When Mitt Romney sat down with Fox News' Neil Cavuto yesterday, he very quickly denounced the idea of "redistribution" of wealth. Literally 20 seconds later, Romney added, "I believe the right course for America is one where government steps in to help those that are in need." Soon after, Romney also condemned President Obama for finding savings in Medicare.
It was a hint, not only that he's not clear on what "redistribution" means, but also that he hasn't really thought the issue through. As Greg Sargent noted, "Maybe someone can explain how we can pay for 'government caring for those in need' without 'taking from some to give to others.' How do you pay for a safety net without redistribution?"
The short answer is, you can't.
But there was another exchange in the interview that's worth keeping in mind.
CAVUTO: Now, you have said that your wording might have been inelegant, but others have said that you just kissed half the electorate goodbye this election year, that you all but called them moochers. Did you?
ROMNEY: No, I'm talking about a perspective of individuals who I'm not likely to get to support me. I recognize that those people who are not paying income tax are going to say, "Gosh, this, this provision of, that Mitt keeps talking about lowering income taxes," that's not going to be real attractive to them.
The point, of course, was to offer some kind of defense for his "47 percent" problem, explaining why he's largely prepared to blow off the chunk of the population he perceives as lazy moochers who refuse to "take responsibility" for their lives.
But in the process, Romney accidentally admitted something. As John McCormack at the conservative Weekly Standard noted last night, Romney "conceded yet again that his tax policies won't appeal to half the country."
Quite right. According to Mitt Romney, talking on Fox News, his tax plan won't help 47 percent of the population. Indeed, there's ample evidence that many of the folks in this chunk of the population will see a tax increase, as the Romney administration redistributes wealth in the other direction by slashing taxes on the wealthy.
Remember, as Rachel noted last night, Romney believes it's a "problem" that 47 percent of the population doesn't pay federal income taxes, and it's a problem he intends to fix. What's new is the admission on national television that his tax plan won't be "attractive" to nearly half the country because that's the part of the country that won't see any of the benefits.
Leave a Comment:
Mitt is using Bain Capital tactics in this "Presidential Campaign Thing".
At Bain, the goal was to turn a profit, and who or what fell by the wayside was just "collateral damage".
And he is doing the same thing here- 47% are never going to vote for him, so they DO NOT MATTER.
He overlooks one important detail: The folks he fired or laid off got no say at all in their fate. But in this election, those 47% are ALLOWED TO VOTE!
Imagine if just a third of the 47% had a friend or relative not in the 47%. That could add up to 62+% landslide in Nov. Do the arithmetic Mitt.
His contractions are coming closer together now, he is starting to flip-flop in midstream of a sentence. It won't be long before he becomes fully incoherent, and starts to sound like his girlfriend Sarah Palin.
What is he going to give birth to? Could be fun contemplating.
Disgusted...,
Have you ever seen Rosemary's Baby?
I've heard of it, but never seen it.
Whenever his handlers lose control of him, even the least bit, he kicks himself in the ass. All the Lame Stream Media needs to do is stop lobbing softballs to him and follow up when he answers with empty verbiage, or outright refuses to answer a question.
JOURNALISTS: Careers can be made. Be the first to not let Mitt squirm away from his own words!!!!!
He also tacitly admitted that, aside from personal financial
gain due to the lowering of tax rates, there is little reason to vote for him.
Just because people in the "47%" aren't paying federal income taxes doesn't necessarily mean that they're TAKING from the government. Many of these people are barely getting by, but they aren't getting unemployment, welfare, or any other transfer payments. They may be getting Social Security (including SS disability) and/or Medicare, but they've paid into those programs over the years.
I'm a little surprised--and distressed--that nobody in the media has pointed out this out. It's one of the most glaring errors in Mitt's little discussion of the "47%." Mitt assumes that EVERYBODY with a zero federal income tax liability is a TAKER.
Not even close. First, they're paying other taxes. Second, while they're not contributing in any one year, it doesn't mean that they didn't do so in other years.
Excellent point. I got Pell Grants and student loans in years that I paid no income tax. My dad was a disabled Vet, so I also got a small check from the VA after I turned 18. Was I a freeloader, or an investment?
I went from taking Pell Grants one year to paying significant income tax the next year, and every year since.
My mother paid lots of income tax, but no FICA because she was a government employee. Since she did not pay into SS, she doesn't collect SS. Nor does she get Medicare--she has a government pension and government funded health care. She doesn't pay income tax now, but she paid plenty in past years. Freeloader? No.
Don't be distressed mpguy -- pretty much every blog post or televised discussion I saw on this subject yesterday made those points very clearly, including many pie-charts showing exactly who the 47% are (and as you say, most are not the stereotypes Mitt suggests). Among the groups identified over and over in the media yesterday were seniors on SS, returned vets collecting vet benefits, active duty military (who pay no fed. income taxes while deployed), and various examples of middle-income families who pay no fed. income taxes due to the Child Care Credit (which ironically was a GOP-pushed program). They also pointed out that several sectors of this 47% skew in favor of the GOP (eg seniors and white males with a high school diploma). So not only was he wrong about that 47% who pay no fed. income taxes being "takers", he was also wrong about them all not being his voters (troubling for someone who is a politician at this level to not even understand his own electorate -- talk about out of touch). Let me know if you would like any of the links, although I think you should be able to find several elsewhere on this blog.
And interestingly, another snippet of the 47% are those earning over $1mill who take benefit of various loopholes and deductions to pay no fed. income taxes. Approx. 21,000 fall into this category according to an ABC News report from this summer. http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/06/big-paychecks-tiny-tax-burdens-how-21000-wealthy-americans-avoided-paying-income-tax/
Both mpguy and MikeinMI make excellent points. The Tax Code runs to tens of thousands of pages, and one size does definitely NOT 'fit all'.
For example, if I inherited one hundred million dollars, and invested it in tax free municipal bonds returning 1%, I would pay no taxes at all on my million dollars a year. 47%.
Or if I was 'Tony Soprano', making a million dollars a year in a cash only business, I would also pay no taxes at all. 47%.
Perhaps I was GE or GM or any MegaCorp, with "losses" of a billion dollars, then I would also not pay any taxes. But in that instance I would get money back- because I has a platoon of clever lawyers on staff! 47%.
Mitt, do not wage class warfare when you are in the distinct minority. . .
Where is the disdain Romney for the people like yourself who look for tax loopholes to pay little or no taxes. What about the disdain for those who hide their assets in Swiss bank accounts or the Cayman Islands to beat the taxes? Where is your disdain for the Corporations that pay no federal income taxes (you know Corporations are people too my friend)?
Where are your tax returns to prove you have in fact paid taxes and have not been given amnesty? Did you use the same type of tax schemes as you allowed Marriott to use? "During Romney's tenure as a Marriott director, the company
repeatedly utilized complex tax-avoidance maneuvers, prompting at least two
tangles with the Internal Revenue Service, records show. In 1994, while he headed the audit committee, Marriott used a tax shelter known to attorneys by its nickname: "Son of BOSS."
I am asking this question because I honestly don't know, but does having no "tax liability" simply mean that you don't OWE taxes at the end of the year? I usually get a refund but my family is not on assistance of any kind. Am I included in the freeloading 47% because I don't owe at the end of the year?
NolaAustin, funny thing is Jon Stewart has pointed this out, so maybe the mainstream media will now report it as well. Sad that ComedyCentral has better analysis than these so called News Organizations!
Of the 47%, the bulk are people who pay no income tax, but pay payroll taxes meaning they work, but make so little that they didn't owe income tax. I think the other parts were 22% making under 20k a year and retirees, people who paid into the system for years. So a very small portion of the 47% are actually takers.
Both MSNBC and CNN have been reporting on this repeatedly since the tapes came out on Monday. Ezra Klein was just on MSNBC breaking it all down again. And here is one of the many pie charts posted yesterday showing who is in that 47%: http://cdn.theatlanticwire.com/img/upload/2012/09/18/Breakdown3-06-17-11.gif
BethlehemDemocrat . . . No, you're not freeloading because you get a refund. "Tax liability" is the proper term for the amount of tax (federal income tax in this case) that you have paid on a certain base (income, here). Withholding and/or estimated taxes are ways that people pay toward their tax liability. In many cases, they overpay and get a refund. Sometimes, there's still some part of the tax liability left to pay at the end of the year.
Your tax liability--that part of your total income for the year that the government ends up with after all is said and done--is the only number with which you should truly be concerned. People get waaayyy to fixated on the amount of withholding. Before the filing period is over, you have to reconcile your tax liability with what you've paid--or haven't paid toward satisfying it.
@BethlehemDemocrat - in Romneyworld, if you're voting for Obama, you could only possibly be doing so because you're looking for free stuff from the government:
Romney: There are 47% of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47% who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government is responsible for them, who believe they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it.
It's time to tell Romney again, we want to see more of his tax return's.Let us see if Harry Ried was right.
We just have to keep Mitt talking. I'm sure the debates will work out well for him.
They better keep an extra handful of batteries on the side, just in case.
Given a layup chance by Cavuto to mitigate the damage of his comments, he repeated them. He restates that people not paying taxes - the 47% - are a built in Obama electorate, that they won't likely support him.
This is what these people believe. Period. End of story.
How we wish that everybody in that group would vote for Obama. He'd win in an epic landslide. If just a healthy majority of the "47%" who reside in the swing states votes for him, the election won't be close.
I thought the whole point was supposed to be "lower taxes on the JOB CREATORS" --right? So if you believe in trickle-down economics, then those who don't get a tax cut instead get a job, or a better-paying job. Win-win, right?
By writing off the 47%, he is admitting that trickle-down is a sham.
No, no Mike - didn't you get the GOP memo insisting that trickle-down economics works and we just need to give it more time along with bigger breaks to the "job creators"? Never mind that we've had the Bush tax cuts for 10 years now; it takes time for the trickle to start. The job creators need time to amass those tax savings before they can start building factories to make products that nobody can afford yet and therefore aren't demanding. And of course you can't hire "the help" until the factories are built. And THEN, once you've hired the 47% and they're paying taxes, they will fall to their knees at your feet and pay homage to your wise benevolence, swearing allegiance to you and your party forever.
You have a lot to learn about Romonomics...
/sarc
"Trickle Down" no longer works, because the glaciers have melted.
Of all the things that "trickle down," money isn't one of them.
What they didn't tell you is that the job creation is in China. So to add insult to injury corporations get a huge tax break for moving factories to China. And we did have a bill that would have ended the outsourcing tax cuts while preserving tax cuts for insourcing, but Republicans blocked this. They recently blocked a jobs bill that would have helped returning veterans to get jobs, and have blocked every jobs bill. Who are these guys working for anyway. Creating jobs creates tax revenue and spurs growth. It is common sense.
Another point Romney made with Cavuto is that poor people don't pay taxes because they just don't have enough money and the solution would be to have successful jobs that would help them make more money -- then they would be able to pay taxes. I found this to be exactly right, something I agree wholeheartedly on. Since 1970 the GDP has more than doubled and every penny of that gain has gone to the richest Americans. The median income for everyone else remains around $40,000. If working people had shared in that doubling, if the median income was $80,000 instead of $40,000 people would be able to pay some taxes. But that hasn't happened. Instead today even the real value of the minimum wage is less than when I graduated from high school. We have made our poor even more poor than they were over forty years ago.
And the truly grating thing is that Mitt says that the solution is better paying jobs while much of his career was based on destroying better paying jobs. From lowering wages, destroying unions, sending good paying jobs to China and stealing retirement funds, Mitt's career has been based on taking good paying jobs and sucking the money out of them like the vampire capitalist he is.
To watch him, with that self-satisfied smirk on his face, assert that you should vote for him rather than Obama because people will have better paying jobs is an examplar of sociopathology that would be difficult for anyone to top.
I believe that Romney has embraced the economic business model: Pareto Principal (80/20 rule or the law of the few) in all decisions he has made to date. What he does not understand is that he can easily lose the 20% if his message is not clear. He believes that 80% of his support will come from convincing the 20% of those who make up the wealth of this country and then those 20% will convince 20% (who may not support Romney) and so on and so on...it is such a numbers game he his playing and because he is stupid... it is not working as planned......
Something we should keep in mind:
IT IS A PROBLEM THAT PEOPLE OF WORKING AGE WHO CAN WORK ARE PART OF THE 47% DON'T PAY INCOME TAX AND WE CAN ALL AGREE ON THAT!
At issue is WHY THEY DON'T?!
Mitt Romney would have us believe that it is because those who don't pay must lack virtue. Obama would have us believe that it is because those who don't pay lack good jobs which pay living wages.
One of those two suggests a person with a vision wherein there may be found viable solutions. The other suggests a person without a vision at all.
I wouldn't mind conservatives talking about the 47% who don't pay income tax as a problem to be solved, were it not for three factors:
1) they blame those who aren't making enough money for moral failure rather than offer policies which could help them.
2) they ignore the fact that the write-offs and deductions that create a large part of the 47% are their own policies often passed at the objection of the democrats.
3) their policies are shown over and over again to exacerbate the problem and benefit the rich over the poor, always.
When republicans want to have a grown up conversation about real policy choices, this is a great topic to own. It probably could be an election winner if it weren't for the fact they approach it in such a glib and foolish manner. It is a real issue, not a rhetorical point, and they don't seem to understand the difference.
There's an additional admission here (as well as in the video), and it's hiding in plain sight.
Gov. Romney has repeatedly claimed that his plan will lower the income tax rate on high-income individuals, but that it would not lower the actual amount of tax those individuals pay, because the rate reductions will be offset by the elimination of unspecified "loopholes."
He claims, in other words, that his plan is not to lower taxes on the wealthy, but only to reform the way in which tax obligations are calculated. He maintains that this structural reform will, by itself, promote economic growth and create jobs.
Gov. Romney's statements about the 47% are inconsistent with those claims. If the point of his plan is not to reduce taxes on the wealthy, but only to make structural changes that will lower the unemployment rate, then it ought to be possible to persuade unemployed individuals who currently pay no income tax that the plan is in their interest.
What Gov. Romney admitted in May, therefore, and admitted again yesterday, is that his actual proposal is to lower taxes for those who pay federal income taxes--in other words, those who are currently least in need of assistance--and to pay for that reduction by reducing benefits to seniors in nursing homes, children in pre-schools and families trying to pay for college.
In short, he just copped to the Reverse Robin Hood charge.
It's freaky reading an article and seeing your own name pop up lol I do agree with what the other "John McCormack" said
Maybe you need to change your name to Reginald McCormack III to avoid the confusion.
"Maybe someone can explain how we can pay for 'government caring for those in need' without 'taking from some to give to others.' How do you pay for a safety net without redistribution?"
The answer is the Supply Side 'Tax Fairy', where if you cut taxes enough on the wealthy, the total federal tax revenues will increase magically. Next question please.
Thanks SOV. Next question:
When and how do we all benefit from the magic underwear then?
I think Governor Brownback is shedding some light on the Republican plans for balancing the budget.
"The plan relies heavily on eliminating tax deductions and credits, including the deduction for home mortgage interest, the deduction for charitable contributions..."
http://www.kansascity.com/2012/01/17/3376262/brownback-tax-plan-hits-poor-hardest.html
Rush Limbaugh is correct on this one folks. "Romney should embrace his hate and disdain for the 47 percent who vote and make that the party platform!" Yes, that would be a real, real win, for the GOP! Judgmental scorn and are responsible for making America suck is the mark of a true winner! lol
re: you are responsible for making America.....ect.
Let's not make this complicated. Obama has done a poor job as president and Romney would be a good replacement. The voters have an obligation to, as Clint suggested, let him go.
Simple logic from a simpleton using false premises and a false conclusions.
Facts: not A, not B, not C, not D.
Simpleton logic: if A and B and C, then D.
Just what we'd expect from a wingnut.
Test: What are A, B, C, and D?
Do you have evidence for either claim? By most people's standards, Obama has done an adequate job in difficult circumstances. There is plenty to disagree with him on, and lots he could have done better, but the notion that he did a poor job really isn't supportable by anything other than emotional appeal and hand waving.
As for the question of if Mitt would do a good job as his replacement, that is the entire point of a campaign -- to convince the American electorate on that point. And thus far, the argument being made is not convincing.
Anyone who thinks Romney can do a better job than what is being done right now are thinking like Romney. Romney himself said he can not do any better by his saying...he would let things roll and hope things will get better.
Look, there is supposed to be no collaboration on homework assignments. Yes, yes, I know; Phillip needs a lot of help. But Phillip has got to learn to start learning to think for himself and doing the assignments himself.
I dont think so,I'm voting for Obama,like I did 4years ago....and I hope the Democrats regain power of the house again,things will go smoother then.
@Philip Horton - as governor, Romney brought Massachusetts in 47th out of 50th nationally in job creation and as a perennial candidate, he made a dead wrong call on the rescue of the auto industry. His "budget without numbers"would explode the deficit and raise your taxes. I do not think "good replacement" means what you think it means.
Here's the record the Prez can proudly put up against Romney/Ryan (Ryan's passed, what, two minor bills in the 12 years he's been on the government payroll?)
http://www.barackobama.com/accomplishments/
Well, as Rachel said, that's the problem with poor people, they have too much money!
If you just listen to the tape you can hear the utter disdain for those people who aren't like "him."
You can hear him enunciate the words entitlement and pay no income tax (clearly, HE is the only one 'entitled' to pay no taxes). He is trying to incite anger at these government moochers!
Now he is trying to convince us that we didn't hear what we heard or if we heard what we heard, WE have it all wrong. When he said "people who are dependent on government, who believe that, that they are victims, who believe that government has the responsibility to care for them. Who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing", he meant that in the NICEST possible way!
PULLEESE!!!
Sorry if this is a repeat of other comments:
See the latest Gallup poll. A Venn diagram would be really helpful for Mitt right now. The somewhere-in-the-neighborhood of 47% of voters that Obama can count on (any Dem can) is NOT the same 47% of the population that pays no federal income tax. I am one example. I pay plenty of taxes thanks to the ATM, yet I will vote for Obama. Romney says that he will not get their votes because he won't lower their income taxes. No, that would be impossible if they pay zero percent now. Likewise, Obama can't lower their fed'l income taxes if they're already nonexistent. Romney is saying, I guess, that there is nothing else in his platform or his vision for the country that would be enticing to such voters. Nothing at all? No, because in reality his America would be even worse, even for people who pay no federal income taxes. Because yes, things can get even worse for them, for the rest of us in the 99%. And Mitt has just admitted that that would be the sad reality if he were to win.
"About 55,000 millionaires pay a lower effective tax rate than millions of middle-income Americans."
In 2012 7,000 millionaires paid no taxes. Ouch.
Ouch is right! We are Seniors, retired military, 22yrs, retired private sector 25yrs, and we still pay some income tax. The 47% really isn't what Romney thinks it is and maybe he will find out when the votes don't come his way! I think his latest tape has done some damage to him. It proves he doesn't care about the people just the money. His slogan could be "Show Me the Money".
The President has done a good job with no help from the Republicans. All they can do is lie and spin and twist the truth about what the President has done. If Phillip Horton really believes the lies he needs help. I hope he reads what you posted. And if trickle down really worked we would all be rich. The rich really don't make jobs the private sector does, and the President has had private sector jobs created for the past 30 months. Granted we could use more, but it is good. All Romney knows how to do is take over a company, lay people off, load it up with debt, raid the retirement accounts, take all the money and run; result the company goes under leaving the workers with nothing. Can you imagine what he would do to the US? Make all his millionaire friends and contributers richer at our exspense and tear the US to pieces, put us in another war, with no money, no healthcare, Maybe a big military, with no money to pay for it. Gee does this sound like a tyrantical presidency? Eventually!!!!
Here's something that Mitt will never understand:
The last few years I've paid around 10x the per-capita income tax. Not only is that fine by me (it means that life has been pretty good, plus it's the cost of living in a decent society) but if I'm honest about the fiscal situation, I and those like me should be paying quite a bit more. Not that I'm in the 1% or anything, but there you are: we can afford it better than our grandchildren will and it's not right to leave the mess to them.
So, to paraphrase Clint: "Go ahead. Raise my taxes."
Like I said earlier: Mitt will never even think to ask the question, much less dream of paying one penny more than he's forced to. And the fact that he can't understand why someone like me would vote to raise my own taxes? It won't even register in his world.
I feel the same way. I'm willing to pay more so that my grandchildren are better off. I don't understand Romney at all, He brags about how he gives to his church, but he doesn't like the 47% who he says pays no income tax, here again he doesn't even know why some don't pay income taxes. He does not get the American people at all. We are a diverse group of people of different faiths, political views, and jobs. We are not here for him to abuse. But we are what makes the United States what it is. The Goverment is not there for the rich to get richer, it is there for all of us, and it is supposed to help those who need help sometimes. I don't think Romney pays income taxes, he won't show them, shame on him for telling us to pay when he won't.
re: All money going to the Mormon church goes to the Mormon church and pays for misson work all over the world. Not one cent of it goes to feed or cloth the poor.
Not exactly, Lupe.
The LDS spends a lot of money shipping boys on bikes around the world, true. However, they also have a working social insurance program of their own. In a way, that's part of the problem -- they take care of their own, which makes it much easier for Mormons to look at Government social insurance as having nothing to do with them.
Put another way, we're all "others" to the Mormons.
Re: "redistribution: The twelve-year-old tape of Obama talking about redistribution is not about tax rates but about the pooling and distributing of public resources (it is prefaced by references to public schools and housing).
"Redistribution" is how government (and business) operates.
Social security recipients are not limited to the dollars they paid in.
Almost no state gets back the same amount federal funs that its residents pay in taxes.
"Most Red States Take More Money From Washington Than They Put In
Even as Republicans gripe about deficit spending, their states get 30 cents more federal spending per tax dollar than their Democratic neighbors."
(Dave Gilson, February 12, 2012; http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/11/states-federal-taxes-spending-charts-maps)
Talk about "redistribution"!
Time to make some signs saying., Redistribution for the RICH need apply.