Romney Knows His Peeps

Just when the Romney campaign was all giddy about “reintroducing” the candidate to voters—perhaps they should first reintroduce the candidate to himself—along comes The Truth:

My job is not to worry about those people,” said Mittens, speaking of all those lazy, selfish freeloaders out there who depend on the wealthy—his audience for this revealing look into his soul—for their sustenance.

Romney is so far out of touch that he has no idea how many of those “victims” live in places like Southwest Missouri and have every intention of voting against their interests and for his sorry behind.

And make no mistake about it, most of those Obama-hating folks, after taking their government money for the month, will still run not walk to the polls to give Romney their vote on November 6.

Thanks to Mother Jones for this gem.

Previous Post

11 Comments

  1. King Beauregard

     /  September 17, 2012

    We’re ALL dependent upon the government. We all benefit from roads, running water, sewer systems, police, fire departments, and food inspectors. We may prefer the illusion that the blessings of 21st century life sort of take care of themselves automatically, but if you don’t like using an open latrine and picking maggots out of your food, you owe the government at least a little begrudging gratitude.

    So yeah, I’m voting for the party that is not ashamed of government.

    Like

  2. King is right. Mitt Romney appears to actually believe his own distorted view of reality. He, a man who made his fortune by deception, manipulation, secrecy and trickery, and who has stored his wealth in secret offshore accounts, actually believes the bottom 47% of the income scale are irresponsible freeloaders.

    He chooses to ignore that those same people who “pay no income tax” pay payroll taxes, sales taxes, gasoline taxes, utility taxes and fees, and property taxes. He chooses to ignore that those same people, that bottom 47%, do the ordinary work of society, that they make the beds, tend the sick, lay the bricks, pick the fruit, repair the plumbing, chase the crooks, restore the electricity, teach the children, and defend his nation’s borders.

    His words say it all and are destined to live forever in the annals of journalism and the pages of thesauruses:

    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.”

    Like

    • I am amazed at the way the rabid right has embraced Romney’s comments, even though they appear to most of us as quite damaging.

      I am sure that he will craft a message around the remarks that softens the original, but as I read your reference to those who “do the ordinary work of society,” I was reminded of that video clip in which Romney made the offensive statements. You can see the servers going back and forth, which I think is an amazing commentary itself.

      Duane

      Like

  3. scott eastman

     /  September 18, 2012

    it’s not often mentioned in these conversations, but actually the fed gov’t only gets about half its revenue from personal income taxes. The other half is derived from corporate, business taxes, fees, etc.
    Meaning if you’re a consumer, you’re indirectly paying that other half since biz just passes, for the most part, those taxes and fees on to the consumer.

    Like

    • Excellent point, Scott, and that is the reason for one point of difference I’ve had with Democrat tax plans. It seems to me that lower corporate taxes would eventually result in bringing more jobs back to our own shores. The problem with that of course is that 1.) it wouldn’t work quickly, and 2.) that revenue would have to be made up out of personal income taxes. Just not feasible in this bitter political climate.

      Like

    • Scott,

      The point you make is exactly why the Republican tax argument is even more dishonest than it looks at first glance. Our tax system is highly regressive, when all obvious local, state, and federal taxes are included, and much more regressive when those hidden taxes are considered.

      Duane

       

      Like

  4. ansonburlingame

     /  September 18, 2012

    Of course this blog takes in no account of Romney’s purpose in making the statement above, a cherry picked statement. He was addressing how he would campaign and which voters he would “target” in his message.

    He correctly believes that the election will be a 51-52% winning margin with some 47-48% voting for Obama, not matter what and about the same number voting for the GOP, again, no matter what. That leaves some 5-10% of voters “in the middle” and not yet decided how to vote.

    IF those in the middle already pay income taxes, then talk of raising taxes, specifically income taxes, will give them pause to vote for such actions. People that pay little or no income taxes will care less how high the rates might go on the “rich” which they are not. As carefully as Graham watches TV I am certain he understands that simple political tactic of shaping a message for voters that might at least tend to side with you. For sure Obama does that all the time and demagogues the “fat cats” that will certainly oppose his economic policies!!.

    The real message of the campaign, ignoring foreign affairs and focusing just on the American economy is a choice, a clear choice. Do we regain economic prosperity enhancing individual freedom or do we rely on big government borrowning 35-40 cents on every dollar to do it for us?

    Your side is very clear on that point to put our faith in government to return the country to some form of economic prosperity. Good luck! The variance in the number of unemployed people in America in 2012 is about 262,000 folks our of well over 12 Million actually unemployed. That is an anemic number and you know it and is a direct result of Obama’s economic policies.

    If anyone can figure out how to unleash, again, private capital to grow the economy, then that number of unemployed will plummet. And for sure when that happens you will scream about income distribution. Well take your pick. Do you want growth in GDP and lower unemployment or do you want to focus on income distribution and let real economic growth linger at anemic levels?

    And while the economic growth lingers at anemic levels of 2% or less guess what? Our $ Trillion a year deficits just keeping going on and on with a comminserate increase in national debt. But of course that situation related to debt and deficits is not important to any of you!!!

    And of course you can “prove” that simple point by showing (actually just telling) us that America is NOT in decline!!. Then we can all go watch more TV and see how things are going in foreign policy to reinforce that point, right???

    Anson

    Like

  5. King Beauregard

     /  September 18, 2012

    “Of course this blog takes in no account of Romney’s purpose in making the statement above, a cherry picked statement. He was addressing how he would campaign and which voters he would “target” in his message.”

    Of course Anson take in no account of the significance of Romney’s making the statement he did. Since Anson can’t defend that, all he can do is claim it was “out of context” when the part worth paying attention to doesn’t need a context to frame it.

    “There are 47% who are with him, WHO ARE DEPENDENT UPON THE GOVERNMENT, WHO BELIEVE THEY ARE VICTIMS, WHO BELIEVE THE GOVERNMENT HAS A RESPONSIBILITY TO CARE FOR THEM, WHO BELIEVE 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.” Have you noticed the words made of big letters, Anson? I will use a bigger font if you are still missing it.

    You said a whole bunch of other stuff too, but as is the case with all your long-winded posts, it was an attempt to change the subject because you are aware of the flimsiness of your defense of the Republicans, and you’re hoping people will get caught up in some side-issue distraction. Odd, most people would consider that a red flag that they’re backing the wrong side.

    Like

    • King Beau,

      You wrote about Anson,

      as is the case with all your long-winded posts, it was an attempt to change the subject because you are aware of the flimsiness of your defense of the Republicans, and you’re hoping people will get caught up in some side-issue distraction.

      While I would agree that Anson’s shtick is to distract with side issues, I think you are giving him way too much credit for being “aware of the flimsiness” of his defense of Republicans. I think the straw men he invites into the conversation are his defense, straw men that he hires from the shallow pool of conservative thinkers these days, some of those straw men distractions coming from crap in his Inbox and some of them coming from the crap he sees on Bill O’Reilly and God only knows where else.

      Duane

       

      Like

%d bloggers like this: