News Stupidest Statement by a Presidential Candidate - Ever

[russ_watters]

Care to source the facts?

You misunderstand: the facts are contained in the quote. What The Economist did wrong is to say that Romney was wrong, then list a bunch of facts as if to imply he made wrong claims about them. It implies that Romney claimed that all of the 47% are on food stamps, for example. But he didn't do that.

 

[SixNein]

You misunderstand: the facts are contained in the quote. What The Economist did wrong is to say that Romney was wrong, then list a bunch of facts as if to imply he made wrong claims about them. It implies that Romney claimed that all of the 47% are on food stamps, for example. But he didn't do that.

All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe that 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.

You don't think the above quote was a generalization of the 47 percent?

 

[russ_watters]

You don't think the above quote was a generalization of the 47 percent?

It is a generalization about what they "believe they are entitled to". He didn't say that 47% are on food stamps, he said that 47% believe the government has a responsibility to provide them.

The only thing in that quote from The Economist that they got right is the part about who the 47% vote for. The rest is all [incorrect] claims attributed to Romney that he didn't say.

 

[Evo]

It is a generalization about what they "believe they are entitled to". He didn't say that 47% are on food stamps, he said that 47% believe the government has a responsibility to provide them.

And Romney is making wild assumptions, gross exagerations, basically, he has no clue what these people think as a whole. I seriously doubt that people working part time and not making enough to pay Federal Income Tax feel entitled to anything, much less even think about it, just as one example of millions of workers in that 47%.

 

[russ_watters]

Romney's not the only politician that hasn't fully encompassed new technology (George Allen comes to mind), but is it actually possible today for a politician to talk solely to a small group of people?

Yes, of course it is. The defining feature of "a small group of people" is security, and that's where Romney (his staff) failed here. But this is one of hundreds of similar appearances Romney (and Obama) made that was supposed to be behind closed doors, in front of a friendly crowd. All the rest apparently were, but this one wasn't.

Certainly, they must always weigh the risk that there might be an infiltrator in the meeting, but I don't think the risk is really all that high, given the high pricetag for attending.

A candidate should assume that anything they say in any sort of public or semi-public environment is going to be presented to the entire public. There is no such thing anymore as a private dinner for donors...

That's certainly safe, but I don't think it is reasonable or realistic. It applies even more to open-mic gaffes, but there have been a lot more failures on that front: if there is a mic in front of you, assume it is on. Most politicians, including Obama, have violated that thumb rule.

(and, to be honest, providing the "secret" scoop to donors while saying something completely different to the general populace probably decreases a candidate's credibility even among donors).

Giving a different tone/spin/message to different audiences is a critical social skill and reality of life for everyone, not just politicians. Do you not talk and act differently in front of your family and friends than you do at work? Obama's Russia gaffe was a similar issue: if he hadn't had an open mic in front of him, the statement would have been fine, but it was a statement made for a specific audience that wasn't appropriate for broader audiences.

And of course donors want "the secret scoop"! Why else are they there? This question/answer in particular was exactly the kind of thing I would expect: frank discussion of the strategy behind the public face of the campaign, not just the mindless talking points the public gets. Politicians are in a position when running for office that all but forces them to talk out of both sides of their face. They all do it. But a high rolling donor is going to want the clear truth.

Consider how Obama might have had to deal with a question on gay marriage in 2008, in a high roller donor meeting. In a room full of liberals, he can't say he's against gay marriage, particularly if he really isn't. He'd have to tell them the truth if he wants their money, which, as I understand it, was that he was against it because he felt he had to compromise his principles on that issue to get elected. Romney would probably say something similar regarding his healthcare stance from his governorship. High roller donors aren't idiots: they know how political campaigns work -- they're neck deep in them!

 

[Pythagorean]

And of course donors want "the secret scoop"! Why else are they there?

Err.. what about just getting behind a candidate they believe in their mission and appreciating that their values aren't audience dependent?

 

[russ_watters]

And Romney is making wild assumptions, gross exagerations, basically, he has no clue what these people think as a whole.

That is partly true, but it isn't [all] what The Economist said. The part that isn't true is that he has "no clue". Skip to the bottom of the post for why.

I seriously doubt that people working part time and not making enough to pay Federal Income Tax feel entitled to anything, much less even think about it, just as one example of millions of workers in that 47%.

Well that's a pretty broad generalization too, Evo and one that doesn't make a lot of sense. It stands to reason that people who are more in need are going to feel stronger in favor of receiving the kinds of subsidies Romney was talking about. That is, of course, the entire point of the class warfare issue here: If people didn't care about getting government handouts, they wouldn't be anti-Romney based on the perception that he would take them away!

Obamacare is a case in point. Support for Obamacare was highly correlated to income/status: http://www.gallup.com/poll/126959/majority-poor-young-uninsured-back-healthcare-bill.aspx

Romney's error was simple: he took a statistical correlation that is real/true but not absolute and made it absolute.

 

[russ_watters]

Err.. what about just getting behind a candidate they believe in their mission and appreciating that their values aren't audience dependent?

A donor who is not naive -- and I suspect most aren't -- is going to know that the message is audience dependent. And if they really want to maximize the impact of their money, they wouldn't go to the dinner, they'd just send the check and save the candidate the effort/expense of the dinner!

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Here are a few statistics.

People who will vote for the president no matter what. - 47%
People who are dependent upon government. - 47%
People who believe that they are victims. - 47%
People who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them - 47%
People who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. -47%
People who pay no income tax -47%

Romney never said that the same 47% are in each group. He was merely pointing out an amazing coincidence. Well, actually, he implied that the same 47% are in each group, so just keep in mind he never actually said it.

I was especially taken by the People who are dependent upon government gag. This is how I understand it. During your life you pay income taxes and social security taxes. Only the social security taxes aren't taxes. They're accounted as if you were paying into a private pension fund. So you only pay income taxes. Then you retire and start collecting your pension. Now you are dependent on government, not accounted as if you were collecting from a private pension. But you are not paying income taxes any more. That's why Romney and I both want to know, what have you done for us lately?

 

[russ_watters]

I was especially taken by the People who are dependent upon government gag. This is how I understand it. During your life you pay income taxes and social security taxes. Only the social security taxes aren't taxes. They're accounted as if you were paying into a private pension fund. So you only pay income taxes. Then you retire and start collecting your pension. Now you are dependent on government, not accounted as if you were collecting from a private pension. But you are not paying income taxes any more. That's why Romney and I both want to know, what have you done for us lately?

A couple of things:

1. The wanting it both ways goes both ways, and you gave it both ways in your post. The statement that those who are retired don't pay federal income tax is what it is. The "what have you done for us lately" is your spin that it is an insult and your way of saying you do want the taxes counted as a contribution, but don't want the benefits counted as a benefit. Don't worry though -- that's not the first time I've heard that in here on this exact issue.

2. If many Republicans had it their way, Social Security would be neither a tax nor a benefit: it would not exist. But since it does exist and is supposed to be like paying into a pension fund, neither the tax nor the benefit should really be counted when talking about "contributions" and "benefits".

3. But either way, you're right that consistency is desirable. The best measure imo would be one of lifetime contributions and benefits, with or without counting Social Security. At least that way, those who are retired wouldn't feel insulted by the statistic and we wouldn't have to worry about people on both sides playing games with the SS component. Unfortunately though, such stats are hard to come by.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

1. The wanting it both ways goes both ways, and you gave it both ways in your post. The statement that those who are retired don't pay federal income tax is what it is. The "what have you done for us lately" is your spin that it is an insult and your way of saying you do want the taxes counted as a contribution, but don't want the benefits counted as a benefit.

You totally misread it. It had nothing to do with the SS tax. I meant that you paid income taxes your whole life right up until your retirement last week. This week you pay no income taxes and forget you.

 

[Evo]

Well that's a pretty broad generalization too, Evo and one that doesn't make a lot of sense.

It makes absolute sense in that it shows the type of flawed thinking Romney is guilty of.

It stands to reason that people who are more in need are going to feel stronger in favor of receiving the kinds of subsidies Romney was talking about. That is, of course, the entire point of the class warfare issue here: If people didn't care about getting government handouts, they wouldn't be anti-Romney based on the perception that he would take them away!

What? The OP is about Romney making the following derogatory comments, in case you've forgotten what he said.

“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.”

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickung...rdinary-contempt-for-47-percent-of-americans/

Who is saying they are anti-Romney? Do you have statistics to back that up? Or is this just part of Romney's dellusions/misinformation, what ever you prefer to call it.

Romney goes on to say

“My job is not to worry about those people. (cmphasis added) I’ll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives.”

Wow, just wow.

So much for the notion of the President of the United States being the president of all the people.

 

[russ_watters]

You totally misread it. It had nothing to do with the SS tax. I meant that you paid income taxes your whole life right up until your retirement last week. This week you pay no income taxes and forget you.

That's really neither here nor there: your "what have you done for me lately" crack applies whether you count SS or not. In both cases, the retired are not paying either tax.

Though I said I want consistency and I don't care much which way it goes, inclusion of SS could be problematic for people want to include it. It was recently posted around here somewhere that retirees from 1980 (IIRC) will get 7x what they paid in while someone who retired last week will get 1x. The class warfare is therefore largely misdirected: it's generation warfare that's the bigger issue.

[edit] It was 1960, not 1980: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...ocial-security-than-paid-in-marking-historic/

 

[Evo]

That's really neither here nor there: your "what have you done for me lately" crack applies whether you count SS or not. In both cases, the retired are not paying either tax.

People on Social Security, whether retired or on disability do pay taxes if they have enough income. Why do you think they don't pay tax?

Also, this is straying way off topic. Let's get back to Stupidest Statement by a Presidential Candidate.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

your "what have you done for me lately" crack applies whether you count SS or not.

Not my crack, Romney's

 

[russ_watters]

...

Evo, please calm down and reread my recent posts. Your response contains virtually nothing that addresses anything in them, but attributes things to me that I didn't say.

 

[Evo]

Evo, please calm down and reread my recent posts. Your response contains virtually nothing that addresses anything in them, but attributes things to me that I didn't say.

Please point them out. It seems the only person that isn't calm here is you russ.

Are you claiming you didn't say this?

In both cases, the retired are not paying either tax.

My response

People on Social Security, whether retired or on disability do pay taxes if they have enough income. Why do you think they don't pay tax?

I guess I could ask "why did you say they don't pay tax"?

So please russ, post where I am putting words into your mouth, oh sorry, "where I am attributing things to you that you didn't say". I know that you were addressing jimmy's remark, perhaps you were being very specific to 'not paying taxes this week"? If so, I apologize. I think we can both agree that retired people can and do pay income taxes.

 

[mathwonk]

I don't know if this sheds any light on the topic, but I am retired while my wife is not. Last year we paid 19% of our income in income taxes, a higher rate than Mr. Romney who is dependent on the government (i.e. ordinary taxpayers) for a favorable tax rate. I.e. his tax rate of 14$ compared to my 19%, means he received roughly a $600,000 rebate from the government in 2011.

Moreover, in a sense I am paying income tax twice on my retirement income, since for many years at the beginning of my career the retirement takeout was already taxed. As an adjustment I am allowed to take a credit for taxes already paid on retirement income, but only gradually, a little per year, and at a rate that would require me to live roughly another 30 years to get it all back (until I am 100).

Moreover since my wife's income counts towards mine for medicare computation, I now pay a double premium for my own medicare while continuing to pay a full premium for her non medicare health insurance. Thus I pay twice as much health care insurance premium as I did in 2010, for roughly the same coverage we had before, except that now I have to submit most claims to two separate payers.

Still, we are better off than many people, and have no right to complain. I do wish Mr. Romney would see things in the same light, and support legislation requiring people like him to pay at the same rate most citizens pay. I also suggest the IRS close loop holes that allow people like the officials at Bain Capital to claim as investment income, salary they receive for advising investors, while they themselves actually hold no stock in the companies they claim to be receiving investment income from.

When I think of real patriots, I do not think of Mr. Romney, but of a woman CEO I read about years ago who overpaid her IRS taxes because she felt she could afford to contribute more than required. She ran a factory canning tomatoes and when the power went offline for powering her steam canning operation she brought in a steam powered locomotive and used the steam from the engine to substitute. She always paid her workers more than the going wage, and when their union went out on strike for an additional $.25 an hour over scale, they asked for permission not to strike because they were already making more than that. That to me is a real American patriot business person, not a multimillionaire who games the tax laws to minimize his own taxes below the average workers rate, and brags about never paying more than the law let's him get away with.

By the way, as to whether this was a "dumb" statement by Mr. Romney, I don't know how to quantify that. But before he said it, I thought he was a favorite to win. Since then I do not, and the polls seem to support that. Whether it holds up for another month is another matter, but apparently the statement didn't help his standings in the polls in Ohio and Florida. So if his intention is to enhance his reputation with voters, it seems indisputable that his statement harmed that outcome, which suggests a vote more for "stupid" than "brilliant".

 

[mheslep]

Recall that the total tax bill for partners or officers of an LLC like Romney's Bain Capital or Warren Buffet's Berkshire Hathaway includes more than their personal income tax. Before payouts are made to owners or shareholders, the corporate tax must first be paid. I don't know the Bain-Romney accounting, but http://finance.yahoo.com/taxes/article/112560/what-top-companies-pay-taxes-forbes. Buffet apparently owns 23% of the company, controls 32%.

 

[BobG]

By the way, as to whether this was a "dumb" statement by Mr. Romney, I don't know how to quantify that. But before he said it, I thought he was a favorite to win. Since then I do not, and the polls seem to support that. Whether it holds up for another month is another matter, but apparently the statement didn't help his standings in the polls in Ohio and Florida. So if his intention is to enhance his reputation with voters, it seems indisputable that his statement harmed that outcome, which suggests a vote more for "stupid" than "brilliant".

Well, I wouldn't call it a gamechanging statement, but it probably was a tipping point statement. One gaffe doesn't blow an entire campaign. It provided the opportunity for people to accept the image Romney's projected most of his campaign.

Polls go up and down, but when Obama and Romney are polling even on economic issues, then Romney's lost the issue that was his best selling point for replacing Obama.
http://pollingreport.com/wh12.htm

And, in spite of being even on most economic issues, there's this:

Whom do you think has laid out a better vision for a successful economic future for the U.S.: Barack Obama or Mitt Romney?"

Obama - 48%
Romney - 39%

The post convention bounce seemed to evaporate shortly after the convention, but I think a few of the images from the convention have stuck around a little longer. The Democratic convention was very, very well done.

 

[SixNein]

Recall that the total tax bill for partners or officers of an LLC like Romney's Bain Capital or Warren Buffet's Berkshire Hathaway includes more than their personal income tax. Before payouts are made to owners or shareholders, the corporate tax must first be paid. I don't know the Bain-Romney accounting, but http://finance.yahoo.com/taxes/article/112560/what-top-companies-pay-taxes-forbes. Buffet apparently owns 23% of the company, controls 32%.

One would also have to factor that tax into wages offered and price of product.

 

[SixNein]

Romney never said that the same 47% are in each group. He was merely pointing out an amazing coincidence. Well, actually, he implied that the same 47% are in each group, so just keep in mind he never actually said it.

Let me ask you a question. How much has the baby boomer generation payed into the system, and how much will they collect?

If we are going to talk about moochers, we might as well start talking about the baby boomer generation.

 

[mathwonk]

I'm not sure what that graph means, but in terms of social security, its the older "greatest generation" that are the biggest moochers. Baby boomers get back less than they paid in now, and higher wage earners have gotten lkess for over 20 years according to this article.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...ocial-security-than-paid-in-marking-historic/

 

[SixNein]

I'm not sure what that graph means, but in terms of social security, its the older "greatest generation" that are the biggest moochers. Baby boomers get back less than they paid in now, and higher wage earners have gotten lkess for over 20 years according to this article.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...ocial-security-than-paid-in-marking-historic/

Not according to the IMF.

The graph shows the result of taxes paid over a lifetime vs benefits received over a lifetime. A negative indicates that one is receiving more benefits than paying in taxes.

The economists has a write up on it here.

Here is an IMF paper on the issue...
http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2011/wp1172.pdf

And another article...
http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/2011/06/batini.htm

And mind you were just talking about the central government. States and local are targeting those people as well.

 

[mathwonk]

I have perused the first two articles you linked and cannot find any contradiction to the one I linked whatsoever. perhaps you can point it out to me. They seem to consider two related but different questions, 1) whether current retirees have paid more in soc sec taxes than they will receive in soc sec, and 2) whether current retirees are projected to receive a larger overall share of government benefits than they will have paid for.

I see nothing to contradict the first point in your articles that they will lose on soc sec taxes, which they have been paying for a very long time (in my case 54 years) , and indeed it appears from the IMF articles that the excess burden projected to be presented by current retirees has to do significantly with the medicare drug benefit recently enacted, for which they will not pay enough.

Thus it seems to me that it may indeed be true that although current retirees will lose money on their soc sec taxes, they may gain on medicare benefits, enough to more than offset the soc sec loss.

have i missed something in the articles you linked that would say otherwise in reference to soc sec, (which was the only point I made)?

Furthermore, the "mooching" the economist speaks of is projected mooching, which may not actually occur due to possible reforms, whereas the soc sec bounty collected by the more elderly has been going on for some 80 years.I.e. in your articles, mooching which we could at one time afford is being ignored as a cause of fiscal problems, while anticipated mooching which has not occurred, is getting the blame. Indeed it was the baby boomers whose working pay financed the relatively handsome retirement of the entire older generation for the last 40 years.

 

[alan2]

No offense, but the brains of otherwise intelligent people frequently turn to mush when ideology is introduced. Everyone is trotting out numbers to support some solution or other to an ill posed problem. Why not start at the beginning and define the problem? Do you believe that the goal of an economic system is to serve the collective welfare of society or do you believe that it is a competition with winners and losers? Unless you are able to agree on the goal you are wasting your own time. You will never convince anyone of anything if you can't agree on the statement of the problem. If a student comes to you unable to solve a problem, what do you do? I always make sure that they understand the statement of the problem before proceeding. I know why everything is such a mess. It's because nobody can agree on the objective yet nobody will discuss that. Once the objective is defined the solution becomes much more tractable.

 

[Astronuc]

"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. And I mean the president starts off with 48, 49... he starts off with a huge number. These are people who pay no income tax. Forty-seven percent of Americans pay no income tax." - Romney

I believe many object to Romney's derisive statement concerning the 47% who he claims won't vote for him, and in fact, the objection is Romney's misrepresentation of those 47%.

I think the fundamental mistake is roughly the same in both cases: an arrogant condescension to a large part of the country as to why they won't support him.

Agree. It is an example of poor campaigning. It's uncoming of someone running for the office of president of the entire country - or any political office for that matter.

As far as I can tell, The Economist offered some elaboration on the 47% (or 46.4% - it fluctuates). I believe The Economist is economically conservative, but relatively socially liberal.

Folks collecting social security may indeed pay income tax.
http://www.ssa.gov/planners/taxes.htm

Incidentally, in the group who do not pay income tax, apparently about 4000 are millionaires.
http://money.cnn.com/2012/09/18/pf/taxes/romney-income-taxes-millionaires/index.html

ABC's characterization of the 46% - http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/mitt-romneys-47-percent-pay-income-taxes/story?id=17263629

The issues of who pays taxes and who doesn't, who gets government aid/subsidies and who doesn't, and the appropriateness of US government taxes and expenditures are entirely separate topics for other threads.

Meanwhile while researching on who fits in the 47%, I found:

A substantial benefit provided not to the poor, but those with sufficient or substantial resources.
http://news.yahoo.com/decades-federal-dollars-helped-fuel-141648115.html

Neither Obama or Romney are [effectively] addressing the issues of poverty and unemployment.
http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/pol...ing-poverty/sZhd9i4Z0gMGahFKxknDXM/story.html

 

[Evo]

This thread is not about taxes, let's please get back to the topic.

 

[SixNein]

I have perused the first two articles you linked and cannot find any contradiction to the one I linked whatsoever. perhaps you can point it out to me.

No, you are correct and I do apologize. According to the CBO2010 report on SSI (p19), they state:

The first generations of Social Security participants received more in benefits than they paid
in taxes. As the program is currently structured, however, total taxes must equal total
benefits on a present-value basis. For today’s participants, the present value of lifetime taxes is, on average, more than the present value of benefits.

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/fi...x/doc11943/10-22-socialsecurity_chartbook.pdf

Thus it seems to me that it may indeed be true that although current retirees will lose money on their soc sec taxes, they may gain on medicare benefits, enough to more than offset the soc sec loss.

I think your assessment is spot on. The IMF basically attributes our current fiscal situation to:

After a consolidation process that took up most of the 1990s, the United States went through a substantial fiscal deterioration since 2001 as a result of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, the expansion of Medicare and the rapid increase of per-capital healthcare costs. The stimulus measures recently implemented, although helpful for the economic recovery, have further expanded the fiscal deficit, accelerating the accumulation of public debt.

And the above statement of course goes against everything Mit Romney and the republicans have been saying. And hopefully this brings a little more clarity in terms of the discussion of the 47 percent. In a basic nutshell, the 47 percent comment is simply matter of passing off blame.

 

[mathwonk]

SixNein, you are a gentleman and a scholar and it is a pleasure to make your acquaintance.

In particular with your analysis, it seems to be emerging that some of the 47% who collect less social security than they paid in, and may not pay income tax, may in fact not be dependent on government but are in fact subsidizing the government.

this goes toward the falsity of the original statement by Mr. Romney, which relates to its stupidity, if he expected it to be accepted.