I’ve got a job. I’ve had a job since forever. Mind telling me how Obama is waging war on me? I don’t make quite enough to qualify for higher taxes, but if I made more so I would I’d be pretty happy. Even at my current salary I wouldn’t mind more taxes if it could improve our infrastructure, increase R&D, and be used to keep unemployment payments for those less fortunate than me.
Know who was waging war on me? Bush and his banker buddies. I was lucky - I kept my job and my house has never been underwater, but I was nervous there for a bit, and would have spent more and thus helped the economy if I had more confidence. And with Obamacare my pre-existing condition and I can get to retire early if we so choose.
Nope, as a job holder I feel much better under Obama than Romney. If I were a greedy zillionaire on the other hand …
It’s politics, not some physical law like conservation of energy. These things can be tuned arbitrarily. If we could get away from the fiction of social security being some sort of retirement plan, we could be more fiscally rational about it.
As I said this was clear in context, but that was not what many people heard or interpreted it. Its the same as Obama’s “you didn’t build that”. In context it is clear that he is talking about infrastructure, but many people heard it as talking about the business itself (particularly with selective editing).
The problem is that the Republican base who would applaud to that line is very much in the minority of American voters. The room in which he was giving the speech was almost entirely composed of such people, but when it got out to the general public it didn’t receive as warm a reception.
This was the one of the major problem for the Republicans in the last election. If they tailored their message to their base as they needed to to get past the primary, they unded up being unpalatable for the public at large.
Romney was and (still is) just such a sanctimonious prick on this issue.
He has no right to lecture anyone about paying taxes while sending his enormous fortune (a fortune earned mostly by destroying companies) overseas to evade American taxes. We still have no idea how much money he paid in taxes because he steadfastly refused to tell us.
We do know that he pays a far lower rate than many Americans who earn far less money than he does.
Listening to him was like listening to your boss whine that you don’t pay taxes while he’s given you one tiny raise and handed himself millions even as the company has lost business. It was tone deaf and incredibly off putting.
What struck me as being as important as anything Romney actually said was how the video came to exist in the first place.
You could argue that Romney was playing to a very specific audience, the one that paid $50000 a plate and would smile and nod their heads in recognition while he talked about buying factories and how low-income people were all lazy moochers who wanted things from the government they didn’t earn, and that he was saying such things for the very same reason that he claimed Obama made sweeping promises - to get a specific audience’s votes.
But he ignored the fact that there was another audience there listening to him - the staff, made up of the same low-income people he was deriding. It didn’t even occur to him that this speech would be dangerous to him for them to hear, or that somebody might or even could act on it. He completely ignored them, as if they didn’t matter at all. That, to me, spoke volumes, and only reinforced the concept that he believed exactly what he was saying: that he didn’t care about what low-income people thought of him. They didn’t even exist in his calculations.
The guy who shot the video just went public and he’s also talked about this issue. To him, it said a lot about Romney’s character that Romney didn’t say one word to the staff at the event and didn’t acknowledge them in any way.
The Dems and the media tried to paint Romney as an out of touch rich guy, but when you dug deeper, you found that he wasn’t an out of touch rich guy, he was an out of touch rich asshole.
Amen, Brother.
FWIW it changed my opinion of him. I wasn’t going to vote for him anyways, so it didn’t really matter in electoral terms, but anyways, I kinda felt sympathetic towards him during the campaign. I figured he was a fairly decent, moderate technocrat who had attached himself to the idea of running for President back when a decent, moderate technocrat could win the GOP nomination.
As the party turned ever more rightwards, he ended up chasing them, every cycle having to say a few more things he didn’t really believe until by 2012 he ended up sounding like a hardliner. Not exactly admirable, but all politicians have to show a certain amount of flexibility in their views, and I could see Romney as letting himself shift his positions a little, and then a little more and the a bit more from 2004-2012, till finally he went the guy that gave us Romneycare to the guy that would repeal Obamacare “on day one”. It helped that he sounded pretty fake during his campaign stops, so it was easy to believe he was just mouthing talking-points to keep the base happy.
In the video though, he sounded like a dick, and like he really honestly thought that 47% of the US population were moochers who were trying to take money from people like him, who had pulled themselves up by their Father’s bootstraps. He really does seem to have been convinced by the Paul Ryan’s of the world that the biggest problem with the US is foodstamps and the EITC.
I’m sure (without reading the thread) that others have mentioned the rudeness, the fact that a Presidential candidate can’t declare that “(his) job is not to worry about (the 47%)” without sparking outrage, etc.
The worst part about his comment is this:
The “47%” have come about because of Republican Presidential initiatives.
In other words, it’s his own party that has caused this problem, and yet he’s using it as an attack against the Democrats.
In the above-linked article there is a chart from the Heritage Foundation. The % of people who don’t pay taxes more than doubled from ~15% in 1986 (Reagan) to 32% in 1992 (Bush 1). This number stayed about the same during the Clinton years (still rising, but only to 34.1% when Bush 2 was elected) where it again started jumping, reaching a maximum of 49% at the end of Bush 2’s term. It has slightly decreased to 47% under Obama.
Therefore, of the percentage increase of the number of people who don’t pay Federal Income tax from 1986 to 2009, 93.8% of this increase came under Republicans. Yet the Republicans somehow “forget” this fact, saying it’s a result of Democratic policies.
Liars.
In addition, the people who don’t pay taxes tend to live in Republican (red) states. Romney was complaining about his own base! (Not that they’re smart enough to realize it, of course.)
For one it showed his ignorance. A lot of his supporters are elderly people on medicare and social security. So it showed how poorly informed him and some of his supporters are because the retired are the biggest social safety net users in the US, more than the poor.
Also it showed a disdain for half the country. You can’t reasonably claim 47% of the country is dependent on the government. The real number is probably 10-20% and a lot of them are retirees, unemployed or disabled people who paid into the programs they now use.
It made him sound callous and misinformed.
Plus Romney comes across as pretty fake, but when he said that he sounded legitimate, which hurts his credibility IMO. If the only time a candidate can sound authentic is when he is condescending and misinformed, that is a bad sign.
Also he didn’t really have a coherent message about taxes. For himself, he acted like it was his duty to pay the least amount of taxes possible, claiming that we shouldn’t elect him if he didn’t try to pay the lowest taxes (and later contradicting that claim by claiming he would voluntarily pay more taxes in 2012 just so we’d all shut up for a few seconds about his taxes, but of course when he lost the election everyone assumes that he’s amended his tax returns so now he does pay the lowest taxes) but he also presumed (incorrectly) that those who paid NO taxes would be his opponent’s biggest fans, notwithstanding that maybe up to half of that 47% would have voted for him under different circumstances such as his not being a gigantic hypocritic, mealymouthed out-of-touch clueless dolt.
“47% of Americans pay no income tax. I WANT them to pay income tax! I want to create jobs for them, so that they can feed their children, provide health insurance for their families, pay income tax and help make this great country even greater!”
Hell, even I know what to say about that, whether it will work or not. :rolleyes:
I really wonder about the whole notion of this tape as a “game changer”. Seems from the polling, most everyone had pretty much made up their minds by that time anyway. As for what it says about him, I’d give that a pass. He was talking to the rich guys, most of whom probably weren’t even as rich as he is. He told them what they wanted to hear.
Does it represent his sincere opinions, is he truly a caricature of a ruling-class pig? Wouldn’t be fair to say so, and I’m ruthlessly fair. If I don’t believe a word that comes out of his lying mouth, then I can hardly claim to know his real opinions just because they fit with my biases.
Like I said, ruthlessly fair.
It’s very brave of you to go off-script and use phrasing other than the specific and safe “federal income taxes”, but the facts aren’t on your side once you do.
Facts have a well-known liberal bias.
You must make enough that you don’t even look at your pay stubs each week. Obama negotiated a “fiscal cliff” resolution that included a rise in payroll taxes just over two months ago. All of that rhetoric about how he wanted to soak the “top two percent” somehow, magically, turned into a tax on anyone who works for a living no matter how much or little they make. Funny, that.
You mean the removal of the tax cut done as part of the stimulus package? So the payroll tax would fund SS to the level it is supposed to? And you must recall that top earners did get their tax cuts removed, right?
Sorry, still not feeling the war.
His response, or lack of response, to the tape is telling. He finally got around to saying he loves 100% of the people (but it seems he had to think about it.) I don’t think it was a game changer though, it just pushed him further down the path he was on.
I used to think the Mass. Romney was the real Romney, but it seems I was wrong. His comments since the election would make one think the 47% comment represented his real thinking. Anyhow, a true leader, not a chameleon, does not have to say exactly what a given audience wants to hear.
I agree with this. When Romney announced I assumed he was a moderately intelligent centrist who just aped the GOP’s derp to ingratiate himself with the party and get the nomination, like Bush Sr. But the longer he ran the more it became apparent that he actually believes in their economic brutalism, and has completely rationalized it.
I actually thought Romney could walk the party back from its worst stupidities. He was a disappointment.