published Wednesday, September 19th, 2012

Americans Romney disdains

In his startling denigration of the 47 percent of Americans who pay no federal tax income, Mitt Romney has made stunningly clear how out of touch he is with the broad middle class of ordinary Americans, how bluntly he would dismiss so many of them, and how little he cares about people who haven't saved enough money to retire comfortably, and who never will. He would just write them off.

In a secretly taped recording of his hour-long address to an elite audience at a $50,000-a-ticket fundraiser in May, Romney quite smugly said: "There are 47 percent of Americans 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. These are people who pay no (federal) income tax.

"... So my job is not to worry about these people. I'll never convince them that they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives."

Romney clearly doesn't who he's talking about. According to the Tax Policy Center, fully two-thirds of the people whose income is so low that they don't have to pay federal incomes taxes -- or get an earned income tax credit -- still pay payroll taxes for Social Security and Medicare. They and many others in the 47 percent disdained by Romney also pay state sales taxes, property taxes, gasoline taxes and in some cases, state income taxes.

The largest segment -- about 6 out of 10 in the 47 percent of Americans that Romney dismisses -- are in households with relatively low incomes, but still above the poverty level. Working Americans in this group pay payroll taxes and state taxes, especially sales taxes, and their share of the rent if they aren't paying a mortgage. Many of these taxpayers, as well, earn too much to qualify for Medicaid, but too little to afford health insurance, so they are forced to go without regular medical care.

Another large segment of the 47 percent are retired people who get by on meager Social Security checks and Medicare; both are earned entitlements. Most of these are older white people with a high school education who worked all their lives, educated their kids, may have served in the military, and firmly believe in paying their way. They don't view themselves as "victims" who depend on government help they didn't earn.

Among others in the 47 percent are college students, children and disabled people. But Romney apparently isn't interested in learning the demographics, contributions of needs of this 47 percent of Americans.

The irony is that Romney, a megamillionaire who has parked money in at least six foreign tax havens and who still won't release his own income tax records as every presidential nominee has the past 40-plus years, pays just 13 percent in federal income taxes. That's a smaller percentage than most middle-class Americans pay.

His derogation of nearly half of Americans for earning so little speaks volumes about his misconception of middle America. It shows his lack of concern for the hollowing out of the middle class by the vast offshoring of jobs, and the consequent rise in low-incomes, joblessness and poverty. Romney's perception of these people could not be more wrong.

Many retired people and poorer working families may be scraping by on a fixed income, but they still proudly believe in the American dream, the values of self-worth, independence, shared caring for the needy, and the provision of a safety net.

Ironically, 10 of the 11 the states with the highest percentage of Americans in the 47 percent that Romney so caustically dismisses, are in the solid red (Republican majority) Southern states, including Tennessee. Yet Romney says that he doesn't care about a huge number of families in the states most likely to support him. Indeed, the fiscal plan he has laid out would cut taxes more for the nation's richest Americans, and either cut the safety net programs (including Social Security and Medicare) that the middle class does rely on, or raise taxes on the middle-to-upper middle class an average of $2,000 to keep financing the safety net.

What he didn't say about non-taxpayers is how many rich multimillionaires -- 7,000 last year -- paid no federal income taxes, or how many rich corporations pay little to zero federal taxes. General Electric, for example, earned $14.2 billion in 2010, but paid no federal taxes. That's not unusual. The federal Office of Management and Budget reported that corporate income taxes accounted for just 1.2 percent of Gross Domestic Product last year, barely a fourth of what it paid in 50 years ago. Talk about tax avoidance.

Romney wasn't about to mention the high-income non-taxpayers to his rich audience of campaign donors. He was content to scapegoat less affluent Americans to earn his audience's campaign largesse. It's hard to go lower than that.

27
Comments do not represent the opinions of the Chattanooga Times Free Press, nor does it review every comment. Profanities, slurs and libelous remarks are prohibited. For more information you can view our Terms & Conditions and/or Ethics policy.
Rickaroo said...

If there's anything worse than white trash, it's white trash with money. Money is the only thing that defines Romney. Every day he says something that reveals more and more his lack of substance, integrity, and class. The guy is so out of touch and so spoiled by his sense of entitlement, he's a hollow-headed, soul-less, pathetic buffoon.

I used to think that the presidency had sunk to the bottom of the barrel with Bush, but if this guy becomes president we will have sunk to even lower depths.

September 19, 2012 at 2:18 a.m.
sandyonsignal said...

Romney and the host of the party Marc Leder of Sun Capital are both private equity managers. They make huge profits on performance fees, which is income. The hedge fund and private equity managers lobbied Congress and had a loophole put in which changed their fees from income tax to capital gains which is taxed at a lower rate. Thus, Romney pays no income tax. If anyone is a free loader it is Mitt and the hedge fund managers. Mitt won't even release his tax returns because he knows he hasn't paid any income tax. Sheer hypocrisy and disdain for America.

Get more background on Marc Leder by googling Marc Leder and his party at the Hamptons.

September 19, 2012 at 6:15 a.m.
aae1049 said...

Shame on you Harry Austin for spreading untruths, "47 percent that Romney so caustically dismisses." Romney simply made a distinction that 47 percent are not paying taxes, and they do not see the benefit in tax cuts. That is the truth, so what is the problem with that?

Here is the video. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MU9V6e...

September 19, 2012 at 10:01 a.m.
Easy123 said...

aae,

"Romney simply made a distinction that 47 percent are not paying taxes"

No, he did not "simply" make that distinction. He simply and inaccurately stated that those people were dependent on the government, entitled, think they are victims and aren't taking responsibility for their own lives. You can't spin that one.

Watch the video again and listen to all the words. This is just another time that your Conservative bias is rearing its ugly head. The only one here spreading untruths is you.

September 19, 2012 at 11:38 a.m.
chatt_man said...

47% of the people don't pay income taxes, true or false ? TRUE They depend on the government, true or false? TRUE They think the government should provide their healthcare, food, and housing. true or false? TRUE

There's no need to spin anything, it's all true. That doesn't mean people like to hear it. That's the problem, there are becoming so many dependents that the people that do pay taxes can't afford them all. Sorry, but that's the elephant in the room only the mean-hearted, mean-spirited republicans realize has to be dealt with.

So, Easy, how many of my grades, that I've studied my ass off for, when I had rather been partying, should I have to give you, so that you can pass while you've gone out partying during the time I've studied? There are a lot of people that can do the work, but want someone else to do the work for them.

For the people who really can't work, republicans or conservatives have never had any problem taking care of them, that's human nature. Romney didn't say anything that would make any reasonable person (none found on either side during election times) think he didn't respect the people that really need the help. He just made the statement that the group that could work, but chooses not to, would not be reached by his message.

September 19, 2012 at 1:10 p.m.
Easy123 said...

chattman,

"47% of the people don't pay income taxes, true or false ?"

True, but it's a statistical anomaly.

"They depend on the government, true or false?"

False. You cannot come to the conclusion of 'true' without proof, which you have none.

"They think the government should provide their healthcare, food, and housing. true or false?"

False. You cannot come to the conclusion of 'true' without proof, which you have none.

"There's no need to spin anything, it's all true."

No, it isn't.

"there are becoming so many dependents that the people that do pay taxes can't afford them all."

"Dependents" is a misnomer. And you aren't affording anyone anything.

"So, Easy, how many of my grades, that I've studied my ass off for, when I had rather been partying, should I have to give you, so that you can pass while you've gone out partying during the time I've studied?"

That comparison is not equivalent or accurate whatsoever. I've explained that to you before but you keep using it as if it will become more accurate the more times you use it.

There are a lot of people that can do the work, but want someone else to do the work for them."

Did you do a poll or something? It's all conjecture with you.

'Romney didn't say anything that would make any reasonable person (none found on either side during election times) think he didn't respect the people that really need the help."

Yes, he did.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mike-watson/mitt-romneys-47-percent_b_1892544.html?utm_hp_ref=elections-2012

"He just made the statement that the group that could work, but chooses not to, would not be reached by his message."

No, he did not make any statement referring to any "group that could work, but chooses not to". That was never directly stated or implied. You are lying in an attempt to cover Romney's butt. It won't work.

September 19, 2012 at 1:46 p.m.
Easy123 said...

JonRoss,

Keep up that false hope. We all know Romney needs it and apparently you do too.

September 19, 2012 at 1:48 p.m.
Easy123 said...

JonRoss,

Again, keep up that false hope. We all know Romney needs it and apparently you do too.

http://realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/election_2012_vs_election_2008_four_years_ago_today.html

September 19, 2012 at 2:03 p.m.
chatt_man said...

Holy Crap! Easy,

If someone lives in a house and has a reduced or no payment at all, someone is affording it for them.

If we can't agree on that, you're a waste of time, Easy. I will not stoop to your childish "prove it" routine.

No wonder we're in the shape we're in as a country...

September 19, 2012 at 2:52 p.m.
chatt_man said...

Easy123...the Debbie Wasserman Schultz of the TFP. Blind idolization.

If Obama had a son, Easy, he'd think just like you do...

September 19, 2012 at 2:56 p.m.
tipper said...

Those that believe the Romney line on the 47% ask yourselves what you really have in common with him? He doesn't know you. He doesn't beleive in anything you believe. He just wants your vote, and he'll get it by saying anything that pushes your buttons. Wake up!!!

September 19, 2012 at 2:57 p.m.
chatt_man said...

Those that want a President that they have lots in common with, and thinks they know them personaly, are not only fooling themselves, but are seeking the wrong type person for the job.

September 19, 2012 at 3:18 p.m.
Easy123 said...

chattman,

"If someone lives in a house and has a reduced or no payment at all, someone is affording it for them."

How many people do you know that have a home and don't have a payment?

"If we can't agree on that, you're a waste of time, Easy. I will not stoop to your childish "prove it" routine."

If you can't prove things, then what use is arguing? Evidence and proof isn't childish. It's how life works. I guess you expect everyone to be gullible and believe everything you say. It seems to me that you are either full of it or a coward. Which one?

"No wonder we're in the shape we're in as a country..."

Because of ignorance like yours.

"Blind idolization."

Nothing I do is blind, nor do I idolize anyone. You're the one calling proof "childish". LOL!

"If Obama had a son, Easy, he'd think just like you do..."

Let's hope so. I'd hate for him to think like an idiot. e.g. you.

"Those that want a President that they have lots in common with, and thinks they know them personaly, are not only fooling themselves, but are seeking the wrong type person for the job."

"Know them personally"? No one said that. It would be nice to not have a plutocrat (Mitt Romney) in office that only cares about padding the pockets of other plutocrats. I guess you just like voting against your own interests.

September 19, 2012 at 5:51 p.m.
PinkSalmon said...

So, even Romney isn't going to vote for Romney? Like more than 7,000 of the richest of the rich, Romney doesn't pay any income tax either. Just another wealthy moocher. Suckling off federal, state and local government. 44 million federal bailout.

Worldwide Grinding Systems, renamed GS Technologies of Kansas City after Bain Capitol took over the company.

mother jones

[In October 1993] Bain and its partners decided to buy the mill for $75 million. Bain put up about $8 million to gain majority control of the company, renamed GS Technologies Inc....Bain got its money back quickly. The new company issued $125 million in bonds and paid Bain a $36.1 million dividend in 1994.

Pretty sweet. Over the next few months, Bain piled on more and more debt, totalling $378 million by 1995. But they managed the plant poorly and couldn't compete with cheap Asian imports

GS Industries declared bankruptcy on February 7, 2001, and said it would shut down the Kansas City plant, eliminating 750 jobs. In a press release, the company said the bankruptcy was triggered in part by "the critical need to restructure the company's liabilities."

Workers soon found out what that meant. In April, GS said it was shedding the guarantees it had promised its workers in the event of a plant closure....The U.S. Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp, which insures company retirement plans, determined in 2002 that GS had underfunded its pension by $44 million. The federal agency, funded by corporate levies, stepped in to cover the basic pension payments, but not the supplement the union had negotiated as a hedge against the plant's closure.

September 19, 2012 at 6:20 p.m.
richarddawkins said...

obama has added almost 6 trillion to the debt in 4 years, more than bush did in 8 and more than the first 42 US presidents did combined.

If you even care WHY this is, you're a moron. The bond market doesn't care why your debt levels are what they are.

obama will add another 5 or 6 trillion if he's re-elected and we'll have a greek style debt crisis before his 2nd term ends.

Average household income down 5k since he took office, fewer people working than on the day he took office, 23 million unemployed (lowest labor force participation rate since early 80s) black and youth unemployment higher than when he took office...gas prices double...boo-koos of new taxes and regulations no one understands...

The guy is utterly incompetent.

and all these idiots who vote for president based on 'likability' God help us. Like you're ever going to meet the president, any president...have a beer with him, play a round of golf...

you're not. Ever.

Pick the competent guy...not the loser you'd rather sit next to on a long haul flight.

September 19, 2012 at 9:28 p.m.
shen said...

You're leaving out key parts, richardD. When Bush came into office there were record surpluses. When he left there were record deficits.

When Bush left office America was already in a recession. A recession some economists stated would have taken place a lot sooner if 9/11 hadn't happened.

When Bush came into office the unemployment rate was at 4%. When he left, unemployment had risen to 8.2%

When Bush took office the national debt was at 5.7 trillion. By January 2009 (Obama had just won the election Nov. 2008 remember) the national debt had risen to 10.6 trillion (source: U.S. Dept. of the Treasury) and was steadily rising at an alarming rate, with two major conflicts already long underway, and several other smaller conflicts taking place not yet on the radar.

September 19, 2012 at 9:56 p.m.
una61 said...

AP reports "Nearly 6 million Americans — significantly more than first estimated— will face a tax penalty under President Barack Obama's health overhaul for not getting insurance, congressional analysts said Wednesday. Most would be in the middle class."

This is your guy working on the middle class, Harry.

September 19, 2012 at 10:19 p.m.
shen said...

una61, don't forget: the Republicans insisted that penalty clause be placed in the ACA. They threatened to block the Bill without it.

September 19, 2012 at 10:41 p.m.
sandyonsignal said...

Richard Dawkins: why didn't you ask why the Iraq war was off the books until Bush left office? If you were so concerned about the debt, you should have thought about and protested the war like you are protesting Obama. Iraq war cost us 3 trillion. What did we get in return for this war based on a lie? 4800 dead Americans, nearly a million dead Iraqis and a pile of debt.

Where's the outrage?

September 20, 2012 at 6:05 a.m.
chatt_man said...

Easy, you're such a dumbass. Let's see...

You don't believe (admit, without proof is more like it) anyone gets government assistance on housing, and if they do, no one pays for it. I guess you also think the government creates its on money. What a dumbass!

You state that no one said anything about the president knowing you. Refer to tipper's 2:57pm post, "He doesn't know you". You're a dumbass again!

I know, with your little boy word semantics, you'll say, in your diaper filled condescending pantywaste voice, "tipper never said personally." You're showing your dumb ass again!

I understand some things stated need proven, but some things are known, by everyone that will admit it, from experience. You're such a waste of time. Go back to your logos little boy, and get your mom to wipe that nose. Here's a "prove it" link for you, from your all mighty Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_8_(housing) Now go play and leave the adults to themselves.

September 20, 2012 at 9:43 a.m.
Easy123 said...

Chattman, Let us examine your utter ignorance a little closer:

"You don't believe (admit, without proof is more like it) anyone gets government assistance on housing, and if they do, no one pays for it."

I haven't said that at all. You said "If someone lives in a house...". The overwhelming majority of people under Section 8 DO NOT LIVE IN HOUSES. They live in apartment/duplex-style housing. I don't know anyone that lives in a HOUSE and gets Section 8. Again, how many people do you know that LIVE IN A HOUSE and don't have to pay for it?

Words mean things. You should try using the correct ones.

WHAT A DUMBASS

"You state that no one said anything about the president knowing you. Refer to tipper's 2:57pm post, "He doesn't know you". You're a dumbass again!"

I didn't state that. I stated ""Know them personally"? No one said that.". Which no one, including tipper, said.

Words mean things. You should learn to not omit important ones.

WHAT A DUMBASS

"I know, with your little boy word semantics, you'll say, in your diaper filled condescending pantywaste voice, "tipper never said personally." You're showing your dumb ass again!"

You just ruined your own argument. You said "personally". Tipper didn't. And I pointed that out. How, in any way, does that make your claim look credible? Only a complete moron would assume tipper meant that Romney doesn't know people PERSONALLY. It's hilarious how you can undermine your own argument and make yourself look like an idiot all in the same paragraph.

WHAT A DUMBASS

"I understand some things stated need proven, but some things are known, by everyone that will admit it, from experience.

The things you have stated were imprecise and incorrect. You obviously have no experience with Section 8 housing or you would understand that they aren't "houses".

"You're such a waste of time."

Only because I'm more intelligent than you.

"Go back to your logos little boy, and get your mom to wipe that nose."

Go pick your wife up from her boyfriends house and get her to put some ointment on your ass.

"Here's a "prove it" link for you, from your all mighty Wikipedia."

Your "prove it" link proves how stupid you are. Notice the big, apartment-style building in the picture.

Your imprecision is so precise.

"Now go play and leave the adults to themselves."

Go pick up your jock strap and come back when you would like your ignorance thrown in your face again. Read a book. Take a class in grammar or vocabulary. Do something. Because it is far too simple to make you look like a blithering idiot.

WHAT A DUMBASS

September 20, 2012 at 11:14 a.m.
chatt_man said...

Easy, there's nothing left to say. Your childlike semantics are here for all to see.

As if it mattered, the word was not house, it was housing, and can first be found in the September 19, 2012 at 1:10 p.m posting. It later changed to house, and then you used the word home, again semantics.

Later Debbie...

September 20, 2012 at 11:35 a.m.
Easy123 said...

chattman,

"Easy, there's nothing left to say. Your childlike semantics are here for all to see."

Don't run away! You ignorance is here for all to see!

Also, you don't know what the word semantics means. You aren't using it correctly.

"As if it mattered, the word was not house, it was housing, and can first be found in the September 19, 2012 at 1:10 p.m posting. It later changed to house, and then you used the word home, again semantics."

I wasn't addressing your post from 1:10 p.m. I addressed you post from 2:52 p.m. when you used the word "house". Again, you're the one that is changing words around. You're the one being imprecise. Words mean things and you haven't used the correct ones. I'm arguing semantics because you are using equivocation.

"Later Debbie..."

ADIOS DUMBASS

September 20, 2012 at 11:50 a.m.
rolando said...

[Yawn] Same Shinola, Different Day.

Why bother courting the 47% who will never support you? Never, under any circumstances. They are in Gimmee-Gimmee mode and will blindly vote for the guy who gives it to them [or at least falsely promises to]. Bread and Circuses politics have been known since Roman times.

Concentrate on connecting with the 53% who have an active braincell or two and use them.

September 25, 2012 at 4:37 a.m.
rolando said...

chatt_man owns you, easy.

I'll give you the last word, loser.

September 25, 2012 at 4:40 a.m.
please login to post a comment

videos »         

photos »         

e-edition »

advertisement
advertisement

Find a Business

400 East 11th St., Chattanooga, TN 37403
General Information (423) 756-6900
Copyright, Permissions, Terms & Conditions, Privacy Policy, Ethics policy - Copyright ©2014, Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc. All rights reserved.
This document may not be reprinted without the express written permission of Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc.