Did you agree with Romney's 47% remark?

[southernlady]

Hold up now! Go slow. If you are permanently disabled, wouldn't you mess up your Social Security by getting a job?

Yes, and no...

First, let me explain that my husband and I both fall in that 47% as quoted (NOT as meant). I have been on SSDI for almost 12 years. My husband was medically retired and put on a mix of SSDI & LTD. Since his LTD is non-taxable by the state and the federal government, what we make with JUST SSDI falls below the cutoff to pay at all.

We would prefer to work but life didn't deal us that hand...we got this hand instead.

We recently worked early election here in TN. We actually made a goodly sum so we made a trip to the social security office and asked about the effect that income would have.

How it breaks down is MOST (NOT ALL as it depends on the type of disability you have/receive) people getting SS can work up to $1010 without it being considered Substantial Gainful Activity. SS publication is here.

IF you break thru that, they look at the number of months involved. Can not do 9 months in a row and still get SSDI, but one month won't affect your benefits.

So while we did make more than the limit for one month, it was a very short time/part time job.

Liz

[noonwitch]

I've spent my entire adult life working for the state government, which means I'm probably part of Romney's 47%.

If being an active employee makes that not the case, I will be part of the 47% in 6 years, 11 months, if I retire and start collecting my government pension at that point.

[Molon Labe]

The government makes it very difficult for people to get aid and still be productive citizens. It's almost like it's an either/or. I know plenty of people who would like to do something, but would completely lose their welfare. I remember when I was struggling and first married, I applied for food stamps for a transitional period to help my family while my wife and I were in college and working and raising a family at the same time. I made too much money.

Permanently disabled shouldn't mean people can't do certain work like answering phones and other jobs.

Still, I believe that there are far too many who suck off the system. I believe the reason so many can do so is directly related to my first statement.

[NJCardFan]

It isn't CITM, CITM posts now as ASquareDealer. Former has his own IP and I guess being 19 years old he just has a lot of questions. I'll take him at face value as to who he says he is unless he proves himself to be something else.

You know me, Rock. I can spot a poser a mile away and the sock puppet smell in this one is pretty strong.

[Rockntractor]

You know me, Rock. I can spot a poser a mile away and the sock puppet smell in this one is pretty strong.

I thought the same and checked out IP's immediately, it wouldn't surprise me if he was a former member but I don't know which one. This makes things more interesting.

[FlaGator]

You know me, Rock. I can spot a poser a mile away and the sock puppet smell in this one is pretty strong.

I agree, something is not quite right here and the questions being asked seem like set ups looking for answers to confirm certain liberal stereotypes of conservatives.

[Lager]

The 47% percent remark is vague. It has some elements of truth to it; most people who pay little taxes already aren't going to get excited by tax cuts, but it doesn't get to the reality of why more people vote for liberal policies.
Many people are raised in traditional democratic families and vote the way their parents did. Many union members who receive no government benefits still believe democrats stand for their rights more so than republicans.

Liberals spent much time and effort demonizing big business and the private sector. Obama had plenty of time and money to define the republican party before they even decided on a candidate. When the party nominated a candidate with a background such as Romney's, most of the dem's work was done for them. All those efforts spent informing undecided Americans that republicans only care about the rich began to bear fruit, especially because republicans never effectively countered that argument!

Once you negatively attack business and the private sector, the next step is to convince voters that government is the only entity that cares about, or can do anything about their welfare. If you actually get people to believe that the private sector is only concerned with profits and money and that the government is "charitable", many people who have some wealth and don't need government hand outs will still support big government policies because they want to be seen as caring about the less fortunate. Unfortunately many never look deeply enough into the issue to see the contradictions.

[Rockntractor]

He has a question in the form of a thread that establishes our age (Kennedy question), one that sums up posters attitudes toward welfare, one that gives attitude toward illegal immigration, one for presidential voting record.

I have a feeling we just completed a government survey.