More Mitt Romney Gaffe Goodness!

Perhaps it’s the fact that politicians are under even more scrutiny than ever before, but there seems to be many more high profile gaffes being made of late.  Embarrassing mistakes have always plagued politicians of every stripe in every corner of the globe, but there is just something about the way American Republican leaders have detached themselves from reality that allows for the most amazing mind bending antics. Sitting on the sidelines and unable to vote, it is a very entertaining spectacle!

Political gaffes are nothing new, and you would think politicians would guard against this sort of thing, or at least watch out for potential slip ups. But it seems that they don’t. Or can’t. If it were me up there on a podium, then the entire time I’d be worrying about saying the wrong thing in the wrong way, hopefully ensuring that those fears never come to fruition.

So, as a lover of political gaffes and the resulting satire, imagine my delight when good old Mitt Romney made not one but two huge mistakes in one speech. A video of the speech in question, given at a private fundraising diner, has been leaked by Mother Jones.

Mitt Romney (Via NewsOne)

First, he manages to insult almost half of the American electorate.

Asked how he could potentially win in November he replied:

There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there 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 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 is not to worry about those people. I’ll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives.

Wow. While I’m sure there are people who are lazy and think like that, I highly doubt it is anywhere near 47%. Even if it is that high, a good number of those people are probably made up of the elderly and veterans and other such groups — not exclusively of out-of-work benefit scroungers. I know a few people currently not working who claim benefits to help support them through their unemployment and they all hate it. Most people take pride in their actions and their successes, and the social stigma of being supported by the state can be a powerful motivator.

Wanting a system to support others when they fall out of the job market, pick them up, and help them get back into it does not make you lazy. Similarly, socialized health care is not an entitlement — you pay for it out of your taxes! Just where is Romney drawing the line, and under what basis? Is access to an education an entitlement? Is a functioning fire department an entitlement?

Secondly it appears he has already given up on the Middle East before even being elected — and taken to its logical conclusions is saying: “Vote for me! I’m not going to lift a finger trying to fix the Iraeli-Palestinian problem!”

“So what you do is, you say, you move things along the best way you can. You hope for some degree of stability, but you recognize that this is going to remain an unsolved problem… and we kick the ball down the field and hope that ultimately, somehow, something will happen and resolve it.”

Wait, What? It couldn’t be much more clearer — he openly says he doesn’t think peace is possible and just plans to leave it for someone else to deal with. Lasting peace in the Middle East will be difficult, I’m not saying its easy. I could understand if he said he didn’t know how it could be solved. There’s nothing wrong with that. But to reveal that your grand plan, as leader of the free world with the might of one of the largest military powers in the world behind you, is to sit there with your thumb up your ass doing absolutely nothing just seems to be morally and ethically bankrupt. It’ll be interesting to see how it plays out in the election and whether this will damage Romney’s campaign in the long term.

About Mark Turner

Mark Turner was born and raised as a Catholic in the North East of England, UK. He attended two Catholic schools between the ages of five and sixteen. A product of a moderate Catholic upbringing and an early passion for science first resulted in religious apathy and by mid-teens outright disbelief.

@markdturner

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=750428174 Paddy Reddin

    If anyone thinks a slow witted, reality challenged, god bothering, white bread, gaffe prone millionaires son won’t get elected, I got one word for ya…. Dubya.

    *shudder*

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Mike-De-Fleuriot/611844223 Mike De Fleuriot

       Don’t do that, EVER.  Now I will have problems getting to sleep. (And I am not even American.)

      • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=750428174 Paddy Reddin

        I’m not American either, I just have to live here.

    • atheistperson

      So calling Obama “black bread” or whatever the black analogue to “white bread” would be acceptable, right?   I’m guessing no.

      [And what exactly is so bad about being "white bread" - growing up in a quiet, safe, nice community with two loving parents who provide for their children?  Isn't "white bread" the primary aspiration of all people?  I suppose growing up in a meth-infested trailer park or on the streets of Harlem and Compton is a better alternative (sarcasm).]

      • Deven Kale

         I’ve always understood “white-bread,” as an insult, to mean snotty white folk born into a family with two loving parents who own their own house. They have a dog, a few siblings, and were fed every day of their lives. They have no fucking clue what it’s like to live a day without food, who have no idea what it’s like to have a crack-addicted father who beats you and your mother daily, and your best option to survive is to join a gang so your brothers can protect you and give you somewhere to sleep at night away from home, if you’re lucky. Then they have the audacity to say they know and understand what your life is like and have the answer to how to fix all your problems if you’d just listen to them. That’s what “white-bread” means to me.

        Also, as far as I know, the antonym of “white-bread” is “wheat-bread.” I don’t know what it means but a guess would be a black guy with the same description. So yeah, Obama might fit the “wheat-bread” definition if I’m right, but there’s a lot of if there.

        • JoeBuddha

          Actually, I’ve always taken it as a double-meaning; as in, priviledge white families who think white bread (without the crusts, natch) is the only bread worth eating. Priviledged, stereotypical, and incurious to a fault. Kind of like Ned Flanders (“maybe with a glass of water for dipping”).

      • Grizzz

        Sure, call him black-bread. But, I don’t really know too many blacks who have a proclivity for pumpernickel.

        We call Obama “President Blackenstein” – it has a Bootsy Collins-esque ring to it.

      • http://www.holytape.etsy.com Holytape

        I’ve always taken white-bread to be a reference to well white bread, like wonder-bread   White-bread, to me, means boring and flavorless.

  • http://friendlyatheist.com Richard Wade

    I’m waiting for Romney to say that he’s qualified in foreign policy because he can see Russia from one of his mansions.

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1351473675 Matthew Baker

       would it be better if he said he is qualified because he has money in offshore accounts

      • Grizzz

        Nice! Zinger of the day right here; and with your permission sir, I would like to turn this into a meme! Use this little gem EVERYWHERE!!!!!

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_6OE7LEYELE4MZTVXGZUSVTBFUI julie

    So Mitt Romney’s voters are the other part of the population that actually work hard and make good life decisions?
    Never mind that my parents used food stamps, WIC, help from my grandparents, and (after my dad died) social security and voted Republican every election.

    • Ibis3

       Yes, but they’re special. Not at all like the freeloaders who support the Dems. Just like all the tea partiers who show up to protest government entitlement programs with social security and disability cheques in their pockets.

      • Noel Ang

        I’ll be happy to protest without social security and disability cheques in my pockets when the government stops taxing me for social security and disability insurance.

        Complaining about Statism while remaining lawful is not the hypocrisy you think it is.

        • http://profiles.google.com/conticreative Marco Conti

          Yes it is. Especially when your sign says “Keep the government paws off my medicare” while protesting against universal health care. 

        • coyotenose

           Easy to say when you aren’t currently depending on SS or Disability. When you do and you complain about them, yes, it is hypocrisy.

        • smrnda

           I’d like to protest the fact that my tax money goes to protecting your private property rights. Or that you might travel on more federally funded roads than I do that I am paying for. Or that because of where you might live, the money I pay towards national defense benefits you more than me. I’d like to protest if you eat foods that have been subsidized by the government that I don’t eat.

          But then I realize that the whole “I only pay for what I use” is an unworkable philosophy unless we all live like hunter gatherers. The idea that since we all can’t totally agree on where the money goes so we shouldn’t have any taxes is like arguing that since there’s no consensus on criminal law that we shouldn’t have laws.

          On disability checks, I paid taxes for that for years, and then when I couldn’t work for 2 I got the usual small pittance that kept me from being homeless. I wonder how much in taxes you are paying to support that program.

          And yeah, STATISM. Just tack an ‘ism’ on the end of a word and it makes everything sound so bad.

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=750428174 Paddy Reddin

      But this is not your father’s (or Grandparents) Republican Party

      http://www.heartlandconnection.com/news/story.aspx?id=802448#.UFlflY2PW24

  • Jim Valentine

    This guy, Robme is a walking joke.  If you pretend he’s not serious then you should laugh.  Instead, I want to cry.

  • http://flyingdingo.com/ Rick Roberts

    His comments were not a gaffe. You lend credence to his side by calling them gaffes. He knew exactly what he was saying and to whom he was saying it.

    • Randomfactor

       The definition of “gaffe” is telling the truth (about yourself) that you didn’t intend to make public.

      • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=750428174 Paddy Reddin

        Hates to say it but… having checked a few definitions of gaffe (just to be sure)  doesn’t match what you sat.  According to dictionary.com
        1. A clumsy social error; a faux pas: 2. A blatant mistake or misjudgment.a social blunder, esp a tactless remark

        Google had it as 
        “An unintentional act or remark causing embarrassment to its originator; a blunder: “an unforgivable social gaffe”.

        Nothing about revealing a truth to the public,  be it intended or not.  Perhaps you had a Freudian slip in mind?

    • http://profiles.google.com/conticreative Marco Conti

      I agree. Republicans talk like that all the time. They think nothing of spewing the most racially colored, classist lies (and even in those rare cases where they are close to the truth, they find ways to make that truth sound like a lie).

      Romney mistake was to get caught in a conversation he probably has 3 or 4 times a day with various crowds.

      The only thing he is sorry about is that he got caught.

      I hope this drives a big nail in his coffin.

  • Revyloution

    I think they should use the ‘
    we kick the ball down the field and hope that ultimately, somehow, something will happen and resolve it’ line mercilessly in attack adds.    This comment alone shows that he is simply unfit to serve as POTUS.  
    If you want to rule the free world,  you need to start with the assumption that all problems have a solution,  and you need to find the people to solve it.

    • Ibis3

       Yeah, well, I think he forgot to put the God in there:
      “we kick the ball down the field and hope that ultimately, somehow, something will happen and God will resolve it”. Sadly, I think most of the American populace wouldn’t bat an eye at that. 

  • http://nwrickert.wordpress.com/ Neil Rickert

    Romney spoke from his heart.

    Yes, he is totally out of touch with reality.

    • Noel Ang

      From a damage control perspective, I would prefer to vote for a U.S. President so out of touch with reality to be ineffective, than one in touch with reality but has chosen to try to rewrite it for the last four years to enormously damaging effect.

      Romney is Obama Lite. It’s a lose-lose situation, and I’m aiming to lose small.

      • PietPuk

         Aren’t you forgetting the eight years before that?

      • http://profiles.google.com/conticreative Marco Conti

        Have you checked the names of the guys around romney? The same cast and crew as the folks that put us in this mess. 

      • http://www.holytape.etsy.com Holytape

        Speaking of being out of touch with reality…….  How’s the weather there in lala land?

      • coyotenose

        Examples please? Nearly every complaint about Obama’s performance on economics is predicated on lies or is willfully ignorant of how recessions work, so you’ll understand why I’m skeptical.

        On the other hand, however, we have Romney, who wants to go back down the  Trickle-Down Economics route, even though we have THIRTY YEARS of massively documented proof that it does the opposite of work.

        Oh, and being out of touch does not make Romney ineffective. You’re advocating a straw man. He is dangerous because he knows exactly how to enrich himself and his friends at the expense of others.

  • Collo

    Sigh. I really don’t like Romney, but it’s so sad to see that not only is he cast as a representative of fiscal conservatives, but that fiscal conservatism is totally shunned within the atheist/skeptical movements.

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_6OE7LEYELE4MZTVXGZUSVTBFUI julie

      Don’t worry. We really do understand that the GOP is so fucked up that there’s no way they represent anyone’s rational opinion. Especially since they use religion to get more votes so all the candidates are either religious nutjobs or manipulators.

      Fiscal conservatism is generally shunned because it means less government spending and therefore less help for those in need. The problem is that there are people in need that are very stuck in their financial problems, and no, it’s not necessarily their fault or their laziness. People born into poverty tend to stay poor due to bad education and lack of opportunity. I was born poor and if it wasn’t for government aid, I would not be able to go to college. (Actually, if it wasn’t for government aid, I probably wouldn’t have been able to eat). I really do think that fiscal conservatism comes from a good philosophy; if you don’t work you don’t eat. But the world is so much more complicated than that. I don’t think it’s right that someone like me should miss out on an education and be stuck working a minimum wage job while someone born into a rich family can go on to do whatever they want with their life. My philosophy is that people should have equal opportunity because no one can help which family they’re born into.

    • Ibis3

      Fiscal conservatism is a failed system. It makes the rich richer and everyone else poorer. It produces deficit budgets. It pretends things about reality that are untrue. It neglects the valuable but unprofitable (e.g. the arts, museums, worker safety) or unprofitable in the short term (scientific research, ecologically sound technology, sustainable development, education and training, universal health care) in favour of the quick buck. It promotes government by and for corporations instead of by and for the people. And the fiscal conservatives will always be ready and willing to jump into bed with the religious extremists because they’re so easily manipulated.

      • Noel Ang

        Fiscal liberalism is a failed system. It makes the rich poorer and everyone else poorer. It produces deficit budgets. It pretends things about reality that are untrue. It seizes cultural, technological, and social considerations (e.g., the arts, museums, workers safety, scientific research, health care) from individuals and imposes prioritizations and preferences based on tribal, collective, mystical notions of “fairness” and “justice” and “destiny” that justify coercive force (tax incentives, job non-discriminatory regulations, zoning laws, minimum wage, trash quotas) to solve problems; it frames the entire dialogue about morality not by choice (reason), but by need.  It promotes government by democratic totalitarianism, for people who vote based not on intellectual or metaphysical merit of issues, but by the entitlements they stand to win or lose.

        And the fiscal liberalists can certainly afford not to jump into bed with religious extremists, because altruism, the disease of godness, runs wide and deep.

        • http://profiles.google.com/conticreative Marco Conti

          Evidence please? 
          We have ample evidence of the failure of trickle down economics and fiscal conservatism. I don’t recall a fiscally liberal movement that had 30 years to prove what you are postulating in your post. Reaganomics, has been polluting the republican party for 30 years. The only break on republican administrations in the past 30 years has been Clinton, whom took office with a huge deficit and left with a huge surplus.

          4 years of Obama really do not compare since he took office under what could have been the end of our country as we know it, and even though conservatives seem to be tired of being reminded he inherited the fiscal mess, it is an undeniable reality that was the direct result of 2 wars and wanton deregulation.

          So, I’d like to see some evidence at least comparable to the failed reagan/republican 30 years adventure.

        • http://www.holytape.etsy.com Holytape

          Most basic scientific research is done at public universities using public funds.  

          Most museums are run by government or the public sector. 

          Worker safety was almost non-existant before the government stepped in.

          Health care would be unattainable for most elderly without medicare.  

          Job non-discriminatory regulations – Look at this country before 1960.   

          Zoning laws – WFT?  Really?  Zoning laws are an evil socialist tool?  Oh my God, I can’t build by garbage dump next to a pre-school.   STALIN!!!!  (P.S.  What you do on your property does effect what happens to me on my property.)  

          Minimum wage – look at the country before 1930′s.  

        • smrnda

           Don’t waste your time on this Randoid. Everything he says is just canned phrases from Objectivism 101.

          You seem to be suggesting that voting based on pragmatism is somehow bad but that we should instead focus on ” intellectual or metaphysical merit”  -are you implying that real world value is meaningless but that somewhere, out there, there’s this pure metaphysical world that really counts? Sounds like a religion to me.

          • smrnda

             Also, where did these individuals get property from to begin with? How do white people own so much land in the USA?

            And if you’re denouncing “fairness” and “justice” and “destiny” as mystical notions, isn’t your metaphysical idea of individual liberty just another mystical notion? What makes it any more essential?

            I reject all these things as meaningless abstractions. “Freedom” only means something in context – if I have freedom of religion but I can get fired for not believing the right religion, it’s a meaningless abstraction.

    • Thin-ice

      This may be naive, but I always considered “fiscal conservatism” to simply mean that your expenses don’t exceed your income. Why in the world is that incompatible with atheism, liberalism, or progressive views??

      The Scandinavian countries have managed to have political socialism and liberalism while adhering to fiscal conservatism. The two are NOT mutually exclusive, are they?

      • John

         Not necessarily.  The US had a budget surplus under Clinton, and I don’t think many would consider him to be fiscally conservative.  It’s more a matter of approach – most people on both sides agree that a balanced budget is desirable in the long term, but the disagreements come up in how to reach that goal and how to handle problems (e.g. economic recession) in the short term.

      • http://profiles.google.com/conticreative Marco Conti

        Not in thee least. Fiscal liberalism doesn’t mean giving money away or telling people they don’t need to work because the tate is going to take care of them.

        That’s the way conservatives misrepresent it to make it sound like liberals only want to spend, spend, spend. Not so. We rather invest in education, science and yes, arts, than in shiny new battleships or more missiles. 

        • Grizzz

          Well said Marco.

      • Guest.

         This might be a country thing.  I think you’re right as to what the words mean but as a term ‘fiscal conservative’ means that you want to reduce all social welfare spending.  they usually say it’s to balance the budget but the same people then do huge tax cuts for wealthy entities and increase spending on stuff made by wealthy entities.

    • http://profiles.google.com/conticreative Marco Conti

      Yes, fiscal conservativism worked so well during the Bush administration. we want more of it.

      Here is a news flash: liberals also do not want to waste money is silly programs that keep people from looking for jobs. We also do not particolarly enjoy paying taxes. But personally I understand that good public schools with well paid teachers and well stocked with science, literature, art, music and PE infrastructures will create more educated, more competitive and better trained citizens.

      Notice that I included art and music along with science and literature because those are part of the education of a well rounded citizen. 
      Those Citizens educated at schools that are not dilapidated and where classes have less than 40 students will more likely go on to college or some kind of higher education, will make more money and pay more taxes that in turn will pay for better schools.

      Fiscal conservativism is a short sighted philosophy that, like corporate america itself, is only concerned with the next quarter results, the next budget.
      I have yet to hear a long term, realistic plan from a fiscal conservative. All I hear are tax cuts, slashing of services and no long term goals. 

      Not a single liberal I know is in favor or perpetual welfare or indeterminate benefits or other nonsense. But we take a longer view on social problems and on revenue generation. We look at social services as an investment in the future not as a free for all.

      I think republicans have had ample time to demonstrate the effectiveness of tax cuts for the rich and trickle down economics. They are part of the reason we are in this mess.

      They have been trying since Reagan to convince us to make the “job creators” richer and richer because eventually it was going to benefit us. The opposite has happened. The rich got richer and poor are poorer.

      Among first world countries we have the worse schools, terrible national health care (who cares we have the best technology if only a minority can afford it?), our population is by and large ignorant of the sciences.

      It didn’t use to be like this. 

    • http://twitter.com/the_ewan Ewan

      Being a ‘fiscal conservative’ in the US is like coming out in favour of air. This is not a case that needs to be made, or an argument to win, it’s the unopposed status quo. The US has extremely low tax rates, and extremely poor public services.

      If you were arguing for fiscal conservatism in Greece, or in Italy, you could make an excellent case, but the Overton window on this in the US is so far to the low tax/low spend side already, that trying to push it any further is rightly seen as an extremist position.

    • http://www.agnostic-library.com/ma/ PsiCop

      I’m an agnostic who believes in “fiscal responsibility.” What I do not believe in, is stamping, whining and fuming over how we can’t afford some expenditures (e.g. Medicaid, SNAP) but some others (e.g. billions of dollars wasted on contractors in Iraq) are just fine.

      Sorry, but I simply do not buy that there are any genuine “fiscal conservatives” in Washington. It’s a philosophy that doesn’t exist there. What does exist, is the philosophy of “Let’s scarf up as many expenditures as possible for our patrons and benefactors, and take away as many as possible that don’t go to them.” Both parties and ideologies do it. They both work for the benefit of their own supporters and they fight the supporters of the other party/ideology.

      Really, it’s all very selfish. Not to mention transparent. Not one of these guys has me fooled, and they shouldn’t be able to fool you, either.

  • jdm8

    I think his comments on the middle east are being realistic, which is pretty shocking to come out of Romney’s mouth. The US had an intensive campaign that cost $1T to militarily fix Iraq and Afghanistan, and what has it really gotten us? His comment on the two-state solution for Israel and Palestine may be accurate too. No president has fostered meaningful progress on that matter in decades, and not for the lack of trying. Kofi Annan rightly asked what concrete plan the West had for fixing Syria, there is no political will for another forced regime change and prolonged occupation, the costs are too high. It’s a sad tragedy where all the answers are lose-lose.

    • coyotenose

      The problem there is that it is extremely unpresidential to make such a comment on a situation in which the U.S. is so thoroughly invested, especially one on which he can’t be considered to be well informed. And it isn’t as if he is trying to be a candidate who is about realistic decisions. I’d respect him if he were, but his arguments generally amount to knowing special, secret ways of fixing everything that he just can’t share details on right now.

  • Volunteer

    What does this have to do with Atheism and/or Religion?

    • Guest1

       All True Atheists are liberals.  Therefore, all posts supporting liberal positions are related to atheism.

      • John

         Having fun with that strawman?

      • Borax

         Most liberals are religious.  About 50% of the US population is liberal and the US population is (unfortunately) predominately religious.

    • John

       Because these are the same people fighting against separation of church and state.  The Democrats may still have God in their platform, but they’re much closer to our side than idiots like Romney.

      Regardless, this is a personal blog, and the authors are entitled to post about whatever topics they like.  If you don’t want to read it, nobody is forcing you to.

      • coyotenose

         Just to note, Romney is not an idiot. He’s a sociopath. We shouldn’t forget that.

    • WildRumpus67

      I totally agree that this post has nothing to do with atheism.

      When Hemant et al are on topic, I love this blog… when it nosedives into unrelated topics like American politics or feminism, I usually skip it.

      Obviously I didn’t skip this one because it’s so damn interesting, but yes – can we keep on topic, please?

      • AxeGrrl

        When Hemant et al are on topic, I love this blog… when it nosedives into unrelated topics like American politics or feminism, I usually skip it.

        Oh well.  So Hemant’s choices sometimes make some people ‘skip’ reading…..i’m sure he’ll sleep at night :)

        can we keep on topic, please?

        I think you’re kinda missing the point: this is Hemant’s blog and he’s the one who determines/defines what ‘on topic’ means for it.

        • Grizzz

          So let him do the policing and informing. Unless of course, he has appointed you as one of his deputies?

          • coyotenose

            Presumably you are also posting after the “on-topic” critics to tell them to let Hemant police his own site.

            Which, oddly, is policing the site… funny how that works, eh?

    • http://twitter.com/markdturner Mark Turner

      Yeah I get a few comments like this each time, so I thought I’d quickly explain. 

      Hemant expanded the number of contributors for the site, and each of us has a particular brief – mine being US politics. I try to write once a week or so, and some weeks there is something going on in politics that is explicitly to do with atheism or church/state separation. Other weeks not so much, and I have to widen the scope a little. Some weeks like this one, a big story is doing the rounds and is worth mentioning with it being election year.

      I promise you I do always try and find an atheism related story to write about, but I don’t always have to time to spend finding them. Other times other contributors beat me to the topics I start to write about, such as Hemant writing about the Newsweek Ayaan Hirsi Ali cover this week.

  • Dan

    I don’t get it. He says 47% of people are poor and will vote for him no matter what, but just a few days ago he was saying how the party will never win the smart people. So he’ll never get smart people or poor people? Sonseca whole hell of a lot of people he won’t get. In fact it sounds like a majority of the United States.

    • Ryan S

      That was Santorum on the “smart people” comment IIRC>

  • Amakudari

    As someone with libertarian leanings — that is, I dun like taxes — I really hate this meme about income taxes. Not because it’s untrue but because it deliberately obscures the tax burden. The poor still pay property taxes (at least via rent), sales taxes, use taxes, state taxes, local taxes, etc. Although not “taxes,” the working poor pay into Social Security and Medicare as well; most Americans actually pay more in FICA/OASDI than federal income taxes. Shoot, even corporate taxes burden workers due to far greater mobility of capital than labor. (That is, an investor who demands an 8% after-tax return can sell a stock in one country for one in another, but workers have a much harder time changing countries. Companies competing globally can’t just pass these costs along to investors.)

    About 10% of households also owed no net income tax recently due to the Making Work Pay credit, the kind of stimulus I’d think Romney would support. Plenty of other households, particularly the elderly and disabled, are non-working. And a much bigger instance of tax unfairness has to be carried interest treatment, which Romney’s all about.

    It’s like the perfect storm of disingenuity.

    • smrnda

       It also obscures the difference between progressive and regressive taxes. Sales tax and other allegedly ‘flat’ taxes eat up a higher percentage of poor people’s income.

      You  make a good point about corporate income taxes versus capital gains and their effect on workers. Most people just see them both as ‘rich people taxes’ but they are really quite different.

  • MaryD

    So telling the truth is now a ‘gaffe’ , well I think that says more about the reporter.

    How about fetching out Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize citation. It obviously wasn’t awarded on achievement at the time, just future ‘promise’. Pity none of it has been kept.

    • JoeBuddha

      I don’t recall that Obama asked for it or leaned on it during his campaigns, so why should it be brought up?

    • coyotenose

       The 47% is very obviously a lie. Learn to read for comprehension, please. And trying to change the subject doesn’t make you look correct, only desperate.

  • Stev84

    The only thing those 47% don’t do is pay income tax. Most of them still pay payroll taxes (and of course all kinds of other taxes). The ones who don’t pay any kind of taxes are either elderly/retired or make less than $20000 a year.

    I’ve seen some media say that he insulted Obama voters. That’s what he intended, but he actually insulted his own voters too. Almost all of the poorest states, with the most people dependent on public assistance, are in the South and vote Republican.

  • http://www.agnostic-library.com/ma/ PsiCop

    Re: “While I’m sure there are people who are lazy and think like that, I highly doubt it is anywhere near 47%. Even if it is that high, a good number of those people are probably made up of the elderly and veterans and other such groups — not exclusively of out-of-work benefit scroungers.”

    Actually there are a lot of folks … I’ve spoken with some of them … who think that pretty much anyone who’s receiving any kind of government payment, is lazy and a fraud. Anyone on unemployment, for example, “doesn’t want to work” and “isn’t looking for work.” They have no way to know if this is so, they simply assume it to be true. They do not accept that someone can be getting a government payment legitimately or could be doing so only temporarily. They do not accept that someone can truly be disabled and unable to work. They do not accept that someone can be out of work except that they refuse to work.

    These people are angry and they’re fed up with — as they see it — having to pay their taxes to fund “welfare queens.” These are the people Mitt is talking to. It doesn’t matter that they make a lot of unfounded assumptions about people they don’t even know. It doesn’t matter that the “welfare queen” is an urban legend with little or no reality behind it. None of that matters. All that matters to them is that they feel they’re being exploited by fraudsters.

    Some fact-checking outlets have torn his statistic apart, pointing out that the 40-something percent includes people getting Social Security, which is something they actually paid into for decades and thus aren’t getting a true “entitlement.” The real number of people who truly are living on government largesse, who’ve never worked in their lives and likely never will, is much smaller. But that doesn’t matter. Mitt can cite his statistic and play on Rightists’ compulsive fear that someone, somewhere is exploiting the system and living off an undeserved windfall.

    • http://www.facebook.com/DocMonkey Mick Wright

       Man, I’d love to see their faces when they saw how much, oh, Lockheed Martin gets in government assistance. Or Halliburton.

      • coyotenose

        I’ve tried this. They make excuses. They actually say, “Oh well, that’s different” or spew incoherently about capital-B “Business”. And they try to deflect by jabbering about Al Gore or something.

      • http://www.agnostic-library.com/ma/ PsiCop

        Well, you see, those are companies. They can get all the government largesse they want. It’s individuals who can’t be permitted to get any.

  • Reginald Selkirk

    O Noez. Mitt Romney, who pays a lower tax rate than I do, is complaining about freeloaders.
     

  • Grizzz

    Okay, fortunately here in the states we will never hear the words “President Romney” in anything but talk of how he lost the presidency in the span of three weeks.

    Romney is a disgusting, callous, cynical and deeply disturbed individual; the fact he is Mormon just proves he is way out of touch because most large Mormon families manipulate the system to get as much federal and state aid as possible. This is something the media has failed to cover so far.

    I was on a consulting job in Utah several years ago; based in the Green River area and my neighbors were of course, all Mormon. Not one of those families had anything less than nine children (no joke, no hyperbole). The fathers worked part time for meager hourly wages. I learned that the Mormons are very adept at working the welfare/medicare/state assistance programs. So these are the people who Mitt is talking about, proving he is just a scary and hypocritical liar and venomous snake. 

    • Deven Kale

      “Okay, fortunately here in the states we will never hear the words
      “President Romney” in anything but talk of how he lost the presidency in
      the span of three weeks.”

      Don’t assume that is guaranteed. Nobody really expected Bush Jr. to get elected either, but that happened twice. No, making sure Romney never takes office is something that you should definitely consider as a possibility and we still need to fight to make sure it doesn’t happen.

      I was on a consulting job in Utah several years ago; based in the Green River area and my neighbors were of course, all Mormon. Not one of those families had anything less than nine children (no joke, no hyperbole). The fathers worked part time for meager hourly wages. I learned that the Mormons are very adept at working the welfare/medicare/state assistance programs.

      IIRC Green River is one of those areas that is mostly populated by members of the FLDS church, not the mainstream LDS church. Yes, they are extremely good at playing the system and are not only taught how to within their communities, they’re encouraged to by the FLDS heirarchy. They are not representative of the official LDS church though, and within the LDS church behavior such as that is generally frowned upon.

      • Grizzz

        Right…..there is no true Mormon…..

        These families were not FDLDS, they were your average Ward hopping numb nuts.

        So, this whole defense of “they are not real Mormons” BS falls dead. 

        • Deven Kale

           You obviously haven’t been here long, Grizzz, if you think I’d be the type of person to apply a Scotsman fallacy to Mormonism. I agree that LDS beliefs are crazy, and there are plenty of reasons to laugh at the religion, but I will also defend it when people accuse it of things that are either made up or confused with the various offshoots. Such as in your case where you confuse mainstream LDS with FLDS.

          I was raised in the LDS church, so I know it from the inside. I still have family members who are active members of the church. I know what mainstream Mormonism teaches and how it’s adherents behave. If you refuse to listen to someone who has first-hand, lifetime experience with the religion just so you can keep your overly negative opinion of them intact, well that’s the basic definition of bigotry.

          And btw, nearly all members of the FLDS church call themselves Mormons, just like the mainstream religion. The only way to find out they’re not mainstream is to talk to someone outside of that community, such as myself.

  • Grizzz
  • http://www.holytape.etsy.com Holytape

    He forgets that income tax isn’t the only tax.  Most of those 47% pay social security, medicare, payroll taxes and federal taxes on things like gasoline.  I am willing to bet, that when you take all of the income, sales and other taxes and fees at all levels, federal-local, most of those 47% pay more in taxes than Romney does. 

    Included in that 47% are seniors on social security.

    Also, about 2% of those 47% are actually the very rich that have managed to eliminate all of their.   

    (If I remember correctly, the last time this 47% figure came up it was shown that you could tax every dime that 47% earned, and still not equal the amount of money that would be recovered if the bush tax cuts were left to expire.)

  • Raising_Rlyeh

    I’d like to say that his comments were not gaffes. He was caught stating what he actually feels about the poor and middle class. He even stated that the only thing he is sorry about is that what he said was inarticulate. In my opinion he is only worried about the fact that he got caught. How do you spin the line ” i can’t teach them personal responsibility” into anything positive?

  • Glasofruix
  • Deven Kale

    One thing that’s always bothered me about Republicans who say things like “I can’t teach these people personal responsibility” is the fact that, for some people, the most socially responsible thing they can do is to remove themselves from the labor pool. Especially those people with moderate to severe mental disorders which would cause their employers and fellow employees a lot of undue stress. For people such as these, it’s really a choice of whether it’s more proper to put anybody else through the trouble of having them for an employee, or for them to deal with the shame of being taken care of by the government through social programs. It’s not an easy choice, but for some people it’s necessary.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X