Will Americans Think They're Romney's "47 Percent"? Or One of the "53 Percent"?

The truthfulness of Mitt Romney's "47 percent" comment has been ably dissected elsewhere, not least of all by Matt Welch. Republicans are every bit as guilty as Democrats of breeding dependency on the state — not least of all through their catering to relatively well-off seniors with promises of Social Security and Medicare, forever (and damn the fiscal torpedoes!), and through corporate handouts to favored businesses. But I'm not as convinced as some of my colleagues that the recorded fund-raiser speech published by Mother Jones is a sure-fire disaster for Romney. It could be. But I think it depends on whether Americans who listen to that 47 percent rhetoric ultimately decide that it's they who are being knocked, or the deadbeat next door.

Leave aside the reality of the can-barely-slip-a-rubber-check-between-them policies Mitt Romney and Barack Obama favor. Rhetoric is often more important than reality, and the two parties are selling starkly contrasting rhetoric. The image the Republicans relentlessly sold at their convention was one of immigrants boot-strapping themselves to success, while the Democrats obligingly tied themelves to government programs that, they tell us, people just can't live without. Yeah, they both actually offer unaffordable goodies to their loyalists in the long-established bread-and-circuses mold. But brand differentiation really does matter.

And there is a lot of resentment in this country of people who are perceived as not carrying their own weight, even by those who are just as guilty themselves. One of the great ironies about the Tea Party movement is the extent to which many of its supporters fervently favor Medicare while calling for fiscal restraint — a bit of cognitive dissonance worthy of a chuckle all-around, but which could work to Romney's favor in this latest kerfuffle.

The 47/53 divide is a lousy measure of who is really an undeserving dependent on state handouts, but whether or not it actually hurts Romney will depend on whether the united welfare queens of America perceive a dig at themselves or a bold statement of truth. Watch the polls over the next week.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • John||

    You make a good point JD. Who wants to admit they are part of the 47%? And by attacking Romney so hard, aren't the Democrats admitting they are the party of bums?

  • Lord Humungus||

    why do you hate grandma/ children / blacks / hispanics/ gays/ handicapped / the unemployed / transgenders/men dressed as babies / and the obese?

    Feel free to add anything I missed.

  • John||

    I think yesterday I learned there is also the cissygender. Don't forget the cissies.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    I'd be careful of insulting folks from Cisalpine Gaul.

  • tarran||

    I now understand why my progressive friends on facebook were putting up all these posts with Romney and 47% on them.

    It was fun hiding those turkeys from my feed.

  • ant1sthenes||

    I don't think the Free Shit Army is ashamed of being bums. I imagine this will all end in tragedy.

  • Rich||

    whether the united welfare queens of America perceive a dig at themselves or a bold statement of truth.

    We'll know when the Republican embassies start burning.

  • ||

    Doesn't matter. As was pointed out last night, Obamney will win, and productive people will lose. Same old story, but without the rush.

  • Restoras||

    If Rush cancels the current tour there will be rioting and...ok, there wouldn't be any rioting because we are all part of the productive class but there would be a lot of sad to go around.

  • o3||

    The non-partisan Tax Policy Center, and others, have many times pointed out that a little less than half of Americans pay no federal income taxes. But as TPC also noted last year, "many of those who don't pay income tax do pay other taxes — federal payroll and excise taxes as well as state and local income, sales, and property taxes."

    The pool consists mostly of the poor, of relatively low-income working families and of old people. The tax code is specifically designed to reduce the burden on them."
    http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetw.....47-percent
    _
    because the war on women is going so well, romney's opening a 2d front against the old and poor!!11!!11!!!

    romney's most excellent adventure!

  • John||

    But those taxes only go to pay for medicare, medicaide and social security. Who pays for the trillion dollar stimulus? Who pays for the giant military? Who pays for the hundreds of billions to farmers and so forth?

    And you know as well as I do when the crunch comes and the government can't borrow anymore, liberals are going to go right after that 47% because that is where the money is.

  • o3||

    just how low do you dead-enders wanna tax income? like earn a dollar, send it in granny!?

  • Ken Shultz||

    I'd replace the income tax with any kind of sales tax people will get behind. If that's a carbon tax, I'm all for it, personally--so long as it replaces the income tax.

    Why we haven't had huge cuts in income taxes over the past four years, with unemployment up over 8%? That's beyond me.

    Income taxes stifle the amount of money available for investment, the amount of money available for consumer discretionary spending, etc.--there's no about that. But even worse, it raises the cost of hiring unemployed people and paying them their take home pay!

    At a time when unemployment is up over 8%, keeping the cost of hiring unemployed people artificially high is morally unconscionable. Why hasn't Obama done anything to address that problem?

    It's because Obama's a rigid ideologue. It's frightening when you think about it.

  • T o n y||

    The income tax is the only progressive tax there is--it exists to counter all the other regressive taxes we have. Overall the system is nearly flat.

    This can be boiled down pretty simply. We have to pay for things and have a deficit. Who should make up the difference? The poor or the rich?

    You guys wanting to eliminate the income tax have given your answer. It's not rigid ideology to point out that you want to make it harder to not be poor and much easier to stay rich.

  • Restoras||

    Yes, exactly! I mean, who would ever think you could eliminate a deficit by reducing the other side of the equation! That's just poppycock and balderdash!

  • T||

    We have to pay for things and have a deficit. Who should make up the difference?

    Try not paying for things. There's plenty of shit in the federal budget we don't have to pay for. Start paring that down and we'll talk about who pays for what's left.

  • Kwanzaa Cake||

    Uh no, we don't "have" to pay for the giant, soul-sucking welfare state you favor. We can decide to make it smaller. And in any event, we cannot pay for the current welfare state by increasing taxes on the rich. It is mathematically impossible.

  • Ken Shultz||

    The income tax makes it more expensive for companies to hire unemployed people and pay them their take home pay.

    If companies didn't have to pay employees their income tax--on top of their take home pay--it would cost a lot less for them to hire unemployed people.

    The income tax provides an avenue for the federal government by way of the IRS to intimidate people and destroy them financially--and the people who get behind in paying the IRS? The people who get in trouble with the IRS?

    Typically aren't the wealthy. The wealthy can afford accountants and lawyers to deal with IRS issues. The people who bear the burden of IRS intimidation, harassment and destruction are typically people who can't afford accountants and lawyers.

    You should be ashamed of yourself. The income tax is disproportionately destructive to people at the lower end of the income scale. Poorer people are more likely to have problems with the IRS. And their employment opportunities are more likely to be price sensitive--they're more likely to be unemployed becasue the cost of paying them enough to cover income tax prices them all the way out of the labor market.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Taxes on the rich can't be raised enough to pay for the holes dug by the Teams, Tony. Face it, and move on.

  • GW||

    And of those 47%, about half have zero or negative federal tax burden - they get more in federal benefits than they pay in SS and Medicare taxes.

    We're simply in a position of more people jumping in the cart instead of pulling it.

  • Ken Shultz||

    they get more in federal benefits than they pay in SS and Medicare taxes.

    That is factually incorrect.

    People retiring today are getting less back from social security than they paid in.

    http://tinyurl.com/boclyln

    They're not parasites. They're hosts.

    Romney should hold a press conference and make that statement all by itself today.

  • Mo||

    GW said SS and Medicare. You only mentioned SS. Medicare is still a great deal for retirees.

  • Ken Shultz||

    That's why I didn't mention Medicare!

  • Ken Shultz||

    Incidentally, I don't think Medicare (and Social Security) have been as good for seniors' quality of life as is generally advertised, either.

    I kinda picked this up when I spent that year in Central America, but...I think the biggest reason so few seniors live with their families here in the United States is because of Social Security and Medicare.

    In countries that don't have Social Security and Medicare, people think it's their responsibility to take care of their elderly parents the way we think it's our responsibility to take care of our children. Once social security and medicare came into existence, suddenly people started thinking that taking care of the elderly was the government's responsibility.

    It isn't. And having trained average Americans to shirk their responsibilities to their elderly parents...that has not been a good thing for the quality of life of the average elderly American.

  • Ken Shultz||

    In other words, I think Medicare recipients have a case to make for being victimized, too.

  • Calidissident||

    They were hosts. Now they're parasites

  • Ken Shultz||

    I think they were parasites way back when, but now they're hosts.

  • Calidissident||

    How? That makes no sense whatsoever. Back then, when they were the ones paying taxes, they were parasites, but now that they're the ones getting the benefits, they're the hosts?

  • Ken Shultz||

    Did you read what I wrote?

    When they were getting out more than they paid in--they were parasites.

    Now that they're getting less out than they pay in over their lifetimes--they're hosts.

    When they were getting more than they paid in, they were feeding off of other people. Now that they're getting less than they paid in, they're not feeding off of other people.

    The government is feeding off of them.

  • Ken Shultz||

    If we replaced social security with a system where people were forced to save the same amount in a private account--and could only withdraw as much per month as social security pays once they hit 62-67...

    It would be vastly superior for the overwhelming majority of people. ...and we can do even better than that!

    The parasites aren't the people getting ripped off by the government by way of social security participation.

    The parasites are:

    1) The government that forces people into this ponzi scheme to begin with.

    2) People who exploit seniors' fear of losing access to the ponzi scheme--to get them to support voting more parasites into office.

    Point remains...people on social security are the victims here.

  • R C Dean||

    But as TPC also noted last year, "many of those who don't pay income tax do pay other taxes — federal payroll and excise taxes as well as state and local income, sales, and property taxes."

    State and local income, sales and property taxes don't go to the feds, and we are talking about federal taxes and federal entitlements, and the voting patterns that they inspire.

    Federal payroll taxes are often reimbursed under the EITC to the 47%.

    Nobody knows (and thus cares) whether they pay federal excise taxes.

  • sarcasmic||

    Come on! The goalposts must be moved!

  • o3||

    nope - the TPC 47% is cited by the gop so same goalpost distance

  • sarcasmic||

    If a person doesn't pay federal income tax, then the goalposts must be moved to include payroll taxes, excise taxes, state taxes, and local taxes.

    The goalposts must always be moved.

    Always.

  • T o n y||

    Those taxes don't count, because if they did then it would stop making the slightest bit of sense to argue for cutting the income tax on the wealthy.

  • sarcasmic||

    What do wealth and income have to do with each other?

    Someone can be a paper millionaire and not have any income to tax, likewise someone can have a high income and no wealth.

    One has nothing to do with the other, except when making emotive arguments that have no root in reason or logic.

  • Restoras||

    Sarcasmic, get over yourself. Money is not just a medium of exchange, a unit of measure, and a store of value. Actually, that's all it is, but it is also Evil and must be cleansed from the most evil of our population so those that are less evil can be just as evil as the evilest of us! So we can all enjoy the same amount of Evil and there will be no more Evil Envy. Don't you understand??

  • Ken Shultz||

    Leave aside the reality of the can-barely-slip-a-rubber-check-between-them policies Mitt Romney and Barack Obama favor.

    Which one of them nationalized GM and goes around touting that as an enormous success?

    Which one of them scrapped a free trade agreement that South Korea had already signed, only signing it once the South Koreans included provisions that finally gained the approval of the UAW?

    One of them let the UAW hold our trade policy hostage. One of them thinks having nationalized an industrial giant is an enormous success...

    But there's no difference between the policies they favor?

    http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsal.....arder-sell

  • CampingInYourPark||

    They're the same and where they appear different one of them is lying. Don't fuck up the narrative

  • Calidissident||

    Of course you and others on here who say that never use the same logic on civil liberties or war. When those subjects come up, it's "They're both the same" whether we're talking Obama/Romney or just Democrats/Republicans

  • CampingInYourPark||

    "Of course you..."

    Citation

  • Calidissident||

    90% of your posts are defenses of Romney. Or just read John's posts any time the subject comes up

  • Randian||

    Which one demagogues against China nightly?

    Which one has senior advisers who want to re-start the War on Pornography and "vigorously oppose" drug legalization as a federalist issue?

  • CampingInYourPark||

    "Which one demagogues against China nightly?

    Which one has senior advisers who want to re-start the War on Pornography and 'vigorously oppose' drug legalization as a federalist issue?"

    Is this an example of being the same on these issues or lying?

  • Ken Shultz||

    Holding the South Korean Free Trade Agreement hostage--until changes are made that the UAW supports...that's just like calling out China during a campaign?

    I don't think so.

    What Romney says about China is stupid. What Obama actually did on the KORUS FTA is pathetic. I find it highly unlikely that Romney will let the UAW dictate American trade policy, but the Obama Administration has repeatedly demonstrated that no trade agreement is possible unless organized labor in general--and the UAW in particular--signs off on it.

    He let organized labor dictate terms on the Colombia Free Trade Agreement, too.

  • Calidissident||

    Not to defend Obama, but that's what happens in FTA's. Special interests try to carve out exceptions that benefit them. Romney might not help out the UAW, but there are definitely other groups he'd be ok with helping in a similar fashion

  • CampingInYourPark||

    "Romney might not help out the UAW, but there are definitely other groups he'd be ok with helping in a similar fashion"

    Such as...

  • Calidissident||

    Domestic corporations? Or do you think Saint Romney is above such a thing?

  • Calidissident||

    And of course these two things show massive differences on the most important things here. For a second there, I thought both guys were going to majorly increase the size of government. Romney's only ok with nationalizing the banking industry, so he's alright. Seriously Ken, pull your head out of Romney's ass.

  • Ken Shultz||

    When Obama says what he really thinks, it comes out, "You didn't build that".

    When Romney says what he really thinks, it comes out, "Gotta do something about the parasites".

    That seems like an important difference to me, and, once again, the part of me that wants to support Romney the most isn't telling me that Romney's such a great guy. It's telling me that Obama is a socialist scumbag.

    Oh, and I don't think Obama nationalized the banking industry. He just regulated the hell out of it. I don't think Romney would have regulated the banking industry the way Obama did.

    Obama did nationalize AIG. And in his heart of hearts, he's a socialist scumbag. So, excuse me, but when I see a president who's truly, honestly, socialist in his heart? I can't help but be tempted to support his opponent on that basis alone--despite his imperfections. I can jump on Romney's case the moment he takes office--but we gotta get rid of this died in the wool socialist Obama first.

    We aren't gonna make any progress against nationalization and socialism with Obama in the White House.

  • Calidissident||

    "When Obama says what he really thinks, it comes out, "You didn't build that".

    When Romney says what he really thinks, it comes out, "Gotta do something about the parasites"."

    How do you know that's what Romney really thinks? It amazes me how willing you are to take Romney at his word. The guy has been on all sides of every issue. He'll say whatever his audience wants him to. What has he proposed to do anything about parasites? Is he gonna rollback the welfare state? How about cutting corporate welfare? I guess specifics don't matter as long as he says something about parasites

    Both Romney and Obama supported TARP, and as bad as the auto bailouts have been, that was far more egregious. Romney might not have supported Dodd-Frank, but I wouldn't have been surprised if he agreed to some compromise with the Dems. And he will do nothing about the other 100+ financial regulatory agencies in existence. Regulations massively increased under Bush, contrary to the narrative. No reason to think Romney would be any different.

    When you consider that Obama and Romney's proposals will be watered down by Congress, and Romney is proposing far more military spending and is more likely to start a war with Iran, I think it's likely that the difference in spending isn't going to be that big.

    "We aren't gonna make any progress against nationalization and socialism with Obama in the White House."

    And we won't with Romney either

  • John||

    Since we are now in the business of revealing secretly recorded video, will the LA Times now release that video of Obama talking at that event with the radical Muslims back in 07 I think?

    And how much do you want to bet that if someone had taken secret video of Obama, they would we up on charges right now?

  • o3||

    double secret charges!

  • John||

    Wiretap laws. It is illegal to tape someone without their consent in most states. If this were a tape of Obama, that would be the story right now.

  • R C Dean||

    Interesting point, John. Florida is a two-party consent state. It comes down to whether this was "an in-person communication when the parties do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy."

    If the Romney camp specifically requested that nobody record the meeting, I think JC, Jr. may have a real legal problem on his hands. If anyone cared to press the point.

  • T||

    What's the split on two-party consent? I know Texas and NC are single party, but don't know about the rest.

  • T o n y||

    It's not the crime, it's the coverup getting caught!

  • Ken Shultz||

    whether or not it actually hurts Romney will depend on whether the united welfare queens of America perceive a dig at themselves or a bold statement of truth.

    This gets to the heart of it, and this is the debate I'd like to see us have in this country...

    If I were Romney, I would make it clear that social security beneficiaries are victims of parasitism rather than parasites.

    The fact is that I'll never get back what I'm paying in social security taxes--and if we're only paying people back a fraction of what they paid in, then those people aren't parasites.

    Those people are hosts. Those people are being fed on by parasites.

    The reason I want to away with social security and replace it with something better is because I don't want to be a host.

  • Bardas Phocas||

    The sad fact is that we are all eating government cheese these days. Rich, poor, middle class, cis gendered. Oddly enough, the only people who can get through the day without sucking on the gov-tit is those guys begging for change and sleeping out rough under the tracks.
    The divide is between those who are fully dependent and those like myself who still have something to steal but also, have or will, recieve some government cheese.

  • T o n y||

    God how many things are wrong with what Romney said... 47% may not pay federal income tax, but they pay other taxes including federal taxes. Romney said flat out that this makes nearly half the country lazy, dependent, and vote based on who gives them the most goodies (unlike rich guys, I suppose).

    Furthermore, Red states are on the take much more than Blue states, so Romney is just flat out wrong to call the half the country he disdains for not having enough income Obama voters.

    It's one thing for this to be the sick, sad core of Republican economics ethics. It's another for a gazillionaire presidential candidate to articulate it. "They're all just jealous of me!" has practically been his campaign slogan. What the fuck is wrong with this guy? I can only chalk it up to the strangely common phenomenon of the clueless sense of entitlement of the second-generation wealthy. Their fathers never possessed such snobbery.

  • o3||

    Majority of Welfare Recipients are White, Non-urban, Study Reveals
    http://powerisknowledge.newsvine.com

  • Ken Shultz||

    47% may not pay federal income tax, but they pay other taxes including federal taxes.

    Is Romney running for governor again?

    I thought he was running for president of the United States!

    Did you think he was talking about Massachusetts?

    I can only chalk it up to the strangely common phenomenon of the clueless sense of entitlement of the second-generation wealthy.

    How does calling parasites out for not taking responsibility for their own lives somehow become a "sense of entitlement"?

  • T o n y||

    So everyone who happens not to make enough income to qualify to pay the federal income tax is a parasite who doesn't take responsibility for his own life?

    Meaning nearly half the country are lazy good-for-nothings? What's the point then? Who would want to be president of a country that's gone so far to shit?

    And a multi-millionaire who pays little to no income taxes is by far the bigger parasite if you ask me.

  • Ken Shultz||

    So everyone who happens not to make enough income to qualify to pay the federal income tax is a parasite who doesn't take responsibility for his own life?

    Where did I say anything like that?

    Meaning nearly half the country are lazy good-for-nothings?

    I don't know about half the country, but lazy good-for-nothings are good for nothing.

    Surely, you can do something of value to someone, Tony!

    And a multi-millionaire who pays little to no income taxes is by far the bigger parasite if you ask me.

    Mitt Romney doesn't owe you anything, Tony. Just because someone makes money, that doesn't mean they owe you anything. Talk about a sense of entitlement!

    Rabbits and squirrels know how to take care of themselves--have you even tried to get a job?

  • T o n y||

    I didn't get a dime from my parents from the moment I graduated high school through college until I got employed. So if we're talking about being self-made, I've got one up on Mitt Romney. But I bet I pay a higher proportion of my income in taxes than he does.

    But it's not "free shit" when rich people get it. It's initiative!

  • CampingInYourPark||

    "I didn't get a dime from my parents from the moment I graduated high school through college until I got employed."

    Mitt Romney's parents don't owe you shit either.

  • T o n y||

    I didn't say they did.

    I believe all I'm saying is that Mitt Romney is telling untruths to support ugly stereotypes with no sense of irony of the vast, vast amount of free shit that has gotten him to where he is today.

  • CampingInYourPark||

    "So if we're talking about being self-made, I've got one up on Mitt Romney."

    Except you've made yourself into a whiny little shitbag looking for a reason to be envious.

  • Ken Shultz||

    His parents don't owe him anything, but Mitt Romney apparently does?

  • T o n y||

    Oh I love the boot-licking psychobabble. Like I'm supposed to be impressed that your greatest dream is to wipe Mitt Romney's ass.

    There could be one guy with all the money in the country and you'd still call any attempt to raise his taxes by a cent envy. How independently spirited of you. How you demonstrate how much you don't worship authority. Yes, you may be excused, I understand Mr. Romney has need of a hand.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    There could be one guy with all the money in the country and you'd still call any attempt to raise his taxes by a cent envy.

    Maybe if you weren't so obsessed with other people's money and what they made, we wouldn't call your envy for what it is, you parasite.

  • sarcasmic||

    But I bet I pay a higher proportion of my income in taxes than he does.

    When someone makes an investment, they must first earn the money, and pay income taxes on it.

    So the investments, the wealth (remember that wealth is not money and money is not wealth), represents income that was already taxed.

    Now you want to tax it again.

    What's fair about double taxation?

  • T o n y||

    The same thing that's fair about the triple or quadruple taxation that a normal worker's wages is subject to (social security tax, income tax, then sales tax when spent). You guys still peddling this bullshit?

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    The same thing that's fair about the triple or quadruple taxation that a normal worker's wages is subject to (social security tax, income tax, then sales tax when spent).

    So you're saying that normal workers are taxed too much?

  • T o n y||

    I'm saying "double taxation" has been thoroughly debunked as a myth rich people try to convince stupid people of to lower their tax burden relative to that of people who actually work for their income, and while it should be shocking that people are peddling it here, because it's you guys, it's not really that shocking. You are idiots.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    You are idiots.

    Said by the same moron that can't do basic math.

  • sarcasmic||

    The same thing that's fair about the triple or quadruple taxation that a normal worker's wages is subject to (social security tax, income tax, then sales tax when spent). You guys still peddling this bullshit?

    All already paid when the money to purchase the investments was originally earned.

    And now you want to tax it yet again in the name of fairness?

    What a dishonest piece of shit you are.

  • Kwanzaa Cake||

    Not to mention that the passive income Tony hates is double-taxed to begin with because XYZ corp pays taxes and then Romney has to pay even more if XYZ Corp pays him a dividend.

  • T o n y||

    And XYZ corp by virtue of the "corp" gets a boatload of goodies from the government. If they don't want to pony up they are free to give up all the goodies that come with incorporation.

    But, as always, it's not a handout if it's not to a poor person.

  • Kwanzaa Cake||

    WTF are you talking about? The issue is whether the owner of corp XYZ should be taxed twice on XYX's earnings. I'm not surprised that you immediately change the subject. And again, you resort to the babble that the welfare state justifies itself -- it writes checks to everyone so no one has standing to complain about checks going to anyone. Once again, you happen to be peddling this nonsense on a site where everyeone opposes the corporate welfare to the same degree as the individual welfare.

  • Zeb||

    If the government is giving them lots of goodies, then they should stop. Problem solved.

  • sarcasmic||

    But, as always, it's not a handout if it's not to a poor person.

    Oh yeah. Not taking is giving.

    So when corp XYZ has less in taxes taken away, that money was stolen from the poor person who has no money to steal, and given to the corporation.

    Emotive math is fun!

  • CampingInYourPark||

    "And a multi-millionaire who pays little to no income taxes is by far the bigger parasite if you ask me."

    Which multi-millionaire is paying little to no income taxes and who is he taking from? Warren Buffet?

  • Ken Shultz||

    "And a multi-millionaire who pays little to no income taxes is by far the bigger parasite if you ask me."

    Q. How much income does Romney make?

    A. Not much.

  • T o n y||

    What you mean is:

    Q. How much work does Romney do?
    A. Not much.

    He still makes a shitload of income.

  • CampingInYourPark||

    Workers of the world Unite!

  • Ken Shultz||

    Why do you keep comparing yourself to Mitt Romney? What does Mitt Romney's money have to do with you?

    Why don't you take responsibility for your own life?

  • T o n y||

    I do. I thought the topic at hand was the final nail in Mitt Romney's presidential campaign.

  • Ken Shultz||

    I think we've clearly established at least two things here:

    1) There are huge chunks of people out there with a sense of entitlement.

    2) Tony, for example, thinks he's entitled to Mitt Romney's money.

  • sarcasmic||

    Ken, Ken, Ken. You don't get it.

    The fact that rich people exist is proof that they don't pay their fair share.

    If they paid their fair share then they wouldn't be rich!

    Right Tony?

  • CampingInYourPark||

    "2) Tony, for example, thinks he's entitled to Mitt Romney's money."

    3) Tony thinks he's entitled to Romney's parents.

  • T o n y||

    There are huge chunks of people out there with a sense of entitlement.

    Absolutely, 100% objectively so, none so much as libertarians.

  • sarcasmic||

    Stupid trolls are stupid.

  • Kwanzaa Cake||

    To Tony, there is no difference between maintaining a police force that will arrest trespassers and providing free food to 1 in 7 Americans. They are exactly the same thing! This is the "nuanced" world of a leftist.

  • T o n y||

    There is a legitimate question as to why people are entitled to have trespassers cleared from their property but aren't entitled not to starve to death. Perhaps there is some shade of nuance that escapes me. But don't say it's about "positive" and "negative" rights, because that's nonsense. Police cost money.

  • CampingInYourPark||

    "There is a legitimate question as to why people are entitled to have trespassers cleared from their property but aren't entitled not to starve to death."

    T o n y 15:3

    "Verily I say unto thee: Who is the entitled? The man that builds his fortress of stone and defends it or the beggar that sitteth in his own shit?"

  • sarcasmic||

    There is a difference between paying police to do a job, and paying deadbeats to be deadbeats.

    But yeah. You're right. Stupid libertarians think that they are entitled to things like private property, to keep the fruits of their labor, to be free from coercion, to live in a state of liberty instead of having to ask permission and take orders.

    As opposed to you, who feels some should be entitled to the property of others, to the fruits of the labor of others, to coerce, and to require permission and orders at every turn.

    Yes, by that comparison libertarians truly are evil people.

  • T o n y||

    No just monumentally stupid. Because they think that having secure private property and being protected from illegitimate coercion are free services. And that the cost of letting vast numbers of people starve is less than the cost of subsidizing food.

    Your worldview rests on ugly, factually challenged classist stereotypes. The biggest welfare queens are the wealthy. Wealth is privilege. Poverty is disadvantage. Your ugly, nonsense stereotypes serve only to exacerbate that disparity of fairness.

  • sarcasmic||

    But Tony, I'm agreeing with you!

    It is absolutely evil to believe that there is no inherent contradiction in protecting private property and protecting a claim to the private property of other people!

    No contradiction at all!

    I mean, how fair is it that one person be poor while another is rich?

    Surely it is the duty of the government to protect the private property of the poor person while also giving him claim to the private property of the rich person!

    Screw the rich person's private property rights! He's rich! Fuck him! Kill him and feed him to the poor!

    Eat the rich!

    Kill! Kill! Kill!

  • T o n y||

    "I've got mine. I'm gonna take a little of yours to pay for men with guns to protect mine. Then you can fuck off and starve."

    --libertarian "ethics"

  • sarcasmic||

    Straw men are made of straw.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    "You've got some. I'm gonna cry and bitch until some government sugar daddy comes along with guns and forces you to give me what's yours. Then you can fuck off and starve."

    --progressive "ethics"

  • sarcasmic||

    He won't be back. That's his parting "zinger" where he feels he won the debate.

  • sarcasmic||

    All I've got to say on the subject is that Utz Red Hot potato chips are The Awesome!

    http://www.taquitos.net/chips/.....tato-Chips

  • NoVAHockey||

    Seems like when it's time to count taxes, payroll taxes count. When it's time to cut benefits, those's aren't taxes, but insurance premiums.

  • GILMORE||

    Watch the polls over the next week.

    Or, alternatively, I'll reorganize my postage stamp collection.

  • sagdds||

    The truth is that most people will think they are in the 53% group whether they are or aren't. This will have no affect just like the bible and gun clingers comment by then Senator Obama had no affect. Most people have already decided their canidate and the rest will either not vote or probably be split 50-50. The real problem is that both sides are for handouts, just different types, and that is not going to change. Smaller government is a myth that I cling to in my head that no politician is really striving for. That is the real truth.

  • Kwanzaa Cake||

    Agreed. Sadly I can think of several people I know who are sucking at the government teet but bristle at any suggestion that they are doing so. The left has always known that there is an inherent shame in dependency, so they have worked very hard for a long time to destroy that sense of shame, or to at least allow dependents to conceal their dependency (i.e., SNAP cards in place of actual food stamps). Worse yet they have worked hard to convince dependents that they are entitled to government largesse, and it has worked to some extent.

    This is a debate we need to have.

  • sagdds||

    Agreed. If we all could agree that dependency on anything or anyone leads to a loss of freedom then we could begin to turn this ship around. I am not optimistic that will ever happen.

  • sarcasmic||

    The left has always known that there is an inherent shame in dependency

    When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves, in the course of time, a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it.
    -Bastiat (1848)
  • T o n y||

    Yes and it's a rather simple question.

    We gotta pay for stuff: starve poor people or make rich people pay a little more in income taxes?

    I guess it's clear where the libertarians stand.

    Because the rich can never be the beneficiaries of government largess. This despite their constant greater access to the levers of power.

    Your entire worldview rests on an ugly, tired stereotype. If being poor is so great, why don't rich people become poor?

  • Kwanzaa Cake||

    You guess it is clear that libertarians favor lower taxes? Wow, you are really quick on the uptake today!

    Of course the rich can benefit from a government that is so busy writing checks to everyone and everything that it hardly has time do anything else. No one here is defending the leviathan you've created and support, Tony. We want it smaller across the board. But we don't regard the welfare state as the self-generating machine that you do.

    Your worldview is bankrupting the country. No amount of additional taxation of the "rich" can pay for the unfunded promises Teams Blue and Red have conspired to foist upon the American people.

  • CampingInYourPark||

    "We gotta pay for stuff"

    Says you

  • Kwanzaa Cake||

    "starve poor people or make rich people pay a little more in income taxes?"

    By the way, this is the kind of "false choice" Obama is fond of talking about. For one thing, in case you have not noticed, the poor in this country are largely obese. They also do lots of self-destructive shit like have kids out of wedlock when they are teenagers themselves. But hey, your wlefare state has nothing at all to do with that, does it? It's funny that liberals typically defend an idealized welfare state that exists in their own minds as opposed to the one that actually exists.

  • T o n y||

    Liberals tend to attribute negative social outcomes to poverty rather than the other way around--as evidence-averse moral busybodies like libertarians and conservatives do.

  • sarcasmic||

    Liberals tend to attribute negative social outcomes to poverty rather than the other way around

    Because one's choices do not affect outcomes. I mean, that's like not fair and stuff. People should make whatever choices they want and be insulated from the consequences, because the alternative doesn't feel nice. Like, and stuff. You know?

  • Kwanzaa Cake||

    They attribute the poor outcomes to poverty even as they shovel money to the poor in a bid to relieve the poverty. Which is why no amount of welfare spending is ever enough for you. The fact is that welfare spending has failed to win the war on poverty and has trapped millions in a state of dependency. But you don't give a shit about outcomes. You care about stroking that sense of moral superiority that comes with dispensing other people's money. That's exactly why, as stated above, you are incapable of defending the actual welfare state on its merits, and resort to this BS about people starving to death if we reduce welfare spending to 2006 levels.

  • Joe R.||

    We gotta pay for stuff: starve poor people or make rich people pay a little more in income taxes?

    “Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all. We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education. We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all. We object to a state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality. And so on, and so on. It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain.” -- Frédéric Bastiat

  • T o n y||

    And what really counts is what's in your heart.

  • sarcasmic||

    And what really counts is what's in your heart.

    If it feels right then it is right, even if it's wrong!

  • sagdds||

    This is what I was speaking of originally. Until everyone can agree that there is too much spending across the board each side will be played against the other and we all lose.

  • CampingInYourPark||

    This is really some stupid shit. Romney said something to a crowd of donors at a fundraiser the equivalent of "If you don't give me money Kochtopus will buy the election". It's just using a different group to appear the underdog to get some cash. What a surprise.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    "I am the fifty-three percent" doesn't have a ring to it.

  • sagdds||

    There is a website created last year during OWS that has pictures and stories. As you said it didn't catch on, http://the53.tumblr.com

  • crazyfingers||

    I'm part of the 47% and I would happily pay federal income taxes for LESS government. Sorry Romney you moron, but I am not benefiting from the corrupt, corporatist, warmongering, police state that is the status-quo. If I was the small business I work for would actually be able to pay me enough so that I did have taxable income.

  • John||

    You can always send in more if you like. They will take your money. And let me guess, you plan to vote for Obama. So I guess Romney has that part right too.

  • Kwanzaa Cake||

    More? Crazyfingers seems to say he is paying nothing. So it would be more correct to say "you can always send in something if you like."

  • crazyfingers||

    A significant percentage of my meager paycheck goes to social security and medicare/medicaid, which being in my 20s, I will almost certainly never see a dime from. That's not nothing.

    Not to mention all of the state and local taxes I pay, such as state income, property, sales tax, gas tax, registration fees, user fees, etc., which I derive very little benefit from aside from the occasional use of roads.

  • CampingInYourPark||

    "I would happily pay federal income taxes for LESS..."

    Hope you're not an accountant.

  • crazyfingers||

    Uh no, I said I want less government, the government is the reason I don't make any money, it is obvious after seeing all of the bureaucratic bullshit my boss has to jump through that large corporations get a pass on.

    I'm not surprised a Team Red player like yourself lacks reading comprehension. I am voting for Johnson.

  • CampingInYourPark||

    "it is obvious after seeing all of the bureaucratic bullshit my boss has to jump through that large corporations get a pass on"

    Does your boss, by chance tell you that he has to jump through a bunch of bureaucratic bullshit that large corporations get a pass on when discussing your wage?

  • crazyfingers||

    No, from what I can tell he is a liberal and accepts it for what it is. That doesn't mean it doesn't adversely affect the business.

  • CampingInYourPark||

    "That doesn't mean it doesn't adversely affect the business."

    Maybe you can define what "it" is.

  • John||

    said I want less government, the government is the reason I don't make any money, it is obvious after seeing all of the bureaucratic bullshit my boss has to jump through that large corporations get a pass on.

    That is completely untrue. Small companies under 50 employees are exempt from almost all federal regulations. Corporations are not exempt, small businesses are.

    You are clearly lying or don't know what you are talking about. For that reason, sorry I don't believe for a moment you are voting for Johnson. You are just a liberal sock puppet here to stir up trouble.

  • crazyfingers||

    LOL like I give a flying fuck what a Team Red moron like you believes. Keep pumping up the former governor of Massachusetts as the next "conservative" savor.

  • CampingInYourPark||

    Maybe it'd be just as easy to provide a couple of examples of regs that prevent your boss from competing against large corporations.

  • Zeb||

    I don't know about exemptions for big corps. but economies of scale make it a lot easier for the big companies to comply with regulations. And local regulations can be just as onerous as the federal ones. I think crazyfingers makes a good point that it should be much easier and less expensive to start a business.

  • John||

    But most federal regulations kick in at 50 employees. And yes, it is easier for big corporations to comply with regulations. That is why big corporations like them so much. They give then an advantage over small businesses.

  • CampingInYourPark||

    "I don't know about exemptions for big corps. but economies of scale make it a lot easier for the big companies to comply with regulations."

    I never have met the owner of a small business that didn't want it to become a big business. I've never met a someone with little money that didn't want more. I'm interested in the rules being different, not really whether becoming successful makes it easier to play by the rules.

  • CampingInYourPark||

    "I think crazyfingers makes a good point that it should be much easier and less expensive to start a business."

    I think he'd have a better point if it was simply that it should be much easier to have a business...period.

  • John||

    You might tell your masters to give you better talking points. Sorry but the "my small business is subject to things the corporations get a pass" doesn't pass the laugh test on a board like this one where people actually know things.

    Go troll Red State or Free Republic where that kind of stupid might play.

  • Calidissident||

    You don't think large corporations are more likely to benefit from regulatory capture?

  • Lyle||

    I can't believe he's being attacked for this.

    Shows you how many people rely on government.

  • Calidissident||

    People are missing the mark in this discussion. The problem isn't that 47% of people pay no income tax. The problem is that 53% do

  • Hansecker||

    Have you all heard about the Dem strategy to win? It goes like this: They only need 39% of the white vote to win, but they need overwhelming margins of the black and hispanic vote. So the strategy goes like this: You tell blacks and hispanics that white people, particularly republicans, hate them. You don't have to worry about offending up to 61% of white people when you do this. Forget offending 47%, you can offend up to 61% of white people and still win because the blacks and hispanics will overwhelmingly support you. Note that 33% of whites are hardcore democrats who will always vote Dem no matter what. So we are left with 6% of white people who are not hard core democrats who Obama needs to win. Are you one of these people who are facilitating the racist electoral policy of Obama? Are you one of these people who thinks it is OK to label white people as racist just to get the black and hispanic vote for the Dems? Think about how you are being used.

  • LifeStrategies||

    Inconsistency all round. Or do I mean pretense? Amazing how people can recognize that government spends too much, yet still want them to increase spending...

    They don't realize they're asking the government to choose what to do without first asking what they want them to be...

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement