Media Criticism, Political Commentary

Romney’s Latest “Gaffe”

56 Comments

Like many, I can’t figure out what was so terrible about Romney speaking the truth about the mooching class. Most of them don’t even vote (fortunately).

[Update a while later]

More crazy talk from Mitt Romney:

Concluding that the Palestinians remain “committed to the destruction and elimination of Israel,” the US presidential candidate endorsed a strategy of maintaining the status quo. “You move things along the best way you can,” he said. “You hope for some degree of stability, but you recognize that this is going to remain an unsolved problem.”

As long as we’re releasing video of candid candidates, I’m still curious to know what the LA Times is hiding about Khalidi’s birthday party. Perhaps a toast to the “destruction and elimination of Israel”?

56 thoughts on “Romney’s Latest “Gaffe””

  1. Yeah Rand, the Mooching Class.

    Consider old people, those drawing Social Security and getting their never-ending health expenses paid by Medicare, who will be drawing Medicaid once they move into a nursing home. How they just move in and “take over” entire neighborhoods. I mean they are grey haired and wrinkled, many of them are fat, and the one’s who aren’t have this sickly thin look to them, who wants to be around them?

    And they have “an attitude” to them, the the world owes them something for this “Greatest Generation” business.

    Hate to admit this, but when I am out by myself and see one of them walking towards me, I cross over to the other side of the street, because you never know.

    1. I’m 55 and have worked for almost 40 years. In each and every one of those years, I not only paid income taxes but also payroll taxes (SS and Medicare). Tens of millions of people are exactly like me. I would’ve loved to have been able to keep and invest those tens of thousands of dollars withheld from my pay but I had no choice in the matter. Should I draw SS, I’ll still have to pay income taxes because I saved and invested as if SS wouldn’t be there, so I’ll have other retirement income. That’s a far cry from “The Life of Julia” cradle to grave government dependency that Obama’s Party of Parasites promotes.

  3. Per this chart, two-thirds of those who don’t pay income taxes do pay payroll taxes. That means they work but don’t make a lot of money.

    The people who don’t pay income tax are either retired, students with a part-time job, or those with low-paying jobs. They work, and most of them vote, and they all got thrown under the bus by Romney.

      1. Yeah, and I’m thinking all those folks that showed up at Chick-fil-a that got thrown under Obama’s Gay Wedding Bus won’t be giving a sh*t about this one, so we can cross retirees off Corky’s list, and the rest are firmly Dem base anyway, so…

        (Paul M. didn’t exactly say he was switching his vote, either…)

    2. And what percentage of those people who pay no income tax get a refund under the Earned Income Tax Credit? Depending on family size and income, that EITC payment can easily rebate everything they paid in SS/Medicare taxes. For example, if their gross income was $18,000, they paid $1377 in SS/Medicare taxes. If they have one child, their EITC payment would likely offset all of their payroll taxes.

      1. If somebody is trying to raise a child on $18,000 a year, I’ll be glad to refund them their SS/Medicare.

        You wonder why people think libertarians are heartless bastards, then you suggest that somebody under the poverty line should have to pay taxes so a multimillionaire can get a tax cut.

        1. Only a moron honestly believes that raising tax rates on people who’re already paying a grossly disproportionate percentage of the taxes will solve the problems of the budget or poverty. I guess that describes you.

          It’s the spending, stupid! No amount of increased revenues will be enough if spending keeps growing out of control.

          History shows that increasing tax rates never increases revenue by the amount predicted and in fact often decreases revenues. Insanity is said to be doing the same thing over and over while expecting a different outcome. Raising tax rates on “the rich” has been tried many times and in many places and continues to fail, yet Democrats and morons (but I repeat myself) keep wanting to do it again.

        2. You wonder why people think libertarians are heartless bastards, then you suggest that somebody under the poverty line should have to pay taxes so a multimillionaire can get a tax cut.

          Did a libertarian suggest that?

          Most libertarians want a lot less government, and therefore oddly enough a lot less taxes, period.

          I’m not sure I’ve ever seen one suggest that poor people should be taxed more, though I’ve seen plenty of them suggest either a flat tax with a floor or keeping progressive taxation more or less as it stands…

          Probably one of them has suggested that, I suppose

          The way you act like it’s libertarian doctrine is utterly baseless, however.

        3. Why did this person decide to try to raise a kid on $18,000 a year?

          Why should you have your money stolen to pay for that choice?

        4. If somebody is trying to raise a child on $18,000 a year

          I have a friend of mine that has a ranch with over 1000 head of cattle not owned by the bank (as is his brother’s case.) He had three children. He and his wife made a decision to have a fourth.

          With rare exception, having children is a decision. It is an adult responsibility. Anyone in poverty should improve their finances before making the adult decision to have any children.

          Penalizing other people because of a stupid decision is never right. Before I could bring my wife over from Sevastopol on a fiance visa I had to prove to the government that I was financial responsible which at the time meant a decent job which I had.

          You only look at part of the story when you cry about somebody in poverty suffering hardship and call the rest of us heartless bastards.

          How dare you. It breaks a persons heart to see the suffering that happens because people make bad decisions and you want to reward those bad decisions. Rewarding bad decisions is the heartless act.

      2. A family of 4 with income of $45,000 still doesn’t owe income tax because the standard deduction, per-person exemption, Child Tax Credit and EITC wipe out their tax bill. But they do still pay 13% of their income in payroll taxes (15% once the temporary payroll tax cut expires), which matches the rate that Romney pays.

        Romney labels such people — typical middle-class working families — as self-pitying “victims”, uninterested in personal responsibility, and beneath his concern.

        1. Oh Romney is concerned he just doesn’t think people who want more entitlememts will vote for him or that people who pay no income tax would be too concerned with his plan to cut taxes for tax payers.

          After your last rant about the meaning of words…

        2. They only directly pay the 7.65% while the fiction is that the employer pays the rest. The EITC for a family with 2 children making that income will offset a fair portion of their payroll tax deductions. When they retire (should Social Security still exist), they’ll be able to draw benefits. Are you suggesting they shouldn’t pay anything at all?

    3. 23 million people are unemployed Chris. Where are they on that chart?

      Personally I think it’s the TREND that’s the important thing. If Obama gets reelected, and in 2 years that chart is reversed (46% pay, 54% don’t), do you think Obama would consider it problematic? Or… a good start.

      1. The 47% figure was more like 20% before Reagan. But Reagan’s tax cuts, Bush’s tax cuts, Bush’s Child Tax Credit, and Reagan’s EITC (expanded by Clinton and Bush) increased the number of people with no income tax liability, pushing the no-income-tax percentage higher. Then the recession hit, reducing incomes, and pushing the figure up even further, to 46.4% in 2011.

        The GOP plan seems to be: cut taxes on poor people, notice that poor people are paying less in taxes, accuse poor people of being moochers, cut services and programs for poor people.

        2. Whoah, Jim just addmitted that the lower tax brackets benefited the most from the Bush tax cuts. Turns out they weren’t just for rich people afterall.

          2. You didn’t know you said most? Well, let’s see. Suppose a rich guy gets a million in tax cuts. Now suppose the poor also get a million in tax cuts. That’s one rich guy and how many poor guys Jim?

  4. Did a presidental candidate just accuse a bunch of people of bitterly clinging to guns and religion or something?

    1. LOL!

      The difference is that while one could proudly wear the “bitter clinger” moniker after that gaffe, no one in the alleged “99%” will be downgrading themselves to merely the”47%”. 🙂

    2. Mr. Obama made a “gaffe” in giving expression to a politically unpopular stance held by his Left wing base, and our guy has to be given a pass on a “gaffe” giving expression to a politically unpopular stance, but one that is widely held on the Right Blogosphere?

      I got snarked back at for snarking at Rand for expressing an opinion in a way that is unpresidential. “I didn’t think Rand was running for political office.” That is right, Rand, or you, or me are not running for President of the United States, and we get to use our First Amendment right to run-at-the-mouth to express how we really feel without having to worry about The Media or The Polls or the different degrees in the law of violent crimes committed against women.

      But what goes around comes around. I am sure the gradations in non-consensual (what part of “non-consensual” don’t you understand?) get discussed in anti-abortion circles, and a pro-life Senate candidate blurts something out that he deserves to be thrown under the bus for because dontcha know it, this election is not about Social Conservativism but about getting enough Senate votes to repeal ObamaCare, and we can’t have “one of our guys” make a mistake like that.

      But that 47% of the population are direct beneficiaries of government support, and that November 2012 is our last chance to rally to remaining 53% is our Last Chance to Save America from the dreaded Tipping Point of No Return when over 50% of us get something from the gumming, is what most of us apart from The Usual Suspects believe around here, isn’t it?

      And isn’t that what I have been saying around here since February 2011? That all of this Ayn Rand Parasites and Moochers language feels good, but we are going to have to approach this Tipping Point Problem a little differently lest the 2012 election swing back the other way, the way past the Tipping Point?

      And wasn’t I saying, to the consternation of Rand our esteemed host and many loyal followers of Rand, that we have to “watch what we say here” as it would trickle up into the National Election Campaign?

      And what I am saying is that you can’t write off 47% of the electorate for being “parasites and looters and moochers” and expect to win an election. You can say “we need to grow the economy so a man and a woman can have the sense of self-worth and self-respect that comes from feeding their family from the work of their own hands and minds.” But enough of the parasites and looters and moochers disrespect towards people who rely on the government, who have to rely on the government because Mr. Obama messed things up. We are going to lose this election.

    3. Obama: there are bitter clingers who are hurting economically, my policies will help them, so hopefully they’ll come around to supporting those policies

      Romney: nearly half of the voters are irresponsible moochers who will never vote for me, because my opponent’s policies are better for them, so I’m writing them off

      1. Not sure how you get to the point that Obama’s policies are helping. It is great that we have social safety nets but it should be troubling, even to you, that nearly half of our population needs them. That doesn’t look like Obama helping.

        1. Here’s the relevant part of the bitter clinger text, on how Obama plans to help blue collar workers in Pennsylvania (and elsewhere):

          Here’s how it is: in a lot of these communities in big industrial states like Ohio and Pennsylvania, people have been beaten down so long, and they feel so betrayed by government, and when they hear a pitch that is premised on not being cynical about government, then a part of them just doesn’t buy it. And when it’s delivered by — it’s true that when it’s delivered by a 46-year-old black man named Barack Obama (laugher), then that adds another layer of skepticism (laughter).

          But — so the questions you’re most likely to get about me, ‘Well, what is this guy going to do for me? What’s the concrete thing?’ What they wanna hear is — so, we’ll give you talking points about what we’re proposing — close tax loopholes, roll back, you know, the tax cuts for the top 1 percent. Obama’s gonna give tax breaks to middle-class folks and we’re gonna provide health care for every American. So we’ll go down a series of talking points.

          But the truth is, is that, our challenge is to get people persuaded that we can make progress when there’s not evidence of that in their daily lives.

          And in fact he has given tax breaks to middle class people and expanded access to health care.

          1. Obamacare doesn’t cover everyone, doesn’t reduce costs, doesn’t improve quality, and doesn’t expand access.

          2. In the first paragraph, Obama made a joke about his skin color, wouldn’t that make him a racist by the standards applied to Rommey?

            And Obama didn’t actually do the things he said in the quote, you had to bring up things he didn’t mention. Raising taxes on the 1% is not lowering taxes for the middle class. Who knew Obama was planting the seeds for OWS so long ago?

            And Obamacare is the biggest tax increase in history.

          3. Shorter Jim: It’s okay to be a bigot and insult people if you think you’re going to help those benighted fools. It’s the Progressive Way.

      2. That’s an interesting comparison. In the first paragraph, Obama claims that opponents are deluded and working against their best interests. While in the second paragraph, Romney has expressed no similar confusion about what interests his irresponsible moochers have. I think I’ll go with the politician who doesn’t have to misrepresent other peoples’ interests in order to rationalize his policies.

  5. He was making a generalization. He is not the first to note that once more than half of a democracy understands they can vote themselves money the democracy is over.

    That’s a major problem with the left. No sense of perspective. They can parse every statement for irregularities (as if the spoken word were a computer program… it’s not.)

    I’m living on disability at $12k per yr. I paid for that when I was working. If I hadn’t paid for that, I could be making a lot more than $12k a year. Have you ever tried to live on $12k/yr?

    You’d think I’d be an Obama voter. Why am I not? Because I have half a brain (the other half is permanently tied behind my back to not be unfair to the left… and no, I do not listen to Rush.)

    The government is mismanaging our money. Much of it is going to moochers. The fact is Obama has taken away money that my old parents in their 70s formerly had. They can’t afford needed surgery as a direct result of Obamacare. Romney isn’t going to take away money that old folks need to live on. But keep screaming that he will because it isn’t going to matter this election. Obama is done. Put a fork in him.

    1. Yeah, with all respect to Mr. M., we have already lost (or won) the election, no matter who’s coronated. The slow-motion train wreck cannot be stopped since we’re well-past the point of impact.

      The problem Mr. M and others have is that their, your, and many other of our esteemed panelists here’s time horizon is such that the status quo must be maintained for as long as possible. I get that. Mine is such that I need to hit the ground running once it’s all over. The diction and purposes of each often get crossed since those outside the Cathedral (who Romney certainly needs to win) are all just random odds and sods with no comand-and-control of their thoughts and language like those other guys.

    2. The fact is Obama has taken away money that my old parents in their 70s formerly had. They can’t afford needed surgery as a direct result of Obamacare.

      I’d love to hear more about this. What provision of Obamacare made their surgery more expensive?

      1. Not just more expensive. Disallowed. Obamacare became effective the moment it was passed (including tricks like taking multiyears to pay for a years services. they believe they can spend more than they take in…) Well they can’t. So they reduce services. Ask Sarah about death panels. My parents have direct experience.

  6. One difference between Income and Payroll Taxes is that the Income Tax is visible to the Payor. They “feel” it cut from their earnings. The Payroll Tax is hidden, because it’s paid by the employer.

    So everyone pays more taxes than they see withdrawn on their paystub or W2. That’s not related to what Romney was getting at, but it should change nonetheless. Move everything to the general fund for taxes, payed for out of the seen tax bill.

    Better yet, make people write checks. Or at least report to them how much they’ve paid (cumulatively) for the year on each paycheck.

  7. So Romney dared to speak the truth? I’m shocked… Shocked!

    He’s right about the 47%; there is a huge mooching class out there. An entitlement mentality.

    I don’t count social security because that’s basically a forced retirement account. You have to pay in, so there’s nothing wrong with getting anything out.

    But all these “social programs”… they are just the means to buy votes, with money taken from the rest of us at gunpoint.

    As for the Palestinians… Romney is right, no question about it.

    If he’d said stuff like this during the early primaries, I’d have supported him, and done so enthusiastically,. As it is, I only began supporting him when it looked like the alternative was Santorum. I’d never liked Romney. However, hearing him say stuff like this… yeah, I’d have been a Romney supporter from the start.

    I have to wonder… was this leaked by the Romney campaign on purpose? It does focus the news cycle back on the entitlement problem and economics – right where Romney wants is.

    It also gives Romney an opening to float out one of Obama’s gems;

    * President Obama: On all these issues, but particularly missile *defense, this, this can be solved but it’s important for him to give me *space.

    *President Medvedev: Yeah, I understand. I understand your message *about space. Space for you…

    *President Obama: This is my last election. After my election I have more *flexibility.

    *President Medvedev: I understand. I will transmit this information to *Vladimir.

  8. I’m still curious to know what the LA Times is hiding about Khalidi’s birthday party. Perhaps a toast to the “destruction and elimination of Israel”?

    LOL. And just imagine what’s on the “whitey” tape!

      1. I have no idea. But the notion that Obama privately calls for the destruction of Israel is at least as crazy as the “whitey” tape story.

          1. I can imagine that. I can’t imagine it mattering much. Being in the presence of an offensive statement and not objecting, many years in the past, is fairly weak tea. In 2008 McCain sought the endorsement of a rabidly anti-Semitic evangelical preacher, and it was hardly a story. Obama would come out and belatedly condemn the statement, and the issue would die. He got past “God Damn America,” after all.

            And of course it’s possible that there’s nothing even that interesting on the tape, which would explain why the Times doesn’t consider it newsworthy. What’s your theory as to why the tape hasn’t appeared?

          2. Whatever it is, it’s pretty clear that it would be politically damaging to Obama. I think that my theory is the most plausible one. And if you can’t imagine it mattering much to American Jews, you don’t have much imagination.

          3. it’s pretty clear that it would be politically damaging to Obama.

            That’s a total guess. It could be a nothing-burger, like his long form birth certificate (remember how it was going to show that Frank Davis was Obama’s father?). The good thing about it remaining under wraps is that you can imagine it’s anything.

  9. Romney is just paraphrasing what H. L. Mencken (“the Anti-Gerrib”) wrote during the New Deal era: that the United States essentially would have two classes: those who vote for a living and those who work for a living.

    “And why is that bad?” Jim wonders.

    1. Note: over 60% of the people Romney was talking about do work for a living (and therefore paid payroll taxes). Another 20% are retired (were they supposed to keep working forever?). Most of the rest are unemployed, disabled, or both. A handful are rich — last year 110,000 households made over $200,000 (7,000 of them made over $1 million) but didn’t owe income tax.

      1. Rommey specifically said income taxes. If you want to make distinctions by saying payroll taxes, you should allow other people to make similar distinctions.

        The stratification of people who receive government benefits is interesting. Retirees have been favoring Rommey so maybe Rommey was being too pessimistic. That 47% of people who wont vote for him could be as much as 20% lower according to Jim’s numbers.

        We all know Obama will get at least 43% of the vote but that is strangly due to people of the 1% that put Obama in office voting for him again.

        1. Romney is completely wrong about the 47% all voting for Obama. First of all, because most of them don’t vote (voter turnout for low income Americans is under 50%). Second, because a lot of the ones who do vote are Romney supporters. In fact, eight of the ten states with the highest rates of non-income-tax-paying are certain to go for Romney (see the map).

          Most people who don’t pay income tax don’t see themselves as moochers. They know that they’re paying other taxes, and/or they remember paying income taxes (i.e. if they’re retired now). That’s why it’s so shocking for Romney to label them as irresponsible, self-pitying victims. They don’t see themselves that way, and there’s no reason they should see themselves that way.

          2. He doesn’t call them “irresponsible” or “self-pitying”. Did you even watch the video?

            “There are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe that 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.”

            Dewd! That’s the core message of the Democrat party, the one they sing 24/7 from the rooftops: you have a right to healthcare, food, housing, etc. Is Jim suddenly ashamed of the Democrat party’s platform?!

  10. The whole income tax system is broken. A percentage change here, another deduction there, closing a loophole elsewhere – these are all just nibbling around the edges of the problem.

    There needs to be some government services, and those need to be paid for. Leaving aside for the moment just what those services should be, let’s look at where the money comes from to pay for those services.

    In the end, all of the money collected by various levels of government comes from individual people. The present system of income taxes, business taxes, estate taxes, property taxes etc. is so convoluted that there is not one single person who can honestly claim they know the whole tax code. Compliance with the tax code and the myriad regulations is an enormous drain in both time and money on individuals and businesses, erecting a red tape entry barrier to small business creation and slowing the expansion of existing businesses.

    The very fact that there are exemptions and loopholes and a graduated tax rate is a flagrant violation of equal protection under the law. There are only a few solutions (flat tax, Fair Tax, lotteries, and across-the-board sales tax), but they all involve throwing out the entire existing tax code and starting fresh.

Comments are closed.