Skip to comments.Vanity - Help for Rush on the meaning of the 47%
Posted on 10/15/2012 11:21:41 AM PDT by 2 Kool 2 Be 4-Gotten
Driving around today and heard Rush struggling to get his mind around the 47% charge, the meaning thereof, and how to counter these meaningless charges. Part of me wanted to phone in because I know what he is missing. But I've tried before and never gotten through.
In the hopes that Rush Freeps or if not then somehow ideas can percolate up to the great Maha-Rushi - here's my attempt to help him out.
The RATS think that the "47%" line is the RATS golden chalice their keys to the kingdom. All they really have to do is bring it up in the debates and power is theirs forever. Rush was thinking that there was an easy way to rebut this and in my mind there is.
There are two basic flaws in the RATs argument that need to be pointed out and the issue goes away. Here they are:
1. Implicit in the RATS arguing about the 47% is that this purports to show that Romney only cares about 53% of Americans. This is NOT what he said. He said that as a matter of political STRATEGERY it did not make sense to actively expend campaign resources to go after the VOTES of the dependent class. It's the difference between political stragerery and policy. As president, I feel sure that Romney would govern with the interests of the entire country in mind. But as candidate, he has to expend resources where they will do the most good. In short the dems would have you believe that the "47%" is about policy. It's not. It's about strategery and tactics.
2. Implicit in the RATs attack (and now explicit) is that their candidate is "for the 100%". This is demonstrably false both in terms of strategery AND more importantly with regard to governing. He has proved this over and over. He truly is the purely partisan hack, with every political and policy move being viewed through a partisan prism. Thus their attacks are pure projection as is the case about 100% of the time.
The simplest approach is to call Obama’s use of it a lie, which is what it is. Any type of nuancing gets Mitt into a “macaca” moment.
I also thought about Mitt turning “47” (or perhaps “47%”) and turn it against Obama, for example:
47 - number of jobs lost per minute under Obama
470 - number of xyz..
470 million - dollars of debt per hour...
470 billion - you get the idea...
My two cents worth, and worth every penny!
its really worse 47% of tax returns paid no income tax not 47% of the population the number that pays no taxes is even higher
It wouldn’t have mattered WHAT Romney had said; the Democrats had to seize on anything they could warp and twist to give Obama something, anything to exaggerate.
47% of voters ARE likely to vote for their Messiah because he throws them a few crumbs after he and Michelle eat the cake.
If it hadn’t been that, it woulda been something else. - Obama needs to EXPLAIN - Benghazi. Hillary needs to explain - Benghazi.
O/T a little:
Response to taxes: If Obama thought Rpmney wasn’t paying enough taxes, why didn’t they change it in 2008-2010?? when Dems had house and senate?
Bain: Big Obama donors - if bad, give back the money
It’s not enough to simply say “it’s a lie” because after all the Mittster *did* say it. But it’s the RATS’ *characterization* of the statement that is the lie.
That Romney only “cares” about the 53%. That’s a lie.
That Obomma doesn’t actively despise and in fact hate with every fiber of his being the 53% - because he most definitely does. That’s another lie.
47% is the percentage which pay no FEDERAL income taxes.
Some of this class is the welfare, dependent-on-government, class. Most of those people are Democrat voters.
Most of the 47% - people who do not make enough money to have to pay federal income taxes.
THEY do not like having so little income and would happily pay more taxes if they could be making more money.
They NEED more money.
The Disaster’s policies PREVENT them from making more money and joining the 53% who are so happily paying ALL the federal income taxes who are paying their FAIR SHARE and more.
Were enough buzz words hit?
It is an easy argument to make.
I agree with you. But it was clear that in listening to Rush today that there was a kernel of something he was looking for and I wanted to think that this was it. I think being able to parry attacks is key in any campaign and in any debate. To leave an attack unanswered is in many ways a backdoor concession as to its truth. Let’s have a discussion as to just which candidate is IN FACT the more inclusive!
Not true. Of that 47% most are people who just do not earn enough money not welfare recipients.
See my comment above.
You hit it on the head. The discussion needs to be just what you said. Mitt was addressing a question about how he would get votes in the election. He (correctly) stated that 47% are on government support and that the message of cutting government will not resonate with that crowd. He (incorrectly) mangled the rest of his answer for two reasons. One is that it is not a 100% correlation. Many on government support WANT to return to be productive. He could easily turn that around and give hope to those people in his response during the debate. Secondly, by uttering “I don’t care about...”, he opened himself up to this attack. He was referring to caring about getting their votes, not caring about their lives. That’s where it has been mangled, and his phrasing opened up that line of attack. He will hopefully use this opportunity to mitigate any damage from that part of the attack.
He could be honest & simply say, “47% of the country is receiving some kind of government benefit. The democrats have spent a considerable amount of time demonizing Republicans & convincing these people that I will take away their benefits if elected. That, of course, is a lie. But as a matter of political reality, I probably won’t be able to correct this lie, given how our current media support Obama, & have to put my case before those I can realistically reach.”
All true - the key distinction is (in my mind) one of policy vs. campaign tactics.
As a candidate you expend resources where they will do the most good. Be those resources, time, money, boots on the ground, whatever. No point in sending legions of mormons for Romney into the housing projects. Call that racist if you want, but that’s just the way that it is.
Once elected president then the policies that Romney will hopefully enact (and the taxes and regulations that he’ll roll back) will hopefully be a rising tide that will in fact float all boats - in the projects as well as everywhere else.
I’d just say if you want to talk divisive videos Mr Resident, we can discuss the one where you were using that odd accent stirring up black hate against white people regarding the Stafford Act after Katrina. I would also add that you lied to those people because you voted against the waiver, you were one of 14 senators that voted against New Orleans.
Game, Set, Match.
Yes! This is what I’m trying to say. Exactly so.
I want to convert 47% into 1%. It will increase tax paying citizens and will bring prosperity.
Since the 47% of tax filers probably have larger families than the 53% of tax payers that is likely to be true.
Plus, there are substantial numbers of people who don’t even file.
In fact, delineating just who the 47% is might be useful.
WRONG! Romney did not use the word “care,” he used the word “worry.” As in “I don’t worry about getting their votes.”
True - but it’s the mangling of what was said that needs to be forcefully countered. And the message has been mangled into “Romney doesn’t care about the 47%”. And this MUST be corrected and assertively.
Very good except the 47% is not “receiving some kind of government benefit” it merely does not pay federal income taxes. It still pays sales taxes, social security taxes, state income taxes perhaps, property taxes, taxes on taxes, etc.
As a Christian nation, those are people we will ALWAYS assist and we always have.
Romney was talking about the element which is able bodied and who have no intention of EVER being or becoming self sufficient. They now have or have had at some time, government assistance and want only to continue and enlarge on that arrangement.
This element permits themselves to be used each and every election merely to cast Conservatives as greedy and uncaring when in fact, Conservatives are really demanding greater accountability in the disbursement of government programs and also, asking for curtailment of the growing mass of recipients... who are neither disabled nor under served.
There is no reason to apologize for stating that fact.
Of course. And Romney has embodied those principles in how he has lived his life. He has walked the walk. Which was a point made at the convention and can be made again in the debate and beyond.
In a word - never.
Precede your list with a comment like, “You and I both know you are misrepresenting what I said, but let’s for a minute talk about what ‘47’ really means to the American people...”
As someone else said, part of the key is that Romney NOT repeat the comment or try to clarify.
I think it’s a winner.
Good points. He can say Obama ignored those who voted to keep 40-something percent of the government Republican. And ignored that they voted for Scott Brown during the healthcare bill debate as well.
Romney just needs to say he misspoke, and meant to say that it would be harder to get the votes of the roughly 47% of people who lean towards Obama, but that he still plans to try. And that if he can’t convince them to vote for him this time, he plans to have them convinced in time for 2016 by being a great president.
If we could turn this into Romney vs the Projects this will be the greatest electoral victory since Washington.
Romney was rightly stating that those who do not pay federal income taxes are not going to be particularly sympathetic to arguments lower income taxes. They have no dog in that fight, in their minds.
HOWEVER, Romney should stress that his program will ESPECIALLY help those who can’t pay income taxes because their income is too low. Those are the ones who suffer most by economic disturbances.
Democrats stoke their envy and hatred of the “rich” to blind them to these facts.
Liberals have for decades been shaking down the US taxpayers and playing this emotional blackmail shtick.
If the government STILL wants more money from me, I say: Go find the guy you hired to take it from me all these past decades... and if HE doesn’t have it-TOO BAD!! I ALREADY paid and now I am completely skinned.
After decades of taxpayers forking over billions and ever more to fund government largess, never ONCE have the Christian, working, tax-paying people of the United States of America been thanked, NEVER!!! INSTEAD we are demonized and worse because greedy and unprincipled politicians want to buy votes, secure an office and hold power at our expense!!!! ENOUGH!!!!
Right you are 2K2B4G !
The Censoring Liberal Agenda Media, (CLAM), did its job well.
Now comes the inconvenient truth of fact checking. Sic ‘em!
Them’s the facts.
Team obamugabe and their media enablers have telegraphed their moves for tomorrow night. It’s going to be the 47%. Need to be ready for that and handle it gracefully, skillfully and convincingly.
I actually thought Romney was saying that 47% of obama’s voters would never vote for him; therefore, he could never appeal to them. However, he could appeal to the other 53% and bring them over.
Basically yes that’s what he said. But appealing to a group of voters is one thing. Governing as the president of all Americans is something else again. Not enough distinction has been made between these two ideas and that is my main point and should be a point of emphasis IMHO.
If this is taken as a serious issue, it gives it more weight than it deserves. It is a silly assertion, taken out of context and put forth by a desperate campaign would be my first statement.
I would not use the words “dependent class”. I would just shrug it off, and say a certain % of the population always votes for the Democrat, and there is no sense wasting ads and campaign time on people who will probably not change their minds and vote Republican, and the criticism is unfounded and taken out of context.
Romney doesn’t need to get into the “meme” of his 47% comment... all he needs to say, if challenged by Obama regarding his 47% comment, is this:: “Mr. President, Americans want a leader that is more focused on lowering that number by increasing employment rather than increasing that number by lowering employment, as your policies have done over the last four year. On top of that, Americans all over the country have expressed great concern to me over your comments earlier this year to Russian President Medvedev as you assured him that you would have more flexibility in missile defense negotiations after November should you be reelected. I would like for you to explain to me and the American people what you meant by that comment?”
I think via crowd sourcing we have come up with an effective response.
1. Remarks were off the cuff and taken out of context.
2. My policies are aimed at increasing the number of working Americans while your administration has done just the opposite.
3. When elected president I will work hard to advance the interests of all Americans.
Voters are citizens (or supposed to be).
Taxpayers are legal residents (or supposed to be).
They're not the same population.
There's nothing here worth worrying about ~ Mitt and others leaped to some false conclusions ~ and unnecessarily, and cruelly for some, confounded two totally different issues.
The first 47% deal was the number of people who filed federal income tax returns but did not pay any net federal personal income taxes.
It wasn't about 47% not paying taxes ~ only a fool who'd been living in a cave for the last 3 centuries could possibly think that ~ no one escapes the United States of America without paying taxes ~ either directly, or indirectly.
Let me repeat that ~ NO ONE gets away with not paying taxes!
Professional talk show hosts (e.g. Hannity was one) regularly confused this very narrow question, which is the culmination of a Ronald Reagan policy, and actually said "47% paid no taxes" ~ and said it like it was meaningful.
The other issue was Obama's regular level of support. Even though he's been below 50% ~ at roughly 47 % ~ for most of the last two years, his supporters ~ e.g. Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, that crowd, are hardly dependent class people. They are simply stupid. As is Obama. The man is stupid. 47% of the voters who've hung with him are stupid.
As soon as you mix the two groups in your mind ~ stupid people who vote for Obamugabe, and people who do not owe federal personal income tax, you make a whopper of a mistake.
If you actually believe that, we have to ask why you are in Obama's 47% because you're certainly stupid enough to be there if you think Social Security recipients, 100% disabled veterans, and low income people in general are ALL Obamugabe supporters!
Now we don't want anybody to think anyone is stupid unnecessarily ~ so it turned out somebody got to Romney, explained it to him, and he apologized.
Sad to see some of his most ardent supporters still out there beating the 47% drum ~ they'are like the chimp lineup over at the DNC trying the same trick ~ pounding that drum ~ but there's nothing there.
He went on to say he was going to run a campaign to pull in the 5% to 10% he saw as undecided independents "in the middle".
That belief ~ that there's even a middle ~ is problem enough, but apparently 90% of the voting public wasn't in his target zone ~ which, interestingly enough, has been one of my criticisms of the guy for the last 5 years ~ and if you search FR enough you should find it. It's not like he kept it secret, but I think I'm the only one in FR who ever took him at his word, and there he was raising money from rich people using those very words.
I think cooler heads got to him on that ridiculous belief ~ probably Newt. He's been instructed to go after voters, not middles!
Of course, having a politician speak the plain truth to the country will also shatter the time/space boundary of this sector of the galaxy, and let in trillions of ETs from the multiverse who have been locked out because of the wall of stupid lies that has surrounded our planet for millenium.
So there's that, too.
Gee whiz, taking care of your own elderly will do that to you if Grandma gets Social Security after working 50 years at a Holland Milling Machine and breaking her back to put you through graduate school.
That hardly turns your family into welfare recipients.
Avoid propaganda in this discussion of who is or is not part of the dependent class (which, to me, are mostly elected politicians ~ they are totally dependent).
“appealing to a group of voters is one thing. Governing as the president of all Americans is something else again”
Thanks for responding. I appreciate your thoughts.
The national mainstream media is lazy. They do not report the news of what happens - they report their packaged set pieces. For the first debate, they had their packaged analysis lined up for Romney's 47% comment, for Bain Capital, and for Romney's Tax Returns. They were all set to expound on why these were critical issues and why they would damage Romney. I can hear the production meetings - "Okay, David, you do your piece on the 47% comment. George, you take the Bain Capital story. And Cokie, you take the tax return piece."
The only problem was, Obama didn't bring those issues up in the debate. The media expected those issues to come up during the debate and they were prepared to run with them, but they couldn't. To the media, these debates are not news in real-time, they are simply staging platforms for their agenda.
Think back to the post-debate coverage of the first debate. There was a general sense of "What the hell do we say now, other than Romney looked presidential?" They couldn't run their propaganda about the big three issues, because Obama didn't bring those issues into the debate.
The media wants those issues introduced into the debate so THEY can pound Romney on the issues for the next 48 hours.
Remember, in reality, Obama is just an average guy ~ not a genius ~ so something so esoteric as whatever that 47% means is not something he wants to argue with Romney who has already apologized for getting wrong.
Obama would prefer something he can ridicule Romney about so he can get an audience laugh!
And a new teleprompter. Obama would prefer a new teleprompter!
Honesty at some point means pointing out that Social Security is indeed a welfare benefit. Those dollars were not invested in our own account that we then draw from like an IRA. Most people draw out far more than they put in. It’s a ponzi scheme & the worst kind of social welfare. It can’t be sustained & the only way to make it work is to start means testing current recipients & looking at setting up a new system for younger people.
I hope Romney & the future Republican House & Senate have the intestinal fortitude to make the right decision & fix this system.
Good point. I’ve often wanted to also call Rush and say instead of “State Controlled Media” it should be “Media Controlled State”. In truth the actual situation is very much a mixture of both.
Romney can explain how many Americans need to be instructed on why the government was not created to provide for them, and how they can better provide for themselves.
A class of wage earners is taxed. A surviving class of former wage earners is provided with income.
More pay than take out simply because HUMAN BEINGS DIE!
The benefits are also taxed with those taxes returning to the General Revenue side of the ledger and not to the Social Security side.
There are a number of quite peculiar elmenets in addition to those that lead most of the beneficiaries to believe they paid for it.
Not a good idea at all to bring your thoughts up at a Turkey Shoot eh~!
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.