What Mr. Romney didn't take into consideration when he made those cynical and wrong-headed statements is that many, many conservatives belong in the category of those who receive government assistance of one form or another and who don't pay many taxes--he insulted his own constiutency (see the map below). It isn't just Democrats who are helped in difficult times by the government. But it is instructive to see how people like Romney view their fellow Americans. None of what he stated is true. It's an idea that many conservatives promote in order to advance their class warfare and to promote the idea that there really are two Americas--the hard working, take-no-government-help Republican myth, and the lazy, entitled, non-tax-paying bums on welfare, Medicaid, Social Security, and food stamps Democratic myth.
Talk about a divisive and mean-spirited vision of America.
Mr. Romney's mythological America fails to take into account his own "mooching." We know by his own words that he pays a very small percentage of his income in federal taxes--how much of his income? We'll never know, since he refuses to give the American people that information. But we do know that only the enormously wealthy have the luxury of stashing their hundreds of millions of dollars in foreign banks, to avoid taxes, taxes that would be collected by the American government. When people like Mr. Romney get to avoid paying taxes in this way, other Americans have to make up for it--other Americans like you and me.
Mr. Romney also failed to note that his own company Bain & Company was the recipient of a federal government guaranteed loan from the FDIC, a very generous helping hand when it got into financial difficulties, and when he went off to save the Olympics--his shining example of competency--Mr. Romney received government assistance, so that he could have bragging rights as a fiscally responsible administrator when he ran for public office--thanks again to government assistance.
We'll never hear Mr. Romney use those examples of "mooching" off of government because in his privileged world, that assistance is good Republican use of government funds. It's much easier to incite envy and resentment against poor and middle-class Americans than to point out that the wealthy corporations and the enormously wealthy individuals like the Romneys have benefitted from government tax loopholes and subsidies, which we "moochers" have to make up for.
Here is Mr. Romney in his own cynical and divisive words, words that no person who hopes to be president of ALL the people should have ever uttered:
"There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what," Romney says in one clip. "All right -- there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent on government, who believe that, that they are victims, who believe that government has the responsibility to care for them. Who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing."
Romney seems to be suggesting that nearly half of Americans expect to have all their needs supplied by the government.
"[M]y job is not to worry about those people. I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives,"
The AP reports:
Republican Mitt Romney says a video clip in which he called nearly half of Americans "victims" was "not elegantly stated" and was "spoken off the cuff." But he says President Barack Obama's approach is "attractive to people who are not paying taxes."...
The Republican nominee did not disavow the comments but said they were made during a question-and-answer session. He said it was indicative of his campaign's effort to "focus on the people in the middle."
Many Americans don't pay federal income taxes, in part, because of deductions like the child tax credit that have been championed by conservatives and progressives alike. Almost all of the "47 percent" do pay other federal taxes in the form of Social Security and Medicare payroll deductions and gas levies, as well as a variety of state and local sales and property taxes that aren't dependent on income.
"Let's look at who the people are who actually pay no income tax. Romney's statements are a little unclear, but it appears that the 47 percent figure represents all of those who pay no income tax, rather than the Democratic base. His problem is that those people are disproportionately in red states -- that is, states that tend to vote Republican": --The Atlantic
(Mr. Romney insulted his own constituents, the red staters, in his sweeping generalization about non-tax-paying moochers. As you can see from this map, the conservative red states are the non-payers, not the generally Democratic voting blue states.)
From David Brooks of the NYTimes:
"In 1960, government transfers to individuals totaled $24 billion. By 2010, that total was 100 times as large. Even after adjusting for inflation, entitlement transfers to individuals have grown by more than 700 percent over the last 50 years.
This spending surge, Eberstadt notes, has increased faster under Republican administrations than Democratic ones.
[skip]
Romney, who criticizes President Obama for dividing the nation, divided the nation into two groups: the makers and the moochers. Forty-seven percent of the country, he said, are people “who are dependent upon government, who believe they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to take care of them, who believe they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you name it.”
This comment suggests a few things. First, it suggests that he really doesn’t know much about the country he inhabits. Who are these freeloaders? Is it the Iraq war veteran who goes to the V.A.? Is it the student getting a loan to go to college? Is it the retiree on Social Security or Medicare? [...]
Personally, I think he’s a kind, decent man who says stupid things because he is pretending to be something he is not — some sort of cartoonish government-hater. But it scarcely matters. He’s running a depressingly inept presidential campaign. Mr. Romney, your entitlement reform ideas are essential, but when will the incompetence stop?"
h/t HuffPost
Mr. Romney, you can't win a presidential election by insulting half of the voting public.
44 comments:
He really stepped in it, breaking a cardinal rule of politics by telling the truth.
A guy who once worked for me, he has been gone awhile rest his soul, used to say ... Take what you hear from politicians and cur it in half. Cut it half again and belive 25% of what's left. Sounds about right with this NNFRPN methinks.
The right-wingers are already working hard to convince themselves that this is somehow a positive for Romney (see comments thread). The contortions and spin of your regular trolls are going to be a wonder to behold.
Nothing new here. Republiscums have always sought government policies for the rich. Those policies have enabled people like Romney to pay a far less percentage of their income in taxes, than those who make less money.
It's an insult to most Americans who have paid taxes for decades to support those programs then be defined as moochers, yet, rich people who have spent decades trying to pay a lower percent of taxes, are defined as more responsible citizens than poorer people.
The word entitlement is misleading. Americans pay for those programs. They are following the qualifications set by those programs.
Maybe the point is, so many Americans qualify to be to poor to pay those other federal taxes.
That would highlight the poverty of America, not a false accusation that Americans are to lazy to work.
America has paid for those programs for 80 years. It's the Republiscums that have passed tax cuts, that leave those programs without enough income to service Americans.
But then Republiscums have been trying to kill off those programs since the 1930's.
Thank saint Ronnie for starting that financial decline and multi-trillion dollar debts that Republiscum tax cuts (but not spending cuts) policies have created.
When Republiscums go to a Health Care Town Hall Meeting and scream get the government out of my Medicare and Social Security, we know the Republiscums have been busy lying about the government.
SF, so Romney told the truth about his own constituency, the red states. Those voters are the ones he's talking about, since those states are where most of Romney's moocher class lives. He made a huge mistake by denigrating the red staters, the elderly, veterans, and the disabled--all of them receive government benefits.
I can always count on you to come here and try to make ice cream out of Romney's verbal turds.
Ha, check out Florida on that map -- it's probably high in non-taxpayers because of all the retirees, but it's not like Romney can afford to alienate any voters there.
This horrid man has no normal human feelings or comprehension for people less well off than himself. In this case, he threw out that 47% number without caring, or maybe without bothering to find out, that it consists mostly of retirees and working poor, largely people who pay taxes other than income taxes.
Infidel753,
A lot of conservative ignore what's in front of their noses.
RN,
NNFRPN?
Steve,
It's more class warfare from Romney.
I think do NOT think Romney is a kind, decent man. He's a rich a-hole who holds a nearly half of America in contempt. And what he said is not "the truth" as Silverfiddle claims; it is a lie as Shaw correctly pointed out in her post.
When Romney walked away from the podium after only taking two questions at his press conference last night... he looked panicked to me.
If Romney wins it will be only because the Republiscums were able to disenfranchise enough voters to allow them to steal the presidency for Romney.
yes...mittens did speak the truth...as silverfizzle states...he spoke the truth about republicans..."The people who receive the disproportionate share of government spending are not big-government lovers. They are Republicans. They are senior citizens. They are white men with high school degrees. As Bill Galston of the Brookings Institution has noted, the people who have benefited from the entitlements explosion are middle-class workers, more so than the dependent poor." --david brooks
@ Shaw... ?RN, "NNFRPN?
new Neo Fascist rEpublican pArty Nuts
I really don't think this is necessarily Armageddon for Mittens as the MSM and Team Obama apparently to believe it is. However, it is certainly going to cause his ship to take on ADDITIONAL water. Given Mittens propensity for taking aim and shooting himself in the foot eventually the accumulated effect of his taking on water will cause his ship to capsize.
Interesting post at RN on this issue this morning. Soon the spin masters behind Romney will run out of yarn.
Romney's words are those of a man without a conscience. A man who made his fortune gutting American companies and outsourcing American jobs.
.
The RepublicanT Party “… based their entire convention on taking one of the President’s
statements out of context and railing against it, knowing full well it wasn’t what the President meant, should not expect a lot of sympathy when it happens to him.”
A.B.S.O.L.U.T.E.L.Y.!!
With OMitt's high opinion of the people of USA, one is left wondering why the voters are not flocking to OMitt's banner.
Ema Nymton
~@:o?
.
SF has his head stuck so far up his ass he can't see the light at the end of that tunnel. Ten to one he didn't even bother reading David Brooks' excellent analysis and very informative article.
Jeez if he runs his campaign this badly imagine what he would do to our country.
Jeez if he runs his campaign this badly imagine what he would do to our country.
Obama has shown that there is no correlation between running a campaign and running a country.
His campaign was triumphal, but his presidency has been a disaster.
I recommend everyone read some Tocqueville and then come back and tell me who has their head up their ass.
A cornerstone of progressivism is denying human nature.
SF: His campaign was triumphal, but his presidency has been a disaster.
That's an opinion not shared by half the country. Because you write it, doesn't make it so.
The disaster was the presidency that came before Mr. Obama's.
A horrendous attack on American soil that killed 3,000 Americans, two badly run wars that were never paid for, tax cuts during war time, and the worst economic crash since the Great Depression.
A lot of you guys make your own reality, that's been documented. But for you to come here and pretend Mr. Obama's presidency is a "disaster," when a documented REAL disaster preceded him is more proof of many on the right's inability to see what is in front of their noses.
Or a willfull disregard of reality.
Glib statements about progressives/liberals and human nature don't explain Mr. Romney's inability to understand how most of the population of America lives.
Since SF doesn't watch the news, or political programs, he has no clue what he is talking about.
I guess going from losing 750,000 jobs a month to hiring over 100,000 jobs a month, is a disaster.
Killing our enemies, is a disaster.
Helping the waste product (humans) of Republiscum policies, is a disaster.
I could go on, but I'm talking to a brick (SF) wall of a mind.
What's the truth SF?
That 47% of Americans are so poor they don't even meet the qualifications to pay federal taxes?
So of course as president, Romney< won't care about those people, and instead his policies will help the rich.
That doesn't pass first grade arithmetic, or basic morals you Christians claim make you more/better moral people.
RN,
Right, you are so neutral your post today is full of Republiscum talking points. Are you a car salesman? That's right your unemployed. How much are you mooching off the government?
Cynical, callous, indifferent, snobbish, thoughtless. Does he feel that, if Elected.... he need only represent those that voted for him? It seems to be. He seems so scornful of the citizens of this country. Fuck him.
Of course Bush's foreign policy was disastrous (only a bevy of hard-core neocons would even debate this). But, please, tell me exactly how President Obama's has been appreciably better. He expanded (unnecessarily) the war in Afghanistan. He SEXTUPLED the drone attacks in Pakistan and has since expanded them into Yemen and Somalia (to the tune of thousands of dead women, children, and the elderly). Yeah, he got rid of water-boarding (actually Bush got rid of it first, much to the chagrin of Mr. Cheney) but he's continued with Mr. Bush's rendition policy (what, as long we don't torture 'em, it's OK?), for Christ. And he's continued with the warrantless wire-taps and unlimited detention, too!......You say that you want to vote for a candidate who's truly against war and a violation of our civil liberties? Try Mr. Johnson or the Green Party candidate.
WtnpH: "You say that you want to vote for a candidate who's truly against war and a violation of our civil liberties?"
Where did I say that?
You're FOR war?
Will,
I said neither.
You're assigning to me words and ideas I've never expressed.
I don't know what your point is in connection to this post, which is about Mr. Romney's terribly divisive remarks to a room full of uber wealthy donors.
What would we do without The Onion:
"First and foremost, I would like to offer a heartfelt apology to all the whores, junkies, bums, and grime-covered derelicts out there who make up nearly half our nation,” a visibly contrite and solemn Romney said outside a campaign stop at a local high school. “Let me assure you that I in no way meant to offend any of the putrid-smelling, barefoot masses out there. My campaign is not about dividing this nation, but about bringing all sides together—the rich, elegant members of the upper class, as well as the 47 percent who are covered in flies and eat directly from back-alley dumpsters.”
“I am fully committed to building a better future for every American,” Romney continued, “and that means ensuring all 150 million grease-and-urine-soaked members of our society get a fair shake.”
Median income is down, and less people are working now than when Obama took office. We are $4 trillion deeper in debt.
We are materially worse off now than when the Messiah ascended to the throne.
But hey, if you enjoy the dizzying thrill of swirling down the toilet, go ahead and pull the Hope and Change lever again...
"What would we do without The Onion"
As if The Onion amounts to something of importance or even matters at all.
The self sabotage of these two candidates is rampant and mind boggling.
What a country! Both candidates have had the worst couple weeks imaginable. Taken together, Obama and Romney are almost a parody written by The Onion without stretching the truth.
Silver... many here have been critical of President Obama and not just the conservatives.
We have lamented the still open prison at GITMO, the continuing war in Afghanistan, the still too high unemployment rate, too small a stimulus and the fact that "Obamacare" does not include a single payer option.
While yes, we favor President Obama for reelection, your constant carping on him is wearing thin, at least for me.
When President Bush was running for reelection, where did we publicly see any of that kind of judgement towards him from you, Z, Lisa, AOW, Mal, Dude or any of the other conservative bloggers you have been known to frequent?
Of course, now that he is out of office, we have heard that you guys were never really that excited about him.
Can't we make the same snarky argument you made in relationship to Mr. Bush?
Let me rephrase your question... Were we materially worse off in 2008 than when the Messiah Bush ascended to the throne in 2000?
Thousands dead, wars on the credit card, expanding government spending and entitlements, growing deficit and America in the grips of the greatest financial contraction since the great depression.
And yet, your side when the GOP was crushed in the 2008 election on all fronts decided that you knew best how to right the ship.
Instead of jumping in to help, the GOP used the filibuster to try and thwart the Obama Admin at every corner.
Sorry, Silver, we are not worse off then in 2008. I will soon have health care for me and my wife because of legislation that will make it possible for me to buy it at a reasonable price.
The stock market has regained all of the losses suffered under the previous admin and so have the great majority of Americans invested there.
The 800,000 a month job losses have been stemmed, replaced with small gains.
The size of government has shrunk, costing jobs yes, but that is what the GOP wants, so I expect no complaints there.
Inflation is still low in spite of the dire warnings the last few years from GOP leaders.
Are there people worse off? Yes there are. But a majority of Americans are in fact, a true fact, not a false fact, better off than 2008.
When your side talks of a Messiah, perhaps a little self examination is in order...
KP... that would be funnier if it weren't so true...
Poor Romney, when a mess hits Obama, Mitt falls in the sludge...
One of the most problematic things I have heard about all of this is the meme that Romney is guilty of speaking the truth...
To that I respond BULLPUCKEY!
The great majority of that 47% are people who have been loyal to America, have worked hard, are senior citizens, disabled people including veterans, and tax payers.
To lump such a big group of folks into a caricature of people sitting around doing nothing joyfully waiting for the government dole to arrive is not only incredibly offensive, but wrong.
Silver, you and your fellow conservative bloggers have got it wrong. He did not tell the truth... he showed the truth... his self centered selfish dismissive self.
Today Chick-Flic has announced it will stop donations to those elected officials that push an anti-gay agenda.
Proving of course, that they did donate millions to support an anti-gay agenda, in law (bills).
Also proving that those who supported Chick-Flic, but denied supporting an anti-gay agenda were lying, duped, and just plain stupid.
Dave,
Mr Romney told a truth about himself: He doesn't know what he's talking about when he speaks with contempt of the 47 percenters.
Most of them are his consitutency.
Romney apparently has bought into false CW that it is the Democrats who look to government to support them, when stats show exactly the opposite.
"If you repeat a lie often enough, people will believe it."
"Although Republicans want us to believe that the most handouts go to “welfare queens” and lazy liberals, we spend twice as much on subsidies to the most profitable corporations than we do on all ordinary welfare programs put together. And it’s not just subsidies; other benefits include grants, tax breaks and favorable legislation.
According to “The Corporate Welfare State,” a Nov. 8, 2011 article in the conservative Wall Street Journal, the annual cost of corporate welfare has doubled in the past few years and may reach $200 billion this year. The Cato Institute, a conservative think tank, published an article by Tad Dehaven on July 28 titled “Corporate Welfare in the Federal Budget.” In it he states, “While corporate welfare may be popular with policymakers who want to aid home-state businesses, it undermines the broader economy and transfers wealth from average tax-paying households to favored firms.”
But large corporations pay a lot in taxes, say the Republicans. Do they mean the 2 percent in U.S. taxes that Exxon paid and the 4.8 percent that Chevron paid from 2008-2010 despite the billions in profits they made?
And it’s not just corporations that are making out on the backs of ordinary people. One of the most favorable gifts comes in the tax code under capital gains. We benefit from those laws when we sell our homes, but the richest among us benefit from them regularly. That’s the reason CEOs and other top executives want the bulk of their compensation in stock options. When they sell, the profit is considered a capital gain, and that tax is only 15 percent, the same as someone who makes $30,000 is taxed. According to Forbes 97 percent of the savings in capital gains go to those making over a $1million a year.
Also, many multi-millionaires who made their money thanks to government handouts hide their profits offshore, making the rest of us pay for the programs that helped make them rich. Then there’s the Iraq war, which benefited military contractors and left the rest of us $4 trillion in debt." --Pat Nash, News Republic
Of course you will argue that Obama represents the middle class. He represents government control and screw everyone else.
"Based on data from the Government Accountability Office (GAO) and regulations published in the Federal Register, the Administration has published more than $488 billion in regulatory costs since January 20, 2009 – $70 billion in 2012 alone," reads the analysis from AAF.
"Mr. Romney, you can't win a presidential election by insulting half of the voting public."
It seems to me Romney's hope for winning elections, based on past performance and current necessities, is to bombard the electorate with saturation-level attacks ads against his opponents late in the campaign. This time, he will also benefit to some unknown extent from the voter-suppression laws passed in a bunch of states.
Because Romney is showing all the earmarks of someone with the potential to make The Worst President in U.S. HistoryÔ, George W. Bush, a fond memory, one would think many a Republican would be hoping, if only quietly, that Romney would lose and decide to retire from politics.
I mean, how much more damage can the Republican/tea party brand take?
So, you have no opinion at all pertaining to Mr. Obama's possible war crimes?
Will,
This is a post about Romney. Why do you keep trying to change the subject? Too painful?
@Anon 3:53,
You and Will tnp Hart keep trying to change the subject. Usually that happens when the subject is too painful to face. SF does it all the time.
WillTNP Hart made his purpose clear in a previous comment. He is promoting a Libertarian and/or Green party candidate ahead of Obama because they evidently are more in line with his anti-war views.
The other possibility is that Hart is out to divide and weaken the Democratic vote so Obama won't win.
This approach isn't new. In 2000, Ralph Nader really showed Al Gore and the Democrats who had failed to consult him for his infinite wisdom. Nader also showed the country how to end up with our worst-ever president, thanks to Nader's self-righteous and self-serving vote-draining efforts.
I remember all too well how that turned out.
Yup, strengthen the Libertarian libetty efforts, weaken the dem and repub statist strangle hold on America and, defeat Facism and Marxist Socialism.
Sounds about right, and ethical.
What is,
"libetty" ?
Must have come out of the same bottle, that makes you think Republicans don't do "redistribution of wealth."
Liberty a-hole.
News flash bucko, redistribution has been the handiwork of both Dems and rEpubs, and I know it.
Now go take your meds.
The political process has grown into a self-devouring monster that accomplishes nothing.
Yep, Shaw once again setting different standards for her boy Steve and the rest of the rag doll progressives. Always willing to post slander by them yet refuse the rebuttal comment by me.
Pathetically so true to the progressive modus operendi.
No need to post this either Shaw, just food for thought.
@ Shaw I see you posted my last comment however you did not post the prior two. Both which were in response to preposterous and slanderous comments by Steve and RR.
No matter, it just gives me a chuckle as this is precisely what the ultra left is good at.
Looking at the future of the nation under Obama lobotomized ObamaBots.
Post a Comment