On September 19 2012 05:01 jdseemoreglass wrote: "People who pay no income taxes aren't going to be persuaded by lower tax rates." Seems like absolute common sense to me. Sure, maybe the percentage who won't care is exaggerated, but that's not the point. I'm honestly baffled why people would think such an obvious idea is so controversial.
Because that's not what he said. Anyone who can do simple math can see that if Obama is currently polling at 47-49% and Romney says that 47% of the country is people that will not vote for him because they feel entitled to benefits and mooch off the federal government (which flat out isn't true, by the way, plenty of the people that have negative contribution to the government are voting for Romney), then he is saying 96-100% of Democrats are entitled moochers. Heck, he's even saying that believing there's a right to healthcare like the rest of the civilized Western world makes you a person with no sense of responsibility.
This is personally insulting to a lot of people. My parents are not entitled moochers. My professors are not entitled moochers.
Pretty sure he's going to jump on the Gingrich train of complaining about the media misrepresenting him without answering the substance of the charges, too.
On September 19 2012 05:01 jdseemoreglass wrote: "People who pay no income taxes aren't going to be persuaded by lower tax rates." Seems like absolute common sense to me. Sure, maybe the percentage who won't care is exaggerated, but that's not the point. I'm honestly baffled why people would think such an obvious idea is so controversial.
I think the candid manner in which he simply brushes aside what he believes to be 47% of the population as unimportant to him or his campaign is the problem.
The off hand remarks about being unfortunate that his parents weren't mexican impacting his appeal to latino voters is pretty short sighted as well.
He says a number of things that are really quite negative.
I know that people who pay no income tax wont be persuaded by lower tax rates, but to imply that this same population wants things handed to them for free without any effort on their part in the same 1 minute span is bad.
Believes that there is no hope for peace in the middle east, that he just wants to kick a ball down the field and see where it lands is very pessimistic and a terrible attitude from a president should he be elected. He outright ignored a plan for peace given to him because he just doesnt want to hear about middle eastern peace.
To recap: why Mitt Romney's leaked video should disqualify him for presidency:
1) He declares (incorrectly) that 47% of the people that vote for Obama and are part of an entitlement culture that does not pay income tax, and will never take personal responsibility for their lives. While 47% don't pay income taxes, a huge percentage of those people pay payroll taxes, are retired, or are students.
For example, Andrew Sullivan, a conservative blogger that employs five people, falls into this category of 47%. A person that may have worked and paid taxes for 35 years, but is now retired and relies on social security as their only source of income, is part of the 47%.
2) He openly admits he does not have the leadership skills or the will to mobilize these 47% to take responsiblity for their lives. Despite claiming they are a huge drag on the economy, he declares he is incapable of motivating them.
3) He declares not just healthcare as an 'entitlement', but also food and housing. This is actually a very extreme position. I can think of any other Republican candidate declaring 'food' as anything other than a basic necessity for a prosperous society.
4) He tacitly admits he believes the country and economy is FINE THE WAY IT IS. That the economy isn't the problem, it's the 47% that need to pull up their bootstraps. He even says that the economy will improve on its own, without new policy.
Until now, the campaign has featured a sharp divide over policy prescriptions but not so much over descriptions of the state of play. Romney has sought to hand Obama responsibility for a bleak economy. Obama has argued that Romney would take us back to worse. But the basic inadequacy of economic opportunity has not been challenged.
But what Romney just got caught saying on video is that everything is pretty much fine. If it's not fine for you and your family, that's your own whiny fault. Publicly, he blames Obama for monkey-wrenching free enterprise, as if it's the president's fault that the economy is such a mess. Privately -- in front of people who own yachts and humidors -- he blames those who are not doing well for their own struggles.
5) His crisis and management is abysmal. Think of all the unforced errors, the general dysfunction of his campaign the past two weeks, and how Romney himself has responded. This is not good leadership. This a man that is running around with his head cut off.
The closest analogue or peer for Romney isn't Palin, or George W. Bush, or Reagan. It's Michael Brown, the FEMA director during the Katrina disaster, who was appointed to the position despite having no emergency management experience.
It's obvious from this video that Romney is better suited as an anonymous business leader managing assets for other anonymous business leader. He would also be a great Commissioner of the International Arabian Horse Association, just as Michael Brown was. But he obviously sucks at being a politician -- and being a reasonably competent politician is basically the mininum requirement for the most powerful leadership position in the world.
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 they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you name it…These are people who pay no income tax, 47% of Americans pay no income tax. So our message of low taxes doesn’t connect. So he’ll (President 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. What I have to do is convince the five to ten percent in the center that are independents, that are thoughtful, that look at voting one or the other depending upon in some cases emotion, whether they like the guy or not.
Here's the quote. If you can't understand why some people might be a bit upset at this comment I don't know what to say.
On September 19 2012 05:01 jdseemoreglass wrote: "People who pay no income taxes aren't going to be persuaded by lower tax rates." Seems like absolute common sense to me. Sure, maybe the percentage who won't care is exaggerated, but that's not the point. I'm honestly baffled why people would think such an obvious idea is so controversial.
I think the candid manner in which he simply brushes aside what he believes to be 47% of the population as unimportant to him or his campaign is the problem.
The off hand remarks about being unfortunate that his parents weren't mexican impacting his appeal to latino voters is pretty short sighted as well.
He says a number of things that are really quite negative.
I know that people who pay no income tax wont be persuaded by lower tax rates, but to imply that this same population wants things handed to them for free without any effort on their part in the same 1 minute span is bad.
I think that a little much is being made of the significance of the 47% comments. Was it helpful? Of course not. Is it harmful? Possibly at the margins, and probably only short term. Hopefully Romney will use this as an opportunity to take the gloves off and throw out some meaty policy for people to chew on.
Believes that there is no hope for peace in the middle east, that he just wants to kick a ball down the field and see where it lands is very pessimistic and a terrible attitude from a president should he be elected. He outright ignored a plan for peace given to him because he just doesnt want to hear about middle eastern peace.
How can these things not be controversial?
I realize that Romney's Middle East comments are controversial, but I'm glad that he made them. He's absolutely right that the Palestinians aren't interested in peace (not that I blame them), and I'm tired of US leaders dancing around the obvious. It's time for a little realism to be reintroduced to our foreign policy to replace bullshit such as "the attacks in Libya were totally spontaneous." If we can't even acknowledge that there's a problem, we're really fucked.
On September 19 2012 05:01 jdseemoreglass wrote: "People who pay no income taxes aren't going to be persuaded by lower tax rates." Seems like absolute common sense to me. Sure, maybe the percentage who won't care is exaggerated, but that's not the point. I'm honestly baffled why people would think such an obvious idea is so controversial.
I think the candid manner in which he simply brushes aside what he believes to be 47% of the population as unimportant to him or his campaign is the problem.
The off hand remarks about being unfortunate that his parents weren't mexican impacting his appeal to latino voters is pretty short sighted as well.
He says a number of things that are really quite negative.
I know that people who pay no income tax wont be persuaded by lower tax rates, but to imply that this same population wants things handed to them for free without any effort on their part in the same 1 minute span is bad.
I think that a little much is being made of the significance of the 47% comments. Was it helpful? Of course not. Is it harmful? Possibly at the margins, and probably only short term. Hopefully Romney will use this as an opportunity to take the gloves off and throw out some meaty policy for people to chew on.
7 weeks to go.
Romney just lost another 2-4 days, possibly the entire rest of the week to a (for him) negative newscycle in a race that favors Obama at this point. It is a big deal, even leaving aside the content of the message, which makes it an even bigger deal in a soundbite election.
On September 19 2012 05:01 jdseemoreglass wrote: "People who pay no income taxes aren't going to be persuaded by lower tax rates." Seems like absolute common sense to me. Sure, maybe the percentage who won't care is exaggerated, but that's not the point. I'm honestly baffled why people would think such an obvious idea is so controversial.
I think the candid manner in which he simply brushes aside what he believes to be 47% of the population as unimportant to him or his campaign is the problem.
The off hand remarks about being unfortunate that his parents weren't mexican impacting his appeal to latino voters is pretty short sighted as well.
He says a number of things that are really quite negative.
I know that people who pay no income tax wont be persuaded by lower tax rates, but to imply that this same population wants things handed to them for free without any effort on their part in the same 1 minute span is bad.
I think that a little much is being made of the significance of the 47% comments. Was it helpful? Of course not. Is it harmful? Possibly at the margins, and probably only short term. Hopefully Romney will use this as an opportunity to take the gloves off and throw out some meaty policy for people to chew on.
7 weeks to go.
Romney just lost another 2-4 days, possibly the entire rest of the week to a (for him) negative newscycle in a race that favors Obama at this point. It is a big deal, even leaving aside the content of the message, which makes it an even bigger deal in a soundbite election.
True, Romney did lose another 2-4 days, but he probably just needs to tread water until the debates begin (albeit the 47% comments isn't treading water). As mentioned previously, I firmly believe that Romney's position is better than polls currently reflect. Romney's ad blitz hasn't even really begun yet. He'll be fine.
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 they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you name it…These are people who pay no income tax, 47% of Americans pay no income tax. So our message of low taxes doesn’t connect. So he’ll (President 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. What I have to do is convince the five to ten percent in the center that are independents, that are thoughtful, that look at voting one or the other depending upon in some cases emotion, whether they like the guy or not.
Here's the quote. If you can't understand why some people might be a bit upset at this comment I don't know what to say.
I understand why Democrats would be upset about it, obviously. Which explains I guess why the media would be upset. But I don't see anything wrong with the quote. He's talking some very, very basic political strategy that has been known and used for a long time. "Some people will vote for Obama no matter what I do or say so there's no point fighting for that vote." It's been common practice for decades for people to pander to the base during nomination, and then to pander to the center moderates and swing voters during the election. Is it the entitlement statement? But people do think they are entitled to have all those things given to them, and those people don't vote Republican. I honestly don't see the big deal.
How can anyone running for President say that almost half of the people in the country that he wants to lead are insignificant. Im sorry but i think a president should do more then cater to the 50.1% that voted for him.
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 they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you name it…These are people who pay no income tax, 47% of Americans pay no income tax. So our message of low taxes doesn’t connect. So he’ll (President 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. What I have to do is convince the five to ten percent in the center that are independents, that are thoughtful, that look at voting one or the other depending upon in some cases emotion, whether they like the guy or not.
Here's the quote. If you can't understand why some people might be a bit upset at this comment I don't know what to say.
I understand why Democrats would be upset about it, obviously. Which explains I guess why the media would be upset. But I don't see anything wrong with the quote. He's talking some very, very basic political strategy that has been known and used for a long time. "Some people will vote for Obama no matter what I do or say so there's no point fighting for that vote." It's been common practice for decades for people to pander to the base during nomination, and then to pander to the center moderates and swing voters during the election. Is it the entitlement statement? But people do think they are entitled to have all those things given to them, and those people don't vote Republican. I honestly don't see the big deal.
Me either. Obama supporter's get offended. Still vote for Obama, nothing is changing there.
On September 19 2012 05:19 xDaunt wrote: I think that a little much is being made of the significance of the 47% comments. Was it helpful? Of course not. Is it harmful? Possibly at the margins, and probably only short term. Hopefully Romney will use this as an opportunity to take the gloves off and throw out some meaty policy for people to chew on.
On September 19 2012 05:19 xDaunt wrote: I think that a little much is being made of the significance of the 47% comments. Was it helpful? Of course not. Is it harmful? Possibly at the margins, and probably only short term. Hopefully Romney will use this as an opportunity to take the gloves off and throw out some meaty policy for people to chew on.
Like all the meaty policies he's detailed so far?
To be fair, I don't think Obama's put out any meaty plans of his own. If he has, let me know - I'd love to know what he'd do with another 4 years.
On September 19 2012 05:47 Gorsameth wrote: How can anyone running for President say that almost half of the people in the country that he wants to lead are insignificant. Im sorry but i think a president should do more then cater to the 50.1% that voted for him.
On September 19 2012 05:47 Gorsameth wrote: How can anyone running for President say that almost half of the people in the country that he wants to lead are insignificant. Im sorry but i think a president should do more then cater to the 50.1% that voted for him.
You can't give everybody everything.
Ofcourse you can't but there is a different between trying to do the best for everyone and flat out dismissing 47% of your country as useless bags of meat.
On September 19 2012 05:47 Gorsameth wrote: How can anyone running for President say that almost half of the people in the country that he wants to lead are insignificant. Im sorry but i think a president should do more then cater to the 50.1% that voted for him.
You can't give everybody everything.
Ofcourse you can't but there is a different between trying to do the best for everyone and flat out dismissing 47% of your country as useless bags of meat.
That's not what he did. He said it's a waste to fight for the vote of people who are already decided. How do you read that as "half the country is insignificant"?
Come on people, do you think Obama is fighting for the Tea Party vote? Should he? Does that mean he dismisses them as insignificant citizens? This stuff is very basic.
On September 19 2012 05:47 Gorsameth wrote: How can anyone running for President say that almost half of the people in the country that he wants to lead are insignificant. Im sorry but i think a president should do more then cater to the 50.1% that voted for him.
You can't give everybody everything.
Ofcourse you can't but there is a different between trying to do the best for everyone and flat out dismissing 47% of your country as useless bags of meat.
That's not what he did. He said it's a waste to fight for the vote of people who are already decided. How do you read that as "half the country is insignificant"?
Come on people, do you think Obama is fighting for the Tea Party vote? Should he? Does that mean he dismisses them as insignificant citizens? This stuff is very basic.
I actually honestly believe that Romney doesn't care about me if he got elected, and I pay taxes, so why should those that don't think that? He just doesn't seem to have a grasp on the reality that is America today, and that truly scares me.
Look I don't think it's just this quote that is making people feel this way, it's him in general. Yes I understand he's not going for their vote, but the way in which he dismisses them makes people worried. Also, it's basically absolutely untrue that 47% of the country is solely dependent on the government and are begging for hand outs.
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 they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you name it…These are people who pay no income tax, 47% of Americans pay no income tax. So our message of low taxes doesn’t connect. So he’ll (President 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. What I have to do is convince the five to ten percent in the center that are independents, that are thoughtful, that look at voting one or the other depending upon in some cases emotion, whether they like the guy or not.
Here's the quote. If you can't understand why some people might be a bit upset at this comment I don't know what to say.
I understand why Democrats would be upset about it, obviously. Which explains I guess why the media would be upset. But I don't see anything wrong with the quote. He's talking some very, very basic political strategy that has been known and used for a long time. "Some people will vote for Obama no matter what I do or say so there's no point fighting for that vote." It's been common practice for decades for people to pander to the base during nomination, and then to pander to the center moderates and swing voters during the election. Is it the entitlement statement? But people do think they are entitled to have all those things given to them, and those people don't vote Republican. I honestly don't see the big deal.
It's this part that he threw in that goes beyond politicking that is offensive.
I’ll never convince them that they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives.
There's also another quote in the extended video where he implies that everyone born in America is born with 'a silver spoon'. It directly contradicts his narrative that Obama's policies and regulations are the reason the economy is so poor, and puts the fault on individuals. That's not a bad thing, but it's hypocritical.
On September 19 2012 05:19 xDaunt wrote: ... I think that a little much is being made of the significance of the 47% comments. Was it helpful? Of course not. Is it harmful? Possibly at the margins, and probably only short term. Hopefully Romney will use this as an opportunity to take the gloves off and throw out some meaty policy for people to chew on. ...
By whom? I mean...the GOP kinda built their whole convention around "You didn't build that," so calling 47% of the nation entitled, victimized dependents not worth pandering to seems significant (relatively).
And that's taken in context, on video, and using the same wording.
On September 19 2012 05:47 Gorsameth wrote: How can anyone running for President say that almost half of the people in the country that he wants to lead are insignificant. Im sorry but i think a president should do more then cater to the 50.1% that voted for him.
You can't give everybody everything.
Ofcourse you can't but there is a different between trying to do the best for everyone and flat out dismissing 47% of your country as useless bags of meat.
That's not what he did. He said it's a waste to fight for the vote of people who are already decided. How do you read that as "half the country is insignificant"?
Come on people, do you think Obama is fighting for the Tea Party vote? Should he? Does that mean he dismisses them as insignificant citizens? This stuff is very basic.
This reminded me. I realize the Non-Payers by State image was posted earlier, but no one juxtaposed that one with polling data by state, which had been my first thought after seeing it. So, in case anyone reading wasn't already acutely aware, here's how we supposedly stand today. (source)
The interesting thing about what Romney said is that he didn't just say that 47% of Americans will vote for Obama no matter what -- it's that he also insulted a significant portion of his own base.
Or maybe they aren't significant. I never know what's going to come out of this Romney guy next.
On September 19 2012 05:47 Gorsameth wrote: How can anyone running for President say that almost half of the people in the country that he wants to lead are insignificant. Im sorry but i think a president should do more then cater to the 50.1% that voted for him.
You can't give everybody everything.
Ofcourse you can't but there is a different between trying to do the best for everyone and flat out dismissing 47% of your country as useless bags of meat.
That's not what he did. He said it's a waste to fight for the vote of people who are already decided. How do you read that as "half the country is insignificant"?
Come on people, do you think Obama is fighting for the Tea Party vote? Should he? Does that mean he dismisses them as insignificant citizens? This stuff is very basic.
I actually honestly believe that Romney doesn't care about me if he got elected, and I pay taxes, so why should those that don't think that? He just doesn't seem to have a grasp on the reality that is America today, and that truly scares me.
Look I don't think it's just this quote that is making people feel this way, it's him in general. Yes I understand he's not going for their vote, but the way in which he dismisses them makes people worried. Also, it's basically absolutely untrue that 47% of the country is solely dependent on the government and are begging for hand outs.
I actually honestly believe that Obama doesn't care about anybody, just their votes. The same could be said about Romney to be honest, but unfortunately we are stuck between choosing between a Turd Sandwich and a Giant Douche.
EPT
![[image loading]](http://taxfoundation.org/sites/taxfoundation.org/files/UserFiles/Image/Fiscal%20Facts/20100524-229-nonpayers-map-.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://electoral-vote.com/evp2012/Pres/Pngs/Sep18.png)
