Mitt Romney recently said that 47% of the population pay no taxes while still receiving government benefits. This likely alienated the 47%, who Romney rightly noted are mostly voting for Obama. But it thrilled the 53% who do pay taxes. Because that 53% are sick and tired of moochers calling the shots.
Every statement any politician makes inspires some percentage of the population while alienating the rest. This is unavoidable. The trick is to find the right balance — the sweet spot is to aim somewhere above 50% and below 90%.
Why below 90%? Why not make statements that inspire everyone? Because when promises and speeches become overly broad, they quickly become meaningless and bland. A politician who announces “I like ice cream; don’t you like ice cream too?” isn’t going to win any votes, because the statement is uncontroversial to the point of banality.
Just below that level are the shallow populists, who generally make statements that attempt to please 75% – 90% of the voters, but at the cost of being not particularly believable. “A chicken in every pot and a car in every garage” sounds very nice in theory, but at this stage in history, vague upbeat promises raise as much skepticism as enthusiasm.
At the other end of the scale, saying things that piss off over 50% of the population is not a wise move for any politician — at least any politician who needs voter approval. Sure, a dictator can get away with seizing all private property and drafting all adults into a pointless war, because he isn’t trying to please anyone and doesn’t need votes to stay in power. Politicians in democracies and republics tend to avoid unpopular moves for this reason.
And so that leaves us with the real sweet spot, between 50% and 75%. Any statement from any politician which inspires or pleases between 50% and 75% of the public can rightfully be assessed as a smart political move.
So when Romney drew a line in the sand between the taxpayers and the non-taxpayers, he was in the sweet spot, because it made him less popular with the 47% of non-taxpayers and more popular with the tax-paying 53%.
Furthermore, he was also correct in his analysis that Obama’s support largely comes from that 47%, as many demographic analyses have shown. The “We want free stuff” crowd votes Democratic, and the “I’m grumpy about paying all those taxes” crowd votes Republican.
The fly in the ointment is a tiny sliver of the population, probably less than one half of one percent, of hyper-wealthy elite liberals who pay taxes and still vote Democratic. And the reason they’re a problem is that this elite clique of socialist millionaires and self-hating high-earners tend to have undue influence over the media narrative, so when they get pissed off by a Romney statement, they can try to paint it as a “gaffe” which offends the nation.
In this case, the instant narrative was that Romney’s statement was so horrible that he just lost the election, since the media promises to repeat Romney’s statement over and over until November 6.
To which I reply: Please do. If Romney just distanced himself from 47% of the electorate, then he drew the remaining 53% closer to him and his statement. And anything that resonates with over 50% of the voters is a winning message. If the media wants to trumpet Romney’s winning message — go for it!
Conversely, when Obama essentially says the opposite — which he does nearly every day with his various permutations of “Spread the wealth around” and “You didn’t build that” — he is alienating the 53%. He’s outside the sweet spot. And yet somehow that media doesn’t consider those Obama’s statements as “gaffes.”
And one final point: it may be that only 53% of Americans pay taxes, but that 53% accounts for a much larger percentage of voters. The poor, the indigent, and minorities always vote in far fewer numbers than the middle and upper classes. So Romney’s “controversial” sentence actually appeals to probably over 60% of the voters. And that’s more than he needs to win.
– Servile State has been realized.
Via Instapundit, although I’d seen it earlier at Yahoo’s finance page: http://www.businessinsider.com/cnbc-and-yahoo-finance-readers-really-liked-mitt-romneys-comments-2012-9
It looks like even more than 53%. Glenn also rightly notes that we should watch this story disappear as it starts to trend negative for the big 0.
Are you serious? These Romney tapes are the gift that keep on giving. From insulting Latinos (“If I was a Latino I’d have a better chance of winning”) to admitting that he’ll just “kick the can down the field” on Israel, to outright calling 47% of Americans – including seniors, veterans, the disabled, and families earning under 50k per year – parasites who won’t “take responsibility for their lives.”
This guy’s goose is totally cooked. There is no comparison or precedent in any modern day presidential campaign for a blunder this huge and awful. This is a desperate campaign with a horrifically stupid candidate. Only the folks in the protective little Fox News-Limbaugh-RedState-PJMedia bubble fail to admit it. Just like 4 years ago when you failed to admit that Sarah Palin was an awful candidate. Time to face facts, guys; the Romney campaign is dead in the water.
If you use popularity ss the measure of a politician, the how do you explain Hitler in the ’30′s and into the ’40s? And -
The Greek economy.
The Spanish economy.
Egypt.
Gaza.
Venezuela.
Cuba.
Etc.
The people can be wrong.
Obama troll. ABO2012
The Democrats are the kiddie “more pie” party. “You like pie? Sure you do! Elect us and we’ll give you more pie, all the time. Don’t worry where it comes from – bottom line is that we’ll give it to you! All you can eat! You don’t have to lift a finger.”
The Republicans are the adult “too much pie will make you sick” party. “You like pie? Sure you do! But you can’t eat pie for every meal – you’ll get sick. Also, that pie has to come from somewhere, you know. Maybe if you want pie you had better go to the store for the supplies and then learn how to bake pie.”
I am the 53%. I bake my own pie every day.
Hopefully they pay you lefty useful idiots to spead the daily talking points. We’re immune and we’ve figured out the game. Since the Communist SOB has nothing to run on, they just characterize everything Romney or anyone on the Right says as some sort of gaffe and since Democrats rely entirely on the stupid and self-serving for their electoral support it works with that percentage of the population that has already demonstrated its idiocy or white guilt by voting for the Communist SOB once. Fortunately, we believe that four years of the Communist SOB has dissuaded enough of the mushy middle and the white guilt voters to rebuild a majority, so for at least four more years we’ll be able to keep the moochers and looters out of power.
Good to see you again, Art. FYI I’ve been hanging out at theothermccain.com quite a bit lately.
@M.T. Hedd
Saying that being a Latino would help him win a election has nothing to do with insulting Latinos, bud. He’s merely pointing out the alarmingly obvious race card that Obama and his supporters pull at every turn. If Romney were a minority, he would have a level playing field on Obama and that would scare the crap out of his advisors.
Kicking the can in Israel – he’s mainly making the point that Palestinians aren’t looking for peace. They literally want to wipe Israel off the map. They have waged this angry, angry war for ages and do not want peace. It’s Obama’s anti-zionist mentors have taught Barry how to handle Israel and it basically means throwing our long-term allies under the bus.
I voted for Obama in 2012. I am mostly liberal. Will I vote for him in November? Heck no. I’m not voting for Romney, either. If anyone is still unclear about Obama’s past and his mentors please watch Obama 2016.
Sarah,
Not voting for Romney, IS voting for Obama. This is very nearsighted, politically speaking, of course. But, You are not beyond hope.
Any “mostly liberal” who voted for Obama in 2008 and stays home this November is OK by me. Would that all of ‘em would follow Sarah’s example.
hopefully, by November, you will have decided that it is more important to vote for America than for the Democrat Party. This thing is way beyond political affiliations. We either vote the Communist out or we perish from the totalitarian trap of collectivism. It is fine with me if you go back to voting for Democrats after you help remove the Communist Party from the power center of our country. ABO2012
Hey Sarah,
Why don’t you just ask Romoney for 47% of his love? That should help ya decide.
Being retired and a veteran, I assure you I feel no threat from Romney. Obama on the other hand seems to have a visceral disdain for folks like me. In the last three years Obama has managed to divide this country on so many levels: Women against men, young against old, Blacks against white, rich against everyone, education against self-taught, Democrats against Republicans, unions against non-union. It is hard to ignore the philosophy of “divide and conquer”. I will give the President some slack as I do not think he is the primary cause of much of what we see. You see, I think the President is fairly incompetent; his handlers on the other hand know precisely what they are doing, and masterful in execution.
M.T. Hedd, what great parody, with the name to boot!
What a dummy I am. I didn’t even pick up on the M.T. Head joke.
arrhh..you beat me to it ben..the poster is an empty head !
Let’s review the carnage inflicted on the Democrat party since Obama took office.
In Jan. 2009, there were 56 Democrats in the U.S. Senate. (With Democrat caucusing Independents and a party switch, this figure hit 60 early in Obama’s term) Today, there are 51 with the very real prospect of fewer come November.
In the House, Democrats controlled the chamber with 257 seats. Today they have just over 190.
In the states, Democrats controlled both chambers of the legislature in 27 states. The GOP controlled just 14. (The rest were split-control, with each party controlling one chamber.) Today, the situation is completely reversed, with GOP controlling 27 states to the Democrats 15. There are more GOP state legislators today than at any time since 1928.
Democrats controlled the Governor’s mansion in 29 states. Today, they hold the Governor’s office in only 20 states, and will likely lose more this November.
M.T. Hedd = Empty Head:
Wishful and misguided thinking on your part.
I enjoyed the positive, uplifting article by Zombie. He made some great points.
nonsense.
Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha!
Spoutin’ the line!
Spoutin’ the line!
Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha!
Spoutin’ the line!
Spoutin’ the line!
Whether you’re a Marxist
Or just an ignoramus
You’ll be
Spoutin’ the line!
Spoutin’ the line!
Even though it’s fantasy
Disconnected from reality
You’ll be
Spoutin’ the line!
Spoutin’ the line!
Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha!
Spoutin’ the line!
Spoutin’ the line!
Mitt can say that because his dad, George Romney, …was born in Mexico, which technically makes Mitt is 1st gen American in this family. No-sh!t. If G.Romney was alive, he could run for El Presidente de Mexico, hombre.
And I’m still naive enough to believe that some of that 47% did not intend to be there, perhaps even ashamed to be there, and given a chance, will try like hell to make enough money to be paying taxes. If that’s 3% of them, then Romney is appealing to 56%.
Agreed, Capn Rusty.
Some of the 47% are also folks who are responsible and productive, but they’ve been hit hard by the recession. They’re eager to join/rejoin the 53%.
…and just wait until sequestration hits the defense industry. It’s already started. Layoff notices will be going out just prior to the election.
And many of the 47% are now retired and have already paid more income tax than the rest of the 47% will ever pay. Most of us will be voting for Romney because we can’t afford to see our savings destroyed by a government that is hell bent on monetizing its debt. ABO2012
Rusty, agreed, some percentage of the 47% are students, young couples, professionals making a lateral shift in their careers. These groups will be higher wage earners in the future and they have skin in the game. They are looking to their futures. Retirees, others that fall into the 47%, may still be fiscal conservatives and view the future for others equally or more important than their own individual situation. These are also those who are not insulted by Romney’s comment as they understand the difference between their situation and the chronic dependent.
I just happen to be one of the 47% on account of a little ss and a lot of work, but not enough money to qualify for taxes. I would love to have to pay taxes, it would mean that my small business is finally successful and I would have more money. I will certainly be voting for Romney.
Due to the state of the economy, I’ve been out of work for something approaching two full years now… and reluctantly receiving unemployment the whole time. Oddly enough, I owed a couple of hundred in Federal Income Tax last year. So… yeah, great job Mr. President.
I don’t know what percent of the 47& live in the District of Columbia or the ghetto in New Orleans but I would bet that they are a part of the 47& and will always vote for Obama. The more children they have to populaate DC’s failing schoola, the more government money they will receive. It’s not a bad life by their standards. I disagree that the 47& want to get off the dole.
Completely agreed. There are a lot of people who have been forced into dependency because of the economic collapse, and they are not happy about it. I suspect that a lot of the recent additions to the disability program really aren’t disabled–but have exhausted unemployment insurance and their savings, and they are past 50, so they are unemployable at pretty much any job. (My son is in college, and one of the most discouraging things he saw a couple of years ago was going to apply for a job in a sandwich shop–and seeing guys his father’s age standing in line with their kids to apply for a minimum wage job.)
Some of us now work for the government for the first time in decades (and are paid less than in 1980), and desperately want to work in the private sector again–but there seems to be hundreds of qualified software engineers for every open position now.
47% seems high. I collect SS now after having paid in double as a self-employed small business owner for some forty-odd years. Does that qualify me as being on the dole?
I haven’t voted for a democrat since the 70′s, and I have no intention of doing so in the future.
As you know, quite a few people on SS pay income taxes, including taxes on their SS benefits.
However, I don’t think Romney meant to include those living on SS alone in the 47%- that figure is just a (rather astonishing) number that illustrates how close we are to the tipping point where people can vote themselves benefits.
Social Security at retirement age is a different story than almost any other government payment, because participation in the program is required by LAW. (Just try NOT paying SS taxes to the IRS and see how that works out.) So you have funded your own payments back to you, and you had no choice in doing so. I wouldn’t count that as being “on the dole” in any way similar to getting most other government handouts.
Everyone subject to a tax such as FICA is required by law to participate. All taxes work that way. (Duh.)
P.S. Social Security isn’t insurance. It’s welfare linked to a tax. The same Supreme Court that just upheld Obamacare said so, probably before you were born.
I can also relate to the “paying double” SS tax as a small business owner. What most if those “employed with benefits” don’t think about is the financial load the business owner carries. I can remember many nights when I just wanted to throw in the towel and shut the doors because my take home pay was smaller than the least paid employee.
Just sayin’.
Yup, you’re on the dole, and what’s worse you were forced onto it, had no opportunity to invest that money and actually make something of it, and now you’ll take whatever the government feels like handing out. And, if ever they decide Moochelle’s vacations to Spain are more important than your Social Security payments…you’re SOL.
Why is this even controversial? The Democrats are blatantly obvious that they buy their voters with cookies. In prosperous times, people just go about paying their taxes without much thought, when times get tough as they have, when people can no longer afford to retire or pay for their children’s education, when groceries are more expensive and energy costs have necessarily skyrocketed; the 53% who pay taxes aren’t exactly in the mood to give cookies to the 47%. The silly Dems don’t even realize the contradictory nature of their actions. You can’t have your industry killing regulatory cake and eat it with your spend lusty progressive dreams. If they kill the host, then everyone will be wading through the muck together. The unions still haven’t learned this lesson, no matter how many hosts they kill. The public employee parasites are the worst, because it is the average Joe property tax payer who foots the bill, and Joe is bleeding out and laying on his death bed. What will they do when we are all tapped out?
The belt tightened taxpayers are not going to tolerate sending billions of dollars to Islamist countries who hate us and trample on our constituition for much longer either. People didn’t question this much in the past, but now their kids are coming home from college with mountains of debt with their dreams of an ordinary life squashed as they put off retirement into the unforseeable future struggling to pay for health insurance and groceries while their underwater mortgages weigh heavy on their hearts. The Dems like to believe the illusion that the wealthy 1% are the taxpayers.
I could not agree more.
For 50 years we have been giving fish to the poor in the inner cities and elsewhere, instead of focusing on teaching them to fish. Have you been to downtown (fill in Big City of your choice). It is pitiful. The Democratic giveaway policies have created several generations of people completely and utterly incapable of taking care of themselves, of reading and writing and addition and subtraction, of finding and keeping a job, of staying out of jail. I will say it: the Democratic Party social values that have been in place in most cities over the past 50 years are IMMORAL, in my view. I think many Democrats are bereft of true care and concern, but these programs do feel good to those same Democrats who want to take a skin-deep approach to “helping” the poor, and allow those same Democrats to criticize Republicans who find fault with these ineffective, IMMORAL programs that do NOTHING to free those poor people. Not coincidentally, the immoral give-away programs also provide a lot of jobs to those chartered with giving the money away, with most of those jobs probably held by Democrats. Sick, truly sick, now they are dependent upon keeping blacks, Hispanics, and other poor people down, keeping them dependent, keeping them serfs, and NOT allowing them to become true Americans who can take advantage of all the opportunities and upside available in America. And teachers like those on strike in Chicago (where 15% of fourth-graders read at grade level) don’t want to be measured while they get paid an average of $71,000 per year NOT including benefits. Ah, the Democrat way. Push the kids from grade to grade regardless of ability and they end-up remaining in poverty. Great vicious circle. Good job, Dems.
You want to talk about a War on Women? How about these data, too, from your so-called benevolent Democrat programs that “evil Republicans” criticize: Illegitimate birth rates, 1965: Black, 18%, White, 3.1% 2010: Black 73%, White 29 %, Hispanic 53%. And they push and support the “social values” that have led to this sick, sick environment. Do you know what your chances as a WOMAN are of being in poverty if you have a child out of wedlock? 40%. And it is over 70% if you are Black. Democrats are waging the insidious, but true, war on women through those social values. (The weird thing to me is how, if you are black, you haven’t figured this out.)
Conversely, if you graduate from high school, work full-time, and marry before you have children, your chances of living in poverty are 2%. Dems have everything to say about gay marriage (I could care less), but nothing to say about regular marriage. “Oh, we can’t recommend what people should do, that would be wrong.”
It is a sick situation. That’s my take. I have values Democrats apparently dismiss when they say Republicans “don’t care about the poor”. They can keep theirs, I will keep mine.
Keep ‘em barefoot, pregnant, and down on the farm: Democrat values.
LOL, +1, that’s the way to tell it.
great headline. smile inducing.
following your own advice, i see.
ROMNEY, THE ONLY TRUTHFUL ONE IN THE RACE!
It’s funny, in watching the news today, they didn’t seem to jump on Romney on this quite like I thought they would. Sure many did (including many conservatives- today was one of those days when I thought Jonah Goldberg was a little too smarty pants and not enough practical common sense) but honestly it seemed like they tried to hit him worse over his supposed (but not at all) “missteps” on Libya. And maybe this is the reason. That if they push it too much maybe more people will see it and agree with it. I think that will definitely be the case with the part of the video where he talks about the Palestinians- there he was just blunt, truthful, and made perfect sense.
Regardless of how many people pay which taxes, the entitlement mentality is pervasive across the board, and getting substantially worse. Sure, you’ve got the welfare queens and the Sandra Flukes, but you’ve also got corporate welfare, farm subsidies, targeted tax breaks, ever-expanding veterans handouts (in Illinois you can mail in for a free $100!), and the list just explodes onward from there.
These folks are on the dole and the first party to stand up to all the freebies will lose.
To paraphrase “The Simpsons:”
Don’t you know you can’t get anything without hard work? Now shut up while I check my lottery numbers.
Also – “Has anyone ever harmed you in any way? You may have a legal case against them. Remember, you don’t have to prove actual damages to collect! Contact Wee, Fleecum & Howe”
We’ve got to turn this ship around. Romney’s saying the same thing I’ve been saying for years about the entitlement society.
Gosh, I have the wrong law firm in my Rolodex. I thought it was Dewey, Cheatem and Howe.
you mean this for the handout?
Korean, Vietnam and Persian Gulf Conflict Bonus
A $100 bonus is payable for service during one of the following periods:
Korea – June 27, 1950 – July 27, 1953
Vietnam – January 1, 1961 – March 28, 1973
Vietnam Frequent Wind – April 29, 30, 1975
Persian Gulf – August 2, 1990 – November 30, 1995
The claimant must also be in receipt of one of the following medals: Korean Service Medal, Vietnam Service Medal, Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal Vietnam Era or the Southwest Asia Service Medal; and have been a resident of Illinois for 12 months immediately prior to entering service and have received an Honorable Discharge. (Individuals currently on active duty who served in the Persian Gulf may apply prior to discharge by also including the “Armed Forces Certificate”.)
http://www.military.com/benefits/veteran-state-benefits/illinois-state-veterans-benefits.html
not too many medal holders who fit is there?
not sure about IL but when I was overseas for 3 yrs I paid a heck of a lot more in state income taxes than 100 and got no use of state items.
with that being said I do not think its a real good use of funds, I think its pure pandering and I would not support it.
Not.
The assumption that the 47% who don’t pay federal income taxes (but do pay SS and local sales tax) is the 47% who support Obama.
Rubbish.
Obama’s support comes from about half of that 47%, and from a lot of rich social liberals who don’t think about taxes, because their accountants worry about that stuff.
Who do you think makes all those campaign contributions to Teh Won, anyway? Welfare mammas?
Romney’s statement was dumb, and so is this.
If Obama’s support comes from half of 47% plus a few hypocritical wealthy liberal elitists, then things are a lot rosier for Romney than we even realized. Are you saying he could be as dumb as he wants and still waltz to victory?
There’s a couple of problems. First, the 47% includes a lot of seniors etc who have paid their taxes, and the far right PJM-bubble crowd is gleefully regarding them as welfare bums. Second, the 47% also includes a *lot* of people who pay craploads of state tax and sales tax and SS tax and property tax and are getting a kickback on fed income tax because they don’t make enough. It’s bad enough to work your ass off and not get that much pay for it; it’s worse to be accused of being a socialist cheat merely because you aren’t making enough cash for the feds to get a cut under current law and still paying > 15-20% of your income in *other* taxes. Even welfare bums are paying sales tax and paying the same fuel tax etc that everyone else does.
With the 53% saying that the 47% isn’t paying enough is this different in concept to the left’s accusation that the rich aren’t paying enough? No, it’s still class warfare with the only difference being that the left is targeting a group who _can_ pay more.
No I’m not a fan of handing money to bums. On the other hand I’m also not a fan of redefining ‘bum’ to suit political needs. The problem that needs to be addressed via politics is creating policy that lets the 47% have jobs that will pay well enough.
I don’t believe you are actually an engineer.
“First, the 47% includes a lot of seniors etc who have paid their taxes, and the far right PJM-bubble crowd is gleefully regarding them as welfare bums.”
I’m guessing that you haven’t read many of the comments here.
Actually I’m sure that welfare mommas siphon that money straight back to him. Kinda like public service unions do. And as Zombie said; if half of that 47% vote Romney then he really can’t lose. Chances are they won’t pull away for that statement (and if they do then good riddance), meanwhile he can still pull others closer to him. I wouldn’t be surprised if this does more to help him than hurt him as people just want to hear someone say what we all know is true. Things like this are the elephant in the room and the less anyone talks about it the worse it gets. We need to not only bring these things to attention, we need to ridicule and embarrass the moochers into becoming useful.
The truth slipped out the other day,im so glad because the truth cuts like a knife!
“Who do you think makes all those campaign contributions to Teh Won, anyway? Welfare mammas?”
Wrong.
From 2008: “The Obama campaign has shattered all fund-raising records, raking in $458 million so far, with about half the bounty coming from donors who contribute $200 or less.”
http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2008/10/03/obama-s-good-will-hunting.html
2008? Like ancient history much?
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/242325-romney-outraises-obama-for-third-month-in-a-row
“ever-expanding veterans handouts”..
There’s no such thing as a “handout” to a Vet. Makes me wonder with a statement like that…if you’ve ever been there. Nah.
Oh sure there is. That’s how I get my 10% discount at Home Depot. It’s not because of my good looks.
Are you telling me Home Depot gives discounts to vets? What do you need to show them to get this discount?
Discounting for vets and/or active duty is common. But since these folks generally are of the character types that aren’t asking for a discount, they aren’t aware of them. In my wife’s business they make sure to query the customer. The number of military personnel who *ask* for the discount is almost zero.
Unfortunately, Home Depot supports ‘marriage’ for same-sex partners. So while I’m a Navy vet, I stopped shopping at Home Depot.
Fellow Bubblehead. RM2 (SS)
One vet is worth 100 lefty professors,and an ounce of gold will soon be worth $3,000 speaking volumes about hugobamas grasp of economics!
Who in the world identifies with that 47%?
It’s like insulting theives and wife beaters as no one wants to protest and be classified as such!
Looks like you already said what I just said and in a better way.
There are a lot of people who identify with the 47%…but many of them are multimillionaires, and with good reason they identify. There’s a lot more money redistributed to wealthy moochers like Solyndra’s owners than to welfare recipients. That’s why Obama in 2008 received far more maximum legal contributions than McCain did.
Producers for Romney versus Moochers for Obama should get a whole lot more than 53% as how many want to view themselves as moochers let alone permanent moochers?
Well, we can hope that Romney gets the electoral vote. It would be a disaster getting the popular vote and losing the electoral vote. This is my fear. In any case, no matter who wins; the USA is in serious trouble, economic, financial, fiscal, social, military, world geo-strategic, (Persian Gulf and others) and if I dare to say it is intellectually bankrupt as the whole West. The US national debt/GDP ratio has reached 100% the last month. Whenever we have a problem it is better to solve it right away, to postpone problems and thinking in solving them…sometimes later on, is a recipe for disaster, and the short list above won’t go away even if Romney wins.
You underestimate the “tiny sliver of the population, probably less than one half of one percent, of hyper-wealthy elite liberals who pay taxes and still vote Democratic.” Among that tiny sliver is the very vocal,liberal left-wing MSM.
Agreed…I’d go so far as to say that the MAJORITY of the super rich wrap around to the leftist hemisphere for a couple of reasons, both of which are designed to protect the wealth that they have obtained. 1) pretend to identify with the downtrodden so as to deflect the natural jealousy and hatred that their wealth would otherwise garnish and 2) keep potential competitors and aspirants from climbing up to their level.
It used to be that the word du jour was gravitas. The MSM loved it, and repeated it ad nauseum. This year the word is gaffe. The MSM parotting of the phrase is like a kid who’s discovered masturbation and just can’t stop doing it. The amusing thing is that both of Romney’s statements, although artuflly taken out of context by the leakers, are essentially true; i.e. 47% of the population does not pay federal income tax, and the Palestinians do not really aspire to peaceful coexistence with the Isrealis. To those on the Left who take umbrage at these simple facts, I regret that you ideology prevents you from recognizing reality, but there you have it.
But the ‘election losing gaffe’ fiction, if repeated often enough, will surely reach the HoneyBs, not all of whom are 47-percenters. So you risk losing votes you need, which can’t be good.
Love the headline, BTW.
Sean Hannity came up with an alternative approach to this matter. He proposed that Romney not abandon hope of winning some fraction of the 47% non-income-tax payers, but rather ask them: “Are you happy with your life? Is this a life you would wish upon your children?”
That has punch. It’s rare that a parent wants his children to be no better off than he is. More, a fair number of the 47% are relatively recent entrants to that category. They might have ben gainfully employed only months ago, and are smarting at the change in their status. Or they might be trying to get struggling small businesses over the line to profitability, while living on savings and hope.
Granted that those of us currently carrying a disproportionate share of the federal burden aren’t unhappy about being in the 53%; there is support to be won from those whose position in the 47% is of recent vintage, involuntary, and bitterly resented. Their support could deliver the GOP a couple of “solid blue” states it would otherwise have no chance of winning.
Yeah, antagonizing and insulting half the population is always a surefire way to win votes. The Romney campaign should hire you immediately.
Four words: “You Didn’t Build That”
Ya’ know Mike and the rest of you creek-chub dingbats on the left who think they know better than the rest, what happens when the money runs out? What happens when the 53% falls below 50%? Who pays for the people you are defending? Who covers the SS, SSI, veterans, SNAP, welfare, and the plethora of other government handouts you on the left so richly enjoy?
Is you allegience to progressivism do deluded you to the looming economic disaster that you ARE willing to destroy America just to win an election? And what good is any future elections if we are all poor?
Or is that it??? Wait, you want us all poor except for the uber-wealthy rich on your side who love the crony capitalism that exists now and the hell with the nation. You want the Cloward-Piven strategy to win don’t you?
What other way is there to look at your position and the left? But be careful for what you wish for, for when the coffers are dry, that 47% you love will come after you-the blacks, hispanics and white trash will look for you-the left.
Just listen to Levin from yesterday.
He will explain what Romney needs to be doing..
http://www.marklevinshow.com/sectional.asp?id=32930#
This is SO 1980 redux. I was nearly sick to my stomach with the thought of another four dreadful years of Jimmy Carter. Reagan, WHO WAS ABOUT EVEN IN THE POLLS, went on to obliterate Carter in the electoral college.
That’s what I’m hoping for this time. There is rage like I’ve never seen or heard before and it will show come election night.
I’m outside the USA but loving the drama. Surely, given that the Dems have screwed up just about everything else, there’s got to be a good chance they’ll screw up the election?
Russian American TV RTVI conducted survey yesterday about Romney 47% statement.
In Russian speaking emigrant community 89% agree with Romney statement, 11% disagree.
Lets all hope that Romney has the backbone to push his statement rather than backtrack and water it down (remember McCain) for the media critics. It is time to go big and bold to excite the Republican taxpayers. Time is short. Weakness in war and politics gets no respect.
“taxpayers and the non-taxpayers…”
The problem with your article being that there are no ‘non-taxpayers’ in the United States. All people, even the illegal immigrants, pay some form of tax. Your problem seems to be with the income tax, because somehow taking income away from people who are trying to raise a family on $20,000/year is a good and noble thing.
Bobby .. the problem is, you see … you don’t count all of the welfare and wealth transfers into your twenty thousand number. WHich makes that number, well … pure bunkum?
Now there you go again… trying to use FACTS to reason with some folks. Hah!
“Mitt Romney recently said that 47% of the population pay no taxes while still receiving government benefits. This likely alienated the 47%, who Romney rightly noted are mostly voting for Obama. But it thrilled the 53% who do pay taxes. Because that 53% are sick and tired of moochers calling the shots.”
Good lord you are dense. 47% pay no INCOME TAX. This includes seniors who no longer have income, veterans who receive pensions, students who have not yet joined the workforce, and families that work their behinds off but still simply don’t make much money. But ALL OF THESE PEOPLE PAY TAXES – PAYROLL TAX.
Nearly two-thirds of the households that did not pay income tax in 2011 were on the hook for payroll taxes, a 4.2 percent tax that is automatically deducted from workers’ paychecks to fund Social Security and Medicare.
Only 18 percent of tax filers did not have to pay either income tax or payroll taxes.
Nearly all of the people who did not pay either type of tax were elderly – 10.3 percent of total tax filers – or had incomes less than $20,000 – 6.9 percent.
Further, About 1 percent of the top 1 percent of income earners, those making about $533,000 or more, did not pay income taxes. That’s roughly 13,000 tax filers. And 4,000 millionaires are also escaping that burden, according to a Tax Policy Center analysis: http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/numbers/displayatab.cfm?Docid=3107&DocTypeID=1
But please, let’s not let facts get in the way of another baseless 5th grade-level diatribe from PJMedia, am I right?
“But please, let’s not let facts get in the way of another baseless 5th grade-level diatribe from PJMedia, am I right?”
No, I don’t think you are on the same page as the rest of us. Here we are speaking of “INCOME” tax which funds the operation of the US Government. You know, that money that pays the salary of the military, Congress, the White House expenses, Moochel’s expensive vacations, and all the other goodies. Payroll taxes are supposed to fund SS and Medicare. Those taxes are a horse of a different color.
But then I’m probably just being racist.
‘Those taxes are a horse of a different color.’ Is that so, jp? Is it true that some taxes are more equal than others or that paying or not paying certain kinds of taxes is more or less valid or empowering? Are you certain that every stream of tax revenue is used only for the programs they have been designated to fund? I guess you probably know that lots of tax money is diverted from it’s designated purpose? I guess you know that some of the so-called trust funds are nothing of the kind? Like, for example, the social security ‘trust fund’? So, if you wish to argue that some taxes are more – something different – than others, you have failed to provide any logical/factual basis for your misplaced thesis, whatever it was. Rather, it seems to me that a dollar taken from my wallet is exactly like the dollar taken from yours. Most of that dollar, however it’s purpose might be designated by the government, is going to be squandered in all forms of waste, fraud and abuse. And that is the point.
Mike P. makes a valid point. The 47% of non-taxpaying persons is a misleading fiction. It is a fiction because most of those people do pay state, local and payroll taxes. Further, to argue that the 47% will vote as a block is just silly, as other comments have made clear. To the larger point, that folks receiving checks and benefits from the government might not vote for the party committed to reducing them? Sure, they will most likely not vote for any reduction, it’s simple self-interest. But the real number of such voters is not the fictionalized 47%. That number is much, much larger. Forget the tax paying canard. Everybody pays some taxes and money paid into the government is used to provide something to someone. Think instead of the large majority of Americans who depend on the government for their pay, insurance, food, education and transportation. Both directly and indirectly. Include those who are employed in businesses that depend on government contracts. Include all public service employees at every level of government, active and retired. Include all retired workers. Include all persons employed in the many subsidized or partially subsidized businesses. Add em up. If the number is less than 80% of eligible voters, I would be very surprised. Now, who here really believes that herd of dependents will vote for a reduction of their pay or benefits? Not gonna happen. BTW, when the heck did it become fashionable for erstwhile conservatives to be proud to pay more taxes than the next guy? People, that money you are so proud of paying has created this government and the huge herd of dependents you impotently resent and who will certainly vote to take more.
Romney’s mistake was to mix together those who are working, but don’t make enough money to pay federal-income tax, with those who collect a government check (SS aside), or food-stamps, or other government assistance. He can turn it around by making it clear that he understands that these people – the under-employed – work hard, and want to make more money.And that his policies will help them make more, or get better paying jobs. Many of these folks are natural conservatives, who paid federal taxes in the past, but Obama’s economy has brought hard times. He has to let them know he understands.
He may have very well have done that in the 2 minutes of video that were cut out. We’ll probably never know.
Low earners not paying federal income tax still file and receive “refunds” in the form of tax credits. If that isn’t a handout, nothing is.
Let’s remember that there are others, outside of the 47%, that will vote for him. I don’t know why but they will. I work with a bunch of very liberal wage earners well within the 53% that are still clinging to hope and change. These are folks that earn anywhere between 50K and 80K. Many are black, gay or otherwise expecting the gov’t to solve their problems but they do pay taxes.
In my opinion, don’t get too excited about having the 53% tied up
Many of the 53% will continue to support Obama because they have a vested interest in the system as it exists. You don’t have to be ‘on the dole’ to be living off tax revenue. There are many tax-paying Americans who benefit from the current welfare state because they run it. Those who support Obama and who pay federal taxes aren’t all investors. Many are people who benefit from big government. They don’t see it that way because the benefit comes in the form of a paycheck. Even some private sector employees are actually deriving some or all of their livelihood from tax revenue. If you work in the medical field or a defense industry, you’re probably getting some (not necessarily all) of what you make from your fellow taxpayers.
The election of Hussein O was just like Carter’s 1n 1976 was propelled by lefty media hyperbole over manufactured national crisis. In case Hussein O, the housing meltdown which originally planted by no other than Jimmy the peanut farmer and nurture by slick Willie, Somehow, magically it became the fault of greedy Republicans. The reality is Hussein O became president not because housing meltdown or pathetic McCain campaign but rather his skin color. Now that the novelty of black president has been wore out and the true color -RED- of The president it has been reviled I’ll not be surprised if a big chunk of the 47% either wont vote or will vote for Romney. Only the loony left believes that the the MSM can influence the outcome of this election by creating phony controversies. Thank God that the good old days of Closet Socialist Uncle Walter Cronkite are gone for good.
This posting in its entirety would be true only if the electorate had remained unchanged since the days of Cronkite. But since then, millions of undocumented aliens have streamed north and will be voting for Zero along with an increasingly brain dead and growing segment of the populace who have tuned into at least 5 minutes of Bravo and consequently had their brains turn to mush.
Whoops… the truth accidentally came out! More leaks, please.
“Mitt Romney recently said that 47% of the population pay no [income] taxes while still receiving government benefits.”
If Romney had actually said what he said in that way — and left it at that — we’d have a hell of a lot better chance than we do of getting obama out of the White House. As it is, with him saying something so profoundly stupid, he’s once again on the defensive — and not doing a very good job defending.
Why do I say his statement was profoundly stupid? Because it was. He may well have alienated enough voters to cause him to lose the election. It wouldn’t take that many. I’m talking about those who would have voted for him had he not pissed them off by effectively calling them freeloaders, leeches, and losers. Even if they don’t switch to obama, they may decide not to cast a vote for a man who showed them such disrespect.
There are plenty of people currently in the 47% who aren’t the least bit happy about being there, people accustomed to being in the top 10%. They know they’d be a hell of a lot better off being in the 53% — and they’re doing the best they can to get there. Losing your job and going from paying the top marginal rate to paying nothing is most assuredly no fun. I’ve been there. (I don’t mean 50 years ago when my wife and I literally spent the last nickel we had on an A&W root beer and split it.)
There of lots of folks in the 47% who don’t consider themselves to be victims — other than, perhaps, temporary “victims of circumstance.” I know how demoralizing and frustrating it can be to spend all your time looking for a job and not being able to find one. I sure didn’t need someone born with a silver spoon in his mouth jumping on me when I was down.
If Romney can’t run the country any better than he’s running his campaign, I’m not sure he deserves to win. Any further blunders on his part and I’d say he’s finished — if he isn’t already. In case you haven’t been paying attention, Pennsylvania is no longer polling as a toss-up state. With Pennsylvania getting closer to being in the bag for obama, all he’s likely to need from the remaining toss-up states to be re-elected is Florida and one other state.
I don’t know what Romney could do to win, but he for dang sure needs to do something. Maybe grow a Magnum P.I. ‘stache? Would he get a boost from a not completely unlikely Israeli attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities in October? He’s likely to get one from the sequestration layoff warnings that have to be sent out at least a week before the election. Would either be enough for a Romney win?
(I don’t really trust polls, but what else do I have to go by? Wishes? Wishes don’t wash dishes.)
I have a suggestion. If you sincerely want to see Obama defeated, quit wringing your hands in dismay and get out there and lend a hand to help Romney win in November. Otherwise, pipe down and get out of the way.
I contribute all the money I can afford to to Romney|Ryan. Otherwise, when I think of something that might be useful to their campaign, I send a suggestion. (http://is.gd/075AiC) Since I’m virtually housebound as the sole caregiver for my wife, I’m rarely in anyone’s way. (She has incurable bone marrow cancer.)
Romney wins my state hands down and I’m nowhere near a battleground state. My wife is too ill to travel. (I couldn’t afford to go to a battleground state even if I were otherwise in a position to travel.) No way am I going to leave my wife alone and piss away what little time we have remaining together while I traipse off to another state and work on a political campaign that’s being run ineptly.
If Romney and his cohorts were running his campaign better, he should win hands down with or without my help. No one can get him elected if he keeps making dumb mistakes that alienate people who otherwise might vote for him.
In other words, I have bigger fish to fry and better things to do with my time than to “get out there and lend a hand to help Romney win in November.”
Pater Coop, what’s your excuse for spending time posting to the Internet instead of “being out there lending a hand to help {Romney|obama} win in November”?
You’re an idiot if you think I’m wringing my hands in dismay. I’m not. Pipe down? Fuggeddaboudit.
Nice job Obama campaign distracting us from Obama’s Libyan/Egyptian/foreign policy/domestic ECONOMIC disasters… And nice gambit, young Mr. Carter. Too bad the American people ARE SMARTER than that! http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/us-election/9551275/US-election-Jimmy-Carters-grandson-helped-leak-Mitt-Romney-video.html
How is Carter’s grandson a Carter? They only had one daughter, Amy.
Did she marry a Carter or did she have this little rascal out of wedlock?
But he also has three sons: Jack, Chip (a/k/a “Jimmy the Lesser”), and Jeff. James Earl Carter IV (a/k/a “Jimmy the Least”) is Chip’s fault.
Now Romney needs to MAKE HIS CASE both foreign and domestic. Time’s a wastin’
The amount of brain fart comments on this thread, with the inability to think critically, seems to me to be proof that our colleges aren’t getting the job done anymore for the amount of cash that we funnel them.
Nobody is arguing that people don’t pay their payroll tax. That’s supposed to go for social security and medicare, isn’t it? Isn’t it for something that most of us may or may not see 20-40 years from now?
Nobody is aruging that people don’t pay state or local taxes. Last I saw, Romney was running for president of the US, the federal government. So why does that matter?
If you don’t pay income taxes, but get federal benefits, why would you care about how much money is spent, or how much others get taxed? They would rightly focus on their benefits–it’s human nature and pure logic.
That is the problem we are facing. My vote (paying almost $200 K per year income tax) counts, as is should, the same as someone paying no tax at all, but getting benefits. When the number of people paying no income tax but receiving benefits exceeds 50%, this will become a downward spiral for voting for more and more benefits from less and less taxpayers.
Result: Greece. Result: California, right now.
Is that what we all really want? Can we all get over our hissy fit here over who said what and why, and ask ourselves if this is what we all really want?
If you don’t pay income taxes, but get federal benefits, why would you care about how much money is spent, or how much others get taxed? They would rightly focus on their benefits–it’s human nature and pure logic.
Your comment and the original post are red herrings and utterly beside the point. Count up the state and federal workers; these get money from the government and pay their taxes. Cops, DMV people, etc. are also in this category. Add teachers and others who derive their pay from the taxpayer even if not directly from the federal government. And now add in the massive number of people whose income is directly the result of governmenal fiat; do you think 250,000 insurance agents would be as fat and happy as they are if not for the government forcing drivers to buy auto insurance? Insurance agents derive most of their money from laws compelling people to buy their products. Construction companies who build roads? Come on.
In the 53% category alone, at least 1/2 derive their incomes — one way or another — as the result of government or government directive.
How, smart guy, is wealth CREATED? It ain’t from what’s left of the 53% who are busy selling burgers to each other and running the local dry cleaner operation. No, it’s coming from money derived outside the US, i.e. selling coca cola worldwide and collecting patent cash for medical equipment in Germany and so on. There’s only a few percent of the 53% who are bringing money to the US, and *this* is the only group to whom your comment broadly applies. Everyone else (most of the country) benefits from policy that redistributes that wealth.
The truth isn’t comfortable. I deal with it daily. What I create is used by my employer to derive wealth. The HR people and the janitors derive their income based on what my dept makes. The sales staff has nothing to sell if we don’t invent it. The state derives no tax from what we don’t sell. The local fast food places and other “service” operations (they create ZIP) derive income from the sales staff and janitors and HR people. And so on. Essentially there is a small army of people dependent on what I create. Even though a microcosm this is a reasonable facsimile of the entire economy; most of it is the result of the work of very few.
Many of you will read this and get the wrong idea. There is no claim that the few are an island; certainly the ability of the few to get to work and have electricity and food and water and so on (this is what Obama’s “you didn’t build that” was referring to) is dependent on the interconnected web of modern society. The point is that money/wealth **must** have an origin point, and the origin point is **not** the entire 53% as posts like yours assume. Therefore the notion that the 47% are somehow focused on their benefits while the 53% is not is simply incorrect.
People are taking one statement and treating it as if it were the end all. I’m one of the 47% but I don’t take offense to what was said. I don’t look at it as if he were talking to me, I see him talking to the moochers that live off the dole without ever thinking of getting a job. Sure, there are those that have been thrown into the 47% because of losing their jobs and not being able to find another. They should be smart enough to know the statement wasn’t directed at them. Romney has also made statements about building the job market so that those that are in the 47% through no fault of their own can get back to work and get themselves back into the other 53%. Those that Romney are talking about aren’t going to vote for him anyway. If he gets in and does what he says about the job market the moochers lose their excuse for not working.
I pay plenty of income tax, and I’ll be voting for Obama.
LOL! How did you get loose? Get back under that bridge, troll!
I also work hard and pay a boatload of income tax, and I surely don’t need a lesson from some silver-spoon trust fund buffoon like Mitt Romney about taking personal responsibility for my life. I’m voting for Obama.
He donated his entire inheritance to charity. He gave away the silver spoon. Sounds like you’re envious of the wealth that he earned. Envy is kind of like hate and resentment: it’ll eat you up from the inside out. You must be a very unhappy individual, and I feel sorry for you.
On top of it all, the tape was doctored right around the 47% comments:
http://hotair.com/archives/2012/09/19/complete-video-of-romney-missing-1-2-minutes-of-remarks-on-the-47/#comments
Didn’t these Mother Jones idiots think that this wouldn’t be found? How clueless do they really think people are?
Morons.
I hope so. If Obama wins in November, we really will be like France or Great Britain, or any of the other European-style social welfare states. We will have as much debt as they do (maybe even more), we will be as bankrupt as they are, we will have the same sky-high taxes that they do, we will have the same social unrest that they have, we will have the same chronic unemployment that they have, and our military will be as impotent as any of our NATO partners. Is this what we want for this country? I cannot believe that even those in the 47% are so evil that they would want to see that happen to America. Because, if they are, if they know what’s in store for us and still vote for Obama, then we have bigger problems than just losing an election. I don’t think there will be much hope for this union and we certainly will not be a superpower anymore. And I don’t think the world can endure a situation where the United States is no longer the last best hope for humanity.
I wonder if Americans will ever have a chance to see the Obama / Rashid Khalidi video that the LA Times has been hiding from the public for the last four years?
The professional trolls are out in force.
Listen up, folks, if you haven’t realized it already:
About 20% of the commenters at conservative sites these days are mobys hired by the Obama campaign and Media Matters, trying in their odd way to spread doubt and defeatism among potential Romney voters.
Don’t fall for it.
Well, heck, fall for it if you want to, just so long as you vote on November 6.
Oh no! People with different viewpoints slipped past the guards! Zombie, please protect us all from opposing perspectives! I don’t think my precious sensibilities can handle it!
Just so I’m clear, is this a website or Communist China?
It’s a website, because last time I checked, nazi pigs like you run China.
If Obama wins……..
I hate to quote the bible; but, I am reminded of Moses’ warning the Jews. If you think you’ve seen bad times tomorrow will be worse for you. Each night you will long for the morning of the previous day, for it was intolerable but the night was even worse. And so it will be each day as each day will get even worse.
Up until now I didn’t realize that he might have been talking to us about Obama.
I have just stopped laughing – saw a bit of Anderson Cooper on Commie News Network- Dem VS Rep on economy and Anderson busted his own side’s argument , the default Dem position- I don’t think it was intentional either –
so the D keeps repeat repeat repeat how the rich will get fewer taxes if Romney wins and how bad off poor people will be b/c “Romney doesn’t care about them”
Anderson tries to bust the R’s position that Romney will make sure there are more (non govt) jobs and young people and small companies will prosper if govt quits making onerous regulations-
Anderson then says “well under Obama the rich got richer and the poor got poorer”"-
DUH!! he doesn’t even realize how anti Obama that statement is and how he just busted the D talking points
oops I meant Wolf Blitzer
At this point, few people will change their votes as a result of these tapes. The sole purpose of them is to motivate Obama’s base to vote, especially the left-leaning undecided/uninspired voter. It appears they were released earlier than planned to deflect the negative news coming from the Middle East so the get-out-to-vote effect has probably been significantly diminished (targeted voter not yet engaged in the election dialogue, effect will wear off before elections, etc). However, I don’t think this is anywhere near the largest bullet in the Obama campaign arsenal. I see them saying, “okay what do we have here in our pile of goodies that is big enough to change the news narrative that we won’t need for the October surprise”. There really isn’t anything shocking in the tapes – the only thing that has made them “newsworthy” is that they were “secret” and “leaked”. Romney’s campaign and Republican pundits needs to stay focused on their own get-out-to-vote message and ways to dampen the enthusiasm of the Obama base by raising the concerns of the anti-war Democrats on the Middle East uprisings.
Curious why my disagreement simply stating that democrats might lack the properly formed conscience required to feel shame would be deleted by moderators. Doesn’t seem right. I was stating honest and sincere and non-confrontational opinion.
I just don’t see what he said as completely wrong. I also don’t think he meant to include the elderly and those who have put into the system the entire life. Many older folks would be able to fend for themselves if they had the ability to make interest on their retirement. As it stands now, the bank is the clear winner in holding our money.
This is a conversation we need to have in this country. When the takers out weighs the producers, its over! The elites are doing all they can to produce as many dependents as they can. This keeps them in power!
“Who will help me plant my wheat?” asked the little red hen.
“Not I,” said the cow.
“Not I,” said the duck.
“Not I,” said the pig.
“Not I,” said the goose.
“Then I will do it by myself.” She planted her crop and the wheat grew and ripened.
“Who will help me reap my wheat?” asked the little red hen.
“Not I,” said the duck.
“Out of my classification,” said the pig.
“I’d lose my seniority,” said the cow.
“I’d lose my unemployment compensation,” said the goose.
“Then I will do it by myself,” said the little red hen, and so she did.
“Who will help me bake the bread?” asked the little red hen.
“That would be overtime for me,” said the cow.
“I’d lose my welfare benefits,” said the duck.
“I’m a dropout and never learned how,” said the pig.
“If I’m to be the only helper, that’s discrimination,” said the goose.
“Then I will do it by myself,” said the little red hen.
She baked five loaves and held them up for all of her neighbors to see. They wanted some and, in fact, demanded a share but the little red hen said, “No, I shall eat all five loaves.”
“Excess profits!” cried the cow. (Nancy Pelosi)
“Capitalist leech!” screamed the duck. (Barbara Boxer)
“I demand equal rights!” yelled the goose. (Jesse Jackson)
The pig just grunted in disdain. (Harry Reid)
And they all painted ‘Unfair!’ picket signs and marched around and around the little red hen, shouting obscenities.
Then the farmer (Obama) came He said to the little red hen, “You must not be so greedy.”
“But I earned the bread,” said the little red hen.
“Exactly,” said Barack the farmer. “That is what makes our free enterprise system so wonderful. Anyone in the barnyard can earn as much as he wants. But under our modern government regulations, the productive workers must divide the fruits of their labor with those who are lazy and idle.”
And they all lived happily ever after, including the little red hen, who smiled and clucked, “I am grateful, for now I truly understand.”
But her neighbors became quite disappointed in her. She never again baked bread because she joined the ‘party’ and got her bread free. And all the Democrats smiled. ‘Fairness’ had been established.
Individual initiative had died but nobody noticed; perhaps no one cared so long as there was free bread that ‘the rich’ were paying for it.
“Romney Locks Up 53% of the Vote”.
====
That’s great if people actually get out and vote. Keep remembering that Obama was elected by only 30% of registered voters. There was a 58% turnout and of the people who actually voted, 52% voted for Obama. Multiply 0.58 and 0.52 and you get 0.30. Just 30% of registered voters saddled us with Obama. Forget about the polls and just vote.