The Romney Gaffe To End All Gaffes?
Unflippinbelievable! Could he really be this stoopid? (Go Read The Whole Thing – there’s more and apparently more coming.)
During a private fundraiser earlier this year, Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney told a small group of wealthy contributors what he truly thinks of all the voters who support President Barack Obama. He dismissed these Americans as freeloaders who pay no taxes, who don’t assume responsibility for their lives, and who think government should take care of them. Fielding a question from a donor about how he could triumph in November, Romney replied:
“There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That that’s an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what…These are people who pay no income tax.”
Romney went on: “[M]y job is is not to worry about those people. I’ll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives.”
Oh… oh my. 47%. Shame he can’t be that specific on his own policy proposals. Also, LOL on bringing up people not paying taxes. How much did you pay in taxes, Mitt?
And there’s this…
Describing his family background, he quipped about his father, “Had he been born of Mexican parents, I’d have a better shot of winning this.”
Isn’t he charming?
Tags: 2012 Presidential, Mitt Romney
Go watch the video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XnB0NZzl5HA and hear Mitt say it in his own voice. This is damning. This is how plutocrats talk when you and I aren’t around.
There’s also the new study out today that finds tax cuts for the rich don’t create growth but do increase income inequality. I believe the study was funded by Captain Obvious.
Mitt Romney: “My job is is not to worry about those people.”
So… he actually admits he’s not going to worry about 47% of the population.
What’s funny was that he said this at a fundraiser – Hey, could you donate to my campaign? BTW, my opponent already has 47% of the vote locked in.
The is a blunder. Mitt is Palin with a pinus. Let’s hope that we can get congress back?
I don’t watch network news but did tonight. This got big play but, of course, they had to add the Obama comment about “clinging to thier guns” in order to be objective.
I hope this takes over the news on yet another week when Mitt is trying to reset his campaign.
@p “Oh… oh my. 47%. Shame he can’t be that specific on his own policy proposals.”
Very specific, but still quite wrong, unless you think the elderly on Social Security are freeloaders.
…and very wrong if you include the payroll tax, which Romney didn’t even pay.
The WaPo has a nice writeup on this:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/09/17/romney-my-job-is-not-to-worry-about-those-people/
There’s more:
Clip about Ann Romney: http://youtu.be/5JuJ3P_a2hc
Clip about being Latino: http://youtu.be/jk2ExIR_T2o
and apparently more to come.
OK, to folks who read and enjoy this blog, it looks like Mitt has totally come unhinged, once and for all.
However, much of the other 53 percent of the population will hear Mitt’s words and say “damn right.” And I will venture a guess that,while Mitt appears to be writing off “the 47 percent,” the demographic he was disparaging probably amounts to less than 47 percent of the typical voting population.
Bottom line: I think he’s a jerk and that putting him in office would be devastating for people who have to work for a living, but I don’t think these remarks will be as damaging to his campaign as we liberals would hope they will be.
Game over Mitt! Wow just when I think I’ve heard it all! I guess it’s time to go, and buy more popcorn. Mitt is an idiot! He has truly embarrissed himself beyond what I thought was possible. His disdain for 47% no let’s be more specific losers sitting around not working, accepting food stamps, sick in need of healthcare somehow he, and his kind had nothing to do with handing the American people damn near a depression in the 21st century. Mitt you are the mother of outsourcing, and greed!
Believe they are entitled to… food? Ouch!
Mitt’s gaffes are beyond legendary – they’ve inspired a song of their own
(“The Ballad of Mitt” – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6oD_BvJE040)
Hard to believe he isn’t a huge comedy prank!
Twitter reporting:
Mitt Romney just spoke with reporters: stands by fundraiser comments, says it’s the “same message” he gives in public.
@SANDFLY I’m laughing and simultaneously emasculated that you coined pinus. All the p with the addition of minus.
It seems like you all have become unhinged.
There is nothing wrong with what he said. 53% of us cannot carry, in perpetuity, the other 47%. At some point the system will break under its own weight.
Or is that what you all want? A Greek-style economic fiasco writ large?
If so, do realize, all the billionaires and their men wouldn’t be able to put the United States back together again.
Somebody check the fences at the Stoopid Farm. One of the animals seems to be on the loose.
Amazing how 2008 and 2012 are so similar. Both elections ended in September.
Sonny, The billionaires and their men didn’t put the United States together in the first place. Don’t they teach civics in school anymore?
comment rescue: http://www.mobypicture.com/user/KeithOlbermann/view/13816470
“There is nothing wrong with what he said.”
yeah.47% of Americans pay no income taxes.Nothing wrong with that statement. Now I’ll ask you to make account for federal,state and numerous other taxes those 47% do pay which a good portion of your 53% do not. Then I ask you to shut the fuck up and pay attention. Regurgitating drivel isn’t the same as being an informed voter, numbnuts.
Obama Capitalizes: https://twitter.com/BarackObama/status/247894160139485184
DD it is amazing. Romney, trying to prevent a blow out, is still working on locking up the lunatic GOP base.
“There is nothing wrong with what he said.”
Really???… Romney is saying that all those people who paid social security taxes for years and years, are now freeloaders? Really Mitt?
He’s saying that anyone who doesn’t earn enough to pay an income tax is not taking responsibility? Really?? Really Mitt?
He’s saying that anyone on a military pension or disability are just lazy and expects stuff for free? Really MItt???
This is really offensive coming from someone who stole pensions from hard working Americans. He got rich by making a lot of workers poor. And now he mocks them!!!
He is as bad a person as he is a candidate.
And for our entertainment next week, we’ll get to see Romney’s tax returns leaked.
And we can have all sorts of fun Presidential debate questions based on this gaffe.. like:
“A lot of government Social Security money is being paid to people who don’t pay any taxes. What should be done about that so everyone pays their fare share?”
“If we forced everyone to pay at least 15% income tax, the white folk in red “conservative” states would suffer the most. Would that be fair?”
“Disabled war veterans feel they are entitled to benefits. How can we cure them of that belief?”
Bwah ha ha ha ha ha ha.
Thank you, Mitt Romney, thank you.
The other news story yesterday was the study from the non-partisan Congressional Research Office finding that tax cuts for the rich don’t create economic growth, but they do create income inequality. Which, if you think about it, is exactly what Mitt is talking about with his 53% vs. 47%. Cut taxes for the rich some more, and before long it will be 35/65.
I feel bad for Lorne Michaels and SNL. How can they compete with Romney?
Just turned on NPR and they were talking about this. Ten seconds after I turned on the radio they were talking about Obama and clinging to guns and religion. Radio is off now.
Notice how smoothly he spoke at that fundraiser – no hesitating, stammering. Guess it’s easier to say what you believe.
I wouldn’t have described it as a “gaffe.” It was a deliberate statement. A series of deliberate statements.
Mitt should know what he is talking about. After all he is a member of the 47% who pay no “income” taxes since he has no income. Further, I am guessing he also pays no “payroll” taxes. The only taxes Mitt pays are capital gains since he doesn’t punch a clock.
Mitt has yet to prove he is part of the 53%.
I stole this from Jezebel, but bwahahahahahahahahah:
Mitt Romney is so mad that he could just storm onto a private jet and fly to the Cayman Islands and punch some money. He’s so mad that he feels like going into his car elevator with an endangered tiger’s bladder full of single malt scotch and slowly pour it onto the floor. He’s so mad he could just buy Oakland and sell it to China and then bomb China. That’s how mad he is that the poor people who don’t pay taxes feel entitled to food. How fucking dare they.
http://jezebel.com/5943995/secret-video-reveals-that-mitt-romney-actually-hates-you
anon is right — this wasn’t a gaffe. The gaffe is that it got leaked to the rest of the world. This was Rmoney telling the extraordinarily entitled about the people who are in the way of any further entitlement. It sounded to me that he was telling them something these people already believe. The thing to hear in this is the astonishing lack of values in a candidate who counts himself as one of the so-called “Values Voters” AND in how entrenched the false idea that somehow these people are supporting everyone else. When in fact, they are supporting each other and a really big army.
Mother Jones has more videos.
Jon Chait is a Must Read this morning. This entire column has much to recommend it, but here he is on the comparison to Obama’s “guns and religion” moment 4 years ago:
More false balance.
More details on Al Jazeera, focus on foreign policy:
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/americas/2012/09/201291812354473418.html
Direct quotes from article:
“‘The president’s foreign policy, in my opinion, is formed in part by a perception he has that his magnetism, and his charm, and his persuasiveness is so compelling that he can sit down with people like [Vladimir] Putin and [Hugo] Chávez and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and that they’ll find that we’re such wonderful people that they’ll go on with us, and they’ll stop doing bad things,’ Romney says. ‘And it’s an extraordinarily naive perception.'”
“After first concealing the date and location of the video to protect their source, Mother Jones said they had been released from their agreement and wrote that the video was filmed at the home of controversial private equity manager Marc Leder in Boca Raton, Florida.”
Just like when Obama used his charm on Osama Bin Ladin?
Osama bin Laden: America needs a leader with charisma like I need a hole in the head.
Oh… oh my. That was funny in a sick sort of way.
The 53%/47% meme is both technically correct (for federal income tax) and very misleading.
As originally designed, social security and medicare taxes were insurance premiums paid to the government. The programs themselves provided insurance against living too long (and thus out-living retirement savings). Today, the programs are no longer insurance-like (because people expect to collect security security and medicare) and cost a great deal of money. It’s okay if society subsidizes these insurance premiums for impoverished people, but people should not expect to collect from the programs.
At a minimum, we need to push back the eligibility age for the under-30 set (which includes me). Then, we need more statements that are both technically accurate and not misleading.
When Social Security was established, the life expectancy was much lower… it was never meant to be used for 20+ years like it is today for many people…. this is a good problem, but a problem. the other issue i never see brought up is the very large generation (boomers) who are about to make up most of the people collecting. There are, i think some easy ways to fix it.
1, i agree with Davy, push up the age for the under 30’s (myself included) I hope that by the time I am….. we’ll say 68… live expectancy will be into the 90s. Considering how far we’ve come, i dont think that is that outlandish. Working another 3 or 4 years is nothing if you consider that you’ll live another 8-10.
2. improve health care even more in this country (single payer universal) and focus on prevention so people not only live longer, but do so because they are actually healthy and not kept alive by expensive drugs and machines.
3. back to the boomers… something happens to all people collecting SS… they die. This problem can work itself out once this larger-than-others generation…. moves to the farm with the family dog. I dont like saying that, because it involved loved ones, but it will happen.
If we are healthier as a whole, adjust the system for longer lives, and let nature take its course… us under 30’s may actually get to know retirement and have a social safety net.
“‘The president’s foreign policy, in my opinion, is formed in part by a perception he has that his magnetism, and his charm, and his persuasiveness is so compelling that he can sit down with people like [Vladimir] Putin and [Hugo] Chávez and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and that they’ll find that we’re such wonderful people that they’ll go on with us, and they’ll stop doing bad things,’ Romney says. ‘And it’s an extraordinarily naive perception.’”
Has Obama ever met Ahmadinejad? And wasn’t it Bush who could see into Putin’s soul or some such nonsense?
“When Social Security was established, the life expectancy was much lower it was never meant to be used for 20+ years like it is today for many people”
Not that much lower. The gross life expectancy numbers generally include infant mortality, which was much higher in the early 20th century than it is now. The stat to watch is “Life expectancy after age 65.”
In 1940 life expectancy after 65 was 12.7/14.7 (M/F)
In 2009 it was 17.6/20.3
Also note that for many years women did not contribute to Social Security, so in many instances it was a widow’s pension. Still is.
Also, we have expanded Social Security benefits to include the disabled of any age.
Ben: Once you pass 50, get back to me on if you still want to work until you’re 70. After 50, you are no longer considered a valued worker but a drag on profits.
Actually, I think retirement age should be lowered incrementally to 62, 60, or maybe 55. That would free up jobs, especially for younger people and new graduates. And face it, people over 55 are (generally) facing downward mobility anyway. We’re already paying unemployment to a lot of them; let’s just go ahead and let them retire already.
Can you imagine a construction worker, a carpenter, an Occupational or Physical therapist, police officer or fire fighter working beyond the age of 65. These jobs are very physically demanding and the wear and tear on the joints and muscles make it nearly impossible to work to 65 as it is now, much less past that for my generation. I’m also an under 30, and while I don’t mind working longer, my career path right now, isn’t as physically taxing as others. Also- who knows what I’ll be doing, or how my body will hold up between now and 65. Now doubt the system needs to be fixed but increasing the retirement age isn’t the way to go.
Mother Jones just rolled out the entire video.
Well said, Pike Creek Grl! And… welcome!
@puck: In that way, social security is also disability insurance. Nothing wrong with that.
@Geezer: In general, compensation should equal marginal revenue product. So, if you are less productive, then you should be paid less. Of course, perception may not match reality – people may perceive >50 workers as less productive, although >50 workers may be productive into their 70s. The goal of age discrimination legislation is to protect older workers from the consequences of this perception, while allowing employers to dismiss declining workers. An employer cannot fire someone because she is 65, but the employer can fire her for inadequate performance.
Also, peak earning years are 45 to 55. Society should not fund a retirement simply because a declining worker cannot stomach decreasing compensation, whether in real or nominal terms. Society has more pressing concerns, like providing social security benefits to people with mental disabilities that would otherwise be homeless.
@ Davy–
Productivity (in most jobs–teaching would be a huge exception) is easily measured. If worker X produces more than all other workers, worker X is the most productive. Facts are facts. Perception has nothing to do with it.
” An employer cannot fire someone because she is 65, but the employer can fire her for inadequate performance.”
Delaware is an “at will” employment state. Employers are free to terminate employees w/o cause. The employer will suffer increased U.I. premiums for a fixed period of time and nothing more.
The aggrieved employee (if 40 yrs. of age or older) can attempt to file an age discrimination suit, but he/she had better have clear and convincing evidence or the suit will be either dismissed outright or found in favor of the employer. Oh, good luck getting a lawyer to take an age discrimination case on contingency.
Society has more pressing concerns, like providing social security benefits to people with mental disabilities that would otherwise be homeless.
Younger mentally disabled persons typically receive SSI, not Social Security. Many SSI recipients are currently homeless. It’s tough to live on roughly $6k/year (average derived from 2009 data).
@puck–
“Also, we have expanded Social Security benefits to include the disabled of any age.”
Please don’t confuse SS w/ SSI. They are 2 different programs with differing eligibility requirements and differing benefits. The “gubmint” still pays for both, but payments for each program come out of different pockets.
Apologies to puck. I’m apparently not as current on SS/SSI/SSDI as I thought I was. Again, I apologize.
No prob Roland. By the way:
Productivity (in most jobs–teaching would be a huge exception) is easily measured. If worker X produces more than all other workers, worker X is the most productive.
That only works in a widget factory. In the knowledge economy though it breaks down quickly. In knowledge-intensive jobs, nobody ever is 100% responsible for their own work. Many jobs require teamwork and information inputs from others, which may be selectively withheld (and often are, based on office politics and personal preferences). Also in many jobs your own boss often does not understand what you do and is not qualified to evaluate your productivity, but he does anyway. These are subjective factors that are wide open to all sorts of discrimination including age discrimination.
Romney Campaign Sends In Champion Of The Poor Paul Ryan For Damage Control
– The Onion
I somewhat disagree, puck. I work in a service industry & my productivity is easily tracked.
Others in my occupation work in team environments. It’s easy to track the team’s productivity, not so easy to track individual productivity in that situation, but the other team members will usually call out the slacker(s).
I totally agree w/ the office politics/uninformed boss comments. Been there. Glad I’m not there anymore.
“the other team members will usually call out the slacker(s).”
Politics again. The worst kind of evaluation.
I think we will be able to use this video clip over and over:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/09/12/1130881/-The-scene-over-at-the-Romney-campaign-as-of-right-now
@Roland D. LeBay:
Delaware IS an at-will employment state. But, federal law IS the supreme law of the land.
The Age Discrimination in Employment Act prohibits age discrimination in hiring, promotions, compensation, and termination. [Note: The Act only covers (1) employers with at least 20 employees and (2) employees that are at least 40 years old.]
In Delaware, an employer CAN terminate an employee without cause. But, a “covered” employer CANNOT terminate a “covered” employee simply because the employee is “too old.”
Of course, it’s difficult to prove age discrimination. But, it’s difficult to prove any type of discrimination.