The 47 Percent Are Not Deadbeats Or Moochers... But Romney Is

When a candidate says the people don't matter, he disqualifies himself from the office he seeks.

At a fundraiser, Mitt Romney claimed 47 percent of Americans are "dependent on government . . . believe they are victims . . . believe they are entitled to healthcare, to food, to housing, to you name it."

Ten percent of what Mr. Romney would call "moochers" are Americans on Social Security. Unlike Mr. Romney, they paid into that system. They expect and deserve their benefits.

While Mr. Romney says the 47 percent pay no income taxes, he ignores the payroll taxes the 47 percent pay, the sales taxes, property taxes, state taxes, etc., which in agregate means the 47 percent pay a greater percentage of their income in taxes than Mitt Romney and his multi-millionaire friends do.

In fact, it is Mr. Romney who is today's corporate "Welfare Queen." He has $250 million in large part thanks to our government's generosity toward multi-millionaires.  Our government gives him a 15 percent tax rate and carried interest. None of the 47 percent he deems "losers" gets those government giveaways. We don't have Swiss bank accounts or yachts registered in the Cayman Islands to help us avoid paying our taxes.

I've worked 50 years, and paid my way -- all the way. Working men and women who work full-time -- sometimes at two jobs with low pay -- and senior citizens are not moochers, deadbeats or parasites. We pay more in taxes as a percentage of our income than Romney and friends do by far.

We are not what's wrong with America today, Mr. Romney. You and those out to crush what's left of the middle class are what is wrong with America.

You and "our" Congressman, Duncan Hunter II (who is totally dependent on government for his survival) can say that a corporation is a person, so you both can continue to rake in the money you didn't work for, but real people who must fight every day to take care of their families will not tolerate either of you as our representatives, either in Washington or the world.

The people -- senior citizens, working men and women, students, women who demand they will control their own healthcare decisions, all people against "permanent war" and for rebuilding this nation -- will have the final voice. They will be the "deciders," and you both won't like their decision.

I am David Secor and I am  a candidate for Congress to represent the people -- from Temecula to Jamul, from Fallbrook, San Marcos, Escondido to Borrego Springs, from Valley Center, Pauma Valley, Ramona to Julian, from Rancho San Diego to Rainbow. It's time to end the 32-year Hunter dynasty and overthrow Duncan Hunter II on November 6th. The People will have me, their own lobbyist, in Washington. And my vote in Congress is simply NOT FOR SALE.

This post is contributed by a community member. The views expressed in this blog are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Patch Media Corporation. Everyone is welcome to submit a post to Patch. If you'd like to post a blog, go here to get started.

Winchester Collection October 01, 2012 at 03:07 AM
I did benefit from Reagan's Bigger Government!!!!! I worked in Aerospace and made airplane engines. I'm glad someone remembers the HANDOUTS.
Dennis Mitchell October 02, 2012 at 12:25 AM
Hey Gregory.,,,psssssssss...I got a secret to tell ya!.. http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=4&ved=0CDsQFjAD&url=http%3A%2F%2Fhypervocal.com%2Fpolitics%2F2012%2Freagan-vs-obama-economy-market-numbers%2F&ei=UTNqUPXKMqnYigKRkICICA&usg=AFQjCNENdJsiQvRACbVCdsvRaSrtfQvCoQ
Gregory Brittain October 04, 2012 at 08:32 AM
Reply to Reaganomics vs. Obamanomics, Part 1 Without looking at the data, for anyone who live through RR’s time and BO’s time, for anyone other than a committed partisan Dem, the idea that Obama’s economy is better than Reagan’s economy is laughable. To the data, Your article neglects to mention the different timing of the 1981-1982 and the 2008-2009 recessions. “The early 1980s recession was a severe recession in the United States which began in July 1981 and ended in November 1982. The primary cause of the recession was a contractionary monetary policy established by the Federal Reserve System to control high inflation.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_1980s_recession Reagan’s program cut income tax rates 25% across the board. TEFRA increased the tax received but not tax rates by removing some business tax breaks in Reagan’s tax bill, such as the amount of accelerated depreciation. http://www.investopedia.com/terms/t/tefra.asp#ixzz28JYI6PbD The 2008-2009 ended in June 2009, 17 months earlier in Obama’s term than in Reagan’s term. The key is the recoveries that followed. GDP growth in the 12 quarters after a recession Average since WWII 15.2% Ronald Reagan 18.5% Obama 6.7% http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444813104578016873186217796.html?mod=opinion_newsreel
Gregory Brittain October 04, 2012 at 08:36 AM
Reply to Reaganomics vs. Obamanomics, Part 2 Real income increased 18% from 1982 to 1989. Real income declined by 5.7% under Obama since the end of the recession in June 2009. As to the stock market, the Federal Reserve in printing money on overdrive. Interest rates are near zero. The money has to go somewhere. Under the sound money policies under Reagan, the stock market tripled. The stock market does not always move in sync with the real economy, but they will eventually match. The economy is slowing with a good chance of another recession. Another recession is a near certainty if Obama’s tax increases go into effect in January. Ronald Reagan’s policies of getting government out of the way produced 20 million jobs and the longest peacetime expansion in history. RR inherited a very bad economy, 21% interest rates, double digit inflation and 7.5% unemployment. The Federal Reserve slammed the brakes on the money supply and sent the country into recession that did not end until November 1982. The unemployment rate went higher than in the 2008 recession. By 1984, the economy was booming, RR cruised to re-election and was not blaming his predecessor or whining that no one could have turned the economy around in 4 years. In addition, Reagan had to increase defense spending to address the growing Soviet military threat. 10 years later the Soviet Union ended up on the “ash heap of history” as Reagan predicted.
Gregory Brittain October 04, 2012 at 08:45 AM
Reply to Reaganomics vs. Obamanomics, Part 3 By 1984 Reagan could run the “Morning in America” ad http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EU-IBF8nwSY If Obama ran such an ad, even the MSM would laugh him out of town. Reagan also set off a 25 year boom, with two mild recessions in 1991 and 2000, that increased wealth from $25 trillion in 1980 to $57 Trillion in 2007. For more info and data on Reaganomics vs. Obamanomics, please see: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111904875404576530412322260784.html http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2011/05/05/reaganomics-vs-obamanomics-facts-and-figures/ http://media.photobucket.com/image/recent/mmatters/ReaganVsObamaJobs6QtrsAsOf020411.png Even the MSM has to concede the point, although they try to excuse Obama’s poor economic performance. http://money.cnn.com/2012/02/06/news/economy/obama_reagan_recovery/index.htm


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »