Romney quote about Obama voters

[KBScobravert]

I saw it on the news yesterday and thought it was spot on. I don't see anything wrong with him saying it either

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I727 using Tapatalk 2

[Geor!]

If this motherfucker wins reelection, I'm going to Mexico. Matamoros, boys. The home of the glorious donkey show!

[SS Junk]

I saw it on the news yesterday and thought it was spot on. I don't see anything wrong with him saying it either

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I727 using Tapatalk 2

I have read liberals now stating the 47% Romney is referring to "half of that figure being Republicans and now Romney has pretty much shot himself in the foot..."
Oh dear.

[talisman]

COSTA MESA, Calif.—Mitt Romney stood by his comments captured on a hidden camera at a closed-door fundraiser earlier this year in which he called supporters of President Barack Obama "victims" and said they are reliant on government handouts.

In a hastily arranged news conference Monday night, he called his words "off the cuff" and "not elegantly stated," but given several opportunities to back off the comments, he did not.

Romney said he was merely talking about the "political process of drawing people into my own campaign." He described the incident as a "snippet of a question and answer session" and called on the full video to be released to show the question and his response in its full context.

Asked if he was worried that he had offended the 47 percent of people he mentioned in the statement, Romney did not back off his remarks.

"It's not elegantly stated, let me put it that way," Romney said. "I'm speaking off the cuff in response to a question, and I'm sure I can state it more clearly in a more effective way than I did in a setting like that and so I'm sure I'll point that out as time goes on."

But, he added, "It's a message which I am going to carry and continue to carry."

Still, Romney ignored a question about whether he really believes what he was saying. Asked if his words were reflective of his "core convictions," Romney simply walked away.

Romney's remarks came hours after Mother Jones magazine posted a video shot from inside a fundraiser in Boca Raton, Fla., in May, which immediately went viral. Romney, who was headlining a fundraiser here, delayed his appearance to comment on the video to his traveling press corps in hopes of quelling the controversy over his remarks.

Speaking from a conference room inside a performing arts center here, Romney walked to the podium wearing a smile and sounded intentionally upbeat as he read from notes.

Asked what he meant by the word "victims," Romney cast his remarks as simply accentuating the differences between his campaign and Obama's.
"My campaign is about helping people take more responsibility and becoming employed again, particularly those who don't have work," Romney said. "His whole campaign is based on getting people jobs again, putting people back to work. This is ultimately a question about direction for the country. Do you believe in a government-centered society that provides more and more benefits or do you believe instead in a free enterprise society where people are able to pursue their dreams?"

[bcoop]

THIS is the statement that makes me a Romney supporter. That, and he isn't shying away from what he said. He has a spine and says what we're all thinking.

The comment he made, made me gain a little respect for him, I must admit. But I didn't have much to begin with.



And of course the media is demonizing him over it, saying it shows his true character. Well, fuck me! If that's his true character, I'm all for it. It's the sad fucking truth.

[CJ]

I'm half wondering if this may have been a planned leak. Either way, I don't see how this is going to hurt him at all. The media is just trying to energize their base (see what I did there) by bringing this to light. But the truth is it's only going to strengthen his position and the right base. If you're voting for Romney it's because you want a better economy, a smaller government, and less spending - And everything that he said backs and reinforces that. I don't see how he would lose any votes by those comments, only gain some that were on the fence. You win elections by identifying your supporters and issues, and then catering to them. That's all this is. Doubling down on the comments was completely logical.

[Rlhay2]

Is 47% of the population truly receiving government assistance?

[CJ]

Is 47% of the population truly receiving government assistance?

That is the purported number. I believe that includes SSI retirement/disability as well as welfare, food stamps, etc. The baby boomers are retiring now so that's only going to increase over the next decade. The majority of the population will be on government assistance within the decade, and statistically that is the point at which a country slides into socialism. Tyranny = establish dependency, leverage dependency.

[Vertnut]

Is 47% of the population truly receiving government assistance?

Considering all types (welfare, medicaid, medicare, etc.) it's really close to that.

Yahoo has a poll running concerning his "gaffe". 48% says it helps them want to vote for him, 24% says it helps them NOT vote for him, and 28% says it has no effect on how they feel about him.

[Strychnine]

Is 47% of the population truly receiving government assistance?

WSJ analysis: http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2012/0...ents/?mod=e2tw

September 18, 2012, 10:59 AM.The Data Behind Romney’s 47% Comments.

In his comments to fundraisers captured on video, Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney said 47% of Americans would almost automatically vote for President Barack Obama because they were “dependent” on the government, in part because they received government benefits and paid no federal income taxes.

In a press conference late Monday, Mr. Romney said his comments were “not elegantly stated” while at the same time reiterating the main point. Our translation: If you don’t pay federal income taxes, you may not be swayed by a candidate that wants to cut them.

Here’s a rundown of the data behind Mr. Romney’s argument, some of which he correctly stated and other parts of which don’t hold up so well.


Entitlements:

According to the Census Bureau, 49% of Americans in the second quarter of 2011 lived in a household where at least one member received a government benefit. (The total population at the time was 305 million).

That’s up from 30% in the 1980s and 44.4% in the third quarter of 2008, a recent growth in part attributable to the bad economy of President Obama’s first term.

The Census Bureau broke the data down like this:

26.4% of U.S. households had someone enrolled in Medicaid (the health-care program for low-income Americans)
16.2% of households had at least one member receiving Social Security.
15.8% lived in a household receiving food stamps
14.9% had a member with Medicare benefits
4.5% of households received assistance with their rent
1.7% had a member receiving unemployment benefits.

The large majority of Medicare and Social Security recipients have paid payroll taxes in many cases for decades to qualify for those benefits.

There can be a lot of overlap in which programs benefit certain households. For example, millions of people receiving Social Security benefits also receive Medicare health benefits. Many Americans covered by Medicaid are also receiving food stamp benefits.

Mr. Romney implied that anyone receiving government benefits wouldn’t likely be one of his voters. But there’s no clear partisan split among beneficiaries, especially for broad-based federal retirement and health-care programs.


Taxes:

Mr. Romney correctly noted that nearly half of Americans pay no federal income tax. Who are all these people? And how did we get here?

Here’s a quick answer. Roughly half of U.S. households that pay no federal income tax are exempted because of basic provisions such as limitations on tax for low-income earners, according to a 2011 study by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center. The other half benefit from targeted breaks (known to tax geeks as “tax expenditures”), such as assistance for the working poor and for children in moderate-income families. Seniors also benefit from some of these targeted breaks.

To analyze which breaks are most important in moving people off the income-tax rolls, the TPC study arranged these tax expenditures into eight categories:

Elderly tax benefits (the extra standard deduction for the elderly, the exclusion of a portion of Social Security benefits, and the credit for the elderly);
Credits for children and the working poor (the child tax credit, the child and dependent care tax credit, and the Earned Income Tax Credit);
Exclusion of other cash transfers (such as welfare and disability payments);
Tax-exempt interest and some other deductions, such as for retirement savings;
Itemized deductions;
Education credits;
Other credits; and
Reduced rates on capital gains and dividends (zero rate on gains and dividends that would otherwise be taxed at 10% or 15%, 15% rate combined with credits).

The TPC found that of the 38 million households that are made nontaxable by tax expenditures, “44% are moved off the tax rolls by elderly tax benefits and another 30% by credits for children and the working poor.”

So how did we get to the point where almost half of American households pay no income tax? Since the 1970s, Congress and successive presidents have begun creating more and more tax breaks to benefit broad swaths of the population (and some very narrow gauges too). Democrats generally have been more supportive of the particular breaks that push people off the income-tax rolls, but Republicans have supported a few too, and they also have pushed breaks that benefit higher-income people.

The basic exemptions for very low-income people have been around for a while and are pretty non-controversial. Many of the breaks that benefit the elderly also have been supported by members of both parties, who realize older Americans are among the most consistent voters. Breaks for military personnel – such as the exemption for combat pay – also are widely popular.

The real partisan division has come over the growing number of other breaks, particularly those for children and for the working poor. Democrats in the 1970s pushed through the first and still arguably the most important of these, the Earned Income Tax Credit. Essentially, it’s an income supplement for the working poor, and can provide several thousand dollars in extra cash each year for a typical eligible family.

Over the years it’s been significantly expanded, most recently in the 2009 stimulus bill. While Republicans generally have been supportive of the EITC in practice, they have opposed several of the expansions and also are concerned about relatively high levels of erroneous payments under the highly complex EITC rules.

Conservatives tend to focus on the number of people not paying federal income taxes to make a case about the state of American democracy. For example: If half the country has no financial stake in decisions made in Washington, they’ll inevitably end up supporting expensive federal policies. And the burden will fall on everyone else. (That tends to overlook the fact that nearly two-thirds of households that paid no income tax still paid payroll tax, according to the Tax Policy Center.)

Republicans, however, did help push through another big break—the child credit. It’s been aimed at helping moderate-income families, including one-earner couples, afford to have kids. Like the EITC, it’s a “refundable” credit – meaning that it is paid to eligible taxpayers even when their tax liability has been erased. Democrats have pushed to make it more broadly available to lower-income people, often over GOP objections.

[bcoop]

The number I saw was that 49% of American households are receiving at LEAST one form of govt assistance/aid.



That's fucking pathetic.

[CJ]

The number I saw was that 49% of American households are receiving at LEAST one form of govt assistance/aid.



That's fucking pathetic.

Once the voting majority takes the lead, we're in deep fucking shit. That's why this election is absolutely essential. The democrats are right on the cusp of tipping the scale to socialism. You will lose your freedoms if that happens, every 10 years you can right on a chalkboard what freedoms you have lost. If we're not careful, Reagan's dim prediction that we'll be on the porch one day in our old age explaining to our grandchildren what it was once like to be free.

[talisman]

The number I saw was that 49% of American households are receiving at LEAST one form of govt assistance/aid.



That's fucking pathetic.

It's pretty staggeringly insane.

[Dlachance]

I'm half wondering if this may have been a planned leak. Either way, I don't see how this is going to hurt him at all. The media is just trying to energize their base (see what I did there) by bringing this to light. But the truth is it's only going to strengthen his position and the right base. If you're voting for Romney it's because you want a better economy, a smaller government, and less spending - And everything that he said backs and reinforces that. I don't see how he would lose any votes by those comments, only gain some that were on the fence. You win elections by identifying your supporters and issues, and then catering to them. That's all this is. Doubling down on the comments was completely logical.

The media leaked this in the moment when Romney is suppossed to stsrt a series of appearences attempting to clarify his stances. How convient that now all the media will be buzzing about this instead of what matters.
This media sucks a giant black cockasarous rex.

[BERNIE MOSFET]

Is 47% of the population truly receiving government assistance?

Romney:

"There are 47% of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47% 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. ...

"He starts off with a huge number. These are people who pay no income tax. Forty-seven percent of Americans pay no income tax. So our message of low taxes doesn't connect. So he'll [Obama?] be out there talking about tax cuts for the rich. I mean, that's what they sell every four years. And so my job is not to worry about those people. I'll never convince them that they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives."

His message equates the 47% that don't pay federal income taxes with the 49% or so that are on the dole, and I don't think it's a good talking point for him. Republican platform has traditionally been about cutting taxes. If he's not careful with his clarification, this can be interpreted as intent to eliminate tax breaks.

I don't give a fuck about 47% of Americans not paying income tax when congress is blowing our budget by $trillions. People not paying in is not the problem.