Source: New York Times
Posted on 09/18/2012 3:37:16 AM PDT by Kaslin
Mother Jones has obtained and released video of Mitt Romney saying some things that Americans and the media will no doubt take uncharitably.
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....
Romney went on: "[M]y job is is not to worry about those people. I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives."
This is certainly an inartful way of attempting to make the point that Romney was attempting to make. It's also unclear what point he was actually attempting to make; if he believes that 47% of Americans are dependent on the government for their livelihood, he's simply mistaken.
The Romney campaign responded almost immediately with a boilerplate statement about how Romney's tax and economic plans will help all Americans, government beneficiary or no:
Mitt Romney wants to help all Americans struggling in the Obama economy. As the governor has made clear all year, he is concerned about the growing number of people who are dependent on the federal government, including the record number of people who are on food stamps, nearly one in six Americans in poverty, and the 23 million Americans who are struggling to find work. Mitt Romney's plan creates 12 million new jobs in four years, grows the economy and moves Americans off of government dependency and into jobs.
It's likely an offshoot of the conservative talking point that 47% of Americans don't pay income taxes. Which is true! But unfortunately, a lot of conservatives make the leap from there to claim that total tax burden isn't high enough on middle- and lower-income people (without taking into account things like sales and payroll taxes) and that either they should pay more taxes or we should slash social spending.
Moreover, as Ramesh Ponnuru wrote at National Review, it's just not helpful to base an ideology off the theory that there are too many "moochers" in society.
There is a certain plausibility to the claim that the more people fall off the income-tax rolls, the more will support federal activism. But there is a series of evidentiary hurdles that this claim cannot begin to overcome. There is no evidence that changes in the percentage of people who pay income tax has had any effect on public opinion, let alone a large one. The U.S. that began the Democrats’ 40-year reign in the House of Representatives in 1954 had roughly the same percentage of non-payers of income tax (24.9) as the U.S. that ended it in 1994 (24.4). A relatively large proportion of the citizenry paid income taxes in the early 1960s. It didn’t stop the Great Society from being enacted. The number of people who pay no income taxes moved up fast between 2006 and 2010, which has helped set off conservative alarms. But voters turned sharply right between the elections of those two years.
It would be a different conversation if we were to talk about the people whose livelihood actually depends on government social safety net programs. It's not 47% of people. "Entitlement spending," as broadly defined as a share of income, is only at 18% (though that has been rising in recent years). Romney could make the argument that that is too much, but that's not the argument he's making.
If there were truly 47% of Americans who believed that they were benefits of government programs and refused to vote for any politician who worked to curtail the welfare state, America would be in a precarious position. Romney's just wrong on the facts here.
There have been progressives writing that this is a moment that Romney is going to regret. It's possible - but it's not the case that the candidate was making grand claims about morality and government. He certainly seemed to be on a rambling rant where he is wrong on the merits of who pays, who benefits and, perhaps most of all, who's willing to vote on these issues.
A point could be made on the total progressivity of the taxes-and-transfers part of the federal budget. Ed Morrissey noted awhile ago that, during the recession, the average household now receives more in benefits than pays in taxes to the federal government. That's not to say, as Romney seemed to, that these households are dependent on the government or see government help as necessary to their livelihoods. The federal government does have, however, a progressive tax-and-transfer state that benefits a very large number of people.
"The 47% moment" has been seized upon this afternoon as some grand revelation about Mitt Romney's disdain for moochers and will likely be used to paint him as a kind of Ayn Rand Objectivist, turning his nose up at society's leeches and moochers. That's not the case; if the simplest explanation is the best, it's that Mitt Romney has his facts wrong based on some logical leaps involving the total number of federal income taxpayers.
UPDATE: As pointed out on Twitter, Ronald Reagan once bragged about his tax reform plan that would remove poor people from the income tax rolls. From a 1985 speech:
Another key component of our proposal is to provide America's families with a long overdue break by practically doubling the personal exemption. Indeed, our plan would drop virtually every poor family in America off the tax rolls entirely. And a working family with two or three children would pay less than a 10 percent income tax on its earnings well into the $25,000 to $30,000 range.
And he was right: President Reagan's Tax Reform Act of 1986 increased the personal exemption and standard deduction - measures that completely eliminated the income tax burden of some low-income filers.
Agree with’s Romney’s point but I think there are 2-3 percent who are still the “proud poor” like boxer Jimmie Braddock who took welfare in he Great Depression only until he got work then paid it all vack to th welfare office!
Couldn’t agree more. See my chapter in “What Would the Founders Say?”
That hasn't worked out so well.
Thanks Deacon for giving us 4 more years of DESTRUCTION by Obama.....hope you will be SO proud of yourself.
I hope you are happy when that arrogant pos occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave gets reelected
You forgot...
* The 10% Bracket
* Additional Child Tax Credit
The 10% was GWB's, The ACTC I am not sure, EIC was Reagan. All good intentions, to lift people out of poverty by reducing their tax burden.
No one wants to say it, but tax the Rich? Heck how many are not paying anything that vote and don't have a "stake" in the balancing of the budget or that we are becoming "bread and circus's"..........
"Try being a Republican in Maryland."
'Republican in Maryland', isn't that an oxymoron?!?
You really sound like a 'Maryland Republican!'
Lifting someone out of poverty is something quite different than perpetually enslaving them by letting them become slothful and lazy by subsidizing their bad behavior in return for a Democrat vote.
"Lifting" implies that they eventually should get training, a job, and end up paying taxes instead of consuming them.
On the one hand, we have Romney decrying the FACT that too many are dependent on government largess.
On the other hand, we have Obama claiming “you didn’t build that...”
Anyone see the hypocrisy here?
The 47% are the lower class. The 11% are the upper class. The remaining 42% are the middle class? If that is the case, Obama has really shrunk the middle class while expanding the Antie Zetuni and Uncle Obongo class.
MCB
I agree with Romney about the numbers and have been saying it all along. Sadly, Obama is going to win because those that are on the Govt dole, ALL VOTE. There are over 46 million people getting food stamps and this Government is running ads to get more people; something in the order of $3 million ad campaign to promote the Food Stamps program.
There are 24% of the population that is not eligible to vote by age, 13% that are non-US that can’t vote (unless they live in Chicago) and the 2008 voter turnout was 57% percent. This adds up to more people in the Obama camp, and too many Americans that just don’t care what happens.
This isn’t a “doom and gloom” post, its simple math.... we are going to lose on Nov. 6th unless there’s some huge October surprise.
I agree with Romney about the numbers and have been saying it all along. Sadly, Obama is going to win because those that are on the Govt dole, ALL VOTE. There are over 46 million people getting food stamps and this Government is running ads to get more people; something in the order of $3 million ad campaign to promote the Food Stamps program.
There are 24% of the population that is not eligible to vote by age, 13% that are non-US that can’t vote (unless they live in Chicago) and the 2008 voter turnout was 57% percent. This adds up to more people in the Obama camp, and too many Americans that just don’t care what happens.
This isn’t a “doom and gloom” post, its simple math.... we are going to lose on Nov. 6th unless there’s some huge October surprise.
Romney was dead right.
Its the fleas vs the dog.
I said this on another Post last night and I say it again today. If “You didn’t build that” didn’t sink Obama, this will not sink Romney. Obama is still alive, in the race and polling even with Romney, even after alllllllll of his boneheaded statements and missteps of the last 4 years. THIS TOO SHALL PASS (IN 2 OR 3 DAYS).
a political party that is so flawed it can't beat a failure like obama, has no credibility to continue to exist.
I agree with Laura Ingraham on this
This election is Romney''s to lose. Not anyone else's. If you can't get the dogs to play with the guy after tying a pork chop around his neck, don't blame the dogs.
Many of us will, with sadness trepidation and resignation, try to help this stiff achieve his self-proclaimed lofty goal of getting of getting 50.1% of the vote.
But we can say on this forum that it's creamed spinach and we don't have to act like we are awed by it.
thanks for hating me for who you think I am..your tag is ironic
Post #13 is right on. And don’t forget, folks, Soc. Sec. also is the umbrella for “Disability”. Some folks are truly disabled but many on “Disability” are NOT really disabled. You can get disability for being too overweight to get a job or for being “bi-polar” because of drug abuse in your 20’s and 30’s. The SS umbrella covers more than just old folks. And a lot of people getting SS do NOT vote.
“...I can’t imagine many of us will be voting for Romney.”
What do you mean, ‘us’? You do not speak for me. I am a patriot and am a proud American. A vote against BO is a vote against evil and for preservation of the United States.
the problem is that the media is actively campaigning for Obama. The public does not know nor do they think he’s a failure because the media isn’t telling us the truth. It’s always the fault of the white guy while he “relaxes” and plays basketball, golfs more that a PGA player and parties with hip hop and hollywierd moguls.. The deck is stacked and it’ll get worse before it gets better. It’s has never been about who is correct, it’s always been about who can get 50.1 and it will be like that until the union is dissolved.
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.