When Mother Jones released videos of Presidential candidate Mitt Romney speaking to a small, elite group of donors at a fundraiser, people immediately began forecasting the end of Romney’s presidential hopes.
What was it that was so troubling about Romney’s statements? This section in particular seemed to really stick with people:
[The 47 percent are people] “who are dependent upon government, who believe they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to take care of them, who believe they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you name it.”
Uh-oh.
People quickly called his math into question. That 47% of people who receive government benefits, according to many, includes children and the elderly, too.
David Brooks of The New York Times offers an insightful Op-Ed about the issue, explaining the problems of Romney’s statement:
In 1960, government transfers to individuals totaled $24 billion. By 2010, that total was 100 times as large. Even after adjusting for inflation, entitlement transfers to individuals have grown by more than 700 percent over the last 50 years. This spending surge, Eberstadt notes, has increased faster under Republican administrations than Democratic ones.
There are sensible conclusions to be drawn from these facts. You could say that the entitlement state is growing at an unsustainable rate and will bankrupt the country. You could also say that America is spending way too much on health care for the elderly and way too little on young families and investments in the future.
But these are not the sensible arguments that Mitt Romney made at a fund-raiser earlier this year. Romney, who criticizes President Obama for dividing the nation, divided the nation into two groups: the makers and the moochers.
So who are these moochers that Romney may have offended in that speech?
David Brooks sums it up:
Who are these freeloaders? Is it the Iraq war veteran who goes to the V.A.? Is it the student getting a loan to go to college? Is it the retiree on Social Security or Medicare?
What do you think? Did Mitt Romney misspeak or is this an inside peek to what Romney truly believes?
Watch the Mother Jones Mitt Romney tapes here.
AP Photo
About Joanna Schroeder
I really think this is a turning point in the election. I can feel it with my friends. I don’t think it will change anyone’s vote, whether Democratic or Republican. But there are Democrats, myself included, who were previously respectful to the other side, always saying “the other side makes good points,” just to be civil. When my friends demonized the Republicans, I always made fun of them. I would say something like, “Hey, I know plenty of cool Republicans, who just believe in strong defense, or the free market system. Liberals aren’t perfect either.” But now that I can see how Romney really thinks, I’m not going to just vote Democratic, which I was going to do anyway, but actively work against Romney becoming President. And when something like this happens, energizing the base against a candidate, especially in a close race, it is not good for the one who is the target.
Irony #1: red states tend to receive more federal funding than they pay out in income taxes, while blue states tend to pay more tax than they receive. Many of the people most dependent on the evil federal government are the very same people who vote Republican in the first place. The states with the most outspoken “secession” movements, like Alaska, are the most dependent on the US government anyway.
Irony #2: a candidate may only need about 47% of the vote to become the next president. It could be the magic number.
Irony #3: you don’t get to be part of the wealthiest 1% without quite a bit of government help somewhere down the line. It’s absurd to think that the government is nothing more than the enemy of wealth. That goshdarned big bad government bailed out giant corporate banks and bankrolled some very nice golden parachutes recently. If you’re fabulously wealthy, the government is more your friend than your enemy.
Mitt Romney’s kids didn’t somehow work harder from the womb to have earned the lives they lead. Other people’s kids don’t choose to be born into poverty, to parents who abuse them, in countries torn by war and corruption… you get the idea. We used to call George W. Bush a “post turtle” because he acted like he got to where he was all by himself. Romney comes from wealth and political power. He didn’t haul himself up by his bootstraps.
Irony #4: Mitt Romney didn’t even earn his success, he was born into it and inherited it. Even though he’s convinced that “freeloaders” shouldn’t be given government help.
I’m ot a 1% by a long shot. I am a 53% . You know the one’s who pay income tax. Last year was a wash, I owed the state of NY more that I got back fom the’Feds’ ($240). So, if you add up federal, state, FICA, Medicade deductions along with local property taxes, it comes to about 44% of what I made. That doesn’t include NY sales tax (Almost9%). I’m not looking for a handout, just leave me somemore of what I earn so I din’t have to struggle so much!
What’s really ridiculous is that the 47% pay up to 15% in payroll tax.
Unless they own their business, for any of the employed in the 47%, their boss pays 15% payroll tax on them.
It’s not the phony “1%” that think that way.
It’s the 53% who are sick and tired of carrying the load for the others.
Yea, Gary! Stick it to those freeloading soldiers in Afghanistan! I’m sick of carrying their weight, too! Just like the elderly that are too sick to work, and those lazy-ass premed students. It’s not like anyone but me has paid in to Social Security, or college graduates end up paying more back than we invest! Trying to become a doctor? F*ck you, get a real job! And all these goddamned babies that just march up and demand to be treated on my dime.
To be serious, momentarily, I would like to point out that I do pay taxes, never finished college (yet), plan on opening a small business (hopefully during the next administration), have no kids, and won’t be on SS for another forty years. I’m just sayin’; you should really learn some specifics before writing off half the country because Romney thinks he doesn’t need them to get elected.
Call them freeloaders, that’ll work.
No, I don’t think it will affect Romney’s chances of winning. Most people have already picked their team. In my experience, his supporters are almost gleeful in their disdain for facts and logic. They have a story that sounds good and allows them to feel self-righteous. Many of them, in fact, are among the people who pay no federal income tax. But since they do file a tax return, so they don’t even realize it. Romney’s speech in the video is simply a recitation of that feel-good narrative. His supporters won’t abandon him over it; instead they’ll get to gleefully complain as the Big Bad Liberal Media victimizes them yet again.
Of course, I would love to be proved wrong by forthcoming events.
I think this is coming from an anti-utilitarianism view of ethics/morality. In the viewpoint of Mitt Romney, many republics, and even a couple of the above commenters, doing something for the greater good is never ethically necessary. Giving to charity is a good thing, but you can never be required to do so.
However when the government uses taxpayer money and gives it to the poor, elderly, disabled, single mothers, etc. it is effectively forcing taxpayers to give to charity. Forcing people to use their money in a particular way constitutes a human rights breach, i.e. the right to your own belongings, including cash.
Under this viewpoint that human rights breach is more ethically severe than the suffering of the poor, elderly, disabled, children, etc. You can allow the masses to suffer, but you can’t take the belongings/money of honest people. Goods that serve everyone equally get an exemption usually.
This will undoubtedly harm Mitt Romney, though this will not and can not cost him the presidency by itself. There are many in that 47% who fail to understand how badly Romney might hurt them, and many in that 47% who don’t care, the above sense of ethics is more important than the risk of personal suffering. Many believe they can pull them up by their bootstraps if they earn it.
Really the more abstract idea that Romney hates 47% of the country is more important. The reason for it is probably less important than the simple fact that he called 47% of his constituency, nearly half of the people he will represent as president, he called them “moochers”!
If you don’t help support those who are jobless whilst there is a decent level of unemployment, crime rates will skyrocket. What choice would they have? They can’t work for money so they have to survive somehow….Let that level get high enough and you’ll see a huge revolt against those who do have money, especially when you see sickening levels of wealth for a small %. The gap between the rich n poor is growing from what I’ve seen, even the middle class is eroding away, can society survive whilst a few hold megariches whilst many are starving? When one person has the wealth of 1000′s combined you have to ask yourself wtf is going on, it’s not just a question of working hard but there is something else involved.
People think of it as communism to spread the wealth or at least help the disadvantaged, but what does it say about people if they don’t want to help? Welfare is a necessity but it should be a system like Australia where we at least try to get people working, try educate them, rehabilitate them, get them healthier or able to work in a small amount.
I am long-term unemployed due to a few illnesses, I get welfare but the stipulation of that is I have to prove I am sick. Some people get onto a disability pension but I chose not to, I am on a temporary thing where I have to be with a job provider agency and do an activity test to be eligible for welfare. The one I am with specializes in helping those with illness like mine, they pay for counseling, rehabilitation and training and where I am now is miles ahead of where I was a year ago. I am also investigating starting a business and quite a lot of my welfare money goes towards funding that, I may be able to get onto a program which gives business training and up to a year of welfare to supplement my own income to help me get setup and self-sufficient. They have a lot of success in getting people into the workforce, who without help would probably fail and withdraw. Mine specializes in mental illness (severe anxiety disorders, depression, probably PTSD, etc), but there are others that do physical disability, and some that work for those with a mental handicap finding them work with employers who are especially sensitive to their needs, who will not treat them like shit but will help them do their job with ongoing support.
Throwing someone like me into work straight away resulted in me having a big breakdown and getting far worse in my illness, however this method has helped teach me coping strategies and training me, raising my confidence so that I am far more likely to succeed as others have too.
Welfare shouldn’t be just here you go, come back next week, but it should identify why someone isn’t working, help them overcome the barriers, help them find suitable employment where possible. Not all will be able to work for which I’m happy for them to be supported where possible, as I don’t want to see them just starve, wither away and die. Some people think of me as lazy, but they take for granted going to town, going out as being normal yet for someone like me it’s got me scared shitless, freaking out and having panic attacks, hating my life n feeling worthless. Yet with therapy I am overcoming this and my quality of life is much better, I am one of the more extreme cases though. I am envious of people that can go into a job, be around others, have some confidence and independence without being crippled by fear. People like me want to work but we need help to become healthier so we can work, but I’m sure the ignorant will think I am just enjoying my life at home or think I am having a holiday as some have said, not realizing it’s a prison, not a resort.
Thank you for framing that so clearly. May I use your text if I grant you credit?
I can’t believe anyone honestly thinks that Mitt Romney’s remarks refer to Iraq war veterans or a social safety net in general. That is being willfully dishonest, plain and simple. In case anyone has not noticed, this election is going to be close, closer than 2008. So it will probably come down to a 51-49 or 52-48 vote, and Obama will draw a lot of the entitlement vote, which has been the Democrat model for sometime. Look at the ‘life of Julia’ example. Her existence is due to government and things she can get from it. How do you think someone like that will vote? Democrats court that vote by offering more and more, and to not understand this is to have your hands over your eyes. I agree that it was silly for Romney to say this, but I don’t think it will hurt him. This really isn’t going to change many minds about the man, probably just harden opinions people already have.
He’s referring to the 46.4 (which doesn’t even round to 47) % of the country that paid no Federal income tax in 2010. This includes Iraq war veterans. It includes pensioners who have worked their whole lives. If you say that everyone who didn’t pay income tax is a lazy so-and-so then you are including these people. Moreover, entitlements and tax benefits (allowing someone to not pay income tax) increased far more under presidents Reagan, Bush & Bush than under Carter, Clinton & Obama, so your claim that it’s the democrats who court the vote by offering more and more benefits is also incorrect.
ADDITIONALLY, it’s important to note that even if you didn’t pay federal income tax you probably still paid sales taxes, gas taxes, payroll taxes, etc, so saying that the 47% doesn’t give anything back is ludicrous.
Romney’s sentiment is certainly keeping with the drum beat of a lazy, simplistic, and uninformed viewpoint held at the base of the Republican party. He has failed to move towards the center. He continues to pander to the base for one reason, he has to. They don’t like him all that much and if he starts stepping out and flirting with ideas of income equality, tax increases, and healthcare compromises they will pile on him so hard from within his own party they will be afraid that voters won’t turn out in places like PA, VA, OH.
The reality is that people are dependent on government because wages have failed to keep up with cost of living. People need breaks on loans, taxes, education and healthcare. The very things that every person needs in life have become much more expensive in terms of percentage of income. Things like healthcare, food, housing. Some people can spend 90% or more of their income on these things. Who cares if gas is $3.90 or $3.60 a gallon? Who cares if the DOW JONES is up or down? The real problem is that wages for a large portion of able workers have been so stagnant that entire generations of people are stuck in neutral. People are forced to choose between rent and medicine.
The Republicans rail against moochers, as if the people collecting government welfare are somehow morally corrupt, choosing a life free of responsibility while suckling at the teat of our entitlements. And while there are certainly plenty of those who take advantage, I have a much bigger concern for the 100 or so financial leaders who have ripped off our government for billions after losing everyone’s money in the first place. Where is the moral outrage on them? Are the moochers wrecking us? Or the giant corporate thieves?
I am a British man married to an American here in the UK but I am afraid that your guy MITT ROMNEY is an idiot does he really believe that through your Strength you can be better well good luck with being stronger than China, Russia and others Romney you think the world hates you now well if you keep this up then they will be forming a Que to have a go at you because they think you are bullies. Oh and by the way you have a problem with being stronger than China because you owe them billions if not more and I am afraid you wasn’t stronger in Korea so you chances now are zero
The Palestinians will love him the mans a fool “the Palestinians have no interest whatsoever in establishing peace” So that’s one country that is upset and he isn’t in office yet.
Finally I am afraid according to Romney “47 percent of Americans who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it and according to Mr Romney his job is not to worry about those people. Well I am afraid Mr Romney as President that is your job and they are entitled to everything you say they are not on these grounds
1. Not all of them were always not paying taxes people such as you put them out of work.
2. Some of them have disabilities so come on you mean they don’t deserve anything?
3. Your veterans are such they deserve something because they are like they are because they served their country
I am afraid the story I am getting from the USA is very simple and that is Mitt Romney doesn’t care about 47% of America, he believes that the USA have to be bigger and stronger to bully others and he believe that the Palestinians are warmongers who don’t deserve anything. Oh and by the way if 47% of the USA didn’t pay Tax then you would owe a lot more money than you do now.
As a British guy I believe Obama is trying to get in touch with the rest of the world and is trying to ensure that the poor will get health care and don’t die because they have no Money.
Is dependency on government spending( both in terms of individual recipients, and in terms of the economy as a whole) a good, or even a merely benign thing in a republic? Is it, should it be, acceptable, for a large percentage of citizens of a republic not to have any ‘skin in the game’ because they pay no taxes?
Can these issues even be raised?
See my previous comment:
“ADDITIONALLY, it’s important to note that even if you didn’t pay federal income tax you probably still paid sales taxes, gas taxes, payroll taxes, etc, so saying that the 47% doesn’t give anything back is ludicrous.”
They do pay taxes, just not one specific tax.
Contempt for the poor has been a standard Republican attitude for quite some time now. It’s widely shared by many Republicans–interestingly, even by those who are poor themselves!
If you’ve got a good media-and-marketing machine, you can convince people to vote for just about anything, including their own destruction.