Romney: 47% of Americans are victims

[dirk digler]

I guess this maybe the kill shot for his campaign. I know some of you believe you this and won't find a problem with what he said but as a person running for POTUS you probably shouldn't write off 1/2 the country especially in a disparaging way.

A hidden camera video of Mitt Romney at a fundraiser shows him talking disparagingly of people who will vote for President Obama.

Said Romney: "There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That that's an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what...These are people who pay no income tax."

He adds: "My job is is not to worry about those people. I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives."

[RINGLEADER]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

Interesting...

How does that change anything Romney's said?

Like Obama's default answer for his failings isn't usually some variant of "Yeah, but look at the other guy..."

Evidently, it doesn't seem to be bothering the electorate...

[qabbaan]

Obama's excuse for anything is "... But it's not my fault!"

Romney simply said the 47% go through life with the same victim mentality that their messiah is selling them,

I realize its election strategy to walk back, but his comments were one hundred percent correct, the only point that is variable is the approximate size of the drains on the system.

[suzzer99]

You mean like 47% versus 18% actual people who pay no taxes and live only on assistance from the government? That's a pretty big discrepancy. Also 57% of that 18% are seniors on Social Security. Do you think those people are drains on the system? http://www.dailyfinance.com/2012/09/...percent-taxes/

If not, then we're down to about 8% of the population that's completely dependent on government. Big big difference from 47%.

Romney was just playing into rich people's fears that the poors are out-voting them. He also happened to use a talking point that most of you believe without delving too deeply into it apparently.

[mlyonsd]

Originally Posted by suzzer99

You mean like 47% versus 18% actual people who pay no taxes and live only on assistance from the government? That's a pretty big discrepancy. Also 57% of that 18% are seniors on Social Security. Do you think those people are drains on the system? http://www.dailyfinance.com/2012/09/...percent-taxes/

If not, then we're down to about 8% of the population that's completely dependent on government. Big big difference from 47%.

Romney was just playing into rich people's fears that the poors are out-voting them. He also happened to use a talking point that most of you believe without delving too deeply into it apparently.

You don't see a problem when virtually half the country doesn't pay income tax, our debt is over $16T, and we run annual federal budget deficits over $1T?

[qabbaan]

Originally Posted by suzzer99

You mean like 47% versus 18% actual people who pay no taxes and live only on assistance from the government? That's a pretty big discrepancy. Also 57% of that 18% are seniors on Social Security. Do you think those people are drains on the system? http://www.dailyfinance.com/2012/09/...percent-taxes/

If not, then we're down to about 8% of the population that's completely dependent on government. Big big difference from 47%.

Romney was just playing into rich people's fears that the poors are out-voting them. He also happened to use a talking point that most of you believe without delving too deeply into it apparently.

When you're talking about income tax policy, paying sales taxes and fuel taxes don't get you a ticket to the raffle. Either you pay income taxes or you don't.

[suzzer99]

Originally Posted by mlyonsd

You don't see a problem when virtually half the country doesn't pay income tax, our debt is over $16T, and we run annual federal budget deficits over $1T?

Why don't you look into the reasons why virtually half of the country doesn't pay income tax? A lot of it is because of Republican tax cuts that they have to give to the poor in order to sell their tax cuts to the wealthy. But now they're trying to roll those back while still keeping the tax cuts for the wealthy obviously. And don't think "broadening the tax base" is going to have zero effect on the middle class either.

Also those people pay payroll tax. I don't know what universe you get to define "moocher" as someone who pays strictly no income tax, but pays all kinds of other taxes to federal and state governments. That's ludicrous.

[suzzer99]

Originally Posted by qabbaan

When you're talking about income tax policy, paying sales taxes and fuel taxes don't get you a ticket to the raffle. Either you pay income taxes or you don't.

Ticket to the raffle? What are you even trying to say? The question is whether these people are dependent on government and don't take responsibility for their lives. Why would that only apply to income tax and not other kinds of taxes?

Keep in mind we're lumping in hard-working lower-middle-class/working-poor families making something like $50K household income. Do you really think a family of four working 2 low-paying full-time jobs, just trying to get by, is part of the "moocher class"?

And again no one ever addresses this point – do you really think senior citizens on Social Security are moochers who don't take responsibility for their lives. Because they're a big part of that 47%. Expecting this to be ignored once again for the 10,000th time.

I feel like what happens in some of your brains is that you substitute welfare queens and illegal immigrants soaking up resources for every segment of the population that gets included in this 47%. When the actual number of either of those is really quite small.

[suzzer99]

If you guys ever stopped paying blind allegiance to talking points that can be debunked using kindergarten-level logic in about 30 seconds – maybe people would take you more seriously. Maybe your party would come out of the dark ages and start acting like adults.

[mlyonsd]

Originally Posted by suzzer99

If you guys ever stopped paying blind allegiance to talking points that can be debunked using kindergarten-level logic in about 30 seconds – maybe people would take you more seriously. Maybe your party would come out of the dark ages and start acting like adults.

Ok, whatever. You got me.

[suzzer99]

Yeah pretty much what I expected from you. You know you can't win this argument on facts or logic so just throw the one-liner and bow out.

[RINGLEADER]

Originally Posted by suzzer99

You mean like 47% versus 18% actual people who pay no taxes and live only on assistance from the government? That's a pretty big discrepancy. Also 57% of that 18% are seniors on Social Security. Do you think those people are drains on the system? http://www.dailyfinance.com/2012/09/...percent-taxes/

If not, then we're down to about 8% of the population that's completely dependent on government. Big big difference from 47%.

Romney was just playing into rich people's fears that the poors are out-voting them. He also happened to use a talking point that most of you believe without delving too deeply into it apparently.

No one cares, as evidenced by the polls.

Not saying your analysis is incorrect, just that your average voter isn't going to care beyond the fact it makes Romney sound like an ass.

When Obama brings it up expect a very contrite and believable mea culpa that makes that average voter put the whole episode behind them.

[philfree]

So what's the real % of victims that live off the government tit? 30%?

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by banyon

So the statement is both correct and not correct?

Yes. Taken literally, it's incorrect. But the ideas behind it, made obvious by the entire statement, are essentially correct.

* We do have roughly 47% of our people who don't pay income tax and who might be insensitive to the "cut tax"/"raise tax" debate.

* We do have roughly half of our people who are dependent to some degree on direct government subsidies and who may be more inclined to look for deficit solutions on the revenue side than the spending side.

* Obama does have a base of support that is a little under half of the electorate that will be hard to flip to the Romney cause. Therefore Romney's focus needs to be primarily on the 5-10% of the voters who are winnable, but not yet won.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by suzzer99

Why don't you look into the reasons why virtually half of the country doesn't pay income tax? A lot of it is because of Republican tax cuts that they have to give to the poor in order to sell their tax cuts to the wealthy. But now they're trying to roll those back while still keeping the tax cuts for the wealthy obviously. And don't think "broadening the tax base" is going to have zero effect on the middle class either.

Also those people pay payroll tax. I don't know what universe you get to define "moocher" as someone who pays strictly no income tax, but pays all kinds of other taxes to federal and state governments. That's ludicrous.

It's ludicrous to take the position that SS recipients aren't moochers at the same time you take the position that paying SS tax is just like paying income tax. Either SS is a welfare program, in which case SS tax should be lumped in with other forms of general revenue, or it's a forced insurance/savings program with only a minor redistributional component, in which case paying SS is just the price of admission for the SS program and it shouldn't absolve you from carrying your income tax weight.

[banyon]

Originally Posted by patteeu

Yes. Taken literally, it's incorrect. But the ideas behind it, made obvious by the entire statement, are essentially correct.

* We do have roughly 47% of our people who don't pay income tax and who might be insensitive to the "cut tax"/"raise tax" debate.

* We do have roughly half of our people who are dependent to some degree on direct government subsidies and who may be more inclined to look for deficit solutions on the revenue side than the spending side.

* Obama does have a base of support that is a little under half of the electorate that will be hard to flip to the Romney cause. Therefore Romney's focus needs to be primarily on the 5-10% of the voters who are winnable, but not yet won.

Romney didn't say "I only meant it figuratively and not literally".

He said it was "completely wrong", your attempt to confound Aristotelian logic notwithstanding.