Romney: '47% of Americans are dependent on gov't, are victims'

[YellowSubmarine]

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/...ate-fundraiser

During a private fundraiser earlier this year, Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney told a small group of wealthy contributors what he truly thinks of all the voters who support President Barack Obama. He dismissed these Americans as freeloaders who pay no taxes, who don't assume responsibility for their lives, and who think government should take care of them. Fielding a question from a donor about how he could triumph in November, Romney 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.

Romney went on: "[M]y job is is not to worry about those people. I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives."

[Warfish]

He's 100% right.

He's also 100% an idiot.

[PlumberKhan]

Romney is wrong here.

Out of the 47% of people who receive income tax refunds at the end of the fiscal year, 95% of those people receive no welfare benefits, food stamps or rent assistance. Those people do not feel like "victims". They work very hard to make ends meet and struggle to do so.

I agree with him that people who receive handouts act like victims. But just because a family makes 45k a year and has 2 or 3 children and gets a refund does NOT make them lazy and unproductive.

[Trades]

Isn't the real question what can be done about it? Is there a way to help these people be more responsible and productive? Is it just a matter of getting the government out of the way? Would removing these payouts somehow motivate the unmotivated on its own?

IMO he is right but I don't see how it is a good political strategy to alienate half the country. Had he said 47% of the country are net takers and that is why we are at a 1:3 tax in vs debt ratio and here is how I would solve that issue... he might have had something.

[Trades]

I will add that I have a great job where I make great money. I honestly can't complain about 1 thing about my current job but I am still looking for ways to make more money and become even more financially independent. I think there are those that will always strive for more and those that are content and while there is nothing wrong with being content with little there is something wrong again IMO if you are content living off of your neighbors efforts.

[Jetdawgg]

Romney is a sick joke. Just how does alienating nearly half the electorate win you something positive with the majority of voters?

He is dumber than Bush. When one is POTUS, the governance is of the whole nation. This is purely pandering to the RW. Just another nail in the coffin of his campaign run.

I run my own company. I am making good money and also looking to become more financially independent. furthermore, I will. I just don't believe that there are that many people looking to stay on welfare. Just how smart is that? Unless of course they are part of the QE 3/TARP/Bailout crowd. That is the REAL ENTITLEMENT crowd.

[palmetto defender]

Originally Posted by Jetdawgg

Romney is a sick joke. Just how does alienating nearly half the electorate win you something positive with the majority of voters?

He is dumber than Bush. When one is POTUS, the governance is of the whole nation. This is purely pandering to the RW. Just another nail in the coffin of his campaign run.

I run my own company. I am making good money and also looking to become more financially independent. furthermore, I will. I just don't believe that there are that many people looking to stay on welfare. Just how smart is that? Unless of course they are part of the QE 3/TARP/Bailout crowd. That is the REAL ENTITLEMENT crowd.

There are plenty of people happy to be on welfare. No work - get money. Plus get everything else they need. On welfare but have $200 sneakers, a new i phone and a 52" LCD TV. Why work. they have a dr\ug distribution gig on the side.
Romney is accurate, BUT should keep ity to himself or presentthe data differently. Maybe. of course no leech will vote for hom anyway and risk cutting into the gravy train.

[SafetyBlitz]

Originally Posted by PlumberKhan

Romney is wrong here.

Out of the 47% of people who receive income tax refunds at the end of the fiscal year, 95% of those people receive no welfare benefits, food stamps or rent assistance. Those people do not feel like "victims". They work very hard to make ends meet and struggle to do so.

I agree with him that people who receive handouts act like victims. But just because a family makes 45k a year and has 2 or 3 children and gets a refund does NOT make them lazy and unproductive.

And if those same 95% were able to afford higher education/training, with help from the government, would they be lazy or victims for accepting it?

Or would they be industrious for taking the opportunity to better themselves. If that was paid for by taxing "job creators" a little more than they are now, would those same job creators not have the ancillary benefit of a better workforce to hire?

[Jetdawgg]

Originally Posted by palmetto defender

There are plenty of people happy to be on welfare. No work - get money. Plus get everything else they need. On welfare but have $200 sneakers, a new i phone and a 52" LCD TV. Why work. they have a dr\ug distribution gig on the side.
Romney is accurate, BUT should keep ity to himself or presentthe data differently. Maybe. of course no leech will vote for hom anyway and risk cutting into the gravy train.

PD, this is mere conjecture and so far from the truth. The % of Welfare recipients do not have many luxuries. They are the most vulnerable people. Have you ever been to North Philly? Baltimore? SE DC? SW ATL?

I would rate those places as now worse than the S Bronx. Romney is far from accurate and even worse, extremely divisive

[Warfish]

Originally Posted by SafetyBlitz

And if those same 95% were able to afford higher education/training, with help from the government, would they be lazy or victims for accepting it?

Safety's answer to all problems:

More Taxes, More Spending, More Welfare, More Entitlements.

Blame everyone but the individual for their failings. How suprising.

How about we tax YOU Safety, personally. You can afford to help put someone you don't know through college each year, so we'll tax YOU for your idea. If you think it's so important, how many kids have you put through school this year? 1? 10? 100?

[PlumberKhan]

Originally Posted by SafetyBlitz

And if those same 95% were able to afford higher education/training, with help from the government, would they be lazy or victims for accepting it?

Many of them probably did.

The problem I have with what he said is equating someone who gets a tax refund to a welfare-lifer looking for free handouts is wrong. The vast majority of people who get refunds have never been on welfare a day in their life.

[Trades]

Originally Posted by SafetyBlitz

And if those same 95% were able to afford higher education/training, with help from the government, would they be lazy or victims for accepting it?

Or would they be industrious for taking the opportunity to better themselves. If that was paid for by taxing "job creators" a little more than they are now, would those same job creators not have the ancillary benefit of a better workforce to hire?

My questions are what did they do with the 12+ years of free education that was already given to them? If they made the most of it they probably qualify for scholarships or grants that would get them into college under the current system. Why do we need more? The country is flooded with college grads that can't find work as it is.

[palmetto defender]

Originally Posted by SafetyBlitz

And if those same 95% were able to afford higher education/training, with help from the government, would they be lazy or victims for accepting it?

Or would they be industrious for taking the opportunity to better themselves. If that was paid for by taxing "job creators" a little more than they are now, would those same job creators not have the ancillary benefit of a better workforce to hire?

I personally do not think the federal government should be in the education business. Want to go to college or trade school? Get a loan at the bank with daddy's home as collateral. The gov is basically pandering to people (and has for some time) with this loan nonsense.
I pay a lot of taxes. I could pay a lot more if Obama has his way. Why, because I once worked hard?
Anyone can be successful. Just get out and do it. And a fancy education at an overpriced college is not necessary.

[palmetto defender]

Originally Posted by Trades

My questions are what did they do with the 12+ years of free education that was already given to them? If they made the most of it they probably qualify for scholarships or grants that would get them into college under the current system. Why do we need more? The country is flooded with college grads that can't find work as it is.

Uh oh. Another valid point being made. You racist dog.
12 years of education is quite enough to find a decent job in the work force. Toss in a little community college and you're ready to go. Lots of unfilled tech jobs out there. Especially in the medical area.
No, you may not be a doctor, research chemist or a CEO but that's life.

If a person has GREAT talent, they will get a college scholarship. Effort has to be expended though. I got one once and all my children got one. It was not a picnic and my kids were annoyed at my pushing as I was with my parents. WORTH IT.

[PlumberKhan]

Originally Posted by palmetto defender

Uh oh. Another valid point being made. You racist dog.
12 years of education is quite enough to find a decent job in the work force.

Many people DO find a decent job after 12 years of school. And then when they work all year and file taxes....they get a refund.

According to Mitt, that person is a lowlife scum handout seeker.

[SafetyBlitz]

Originally Posted by PlumberKhan

Many of them probably did.

The problem I have with what he said is equating someone who gets a tax refund to a welfare-lifer looking for free handouts is wrong. The vast majority of people who get refunds have never been on welfare a day in their life.

I know what ya meant, I'm taking it a step further, saying if those same people received higher education/training on the government dime, even if it was a 'free handout', they still wouldn't be lazy victims.

Originally Posted by Warfish

Safety's answer to all problems:

More Taxes, More Spending, More Welfare, More Entitlements.

Blame everyone but the individual for their failings. How suprising.

How about we tax YOU Safety, personally. You can afford to help put someone you don't know through college each year, so we'll tax YOU for your idea. If you think it's so important, how many kids have you put through school this year? 1? 10? 100?

More taxes on the rich. More spending on the middle class. Welfare can stay the same. Perhaps one or two more entitlements, if they save money for the average American and the country as a whole (universal healthcare) or are an investment that will create more revenue later (higher education/better job training leads to greater tax revenue later). And really, universal healthcare would replace 3 entitlements with one - Obamacare, medicare and medicaid.

And sure, tax me for it. I'm game.

[palmetto defender]

Originally Posted by PlumberKhan

Many people DO find a decent job after 12 years of school. And then when they work all year and file taxes....they get a refund.

According to Mitt, that person is a lowlife scum handout seeker.

Define refund. I get a refund every single year. Why? I overpay estimated taxes because I am paranoid about getting hit with interest and penalties. That is wasteful to me.
BUT, to get a refund resulting in a person paying ZERO AND getting money back as well is just plain wrong. That is a lowlife handout seeker.

[SafetyBlitz]

Originally Posted by Trades

My questions are what did they do with the 12+ years of free education that was already given to them? If they made the most of it they probably qualify for scholarships or grants that would get them into college under the current system. Why do we need more? The country is flooded with college grads that can't find work as it is.

Offer training in the sectors we do need, and offer investment for that. It can adjust as the economy adjusts.

Public schooling through grade 12 is so we have a literate population that can balance their own checkbook.

It's not the same as professional training, nor should it be.

[Warfish]

Originally Posted by SafetyBlitz

The problem I have with what he said is equating someone who gets a tax refund to a welfare-lifer looking for free handouts is wrong. The vast majority of people who get refunds have never been on welfare a day in their life.

A Tax Refund doesn't make one a welfare recipient, agreed.

Being a net-taker from the tax system, and not a net-payor, is what makes one a problem.

Sounds like you've taken Romny's words rather personally PK. Think he was talking to you, eh?

More taxes on the rich. More spending on the middle class. Perhaps one or two more entitlements

Responsabillity-free Social Welfare State based on wealth redistribution, then, eh? Figures.

And sure, tax me for it. I'm game.

Spoken like a man who knows he's young and in the lower-middle class of income earners, well benefit from any such redistribution programs, and knows full well he's a net-taker, not a net-payer into the system.

[PlumberKhan]

Originally Posted by palmetto defender

That is a lowlife handout seeker.

So...18.1% then. NOT 47%.