Romney: 'Victims' comment not elegantly stated ....DAH!!!!!

COMMENTARY

... Romney spoke a painful truth, and often a painful truth is difficult to accept. I have argued that FDR deliberately set out to create dependence upon the federal government -- and hence upon virtually all Democrats in Congress and Republicans afraid to resist them -- by establishing entitlement programs and inducing reliance upon them. FDR went so far as to lie to Americans when he stated that the federal government will “hold” (his word) your Social Security contributions for you until you retire, and then you’ll receive your nest egg of cash. We know he lied about this, because at the same time he was saying that the money deducted from your pay is yours, he dispatched Justice Department lawyers to argue in a constitutional challenge of Social Security before the Supreme Court that the money deducted from your pay is the government’s money, and the government can spend it as it wishes. The Supreme Court agreed with that argument.​

​

Now comes Romney to say that this has gotten out of hand. The feds have deliberately created a class of persons -- 47 percent of people living in America today -- dependent upon them. The governor is right. Anyone lulled into a false sense of security is a victim, and any government that has deceived members of the public to get them there is dangerous. Thus, the revelation that the big-government types who have dominated the federal government for 100 years, who want voters dependent upon them so that they can count on their votes, and who have made those voters victims have stung the Obama campaign and its media supporters. Romney was correct to call the 47 percent who are dependent upon the government victims of the government’s deceptions and lust for power, and he is courageous to stick to his guns.​

​

​

Dependency breeds a sense of complacency and entitlement and fosters a government that -- in order to stay in power -- will further that dependency. Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton agreed on little publicly, but they did agree that when the public treasury becomes a public trough and the voters recognize that, they will send to the government only those who promise them a bigger piece of the government pie.​

​

Then, sooner or later, the government will run out of other people’s money. Romney understands that.​

​

- Andrew Napolitano, former Judge of the Superior Court of New Jersey​

​

​

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/09/20/governor-romney-is-courageous-to-stick-to-his-guns-about-47/#ixzz277D62rVN​

 

I guess if you equate paying taxes with socialistic redistribution, you can call paying any taxes redistribution. What was wrong with my 50% answer with regard to a certain income level? I answered the question and even speculate that I'd be open higher taxes on the wealthiest Americans but if you want an actual number that applies to everyone, what would I base that on? Income? I did that.

Look, I don't write tax code so neither I nor you are qualified to give a specific number. We need revenue in the government coffers to pay for police, firemen, roads bridges, and everything else we need to run society. So I guess my question is what do you think everyone should pay in taxes? Nothing? How would that work? Would everyone that had gotten rich off of the old system simply live above the rest of us that worked hard and may not have achieved the phenomenal wealth the top 1% earned but eeked out a nice life for ourselves anyway and now should expect to live in a post-apocalyptic hell hole where basic government services are nonexistent and we roam around in gun toting hoards and kill each other for scraps of metal. Is that your vision of America's future? Just curious.