Vanity - Help for Rush on the meaning of the 47%

Myself | 10/15/2012 | Me

[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.

[Talisker]

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.”

Yes.

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.

[muawiyah]

And he would be wrong. That's a third thing that's frequently confounded with the other two mis-beliefs. Someone did a study and determined that a large percentage of Americans have someone in their household who receives government cash benefits.

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.

Right?

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).

[Heart of Georgia]

“appealing to a group of voters is one thing. Governing as the president of all Americans is something else again”

Agree.

[Heart of Georgia]

Thanks for responding. I appreciate your thoughts.

[TexasNative2000]

Here's may take on why the media is SO intent that Obama use the 47% line.

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.

[muawiyah]

Let's go one step further ~ even Obama has no idea what the 47% is about ~ is it the solid support he has? Is that the number of people not paying federal personal income tax(and isn't that a Ronald Reagan issue). And why would Romney think they constitute some sort of monolithic dependent class when he, Obama himself, knows that one of the largest blocks of hard core Republican voters are low income and pay little or no federal personal income tax.

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!

[Twotone]

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.

[2 Kool 2 Be 4-Gotten]

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.

[Vision]

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.

[muawiyah]

Belive what you want. It's actually a forced loan to the government ~ and if credited with the highest interest paid, it earns its way given that NOT everybody gets the benefit side.

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~!

[Twinkie]

What’s not true? I didn’t say they were all welfare recipients. Where did you get that? Crumbs come in many forms.

[Twotone]

Regardless of all the “elements”, SS was a Ponzi scheme from the get-go. We are drowning in debt & something has to be done. We have to get the govt OUT of the business of running a retirement program, & that’s going to mean some big changes. They are necessary. R&R are promising no changes to those currently receiving benefits or about to receive benefits. That should ease the minds of most of the elderly.

We need to repeal O-care, get the economy booming again, & let the younger folks invest their FICA in their own accounts. These are reasonable changes.

[ChinaGotTheGoodsOnClinton]

Hey 2 Cool:

Good idea to bring this up!

I think what he was saying is that 47% of the people don’t pay taxes therefore tax cuts will not appeal to them.

But economic growth will raise the tide for everyone, rich, middle class AND the poor.

Just my 2 cents

[Twinkie]

Romney will have to use few words, because, like Biden, Obama will be in full throat and throttle, not giving anyone a chance to answer anything if he can help it. - Too much has been “invested” in him by his Muslim and commie buddies, hellbent on destroying America, to allow that “rich” Romney to foil any part of it.

If Obama’s re-elected, we face hyperinflation and worse. May God help us.

[muawiyah]

Interestingly enough, the federal government has BORROWED 6 trillion bucks from Social Security.

They should pay that back first on their way to fiscal solvency.

No way they should be let off the hook through a repudiation of their debt to Social Security ~ better they repudiate their debt to foreign governments like the Chicoms.

You wouldn't want to put the Chinese government ahead of American citizens would you?

In any case, the federal government has vast resources and assets and can pay any debt.

[muawiyah]

Let's hope Romney wasn't thinking that way. Everyone knows that when the tax burden is reduced on manufactured goods, for example, that means they can lower the price.

Taxes are a pass through, as are tax cuts.

[Twotone]

We will have to repay the Chinese. We will have to reform our entitlements.

Social Security is not only a Ponzi scheme, but unconstitutional to boot. A return to limited gov’t & people responsible for themselves. That’s what I want.

[muawiyah]

You want to discuss theories of Ponzi schemes and our obligations to foreign nations first. I want to talk about obligations to American citizens and paying debts due them.

We have rights ~ the Chicoms will be satisfied with promises. That's the way it should be. A President who fails to see who ought to be first in his obligations ~ well, what can I say, we already have one of them!

[2 Kool 2 Be 4-Gotten]

Agree and thanks for the kind words.

[DouglasKC]

If Romney really wants to win he just has to say "47% of the population get government assistance. Now there are many that truly need that. But there are a large number of that 47% that are simply taking advantage of the system. We want to save that money for those truly in need and get rid of the freeloaders."

Those truly in need or thin their in need will not be offended. Any votes he loses from those who are gaming the system will be more than offset by those who recognize this is what's going on.