Comments on: Homo Sapiens and Homo Economicus

By: Susan

Susan — Wed, 19 Sep 2012 22:23:42 +0000

It does seem presumptive to think anyone knows exactly what Romney meant since somewhere between 1-2 minutes of his comments about the 47% are strangely missing from the video. I do agree with Romney when he says in other speeches that spending $1 trillion dollars more per year than we take in is immoral.

By: J. Bob

J. Bob — Wed, 19 Sep 2012 13:40:06 +0000

Some time ago, after a relative retired, we figured out how much he paid into SS, computed the interest earned. We then compared it to how much he got out of SS, so far. The payback time was about 5 years, after that he was living on other peoples $’s.

This is getting to be a bigger & bigger Ponzi scheme, there are simply not enough payers to sustain the benefits. That is one big reason why SS is scheduled to go insolvent in 2033.

Romney wasn’t quite accurate in the 47%, but there is a very significant amount of people in the country who do not pay Federal Income tax.

By: arty

arty — Tue, 18 Sep 2012 17:33:24 +0000

This is a much more balanced treatment of Romney’s comments than I’ve seen elsewhere. The massive backpedaling I’ve seen among conservatives, in response to Romney’s comments, to me only illustrates the the truth that once half of the nation figures out that it can vote itself the wealth of the other half, democracy is doomed. If it weren’t, we wouldn’t be forced into verbal shenanigans in order to say so and still get elected.

Lost, I think, is any discussion of limits, of when we have “enough.” Frankly, I don’t give a rip how much money Romney has, and how snobby or not his audience was. The point is, have I got enough, and if not, whose responsibility is it to see that I do? Much of this discussion would be greatly improved, if we were more realistic about who really is poor and who isn’t. I am certainly not poor, but I qualify for WIC, suggestion that government statistic aren’t really the best source for identifying who needs what, thus taking much of the bite out of Romney’s comments.

By: John

John — Tue, 18 Sep 2012 16:03:44 +0000

I agree that while the 47% figure is not necessarily the same group that will vote for Obama, it is on the other hand the target group for the Democrats who very subtly are imposing more social programs on the country, attempting to create a class of people permanently living on government handouts. These people of course are more likely to vote for the party that gives them handouts with few if any strings attached.

By: harry

harry — Tue, 18 Sep 2012 16:02:29 +0000

Tell us, Mr. Romney, that homo sapiens isn’t really reducible to homo economicus … that our commitments, for example, to faith and family are solid evidence that we’re not … and that your administration will honor and respect the ways that we love and serve one another.

Considering the Democrat party’s hostility to traditional notions of faith and family, and considering that the Democrat party platform assumes that those who embrace and support it are oblivious to the transcendent end of both human life and society, and considering that even if it doesn’t do so explicitly, the platform implicitly asserts that human society exists for the sake of material advantage alone and that we are indeed nothing more than “homo economicus” — considering all that, it seems rather silly to be challenging Romney in this regard.

By: LOIS CHICKERING

LOIS CHICKERING — Tue, 18 Sep 2012 15:46:34 +0000

67, retired caucasian merchant, do pay income taxes, Obama supporter and glad Romney brought this up. It’s time for more open discussion about taxes. Approve the comments made in this article. Many thanks for sharing them.