A video of Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney speaking to a group of wealthy GOP donors during a private reception in May is generating heat, according to an article in The New York Times Tuesday.
In the video, Romney describes to the donors how 47 percent of Americans are “people who pay no income tax” and are “dependent upon government,” according to the Times article. He goes on to say that the same 47 percent will vote for President Barack Obama over him.
Mother Jones, a politically liberal magazine, posted portions of the video online Monday afternoon.
Shortly after the video went viral, Americans shared their reactions on popular social networking sites and in the comments sections of major online news sites.
Romney responded to the video, telling reporters that he was “speaking off the cuff in response to a question,” according to the Times article.
First, this incident should serve as a reminder to politicians (and anyone else in the spotlight), to choose their words wisely, even when those words are exchanged behind closed doors.
That being said, should Romney’s speech be generating this much heat? No.
Yes, his choice of words was poor. Yes, he made sweeping generalizations about the 47 percent.
But the heart of Romney’s message isn’t all that shocking.
Our country’s welfare system is incredibly disorganized. People can and do manipulate the system, and yet, they continue to receive check after check after check.
Romney is tapping into an idea that a lot of people probably agree with.
Looking forward, it will be interesting to see what impact this video will have on the rest of Romney’s campaign. For what it’s worth, a number of the news websites that have reposted the video contain a sensationalized headline. The people visiting those sites should ignore those headlines, actually view the video and decide for themselves what Romney meant.
This is an account occasionally used by the Daily Free Press editors to post archived posts from previous iterations of the site or otherwise for special circumstance publications. See authorship info on the byline at the top of the page.
I am disappointed to see my alma mater’s newspaper publishing such drivel as an editorial. For a school that serves the heart of Boston, the misunderstanding the editorial board seems to have of poverty and those on the margins (assuming that a majority abuse the system, for instance, when the reality is that these programs serve the elderly, disabled, and others who either have paid taxes before, or will in the future).
I hope that the writers of this piece don’t find themselves unemployed after graduation, in need of the very same food stamps that Romney rails against just to support themselves in the tough market.
This editorial has to be the dumbest thing I have ever read.
About half of taxpayers paid no federal income tax last year. It does not mean they paid no tax at all. Many shelled out Social Security and Medicare payroll taxes. In fact, only 14 percent of Americans didn’t pay either income or payroll taxes. Some paid property taxes and, it is fair to say, just about all of them paid sales taxes of one kind or another. So to say they pay no taxes is flat wrong.
However, this class warfare-like rhetoric plays to a perception that the income tax is a chump tax: Only hard-working folks like us pay it. The welfare queens don’t. The super-rich don’t. It is a powerful emotional argument. It is also flat wrong….
http://taxvox.taxpolicycenter.org/2010/04/15/about-those-47-percent-who-pay-%E2%80%9Cno-taxes-%E2%80%9D/
PS. Corporate welfare is out of control.
Brian please. 47% is not enough? You don’t think there is waste there? The elderly, the disabled?
The point is that there are a bunch of folks on the government breast that don’t deserve to be there. Food stamps and Disability are growing exponentially. Who is going to pay for it?
Too many folks in the wagon and fewer and fewer pulling it.
and btw, Mother Jones who published the Romney video is now admitting that one to two minutes of the most important part are missing. Coincidence, I guess.