Source: New York Times
Posted on 09/18/2012 3:37:16 AM PDT by Kaslin
Mother Jones has obtained and released video of Mitt Romney saying some things that Americans and the media will no doubt take uncharitably.
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....
Romney went on: "[M]y job is is not to worry about those people. I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives."
This is certainly an inartful way of attempting to make the point that Romney was attempting to make. It's also unclear what point he was actually attempting to make; if he believes that 47% of Americans are dependent on the government for their livelihood, he's simply mistaken.
The Romney campaign responded almost immediately with a boilerplate statement about how Romney's tax and economic plans will help all Americans, government beneficiary or no:
Mitt Romney wants to help all Americans struggling in the Obama economy. As the governor has made clear all year, he is concerned about the growing number of people who are dependent on the federal government, including the record number of people who are on food stamps, nearly one in six Americans in poverty, and the 23 million Americans who are struggling to find work. Mitt Romney's plan creates 12 million new jobs in four years, grows the economy and moves Americans off of government dependency and into jobs.
It's likely an offshoot of the conservative talking point that 47% of Americans don't pay income taxes. Which is true! But unfortunately, a lot of conservatives make the leap from there to claim that total tax burden isn't high enough on middle- and lower-income people (without taking into account things like sales and payroll taxes) and that either they should pay more taxes or we should slash social spending.
Moreover, as Ramesh Ponnuru wrote at National Review, it's just not helpful to base an ideology off the theory that there are too many "moochers" in society.
There is a certain plausibility to the claim that the more people fall off the income-tax rolls, the more will support federal activism. But there is a series of evidentiary hurdles that this claim cannot begin to overcome. There is no evidence that changes in the percentage of people who pay income tax has had any effect on public opinion, let alone a large one. The U.S. that began the Democrats’ 40-year reign in the House of Representatives in 1954 had roughly the same percentage of non-payers of income tax (24.9) as the U.S. that ended it in 1994 (24.4). A relatively large proportion of the citizenry paid income taxes in the early 1960s. It didn’t stop the Great Society from being enacted. The number of people who pay no income taxes moved up fast between 2006 and 2010, which has helped set off conservative alarms. But voters turned sharply right between the elections of those two years.
It would be a different conversation if we were to talk about the people whose livelihood actually depends on government social safety net programs. It's not 47% of people. "Entitlement spending," as broadly defined as a share of income, is only at 18% (though that has been rising in recent years). Romney could make the argument that that is too much, but that's not the argument he's making.
If there were truly 47% of Americans who believed that they were benefits of government programs and refused to vote for any politician who worked to curtail the welfare state, America would be in a precarious position. Romney's just wrong on the facts here.
There have been progressives writing that this is a moment that Romney is going to regret. It's possible - but it's not the case that the candidate was making grand claims about morality and government. He certainly seemed to be on a rambling rant where he is wrong on the merits of who pays, who benefits and, perhaps most of all, who's willing to vote on these issues.
A point could be made on the total progressivity of the taxes-and-transfers part of the federal budget. Ed Morrissey noted awhile ago that, during the recession, the average household now receives more in benefits than pays in taxes to the federal government. That's not to say, as Romney seemed to, that these households are dependent on the government or see government help as necessary to their livelihoods. The federal government does have, however, a progressive tax-and-transfer state that benefits a very large number of people.
"The 47% moment" has been seized upon this afternoon as some grand revelation about Mitt Romney's disdain for moochers and will likely be used to paint him as a kind of Ayn Rand Objectivist, turning his nose up at society's leeches and moochers. That's not the case; if the simplest explanation is the best, it's that Mitt Romney has his facts wrong based on some logical leaps involving the total number of federal income taxpayers.
UPDATE: As pointed out on Twitter, Ronald Reagan once bragged about his tax reform plan that would remove poor people from the income tax rolls. From a 1985 speech:
Another key component of our proposal is to provide America's families with a long overdue break by practically doubling the personal exemption. Indeed, our plan would drop virtually every poor family in America off the tax rolls entirely. And a working family with two or three children would pay less than a 10 percent income tax on its earnings well into the $25,000 to $30,000 range.
And he was right: President Reagan's Tax Reform Act of 1986 increased the personal exemption and standard deduction - measures that completely eliminated the income tax burden of some low-income filers.
“my job is not to worry about those people. ”
He could have made a comment with 25,000 words. BUT the above NINE words is what will define him in every ad going forward. He has already made a comment during the primaries that he isnt worried about the poor people. Will make a nice montage.
“We have a 2 party system”
We have a one party system, the Left. We haven’t had a conservative presidential nominee in over 25 years. Haven’t had a conservative Congress since 1996.
All the one-party has to do is run leftists on both the Democrat and Republican side, then most conservatives give up and pretend that the Republican Marxist is less bad than the Democrat.
If Obama had called himself a Republican for this election, lot of Republicans would have voted for him, as the lesser evil.
You are welcome. . . . .
Mitt Romney did not say that the “47%” were dependent on the federal government. He said that people who have little to no skin in the game are more apt to vote for a politician who tells them he will continue those policies.
How many times have we read or heard about “people voting against their best interests”? This is a democrat lie that has been used to snow people into thinking their “best interests” lie in receiving government largesse. The type of individual who believes this apparently is unfamiliar with the fairy tale “The Goose That Laid Golden the Egg”......
Mitt Romney did not say that the “47%” were dependent on the federal government. He said that people who have little to no skin in the game are more apt to vote for a politician who tells them he will continue those policies.
How many times have we read or heard about “people voting against their best interests”? This is a democrat lie that has been used to snow people into thinking their “best interests” lie in receiving government largesse. The type of individual who believes this apparently is unfamiliar with the fairy tale “The Goose That Laid the Golden Egg”......
Great thread! Thanks!
“The 47% moment” has been seized upon this afternoon as some grand revelation about Mitt Romney’s disdain for moochers - - - “
Yup. What took you so long Romney? We love it when you serve up RED MEAT.
BTW Romney, we ALWAYS roll up our cuffs when we feast on RED MEAT!
...”Two heifers with kids were blocking the produce aisle”....
With all due respect, they cannot be heifers and have children, by definition. I would refer to them as tubbies....but your main point is clear.
Obama’s memo to media:Use more chap stick I can’t set down.
” - - - 47% of Americans don’t pay income taxes. Which is true!”
Thus we have the line in the sand that Romney drew.
Never apologize, Romney.
“my job is not to worry about those people. ”
He could have made a comment with 25,000 words. BUT the above NINE words is what will define him in every ad going forward.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
That is like in the primaries he had said (TO the effect)”If I hire someone and he doesn’t do his job, I fire him—I like firing people (if they don’t do their job)”.
Which turned out to be “I like firing people” and all got the primer about Bain Cap.
This myth you can say what you want and come back later and say “that is not what I meant”, doesn’t wash when all the other side wants to do is bury you....
Point taken....the term just seems to ‘fit’ however. The other term that comes to mind is “fat, lazy you-know-whats”
It is disgusting. I cannot remember a time in the last 3 years where I haven’t gotten behind one of them in line at Walmart. In my county, they are EVERYWHERE!
I really was just pulling your chain a bit....no harm meant and I hope you take it that way. I understand your frustration at the way the USA has changed......
I didn’t see the press conf. I will check it out
Only an idiot would attack 47 percent of voters (even if true). He must direct his venom at liberal policies. Attack liberal policies not the voters themselves.
Obama does not have a floor of 47 percent. Never concede a single voter to obama. Reagan would reach out to all and offer to bring them out of bondage to welfare crumbss. We want to motivate voters and raise them up
I didn’t take it that way. I just get so pissed when I have to see this day in and day out - my county is maybe 20,000....96% white, 1% black, and 3% mexican (hispanic).
Today, I was behind a middle aged hispanic who spoke pigeon english buying ‘goodies’...had a brand damned new EBT card and needed help entering his charge off to US Gringos. If he entered this country legally, I’ll eat your hat. goddamit!
we have two choices in this election...0 or Romney...I don’t care how many gaffes Romney makes, I’m still voting for him...0bama has turned my country into a sh*t-hole....I won’t survive 4 more years of him...
blah....your kids won;t thank you.
Stupidity is the new opiate of the masses.
Oh yeah, I forgot about “I like firing people”. This is lunacy and I would reluctantly give my right arm for Gingrich.
Thanks for “getting it”
Obviously a lot of huff and puff here from people who didnt watch Romney n that video. I almost threw a shoe at the TV when Romney torturously carefully explained that his goal was 50.1% of the vote
Now we have to hold our noses and vote for Romney
It’s the GOP patriotic thing to do. Vote for an elitist bumbler because the other guy is a charismatic monster
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.