"I listened to the whole video and I must have missed the part where he insulted the worthless cretins... I heard him say that the 47% would not vote for him because they pay no federal income taxes while still getting benefits from the government, so lower taxes and fewer benefits will not entice these voters and therefore he will focus on the 53% who are paying the bill. (seems rational)I am sure I will probably just be called a brain washed Conservative that isn't worth talking to over there... So any thoughts from this more diverse and open minded crowd?
The 47% on the other hand will vote for the candidate that offers them something for nothing. Isn't that an accurate description of what you like about Obama and the Democrats? They are offering free food, housing, healthcare, college/tech education, etc.
Remember Ben Franklin's quote "When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic."
By the way I wonder why they didn't post more of the video? Could Romney have explained how his policies would help the less fortunate and MJ chose not to share that?
Thoughts?"
MN Prog Proj Romney
Mother Jones Romney
FOX News Romney
24 comments:
Of course just about all of those 47% do pay taxes. Many of them are recipients of Social Security, now receiving the benefit of the taxes they paid for over their working lives. Some of them, by the way, are military and the families of our military. A good many others are children.
What Romney said is so wrong and so breathtakingly stupid on so many levels, it's hard to know where to start. Someone in his position should understand how our tax system works. Someone in his position should know the role that Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid plays in people's lives. Someone in his position really should not depend on Fox News talking points for his information. Yet all of those things seem to be the case. At this moment, I am at a loss in understanding how a guy with so little understanding of American or sympathy and understanding of the lives of America ever managed the chutzpah to think he should be president of the United States.
--Hiram
He only commented regarding income taxes. Those taxes that will need to supplement the Social Security and Medicare trust funds, since people are scheduled to receive more that than they contributed. Also, those taxes that are used to redistribute wealth through TANF, Medicare, Tax Credits, etc.
Of course people receiving wealth transfer via these subsidies and benefits won't be in any hurry to see them dry up. Isn't he stating the obvious?
He only commented regarding income taxes
Indeed. He seems to have a very narrow view of how taxes work generally, suggesting that somehow only income taxes matter. That 47% of the people he was talking about certainly included many people who live on Social Security, people who paid for those benefits, and who undoubtedly paid federal income taxes during their working lives. Now that they are retired, Mitt Romney sees them as moochers.
Let's bear in mind that the wealth transfer came between the generations. The people who are receiving Social Security benefits now, paid for them during their working lives. The "government" isn't paying them, it's simply the conduit through which the money passes.
--Hiram
Pie Chart
I think he is more interested in the Medicaid, Safety Net and Food parts of the National Budget. (ie something for nothing)
Last year alone, Obama and Gov't apparently applied make up funds to the trust fund. ($105,000,000,000) Apparently payroll taxes need to be increased or the payout needs to be reduced. And this certainly came from the gov't. (ie income taxes from upper 53%)
Here is a good Liberal description of the budget problem. Thought you would appreciate it. I liked it because it has some good slides, though their interpretation is suspect. Budgets Oh My
They are obsessed with the historically lower revenues side of the equation and neglect discussing historically higher spending side. And they don't mention that write offs have changed as the rates have changed.
It's hard to know what Mitt is interested in his heart of hearts. What he was referring to in his remarks was the 47% of people who don't pay federal income taxes. That's basically retirees on Social Security, the working poor, and a lot of children. The irony is that he does get a lot of votes from those folks, especially retirees, who dependent as they are on Social Security, don't think of themselves as dependent. Just as Mitt who has benefited from tax breaks, and the protection of federal bankruptcy laws for his wealth, doesn't think of himself as dependent.
--Hiram
Definitely not his finest showing.
I am more frustated that MJ is only putting out snippets of editted portions. They definitely are not a news organiztion. They are releasing it to maximize damage...
I would love to see what they are choosing to leave out.
Here is a link to what Mother Jones claims is the full video:
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2012/09/18/full_video_mitt_romney_mother_jones_releases_full_version_of_fundraising_footage_.html
I thought the timing was fascinating. They might have been in possession of the tape for a while, so this is the moment they chose to release it, a couple of weeks before the first debate, at a time where the Romney campaign is already in freefall.
--Hiram
I have grown weary of your Ayn Rand point of view, John, which is why I have taken a break from commenting for the past few days. Sometimes I look at things differently based on your posts and comments, but not frequently enough to keep engaging with your topics, now that my work week is keeping me very busy.
If you are unable to see that Romney's comments are at least slightly offensive to many people, then I think trying to explain it is just a waste of my time. I leave it to Hiram to attempt to enlighten you or at least get you look at things another way.
For now I might keep reading, if your blog does not sap to much of my energy with posts/comments related to worthless freeloaders, teacher bashing, and tea party economics.
I didn't find Romney's comments offensive at all, because they happen to be true. Romney's mistake was in conflating three groups-- those voting for Obama, those receiving a government benefit, and those paying no federal income taxes. All of those groups are roughly 47% of the population, and there is considerable overlap, but it certainly isn't true that the three groups are identical. Many currently receiving gov't benefits, thank G*d, would prefer having a job and making their own way. Others, as has been pointed out, are receiving what they were promised and believe they paid for. The problematic ones are those who believe they are entitled to live at the expense of the rest of us.
J. Ewing
Laurie, it is always good to hear from you. You have a unique perspective.
J. Ewing
J,
I agree with your summary.
Romney relating the 47% of "non-income tax paying" to the "gov't should provide for us and redistribute wealth" crowd was pure foolishness. The number may be right, but the mix is so wrong. I realize he was pandering to his wealthy donors, but he should be more well spoken even with them. (ie especially in the world of miniature cameras)
Laurie,
I have been playing volleyball and drinking beer, so please forgive me. In the last week I have been called a Liberal, a Conservative, and now an Ayn Rand disciple.
I am likely as close to the middle as you will find. So I will miss your input if you choose not to comment anymore. I hope you find what you are looking for.
By the way, I still welcome posts from others if you want to skew G2A more to the left.
Hiram,
Thanks for the link, I'll watch when the beer has worn off..
Slate Full Video
Perhaps the biggest disappointment of this campaign is that we have found that despite his Harvard degrees and business success, he just isn't very bright and he is very lazy. As much as a lot of things, his Boca Raton remarks reflect that.
--Hiram
Neither of our Harvard trained candidates impress me too much. Maybe we need a candidate that attended a NDSU or something. They would be more grounded in reality.
I listened to more of the video, MJ definitely looked for the "juicy" stuff. It has to be challenging to answer some of those questions on the fly, since the perspective donor's questions were all of the map and some a bit odd.
Can't wait for the debates !!!
"...despite his Harvard degrees and business success, he just isn't very bright and he is very lazy."
Except for "business success" I assumed you were talking about Obama. Were you? Because I don't think you get to be as successful as Romney was without having a lot on the ball, and indeed, Romney is quietly respected for his abilities as a "numbers guy" in the business world. And in his personal life he has a great deal of compassion for people. This has got to be the easiest election decision in my lifetime. Not. Even. Close.
J. Ewing
It's so easy to answer those questions on the fly. Mitt has often had trouble with the easy questions. Basically, a Republican says that our policies benefit everyone, not just the rich. You don't disparage half the population, you talk about the jobs they want to do, but which haven't been created during the four years of the Obama administration, and that it's my job as candidate to cut through the noise and explain those ideas clearly to the American people.. My gosh, I could type that stuff up in my sleep.
--Hiram
New Slate Link to Majority of Video
The questions he was responding to went something like this. (starts at about time stamp 32:00 of the first video)
Why don't you stick up for yourself? Why don't you promote your success and explain how successful hard working people are good for the country? After 3 yrs of people being told that Government will provide for you, how will you convince people to be self reliant?
Other than his foolish use of the "47% no income tax" stat his comments seem appropriate to the group he was speaking with and the topic he was addressing. As a Liberal on Mn Prog Proj wrote to me a couple of days ago. "I am not going to exchange comments with you because you will never change your mind, so it is a waste of my time. Nothing personal."
The reality is that Romney will never convince Obama's core supporters that big GOVERNMENT is BAD and SELF RELIANCE is GOOD. They seem to believe that each citizen is entitled to food, clothing, housing, medical care, post secondary education, etc whether they work hard/make good decisions or are lazy/make bad decisions. And that the money should to pay for this should be taken from those that have been successful and/or lucky.
Isn't that the Liberal point of view, or am I missing something?
Remember that Obama said "no one will be left behind". I assume "no one" includes the lazy, irresponsible and foolish.
Those don't seem to be questions Romney answered. Here are some possible responses.
Why don't you stick up for yourself?
I don't want to talk about Bain. It takes me off message.
Why don't you promote your success and explain how successful hard working people are good for the country?
Again, I don't want to get into detail about my Bain years, for various reasons.
After 3 yrs of people being told that Government will provide for you, how will you convince people to be self reliant?
Americans are a self reliant and hard working people. It's up to us to remove the barriers government has erected which prevent people from generating jobs which would put Americans back to work.
As I say, I could type this stuff all day long, and I didn't even go to Harvard.
If they were silly comments, and they certainly were, the fact that they were made to silly people is hardly a defense. They made Mitt come off as weak minded and a pander. And he didn't have to appeal to their stupidity, he already had their checks.
As I have pointed out on many occasions, government isn't particularly big now, and has historically been getting smaller. The dependencies Romney addressed, Social Security and health care, are things the American people have in fact paid for. They just don't happen to be things that Mitt and his wealthy listeners happen to be particularly dependent on, but those folks are dependent on other things government provides, such as national security and fully operational bankruptcy courts.
--Hiram
Not that BIG? What is wrong with this spending curve? Forbes Spending and Revenue If you don't see it, extrapolate it out by about 50 yrs...
And yes, all the Bush tax cuts should be rescinded ASAP. They were a bad idea that did not pay off.
You will find a similar chart in this very Liberal source. Budgets Oh My
Just because government spends more doesn't bigger. If you spend more on your heating bill, does your house get larger.
The things government pays for are getting bigger, Social Security and health care, are getting bigger, but that doesn't mean government is getting bigger.
I think we will have disagree on this one. Bigger can mean different things and ~24% of our GDP is plenty big enough for me.
Let's aim to get revenues and spending back to 20%. That seems like a nice round number.
That leaves 80% for us lowly self reliant private citizens to actually live off, invest, save, etc, etc, etc.
"And yes, all the Bush tax cuts should be rescinded ASAP. They were a bad idea that did not pay off." -- John
OK, fine. YOU explain to the millions of people who fell off the tax rolls altogether why their taxes are going up by an infinite amount, and why the folks in the next tax bracket up are going to see their taxes increase by 50%. THEN you can explain why "the rich" will be paying a LOWER percentage of the total taxes than they are today.
It's absolutely hilarious that you say the Bush tax cuts "aren't working." Somehow, I think I would prefer a return to the time when the tax cuts weren't working and American workers WERE.
Do you know that Obama has now presided over more months of unemployment over 8% than all previous presidents combined? That is failure, pure and simple, and his "plans" should be given no credence whatsoever. They aren't, in fact, as Obama's budgets are routinely rejected UNANIMOUSLY in the US Senate.
J. Ewing
I guess that is my point:
They aren't reducing unemployment.
The Liberals say they were done to help the rich.
They have increased the deficit.
So let them all lapse so that all people understand how much they miss them. Maybe the Liberals will then yearn for a return to the Bush tax years.
Obama's answer is only to let them lapse on the wealthy. No one will learn anything that way. The wealthy already know that high taxes are bad for the country.
You are going to get your wish, because come January 1 all the Bush tax cuts will lapse and all of the Obama tax increases will kick in. The "fiscal cliff" will be behind us and in the wrong direction. The only hope for our economy is for Romney to win and to carry strong Senate and House majorities with him. The Democrats have to be punished so badly that they will acquiesce to simple reason.
J.
Post a Comment