Romney: Obama voters are the 47% who are dependent on the government

Duck Soup · 17-09-2012 11:25PM #1

Mother Jones has released a video, taken earlier this year at a private fundraiser. It's a remarkably candid - and for Romney, uncharacteristically specific - explanation of why he thinks people vote for President Obama and why he thinks he'll never reach them.

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.

Yes, he's talking to a certain audience and telling them what they want to hear. But even on the most basic of levels, it doesn't make any sense. The Romney/Republican/Fox News mantra has been that liberals are snotty intellectuals. Now he's saying they're the feckless underclass. Maybe he thinks that's the Democrat alliance, one plus t'other. Either way, it doesn't sound much the more high-minded debate that he called for last month.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/09/secret-video-romney-private-fundraiser

Victor · 17-09-2012 11:36PM

So, where do the military, law enforcement and their hangers on (Hi, General Dynamics!) sit on this?

Manach · 17-09-2012 11:57PM

Likely the socially conservative elements will still cleave to Romney, given the opposing candidate's policies.

Corkfeen · 18-09-2012 12:15AM

I assume that such comments aren't going to help him gain that 10% of the voter base that he says he's after. It's amazing that he made such an idiotic comment and is damaging his chances of winning over some Obama voters. This is becoming a bit of a trainwreck. The timing of the release of the video of itself is somewhat of a well thought out political smear at the same time. But the fact that he made the statement is far more worrisome. Also i'm surely not the only person that believes that people are entitled to eat food?

joseph brand · 18-09-2012 12:27AM

If only more of the poor were born into wealth like Mitt.
The idea of further tax breaks for people with gold taps, heated pools, servants, multiple mansions etc etc is a hard sell to those recently unemployed and long term unemployed. Heck, even working class and middle income earners aren't stupid enough to buy into Mitt's plans to line his deep pockets and those of his buddies.

He must be playing (in that clip) to a select crowd. There's nobody got to that event on a free bus pass or paid fare. Few limos in the parking lot.

nagilum2 · 18-09-2012 01:13AM

Duck Soup wrote: »

Mother Jones has released a video, taken earlier this year at a private fundraiser. It's a remarkably candid - and for Romney, uncharacteristically specific - explanation of why he thinks people vote for President Obama and why he thinks he'll never reach them.

Yes, he's talking to a certain audience and telling them what they want to hear. But even on the most basic of levels, it doesn't make any sense. The Romney/Republican/Fox News mantra has been that liberals are snotty intellectuals. Now he's saying they're the feckless underclass. Maybe he thinks that's the Democrat alliance, one plus t'other. Either way, it doesn't sound much the more high-minded debate that he called for last month.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/09/secret-video-romney-private-fundraiser

To me, this is illustrative of how adrift the Romney campaign is.

Yes, there are people who are dependent on government. But a great many of them are not poor. A great many of them are corporate cronies receiving massive amounts of handouts and sweetheart loans through crony relationships, such as Solyndra and Fisker automotive. There's also General Electric, manufacturing windmills in China, whose CEO Obama named to an economic advisory panel. General Electric who conveniently paid $0 US corporate income tax on income of over $5B in 2010. Then there's the Wall Street, who donated more than $15M to Obama's election in 2008 - almost double what McCain got. Eric Holder, Obama's attorney general, was a partner at a law firm whose clients included Wells Fargo, J.P. Morgan Chase, Bank of America, CitiBank, Deutsche Bank, Goldman Sachs, ING, Morgan Stanley, UBS and Wilmington Trust. Conveniently, no executives from any of these banks have even been indicted, much less tried for any of the documented fraudulent activity that occurred in the run up to the financial meltdown. Not to mention former NJ governor Corzine, former Goldman Sachs CEO, who should by all accounts be sitting in a federal prison right now for knowingly using client funds to engage in speculative positions in direct violation of the law. But he's untouchable, because he's a former governor who held a big fundraiser for Obama.

But I heard silence on all that from Mitt. No mentions of the real, pervasive issues with government dependency. No, Mitt wants only to focus on the poor. :rolleyes:

Mitt is right, there are a lot of people dependent on government. But a large number of them are simply leeches on the government industrial complex. And Romney failed to draw any attention to it because in that room, there are probably a lot of the very same ilk as Obama's corporate cronies. People who are looking for Romney to make exact same type of sweetheart deals and corporate welfare for them that Obama has done for his donor cronies.

Duck Soup · 18-09-2012 05:53AM

Other parts of the video are starting to get released - I'm not sure if that's by Mother Jones or not - including a section where Romney jokes about having a better shot at the presidency if he had a Mexican father.

Duck Soup · 18-09-2012 05:54AM

Romney making a statement and answering questions about the fundraiser video.

Duck Soup · 18-09-2012 05:56AM

The Huffington Post has a compilation of what you might call the 'greatest hits' moments from the video.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/17/mitt-romney-video_n_1829455.html

The Bishop! · 18-09-2012 07:56AM

Nobody should really be surprised at this display of candour.

He just summed perfectly what the GOP is all about:

Lie No. 1 - Tax cuts for the wealthy are good for the economy.

Lie No. 2 - Maintaining any decent services for the rest is bad because it breeds 'entitlement'.

Memnoch · 18-09-2012 08:10AM

I think the more interesting bit is something else.

Because they made their entire convention about 'We did build that.' Mitt's campaign has lambasted Obama over his comments and used it in every single add they can think off.

Yet Mitt believes if you are born in America then 'your life is 95% decided,' which is essentially exactly the same thing that Obama said.

But again, we should not be surprised at the hypocrisy of this slimy and clearly corrupt individual.

18-09-2012 09:31AM

I am really delighted that Mitt stood by what he has and is not making any apologies for it.

Eliot Rosewater · 18-09-2012 09:48AM

I don't think the biggest problem here is Romney's general contention that there is a significant proportion of the population who believe they are entitled to "free" healthcare and other goodies and that will vote for Obama as a result. It's not a problem because it's obviously true. I think his biggest mistake was identifying this group with those people who don't pay federal income tax. I imagine that there are a lot of Republicans, particularly in the Bible Belt, who simply do not earn enough money to pay these kinds of taxes. This hardly makes them dependent on government. If I were one of these people, I would be highly offended that Romney would think such a thing of me.

You can be sure though that Obama is doing the same thing generally that Romney does here - making calculated policy decisions in order to woe certain demographics because he knows he has no chance of winning others. In times where we invest so much power in government it is inevitable that the likes of Obama and Romney will come along; men willing to auction the power of government to the highest bidder for their own personal gain.

Memnoch · 18-09-2012 10:36AM

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

I am really delighted that Mitt stood by what he has and is not making any apologies for it.

Perhaps you should read my post above yours of a classic example of Mitt saying two completely opposite things on something that was the GOP convention platform.

FatherTed · 18-09-2012 12:29PM

While technically, 47%(46.4%) don't pay "Income" tax, 28.3% of that 47% do pay Payroll tax. So of the remainder:

There are two primary ways to pay no (or negative) federal income taxes. The first is to be poor, and the second is to be elderly. In 2011, of the 18.1 percent of American households who paid no federal tax (meaning, no federal income or payroll tax), more than half were elderly, and most of the other half were non-elderly people making below $20,000 a year. The other sliver, roughly one in 20 non-payers, were people who made more than $20,000 in household income.
The reason being poor helps is because, with a combination of tax credits (like the earned income credit and the child credit) and deductions, many people earning under $20,000 a year can zero out their overall rate. The primary reason being elderly helps is that Social Security benefits aren't taxed as income, so if all (or most) of your income comes from your monthly Social Security check, your taxable income is marginal or non-existent.

These comments were made back in May so we don't know yet if Mother Jones was sitting on this since then or just got the video recently. In any case, the timing of this really hurts Romney.

Duck Soup · 18-09-2012 12:53PM

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

I don't think the biggest problem here is Romney's general contention that there is a significant proportion of the population who believe they are entitled to "free" healthcare and other goodies and that will vote for Obama as a result. It's not a problem because it's obviously true.

Do people - rich and poor - vote in their own financial self-interest? As you say, some most assuredly do. But many vote against it - the states that receive most federal assistance (Alabama, Mississippi etc) are often the deepest red. As John Steinbeck said, “Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”

Romney's problem is his simple-mindedness on this issue. More college graduates vote Democrat than Republican and plenty of them are paying plenty of income tax. In fact, looking up the background on this specific issue - who pays the most income tax - it turns out that the deep, deep red southern states are the states with highest proportion of non-taxpayers.

http://taxfoundation.org/article/states-vary-widely-number-tax-filers-no-income-tax-liability

The other important thing to note in that map is that in its list of top 10 states with non-tax payers is Florida, because amongst the largest groups of people who don't pay tax are retirees. Romney's lumping them in as apart of the 47%.

Incidentally, interesting comment from Chuck Todd on Morning Joe just now about the way Romney is organizing his campaign. He's in Utah at a fundraiser today and in Texas at a fundraiser tomorrow. He's not campaigning in a swing state until Florida on Thursday. Todd's observation was that Romney was not campaigning like a man who badly wants to win this. It seems to be being done almost at Romney's leisure.

On the tax story though, I'm not sure there's any walking back. He can try to finesse the point into a 'dependency culture' story, but his problem is he made a crude caricature of approximately half the population, including retirees. The damage is largely already done.

Amerika · 18-09-2012 02:02PM

Romney’s comments at a private fundraiser are really no different than when Barack Obama also made questionable comments at a private fundraiser when he was running for president. Barack Obama disparaged people of Pennsylvania telling his audience that we cling to our guns and religion because of our feelings about people who aren't like us, and our anti-immigrant sentiments. It didn’t seem to hurt Obama, so why should it hurt Romney? Unless of course the mainstream media dons their hypocrisy hats once again and makes more out of it than they did for Obama. And we all know the mainstream media would never do something like that, right?

Mjollnir · 18-09-2012 02:29PM

Amerika wrote: »

Romney’s comments at a private fundraiser are really no different than when Barack Obama also made questionable comments at a private fundraiser when he was running for president. Barack Obama disparaged people of Pennsylvania telling his audience that we cling to our guns and religion because of our feelings about people who aren't like us, and our anti-immigrant sentiments. It didn’t seem to hurt Obama, so why should it hurt Romney? Unless of course the mainstream media dons their hypocrisy hats once again and makes more out of it than they did for Obama. And we all know the mainstream media would never do something like that, right?

Yawn. Yet more false equivalencies? How unsurprising.

Obama's comments showed that he believed his policies would help those people he described as 'clinging to guns and religion' and pretty clearly he wanted his supporters to make find a middle ground with those folks, to come to some place where their interests would dovetail. Work with them.

Romney flat out makes clear that he considers the lowest-earning half of the population as losers, as mooching handout queens, despite the fact that that 47% is comprised of older people, people who have lost their jobs, students, etc....

He considers 1/2 the country to be parasites.

Funglegunk · 18-09-2012 02:53PM

I think people are still absorbing just how astonishing his comments were. "My job is not to worry about those people."

18-09-2012 03:21PM

It seems Mitt does not like the Palestinian's either

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-19637631

Again I am delioghed as I totally agree with him.

Amerika · 18-09-2012 03:23PM

Oh, I think we know (even if we don’t want to admit it) what Romney was communicating in his speech regarding the electorate to his donors. But it does make for a good side story, don’t it?

Duck Soup · 18-09-2012 03:37PM

Romney's problem is compounded by the fact that there are at least two sizable voting blocs whose shoes he's píssing on with his remarks. Amongst those who don't pay income tax are retirees (who have favoured Republicans in the last 5 elections) and the working poor (specifically in Romney's case, the white working class - one of the few groups in which he retains a polling advantage). Another illustration of the crudeness of Romney's characterization of non-taxpayers as Obama-lovin' moochers is it would include disabled army veterans.

Are retirees who've paid income tax their entire lives really seeing Medicare as an unworked-for entitlement or an entity which they've paid into and earned the right to benefit from? Are the working poor - often doing more than one job - really 'victims' and 'takers' or people who are working hard to get by and get on? Is a disabled army vet really someone who has done nothing for their country and expects something in return?

I'm sure that Romney in each instance would say "Of course not - that's not who I was referring to." The problem is when he describes as fact a monolithic voting bloc of 47% of non-taxpaying people immovably dedicated to voting for Obama, that's exactly who he's referring to.

cristoir · 18-09-2012 03:45PM

The only way this could could get any better from a democratic point of view is if those tax returns get leaked. I have a funny feeling that'll be the October surprise.

Memnoch · 18-09-2012 03:56PM

I think GOP supporters must now believe in evolution since so many of them have evolved the ostrich's ability to put their fingers in their ears and stick their heads in the sand.

'Romney did not contradict himself again. Romney did not show he is a heartless corporate shill again.'

'Romney did not contradict himself again. Romney did not show he is a heartless corporate shill again.'

I wonder how many times you need to repeat the mantra to yourself to convince yourself it's the truth?

Duck Soup · 18-09-2012 04:14PM

Just a statistical snippet for you. Of the now-legendary 47% of Americans who paid no income tax in 2011, 61% of them paid payroll taxes. In other words, the majority of them are working, and working hard, for often not very much money.

Moochers? Takers? Victims? Failing to take personal responsibility and care for their lives?

Really?

As Ezra Klein points out, "when you account for both sides of the payroll tax, they paid 15.3 percent of their income in taxes, which is higher than the 13.9 percent that Romney paid."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/09/17/romneys-theory-of-the-taker-class-and-why-it-matters/

RATM · 18-09-2012 05:48PM

There's a couple of articles over on Real Clear Politics saying Rommney's campaign believe they need an "abrupt change of strategy" and are planning on changing tack and going down the God and Patriotism routes in the next few weeks and have a ton of TV ads ready to roll with the message. It's all beginning to sound like a throwback to George W.Bush minus the politics of fear & terrorism.

Another article claims the Rommney campaign team are beset by in-fighting and we could see an implosion before November. They also make a valid point that if the rumours of in-fighting are true then Rommey loses his unique selling point over Obama- i.e. that he has better leadership qualities and knows how to run big organisations like the Winter Olympics and private equity funds. If it becomes apparent that he can't lead his campaign team (which is a lot smaller than the number to lead in Washington) then he is up against it totally.

Unless Obama cocks up in the debate I think this election is over. Rommney has just called 47% of Americans victims which is something that will hardly endear him to the 5-10% he is chasing. And on top of that blue collar Republicans who are in receipt of benefits might take a dim view to being called victims too.

Amerika · 18-09-2012 05:56PM

Hmmm… If you don’t pay federal income taxes, you just may not be swayed by Romney the candidate who wants to cut the income tax rates for everyone. STOP THE PRESSES!

Romney gets a 90% grade for Reality, but only a 65% grade for Eloquence.

According to the media, it looks like another example of how he has completely ruined his chances to become POUTS, and should pack up his campaign bags, admit defeat, and go home. How many does that make… about 4 or 5 times now?

In the meantime on Page 6... We’re still broke as a nation and going under fast with our current leadership.

Reekwind · 18-09-2012 05:56PM

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

You can be sure though that Obama is doing the same thing generally that Romney does here - making calculated policy decisions in order to woe certain demographics because he knows he has no chance of winning others

I must have missed something. Where has Obama written off almost half the electorate? Where has he insinuated that he hasn't governed on behalf of Republican voters for the past four years? Where is the evidence that all that (increasingly futile) talk of 'reaching across the divide', etc, and stubborn attachment to the centre-ground is a ploy?*

Writing off an entire demographic is stupid. Constructing a false demographic and then writing that off is stupider. Suggesting that you don't care about half the electorate is both arrogant and imbecilic. As political calculations go, I don't believe that anyone else could be that stupid

*Frank Rich has a good article from last year on the myth of the centre-ground and independent voter. That Romney is apparently willing to sacrifice half the country for this elusive beast perhaps explains much of his campaign's cack-handedness

Benny_Cake · 18-09-2012 07:00PM

I don't think I've ever seen such a cack-handed, hopeless election campaign run in any country as the one Romney is running this year. Does he even realise how many of the Republican base don't pay taxes or are dependent on handouts of one sort or another (the poor and wealthy alike!)? Also, it seems to me that a wealthy country should guarantee some level of protection or "entitlements" to it's citizens - enough food to keep hunger at bay, enough shelter to prevent homelessness, enough healthcare to prevent people from dying on the side of the street because they can't afford it. That isn't socialism, that's just decency.

Mjollnir · 18-09-2012 07:04PM

Amerika wrote: »

Hmmm… If you don’t pay federal income taxes, you just may not be swayed by Romney the candidate who wants to cut the income tax rates for everyone. STOP THE PRESSES!

Romney gets a 90% grade for Reality, but only a 65% grade for Eloquence.

No, not really. He flat out lied. I suppose that's your reality, but not for anyone rational enough to actually listen to what he says.

According to the media, it looks like another example of how he has completely ruined his chances to become POUTS, and should pack up his campaign bags, admit defeat, and go home. How many does that make… about 4 or 5 times now?

Really? What media has said that '4 or 5 times' now? And you've never considered what we out here in reality call a 'cumulative effect'?

In the meantime on Page 6... We’re still broke as a nation and going under fast with our current leadership.

Utterly irrelevant to Romney's statement and/or it's veracity.

sarumite · 18-09-2012 07:31PM

Amerika wrote: »

Hmmm… If you don’t pay federal income taxes, you just may not be swayed by Romney the candidate who wants to cut the income tax rates for everyone. STOP THE PRESSES!
.

And if only the presses (or at least Mitt) had stopped there, there would hardly be a news story. However, unfortunately for Mitt that isn't all he said.

Romney: Obama voters are the 47% who are dependent on the government

Comments