAKERS???????

      Think on that.

      (Report comment)

Editor's Picks