Do you think Mitt Romney's recent comment will effect him and his campaign for president?
Here's what was said: "There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. here 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'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. My job is not to worry about those people.
Romney's point is that particular element exists in our population. He is simply saying that, as a candidate, he cannot worry about that % that are already totally committed to vote for Obama on the basis of "threats to their entitlements" if they do otherwise. His focus is to put his energy into that faction of the population willing to still listen and then decide which way they will vote. This is the facts of what he is facing not a criticism. Romney is outlining the basis for that voter loyalty to Obama and basically saying to his financial benfactors....it is a waste of time for me to worry about that sector in terms of gaining their vote. Anything beyond that is a stretch of a liberal media desiring to twist comments made in private to financial supporters. At least his statement did not end with the word, "Valdimir", as in "I'll have more flexibility after the election, Vladimir.". I think anyone looking at the statements in an objective context can see what Romney's intent was in making the observation to the assembled audience. Those damning the observation and twisting it are likely already accounted for in the 47% figure.~WB
The idea that people only vote for Obama out of self-interest and wanting to sponge off the taxpayer is offensive to the many Americans forced into the welfare safety-net because their jobs were destroyed. Most would rather pay their way.
I fall into the 53%, BUT not in the 1%. A President Romney will never look out for my best interests.
That said, this latest issue simply plays into the narrative of Romney as rich and out of touch. A definition that doesn't help in swing states
I think he told the truth about how he feels about the rest of us. He would be a president for the few but would not represent the 99%. He will represent his party well. Taking from those he is not worried about and giving to the 1%. He believes the 1% are entitled to all the money, all the tax breaks, all the off shore accounts, and they are entitled to live off the labor of the 99%. A vote for Romney is a vote for him and his rich supporters and a vote against an America that cares about it's citizens. Why would the President of the richest country in the world care if it's citizens have health care, food, housing, or a decent job?
If this doesn't hurt his campaign for President, I will be amazed.
It certainly can't help. It's hurting him right now, but not sure if it will have legs. Will people still remember it in November? It will be interesting to see if this is a long term issue.
This is the kind of strategy talk that belongs behind closed doors (very closed doors). In terms of strategy he is right that a certain group of people aren't going to be swayed, but it is the sort of thing you can't actually be heard saying.
The bigger problem is how horribly wrong he is in so many ways. Those 47% aren't just Democrats, nor are they people who aren't working. Some are retirees, some are students, some are disabled, some are very hard working ctizens who just don't make much money, etc. To characterize them all as being dependent on government and not caring for their own lives is extraordinarily crass. Quite a few of them probably pay a higher percentage of taxes than Mitt does, so I don't know what that makes him. Perhaps he can no longer even vote for himself.
I already thought Romney was done. Now I really think so. If he was more likable, and actually had the persona to mitigate his comments maybe he'd be alright, but he just isn't that guy. Additionally, his campaign so far seems poorly run. His Europe trip, not mentioning troops at the convention, the leak of this video, Clint Eastwood, etc.
Funny thing about this is that the states with the most nonpayers are in the south and that the largest increase in number of nonpayers came during the Bush presidency. If he really cares about this issue, maybe he should vote for a Democrat.
Romney is totally done.
He did it to himself and it is obvious "dear" Mitt is out of touch and has been living all this privileged life in a fantasy land.
The Republican Party has nominated Romney holding its nose and now they have to do a lot of damage control
Well a guy who won't reveal his own tax returns, who took pleasure in laying off thousands of US workers,replaced them with cheap labour overseas,who has questionable business ethics has the effrontery to say he doesn't care about a large percentage of voters isn't worth a response. Except of course Romney is running for President. This fact alone is worthy of a shiver. The man appears to be 'guided' by Wall St and Israel and has contempt for the poor,the homeless and the unemployed.
Whatever excuses his supporters make on his behalf they can't hide the truth of the lack of humanity Romney has for his fellow human beings. His equally crass remarks regards Palestinians 'not wanting peace' is a disgraceful thing to say.
Romney is part of a global right wing corporate elite who want to control the lives of those they see as subservient. Pro war pro greed and utterly selfish. Romney is just a taller George Bush with marginally more intellect.
I hope he is crushed in November and maybe the US and the Republican Party will rediscover the moderate conservatives who actually understand that fairness and equality will create a far better country than the avaricious elite could ever do.
If Romney wins - war will follow and who knows maybe a civil war after that. Romney wants less population more loyalty stricter control of people and greater wealth for him and his cronies.
Those who wish to respond to my comments I defy you to keep the word socialism out of it - because this seems to be the standard accusation of any view that challenges the destructive beliefs of right wing conservatives.
It appears he believes that the thousands whose jobs he destroyed will now vote for Obama - he may be right there. He shows no respect for them. Maybe if he wants votes, he should let go of his own "entitlement" not to show his tax returns.
Short answer: Yes.
Reason: His statement is content without context. While 47% of individuals don't pay federal INCOME taxes, many of them pay payroll taxes. That means that they are too poor to have a taxable liability once the tax breaks they qualify for - many of them Republican supported- are applied to their income.
The rest of the individuals who pay no income or payroll taxes are the elderly; who have paid income taxes at some point in their lives before retiring, young adults; many of whom will pay income taxes at some point in their working lives, and the disabled.
So when Willard equates not paying income taxes with not "taking personal responsibility", the reality is, it shows his disdain for the elderly, middle to lower class college students and the working poor.
His statement also shows his poor grasp of the concept of arithmetic. Just because there are 47% of Americans that don't pay federal income tax, it doesn't mean that the ALL will vote for President Obama.
In fact, of the 10 states that have to most people that don't pay income taxes are ALL Republican run states. So the sweet irony of ironies is while Romney claims that the 47% of people who don't pay income taxes will never vote for him, many of them are actually his target demographic.
bworthington - that's a fine explanation of Romney's stupidity, which he has in abundance. How poor must the GOP be to consider Romney as their best shot.
My personal situation: I am in the 53% that pays net taxes, but I am a single male entrepreneur with no children.
IF, however, I got married and had two children, I would fall into the 47%. Ironically, due to GOP supported tax code provisions.
Romney's comment was wrong in so many ways, not least of which, as you mention, is that the nonpayers are, in many cases, a result of GOP supported policies. Guy doesn't even know his own party's history.
I think the comment that Romney made about the 47% killed his chances of winning the election. First, I would like to know where he got that stat (he prob made it up).....I seriously doubt 47% of our population is dependent on the government to survive. Don't buy it. And I think alot of people took offense to it.....mostly because his comment led you to believe he doesn't care about those people. Stupid, stupid, stupid. If this doesn't prove to any voter that he is out of touch with non-wealthy americans, nothing will. He just doesn't get it. Personally, I'm glad he showed his true colors.
by The Frog Prince 11 years ago
Should it be a requirement that, in order to vote, you pay income taxes to support this nation?Rather a simple question really. Approximately 51% of the wage earners in this nation pay nothing,not a cent. Should they have a voice in how the rest of us want our money spent?
by Evan G Rogers 10 years ago
Billionaires are evil, right? Liberals are always on here reminding us of this.http://www.latimes.com/business/money/l … 9484.storyKABOOM, go the heads.
by Valerie Washington 10 years ago
"On Aug. 10, 2011, the night before Mitt Romney participated in a Republican primary debate in Iowa, the Republican nominee took an extraordinary step: He unloaded a boatload of stocks that may have been problematic in his run for the Oval Office....
by Pamela Lipscomb 10 years ago
Romney wants to judge the poor as lazy dependent and feel they are entitled, yet his own grandfather was on welfare. Did he think we wouldn't find out? What a hypocrite!http://hinterlandgazette.com/2012/09/mi … exico.html
by rhamson 8 years ago
A one percenter from Seattle named Nick Hanauer published a piece in Politico Friday warning his "fellow zillionaires" that a revolution à la France 1789 is coming to the United States if America's wealthiest don't take drastic steps to reduce inequality. Read more:...
by MikeNV 12 years ago
ACCORDING TO AN ASSOCIATE PRESS STORY RELEASED TODAY... THE "RICH" ARE ALREADY PAYING THE MAJORITY OF FEDERAL INCOME TAXES.I'm not sure I buy into their numbers but here is what they had to say:"The result is a tax system that exempts almost half the country from paying for programs...
Copyright © 2023 The Arena Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers on this website. HubPages® is a registered trademark of The Arena Platform, Inc. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. The Arena Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers to this website may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|