Posted on 09/20/2012 8:42:59 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Mitt Romney recently said that 47% of the population pay no taxes while still receiving government benefits. This likely alienated the 47%, who Romney rightly noted are mostly voting for Obama. But it thrilled the 53% who do pay taxes. Because that 53% are sick and tired of moochers calling the shots.
Every statement any politician makes inspires some percentage of the population while alienating the rest. This is unavoidable. The trick is to find the right balance — the sweet spot is to aim somewhere above 50% and below 90%.
Why below 90%? Why not make statements that inspire everyone? Because when promises and speeches become overly broad, they quickly become meaningless and bland. A politician who announces “I like ice cream; don’t you like ice cream too?” isn’t going to win any votes, because the statement is uncontroversial to the point of banality.
Just below that level are the shallow populists, who generally make statements that attempt to please 75% – 90% of the voters, but at the cost of being not particularly believable. “A chicken in every pot and a car in every garage” sounds very nice in theory, but at this stage in history, vague upbeat promises raise as much skepticism as enthusiasm.
At the other end of the scale, saying things that piss off over 50% of the population is not a wise move for any politician — at least any politician who needs voter approval. Sure, a dictator can get away with seizing all private property and drafting all adults into a pointless war, because he isn’t trying to please anyone and doesn’t need votes to stay in power. Politicians in democracies and republics tend to avoid unpopular moves for this reason.
And so that leaves us with the real sweet spot, between 50% and 75%. Any statement from any politician which inspires or pleases between 50% and 75% of the public can rightfully be assessed as a smart political move.
So when Romney drew a line in the sand between the taxpayers and the non-taxpayers, he was in the sweet spot, because it made him less popular with the 47% of non-taxpayers and more popular with the tax-paying 53%.
Furthermore, he was also correct in his analysis that Obama’s support largely comes from that 47%, as many demographic analyses have shown. The “We want free stuff” crowd votes Democratic, and the “I’m grumpy about paying all those taxes” crowd votes Republican.
The fly in the ointment is a tiny sliver of the population, probably less than one half of one percent, of hyper-wealthy elite liberals who pay taxes and still vote Democratic. And the reason they’re a problem is that this elite clique of socialist millionaires and self-hating high-earners tend to have undue influence over the media narrative, so when they get pissed off by a Romney statement, they can try to paint it as a “gaffe” which offends the nation.
In this case, the instant narrative was that Romney’s statement was so horrible that he just lost the election, since the media promises to repeat Romney’s statement over and over until November 6.
To which I reply: Please do. If Romney just distanced himself from 47% of the electorate, then he drew the remaining 53% closer to him and his statement. And anything that resonates with over 50% of the voters is a winning message. If the media wants to trumpet Romney’s winning message — go for it!
Conversely, when Obama essentially says the opposite — which he does nearly every day with his various permutations of “Spread the wealth around” and “You didn’t build that” — he is alienating the 53%. He’s outside the sweet spot. And yet somehow that media doesn’t consider those Obama’s statements as “gaffes.”
And one final point: it may be that only 53% of Americans pay taxes, but that 53% accounts for a much larger percentage of voters. The poor, the indigent, and minorities always vote in far fewer numbers than the middle and upper classes. So Romney’s “controversial” sentence actually appeals to probably over 60% of the voters. And that’s more than he needs to win.
Hope so. But there are an awful lot of dunderheads in these United States.
Right on!
The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 64% of Adults think there are too many Americans dependent on the government for financial aid. Just 10% think not enough Americans are dependent on the government, while 16% say the level of dependency is about right. The survey of 1,000 Adults was conducted on September 18-19, 2012 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence.
There is a sound principle burried in there but his numbers above dont add up. That is why he screwed it up.
The 47% who dont pay FITs include Ryan's Mom on SS and Ryan went down to Florida to assure seniors that not a dime will be cut from her medicare ever (well if he is VP) because he loves her. Nothing about her being the moocher that MR accidently (I assume) claimed she is.
A percentage of that 53% - largely white, suburban, and female - feels guilty about the 47%, thinks the 47%'s situation is their own fault, and will be mad at Romney for making his statement. I think this percentage, however, will be offset by a percentage of the 47% who really do want to better themselves, and feel trapped by the current policies. So we'll see...
I think it locks up more than 53% and here’s why. Not all of that 47% receiver class actually identifies with that class. I have to believe there is some portion of those on assistance that don’t want to be but have no choice and they really do see themselves as in a temporary situation with hopes and plans to get out of it...so I am not confident that every single one of the 47 percenters actually identifies with a dependent lifestyle, if you get what I mean
We are the 53%, who pay taxes and keep this country going inspite of the 47% pro rat losers.
I agree. My entire extended family is employed, generally with a graduate degree—and they are all Obama voters.
I think it’s important that Romney wins, but he was ham-handed, inaccurate and needlessly insulting with his one venture into an actually conservative statement.
I get a military retirement check — which I earned, btw —but I pay lots of taxes each year. (Contrary to the beliefs of some, military retirement is NOT tax free.)
Am I in Romney’s 47%?
Prominent Members of Chicago Black Community: Those closest to Obama know there’s no 2nd term
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-gop/2931779/posts
The beauty of your question is that the answer really lies within your heart. Based on what you said, you've paid taxes, worked your a$$ off to protect me, this country and God knows what else.
do you consider yourself part of the 47%?
If you do, then act like it, suck harder on the Govt. teet that feeds you, and vote accordingly.
If you don't feel that you are part of the 47% (which, personally, i believe, that based on your military career, you paid your fair share forward, and are entitled to what you are getting, if not more) then act accordingly.
The answer is yours to decide, and or defend or counter argue.
Semantics of the who/why/what of "the 47%" is irrelevant. If you want to lump yourself into the category Romney was referencing be my guest. You just wont get me to say YES or NO to justify what you want to believe.
FReegards,
INBN
Fair answer. I ask because yesterday Rush was saying there’s some confusion as to whether Romney meant to include social security recipients and military retirees.
There isn’t a day in my life since I was 15 years old that I haven’t had a job.
“....only 53% of Americans pay taxes, but that 53% accounts for a much larger percentage of voters.....
TRUE, TRUE, TRUE!!! The only thing about this that concerned me was this: I believe that 47% includes retired Military and the Elderly on Soc. Sec. and they are not moochers. They truly are “entitled”. But, I think those in the 47% who are not moochers, know that Romney was not calling them a moocher and will probably vote for him.
Now make sure you clarify the confusion with your buddies, as well! don't assume they know.
INBN
You did earn your retirement, and I thank you for your service.
Now, consider the following. The Federal Government of the United States is running up enormous annual deficits that cannot be sustained. This is due to significant structural imbalances in revenues vs. expenditures. Tweaking a few things will not solve the problem, we cannot tax our way out of it, and it does not appear we can grow our way out in the forseeable future. Therefore, government expenditures MUST be cut.
This election is about this one question: are you willing to take a cut to your pension to save your country, or will you vote for the candidate that promises to make you “exempt” from such cuts because you are special?
Flame away, folks, but there is only one answer. If you accept the notion that ANYONE is “immune” from a cut, then EVERYONE will be, and the nation goes bankrupt.
I don’t think it’s military pensions the government has gone overboard on. Those are legitimate debts to people who were told to take “less pay now” on behalf of the federal budget, and we’ll make it up later.
So, we took our “cuts” on the front end. If that isn’t believed, then look at the pay of an engineer or a doctor or any other professional or executive in the military compared with one in private life.
That said, the federal budget is shot all to hell because of entitlements to those who did NOT earn anything at all, and because of huge bureaucracies that have no necessary mission.
Here’s my answer: once they cut the SSI recipients, the Education Department, planned parenthood, etc. from the budget, and then they still need more cash, then I’ll be willing to discuss restructuring what they owe me.
But, it doesn’t make sense to acknowledge ongoing wild, out-of-control, and unnecessary spending elsewhere, and then make a patriotic gesture to cut one’s own retirement. That kind of government would take the bit of money I return to them and spend it on a million-dollar GSA party in about ten seconds.
I agree with you; there are whole pieces of the Federal Budget that should simply be eliminated. Education and Energy are two of them. The EPA should be gutted. HHS should be gutted, too. Social Security would not be facing bankruptcy if the funds were not being stolen to pay for today’s parasites. If you check any of my other posts, I have consistently advocated elimination, not reform, of welfare.
But in the realm of what is politically possible, once one group claims they are exempt from cuts, even if they should be exempt, all groups will claim an exemption, especially if they should not. If you don’t accept the premise that everything CAN be cut, nothing WILL be cut.
And if that’s not politically possible, then catastrophe is not politically avoidable. That seems to have happened in Greece.
You are exactly right. Great post. You KNOW if you are a moocher. You KNOW if you have earned what you are getting. People should have been able to tell if Romney was talking about them when he disowned the moochers, regardless of what the media is telling them.
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.