Revisiting The 47 Percent

I’ve been away for awhile.  Life has been busy and I thought it was a good time to step away from the files of the Tarheel.  However, during that time I have been paying attention and it’s hard to ignore the fact that since the conventions, the terror attacks in Libya and Romney’s comments regarding the 47%, Obama has been surging in the polls.  And I’ve thought about Romney’s comments.

Why The Negative Reaction

I listened to the words Romney used that night at his fundraiser.  And I remember I cringed.  I was disappointed that Romney had been taped like this and his views “revealed.”  And as I watched the reaction on the news and in the media, my fears were confirmed – disaster.

Since then I’ve thought about it.  And I’ve come to this conclusion:

Romney was RIGHT!

There are, absolutely positively ARE, people who make a living identifying the handouts and the give-aways provided by the government and will vote to keep those benefits coming.  Some of these folks, to be sure, are aware that this is a gravy train and are just going to ride it for as long as they can.  And then there are others that really, honestly feel that they are entitled to these benefits from their government.  They feel that they are entitled to food and to a home and to clothing and to medical care.  That by simply breathing, these things are owed to them.

And these people will vote for Obama.

The reason for this reaction from the left?  Because it’s TRUE!

Who Isn’t The 47 Percent

Romney isn’t stupid.  And his number is correct; 47% of America doesn’t pay a federal income tax.  And further, if asked, he would know and admit that of that 47% some folks are retired seniors living on social security.  Some are veterans who’ve served their country.  Of course he knew that.  And of course he knows that he isn’t referring to that demographic.

When you hear a conservative remark with disdain that group of people who don’t pay taxes and live off the government, the image isn’t one of a tired old warrior resting after years of service.  Nor is it one of grandma rocking to the tunes of the Grand ol Opre while knitting her most recent baby blanket.

No, the image is that of the individual who claims unemployment while not looking for a job.  The image of that person is one of the single mother with more than 3 kids, never having been married and not even looking to make life for her family better.  The image is that of the moocher.

Romney isn’t talking about the soldier or grandma.

And he’s right.  The folks he’s invoking are going to vote for Obama.

Who Is Left

Romney isn’t admitting anything controversial.  There isn’t a single person that’s going to disagree with the fact that the chronic dependent of government isn’t going to vote for more government.  So, who is Romney going after?  He’s going after the middle.  The independent voter who isn’t trapped by the siren song of the check and is capable of thoughtful independent decision making.

He’s going after that 10% in the middle.  He’s acknowledging that he’s got 45 in the bag for him, he’s got 45% against him and he needs to resonate with those not yet committed.  And for whatever reason, people think that because Romney said this in a private meeting with large dollar donors that this is somehow a sin.

What Should Romney Do Now

Sing it from every rooftop and street corner that’ll have him.  Romney needs to create an image of a strong candidate that has the conviction of his beliefs.  Make the left challenge him, make the democrats attack his position.  And then hammer ’em.  We DO have a moocher class.  We KNOW they’ll vote for anyone who enables their life.  And any reasonable person wants to REDUCE the number of that population.

I’ll have that debate any day.  Let someone tell me that we wanna increase those on food stamps and I’ll call ’em a fool.  We wanna increase the number of folks receiving Section 8?  I’ll take them to task for creating a dependency lifestyle without creating an incentive to strive for a life of dignity where an individual is capable of caring for themselves.

Bring me the democrat that makes the argument we want more people receiving these entitlements and I’ll show you a winning argument.

Sing it Romney; Sing it to everyone who’ll hear ya!

12 responses to “Revisiting The 47 Percent

  1. I don’t believe you are right. There may be a moocher class, but I believe it is very small. Most people who get welfare are the working poor. The working poor make too little to pay income taxes. Even if they get food stamps, someone working full time and not able to make enough to feed their families aren’t moochers. Most people want to work, when unemployment goes from 4 to 8 percent it’s not because a bunch of people suddenly got lazy and wanted to mooch, but they can’t get jobs. Your post doesn’t prove that any kind of moocher class of any size exists. Indeed, I’d like to see Romney try to make that argument — but he knows he’d look ever more the plutocrat. Better for him to say that he does NOT believe most Americans consider themselves victims and feel entitled, and he does believe almost all Americans want to succeed and are willing to work hard. He should then say he believes his policies will help more get that opportunity.

    But if he starts saying we have a large number of moochers trying to game the system, he’ll fail. It’s just not true, and given his reputation at this point, he’s the last person who can successfully make that argument.

    He can still turn this around — but not by doubling down on messages that speak more to his base than average Americans.

    • There may be a moocher class, but I believe it is very small. Most people who get welfare are the working poor.

      The moocher class isn’t restricted to those who simply don’t work. It also consists of those folks who take from the government that property which isn’t theirs.

      At least with social security and the medi’s you can claim that they paid into the system. But the food stamps, the housing, the day care assistance, the cell phone subsidy and unemployment….I think you’re wrong. I think people game the system. And to think they don’t is misunderstanding human nature.

      Why are people so willing to ascribe greed to companies but not to people?

      Even if they get food stamps, someone working full time and not able to make enough to feed their families aren’t moochers.

      What do you call it when one individual lives off the labor of another man that has the fruits of that labor taken from him?

      Indeed, I’d like to see Romney try to make that argument — but he knows he’d look ever more the plutocrat.

      I think you’re wrong here. I think –perhaps hope–that America desperately wants to avoid the the the path of Europe. I think we look at Greek austerity riots and hope and pray that it doesn’t happen here.

  2. But getting government assistance doesn’t mean you’re a moocher — especially not if you work and are trying to raise a family. Of course, more money goes for corporate welfare, tax breaks, and benefits for the very wealthy. Do you really think the ultra-rich have earned all that they are able to acquire? Do the working poor who might be working over 40 hours a week at minimum wage really deserve only what they get, unentitled to foodstamps to help feed their children, or access to health care that the super rich can get easily? I agree that moochers who game the system don’t deserve help. I agree that government dependency is bad, and if social welfare programs make people dependent they are doing real harm to the people they are trying to help. But I know too many working poor and I can’t demonize people just because they get assistance. They need it! They’re working! They don’t like needing help!

    • But getting government assistance doesn’t mean you’re a moocher — especially not if you work and are trying to raise a family.

      With the exceptions of SS and Medicare, I think that’s exactly what it means. If you are working or not working, the fact that another man is laboring for your benefit means you are living off that man. Some call it charity, others call it mooching.

      Of course, more money goes for corporate welfare, tax breaks, and benefits for the very wealthy.

      You surly must acknowledge that there is a difference in reducing a tax rate and cutting a check.

      Do you really think the ultra-rich have earned all that they are able to acquire?

      I suspect that Jobs, Gates and Buffet are honorable honest men. As such, yes, they are entitled to eery blessed red cent. And remember, they traded for that wealth. Every single person who buys an iPhone is wealthier in the exact same measure that Jobs got wealthier.

  3. Scott,

    Perhaps in your circles you do not run into the people who take advantage of the system . None of us on the right want to deny the the truly needy the basics of life, honest I swear we do not . Pino is right, there are plenty of people who will crash the system because they have been taught to believe it is their right. Then as in Greece the truly needy will get nothing .

    This demonization of the rich is exactly the scapegoat politics that has ruined Europe and used to get witches burned in the Middle Ages . Speaking of the rich, do you hate them all ? Or maybe just small businessmen you hate ? I bet some rich are more equal or more better than others, eh ? Maybe athletes and Hollywood stars are the good rich . How about Johnny Depp, is he a good rich or a bad rich ? Since France taxes the rich at 75 % Mr. Depp must be careful how much time he spends in his adapted France . Does that make him bad ?

  4. No one is demonizing the rich. It’s good to be rich and successful, and Obama’s tax proposals would still be lower than what they were taxed by Reagan.

    I think some political operatives are duping the middle class by convincing there is a huge class of moochers out there, when there isn’t — and not allowing them to see how they’re gaming the system not just to be rich (which is fine) but to also be able to write the rules and create special breaks for themselves. No one objects to wealth, one objects to unfairness and attacks by the wealthy on those who are suffering the most during an economic down turn. “Give us more tax cuts while we cut aid to those who are struggling” and then to add insult, call them “moochers” with a “victim mentality.” That kind of cruel arrogance towards people who are often working two part time jobs just to try to make ends meet reflects being out of touch with reality.

    Yes, there are people who abuse the system. That should be stopped. But I’ve NEVER seen evidence that mass numbers are moochers. NEVER. No data. Most of the people who don’t pay income tax are the working poor. Most of the unemployed want to work and WERE WORKING before the economic crisis started. For the winners to snidely call them moochers and pretend that just because the market (with rules written by the winners) allows them to get a lot and the working poor not enough to survive then that reflects some kind of just reflection of work and effort is something the voters must (and I believe will) reject.

    • also be able to write the rules and create special breaks for themselves.

      For the winners to snidely call them moochers and pretend that just because the market (with rules written by the winners)

      I’m easily in the top 10% based on salary and I have zero ability to write rules that benefit me. I have no access to school boards, to city government and county commissioners. State and federal governments are unavailable to me.

      Those that are able to influence government in that manner rank in top 10% of the one percent.

      I consider someone a moocher if they take money provided by another man’s labor. Granted, this gets tricky for those on SS and medicare, so we’ll exclude them. Just because a single mother of 4 is working while STILL receiving food, housing and health benefits doesn’t mean she’s not living off the labor of another.

      What do YOU call a moocher?

      • Your definition of moocher is untenable. It’s also a Marxian definition. A business owner mooches of his workers if he reaps most of the benefits of their labor and pays them little, by that definition. Oh, but you might say, it’s mooching only if they get it via government, or not via what they can get away with in the market. At that point you’ve brought in unwarranted limitations on the concept that it’s programmed to give you the result you want.

        The fact is, through voting and laws the wealthiest do create a government that benefits what they have, even if any one person doesn’t feel they can do that. You are right that only those at the top have direct influence.

        The reason is because economics is primarily a social enterprise. If you try to break it up into individual relations power intervenes and those with power benefit more. There is no abstract justice in looking at it individually – it’s where your theory goes. If you’re a Marxist the business owner is mooching off workers by paying them only what the market will bear, not what their work truly added in value (with the owner getting what his capital and work added in value – which may still be more, but not as much more). If you’re a free market capitalist the market determines justice. In each case, justice is an artificial artifact of the theory, not real.

        Moreover, there are societal implications from all this — and part of what government does is try to make sure there isn’t unrest and a revolt (which there would be without government actions). Me, I just think there should be real opportunity for everyone, and some basics like education, health care, police protection, fire protection, and a safety net should be provided, since without those true opportunity is lost.

        • Oh, but you might say, it’s mooching only if they get it via government, or not via what they can get away with in the market.

          It’s mooching when it’s coerced.

  5. Scott,

    ” No one is demonizing the rich. It’s good to be rich and successful, ”

    Perhaps my reading comprehension is not what it ought to be. I perused a certain site and found your comment on a topic where everyone was bashing rich people .
    You know, even though I am now banned on that particular board I am aware of what is posted there . It sure sounded to me like you picked out one rich person as a representative sample of them all .

    ” I think once they get wealthy they have a self-serving belief that they did earn all of what they have, and do not understand how much the system is structured in their favor. I recall the woman on the plane this May who, in all seriousness, said “How can anyone call $300,000 a year rich?” In her mind (and apparently Mitt’s) that’s middle class. You still struggle to pay all the taxes and fees, and can’t afford the stuff the really wealthy get. They compare themselves across and above, and have a hazy view of those who earn less. I’m not saying they’re not assholes, but it’s an ass-holeliness built as much out of ignorance. “

    • How on earth can you read that as demonizing the rich? First, it was a factual story. She didn’t consider someone who was at the 97th percentile in national income to be rich. She considered that middle class. Moreover, because we associate with people in our own group, she doesn’t really understand how the rest live – something she admitted. Relying a factual account certainly can’t be said to demonize the rich! Now the last bit was in jest (I was responding to someone who said the wealthy are assholes), but the point was clear: it’s not that she’s a bad person, but the way the system operates leaves the very wealthy often ignorant of the benefits they have, and how bad others have it. They close their eyes to injustice. Nothing in that statement could be interpreted to say there is anything wrong with being wealthy. It says that people should understand better what advantages they have and empathize more with others. Wealthy people who do get more respect from me than those who don’t. Poor people who do get more respect from me than poor people who don’t.

  6. Scott,

    I assumed it was a factual story . The person making the $ 300,000 per year probably crawled to get to that niche . It is a natural human reaction to have worked your way up to that level and resent that you are are living no better than when you made less money because so much more is now going to the tax man . That you fail to understand such simple human motivations puzzles me .

Leave a Reply