If he’s correct, then it’s not offensive though. It’s just true.
I think it’s false and terribly offensive too, I’m just saying that you’re creating a strawman about what they think. If you called them “selfish,” they’d turn around and say that the 47% were the selfish ones, not them.
Yeah I think a lot of us are pretty much on the same page. Good article (because I agree with it 
The flaws in the assertion (that the 47% who don’t pay federal income taxes are mostly* freeloaders who are in that situation because of poor moral character) are so numerous and obvious (see the various points made in this thread) that to make the statement is proof positive of either profound ignorance or deleberate dishonesty.
*Romney never indicated the statement to be less than an absolute exception-free rule, but I’ll spot him a little extra wiggle room. Never let it be said that I am being unfair to him.
Except as retired country club white guys they are probably Repub voters and as such also part of the 47%. So they are either oblivious to whom Romney is talking about or they really don’t seem to care. I chose the latter because Romney’s argument is to lump everyone in a big number to advance the Republican approach in shaming the dregs off of social assistance.
Absolutely.
Or they aren’t Republican voters and aren’t part of the 47%.
And oblivious or not caring isn’t the same thing as selfish.
And if they were retired country club Republicans who are black (one of the dozen or so in existence) would that make it different? Let’s leave race out of it.
That still doesn’t make these guys selfish.
This is all a minor quibble, and I know it. But in my experience, having the most precise and undistracting and *credible *argument possible is essential in politics, because the other side will have no mercy and no qualms about using stupid arguments against you as long as they work.
In the LA Times today one of the columnists was also making the point that the 47% isn’t a static population, but fluid, and Romney’s not realizing that displays some fundamental misunderstandings about those 47%.
Just a point of clarification I never called them selfish, as you continue to assert, I said they didn’t give a rattz ass about them, which doesn’t necessarily mean they are necessarily selfish, it means they just don’t care.
Personally, I don’t think hypocrisy is the best explanation for this. These folks have been told stories about “welfare queens” and “poverty pimps” for decades. So when they finally get government assistance and learn it isn’t nearly as generous as they’ve been told, they think the you-know-who’s have gamed the system to get a better deal for themselves.
Hm, birth control springs to mind. Even something simple like a condom …
snicker
Very good point. I know that I have paid taxes in for a majority of my life [having worked to put myself through school, I don’t even have the lazy student excuse.] and there have been a couple patches where I wasn’t employed - one patch of 4 months where I was post surgery and couldn’t work, one year and a couple months where I put in almost 400 job applications and resumes before I managed to get hired, and since my body crapped out leaving me handicapped. [And I am still not on unemployment, welfare or SSD income. I will get social security when I hit ‘retirement age’ and probably not before.] So in a period of 34 years out of my 50, I have not paid income based taxes for roughly 4 years combined.
I don’t see a bit of difference, but that’s okay, I accept your words as you said them.
Um, I’m going to say he knows full well what he’s saying, he just only provides a half measure so he can sell his loathesome survival of the fittest ideology to the privileged few who swallow it whole because it’s in their self interest to do so. It really is interesting that his audience for his diatribe was the posh class of America. He can’t “elegantly state” it enough to walk back his argument to the masses now, so he has to live with it.
Yep, that’s the real story. It’s ridiculous already to equate not paying income tax with being entitled and lazy, but the fact is that most of those 47% are either working or retired. Even most of the unemployed are looking for work.
Romney’s statement was wrong in many ways, but the general sentiment is right: the dependent vote Democrat. They are unreachable because they are owned. They are no longer free to make their own decisions, their fates are tied to one party.
I’m not talking about everyone who receives government assistance of some sort. Many Republicans do, even when Republicans threaten to cut that assistance. I’m referring to people for whom dependence is so total that they do not feel free to make a choice.
Incredible isn’t it that there are people who actually want to begrudge employment insurance? You have paid taxes and the 4 years you’ve received benefits hasn’t been a free ride. I hope you decide to apply for other benefits if you need them. Life is difficult enough
This is Ralafaca Shit. The “owned” argument makes me want to throw up. The systemic unemployed are a very small portion of the population, and they are not getting rich off any meager benefits. Romney and his ilk want you to think otherwise. When politics wants to beat people when they’re down rather than provide options to help them out that’s where the horse shit thickens.
100% fact-free! Dude, there’s drinking the Kool-Aid, and then there’s hogging the pitcher!
Fine. Then there will be a lot of welfare recipients voting Republican since I’m wrong. Glad we cleared that up.
It’s the people who spend much of their lives, rather than four years, on assistance that are at issue for most Republicans. The “permanent underclass.”
Welfare isn’t that much of an issue for most voters now. Or at least that was the case before this administration vastly expanded eligibility.