Mother Jones recently posted a video that captures Romney talking to some Republican Party donors.
In response to a question Romney drew on a distinction that I’ve heard a number of people make. The future of the country is in the balance, this way of thinking argues, because nearly half the population are “takers” who don’t pay income taxes and are in some way dependent on government, while the other half are “makers” who produce and drive the economic engine forward. So, we are warned, the “takers” will overwhelm the “makers.”
I’ll leave analysis of the impact of this video on the campaign to the political handicappers. When it comes to the substance of this way of thinking, however, I find myself agreeing entirely with David Brooks’ column yesterday. Anyone who imagines that we can divide Americans in such a facile way doesn’t know much about our country.
In fact, I’m probably more exasperated by this way of thinking than Brooks, who is pretty exasperated.
Someone working in a meat processing plant in Omaha, Nebraska makes about $12 per hour. That’s $24,000 per year. Throw in some overtime, and maybe he makes close to $30,000. Now deduct the nearly 8% that goes to Social Security and Medicare taxes. Imagine that this guy is lucky and his employer provides health benefits, of which he pays some of the cost. He’s married with two small kids. His contribution is around $250 per month. Now his actual monthly take home pay is $2,050 each month. Rent is $800. Car insurance for one car is $100. According to the USDA, a very frugal family of four can survive on a food budget of $600 per month. They get their clothes, furniture, and appliances at Walmart, and with rigorous budgeting only spend $100 per month.
Okay, now our imaginary American who is working more than 40 hours a week at a physically taxing job has $400 per month that isn’t spoken for. He wants to be independent, so he forgeoes a cell phone and has no internet connect and no cable TV (which together might cost $200 per month). He never goes to Starbucks. He never has a beer after work with friends. His family never eats out. They take no vacations. But wait. His car, which is an old one that he prudently paid $2,000 for two years ago, breaks down. And one of his kids gets sick. And his wife needs monthly medication.The $400 evaporates quickly.
This imaginary family certainly pays no income tax, and they qualify for the earned income tax credit, as well as Section 8 housing and food stamps. Furthermore, without federal grants and subsidized loans, the kids would have no hope of a college education. They are in many ways profoundly dependent on government programs for their survival, to say nothing of any opportunity to advance.
So, to return to Romney’s crude comments, yes, they are “takers,” but it is absurd to say that they’re not also “makers.” More importantly, it’s an insult to suggest that someone working more than 2,000 hours per year at a necessary and unpleasant job is somehow mooching off the “producer class.”
The modern welfare and entitlement state is a mess. It is full of perverse incentives, and it may not be fiscally sustainable. But it’s historically, intellectually, and morally stultifying to imagine that this mess is somehow unnecessary, that it is the result of the laziness or irresponsibility of working people and the wicked plots of collectivist liberals.
Conservatives need to think about how to empower people who are struggling to stay in the middle class rather than to write them off as “moochers.”
See also:
Anna Williams, Makers vs. Takers
Matthew Schmitz, Stop Berating the “47 Percent”
Joseph Knippenberg, Homo Sapiens and Homo Economicus
September 18th, 2012 | 11:25 am
Not to mention that a lot of the best paying jobs are a net drain on societies interests. A mob chieftain have a higher income then a library volunteer even if the later lives on disability. And the mob chieftain will probably pay more taxes as giving the feds such an obvious loophole is not in his interests.
Who is the taker and who is the maker?
September 18th, 2012 | 11:28 am
I can hardly remember a time when I felt excited and engaged by a political campaign. Every year, I feel a little more distant from the candidates and their rhetoric. The absurdity and actual idiocy of both sides, and their demonstrable inability to address the most basic and dire problems we face, is breath taking. Most of my family members are in a position not unlike the hypothetical family outlined above. To have a millionaire discuss them in these terms is loathsome.
September 18th, 2012 | 11:51 am
I think it was John Stuart Mill who coined the phrase, “The Stupid Party vs. The Evil Party”. What an apt description of American politics. (And no I am no equating one party with either term, both play both roles from time to time and are generally playing both roles on one issue or the other all the time).
I will vote in this election, not as an enthusiastic endorsement of either candidate or party, but mainly because too many people far better than I have paid too high of a price to give me that privilege. So, I guess the lesser of two evils it is.
September 18th, 2012 | 12:09 pm
This is what you get when class warfare becomes the focus of our politics. This aspect of the current campaign didn’t start with ‘the millionaire’ Romney.
What has me exasperated is the fact that we just cleared the $16 trillion mark in our national debt, and no one on this page mentions this in their paeans to the hard working downtrodden. If you think we are going to dig our way out of this entitlement driven hole by taxing millionaires you are deluding yourselves.
September 18th, 2012 | 12:17 pm
I get the need for companies to make a profit. I also get the need for investors to see a return. I am one of those investors. What I don’t get is the excessive salaries at the top and the excessive gains on investments all at the expense of workers who are squeezed to milk these profits from what I see is from them. What has been forgotten by the ruling class is their responsibility to the broader society which includes the working class.
September 18th, 2012 | 12:22 pm
“Conservatives need to think about how to empower people who are struggling to stay in the middle class rather than to write them off as ‘moochers.’”
Surely you jest Mr. Reno? You have to be. Otherwise we must assume you’ve never heard of Rep. Paul Ryan who is running on Mitt Romney’s presidential ticket as VP.
This would be the same Paul Ryan, who has been criticized heavily on this very blog for his authentic conservatism. Ryan has done far more than *think* about empowering people to stay in the middle class — see Chas.Krauthammer if you doubt this — he’s actually committed pen to paper and authored legislation. Legislation that has gone nowhere. Not because of his fellow conservatives within the party or even his fellow Republicans on the Hill but because of…wait for it, President Obama and his entire party. This would be the same party that won a House seat in NY by declaring, in all seriousness, that Paul Ryan wanted to push wheelchairbound granny off the cliff.
Per:
“Most of my family members are in a position not unlike the hypothetical family outlined above. To have a millionaire discuss them in these terms is loathsome.”
This comment illustrates exactly why this tape was discovered and is being pushed by every media outlet who wants to see Obama have a second term.
To look at politics and the spin game from another perspective, how would any of us like to be one of the relatives of the four killed in Libya last week and hear from the highest officials in our government that not only did their lost loved ones have adequate security, the reason they were killed was because of a youtube video. A 14 minute video that hadn’t even been posted on youtube when the terrorists made their first (failed) attack on the consulate last June?
September 18th, 2012 | 12:31 pm
One should pay strict attention to Mr. Paul Ryan’s assessment of this at the Heritage Foundation last fall.
Two problems for the right exist:
One is the pretense that this is all new. This is analysis floated by emissaries of the over-venerated Acton Institute, is promoted by Catholic thinkers on the right, and has been entertained by these pages here. The Catholic right, in its inability to criticize itself, has allowed this thinking to pollute its magazines, its blogs, and its thought processes. The horse is out of the barn. Be as exasperated as you want, Dr. Reno, but it is fair to say First Thoughts and First Things has given aid and comfort to this line of thinking.
Two, one is incorrect to presume that half the country should be thought of as “makers.” No. The makers are Mr. Romney, Mr. Leder, Mr. Gates, Mr. Jobs, etc. These are the makers. Grover Norquist’s open contempt for the activities of middle class life-libraries, parks, etc, are the activist arm of this ideology. Any support of these events for the life of the middle class, who Mr. Norquist correctly identifies as the real takers in our society, is anethema. The Makers are John Galt giants, and require reverential support of their existence, for all that is good in our lives comes from their grand benificent productivity and creativity. Such is the ideology. Such is the portrayal of these classes by Mr. Ryan last fall at the Heritage Foundation.
Dr. Reno should know this and must have read this discussion promulgated over the years. It is the embrace of Ayn Rand that has been un-discussed on the right for years that has brought this about. This is the real ongoing class war, not the Occupy protesters that received a lot of criticism on these pages.
The right wing and First Things has ignored and willfully pretended such discussions don’t happen, are marginalized, and inconsequential. As such, the Catholic right is supporting Ayn Rand class warriors as the Republican presidential and Vice Presidential candidates.
September 18th, 2012 | 12:48 pm
Well, to use the English language, a taker is someone who takes, so by definition these people are takers. The question Mr. Romney seems to be raising is: Because they are takers, has their vote likely been bought — are they taking bribes? They may see the election as they get services they need or they lose them, but the REAL question is: What happens when the government can’t afford anymore? That point appears to be somewhere in our future.
I believe Mr. Romney sees the future as one where there will need to be sacrifice — for a time — for the betterment of ALL. So his question is: Will you sacrifice for your neighbor? How selfish are you in saying you’re first? Can your vote be bought? If you are hurting now but ALL your neighbors will hurt in the future, can you sacrifice even in your need? And one final question needs to be answered: Is there any candidate who more likely can get us out of this present mess — for none of us at heart, wants to be a taker.
September 18th, 2012 | 1:04 pm
Tom, if there are sacrifices to be made, shouldn’t they be made primarily by those most able to bear the sacrifice?
If so, then why is Romney/Ryan proposing to reduce tax rates on the wealthiest Americans while slashing public benefit programs? That is not “shared sacrifice” – that is class warfare.
It is logically incoherent to claim to be concerned about the debt/deficit while at the same time attempting to lower the tax burden on the rich, in an era when American income inequality is at its highest point in decades.
September 18th, 2012 | 1:15 pm
Mr. Romney’s comments were directed at “strategy”, not philosophy. By improving our economy everyone benefits. The family you mention benefits because his meat packing job will not go away, and his children have a chance to surpass their father’s life situation. If we allow the current administration to spend our country off a cliff, what is going to happen to the hopes and dreams of this meat packer? Last I heard, working professionals from Greece are immigrating to France to clean toilets for a living.
September 18th, 2012 | 1:39 pm
Mr. Reno is quite right that this is a much more complex matter than either side is willing to say. Mr. Romney is also quite right that the 47% — for whatever reason — don’t pay taxes, and the rest do. It’s a simple fact. The problem is, how to make any sort of change? Travis goes right back to the “tax the rich” argument, completely ignoring the truth in Mr. Romney’s point that the richest people in our country ALREADY pay the vast majority of the taxes, and we ALREADY have a progressive income tax system. So now what? Unfortunately for Travis’s position, if we taxed all the rich people 100% it wouldn’t come near to paying what we owe. It’s all very well to say, “The rich should pay more” — but how much more? And it’s all very well to say “close the loopholes” — but a lot of “loopholes” are actually incentives to get people to make huge purchases and other public use of what would otherwise be their private money.
I’m sick of all the simplification from the parties and from partisans. I would like to see some grown-ups get to work. Some things are going to have to be drastically cut. Some people are going to have to pay more, and I don’t think it’s possible that it can only be the “rich.” But if people like me are going to have to pay more (and I’m sure whatever our incomes, we all think we should not have to pay more) then the rich should too. But how much? And who? And what is going to have to go from our bloated and staggering expenditures?
September 18th, 2012 | 1:46 pm
“It is logically incoherent to claim to be concerned about the debt/deficit while at the same time attempting to lower the tax burden on the rich, in an era when American income inequality is at its highest point in decades.”
If the economic result of lowering tax rates on high income earners is the generation of additional economic activity, resulting in more taxable income and thereby more revenue to the government, then there is no incoherence at all to the position. The figures seem pretty consistent that if you taxed all of the wealthiest people, including corporations, in the country at 100%, the revenue generated would not make an appreciable dent in the deficit.
The logically coherent positition is to determine how to encourage those with money (and no, I don’t mean the Board of the Federal Reserve) to spend it in ways that encourage economic activity. Government is not the most efficient or most “logical” mechanism for doing this.
Like many politicians — even those who reputedly speak with a golden tongue — Mr. Romney’s statement was inelegant and not fully thought out. He was correct that there is a bedrock of people who, for whatever reason, will always vote for the party / candidate who wants government to do more, spend more, intrude more. Perhaps it is because they are “takers.” Perhaps it is because they think that letting government do something absolves them of the responsibility for getting personally involved. Perhaps they just think there is some element of “social justice” that requires us to use the bureaucrat as our surrogate almsgiver. The unfortunate result of all the “giving,” however, is a growing culture of dependency, which diminishes the ability of the recipients of these good intentions to act on their own and in their own best interests.
I don’t claim to be a biblical scholar, but I am pretty sure that neither Jesus nor any of the fathers of the Old Testament taught that taking money from others so that government could do our good deeds for us satisfies our moral duty to others, or to God.
September 18th, 2012 | 2:13 pm
Responding to Gail Finke,
When you write that raising the tax rates of the rich will not solve all our problems, I have to agree with you. However, let’s look at what has happened to get us to this point.
In 1980, the percentage of people paying no Federal income tax was less than half what it is today. That percentage went up in large part because of the Reagan and Bush tax cuts. Income tax rates were cut for everybody, so the rich paid less and the poor paid nothing (in income taxes). As Reagan increased payroll taxes several times, any tax benefit was largely nullified for the middle class, whose total tax burden stayed relatively constant. Meanwhile, government spending did not go down–rather the reverse. So here we are with our ongoing debt crisis. Now, to deal with that debt crisis, one party recommends stimulating the economy by cutting even more taxes on the rich because THIS time around it will absolutely for sure work to create jobs. And to pay for that tax cut, we apparently have to be responsible and clear-eyed by cutting services to the nation’s “dependent” moochers, many of whom would have been paying taxes had these voodoo economics (that was elder Bush’s term for it) not been implemented. Whatever can be said about the Democrats as “tax and spenders”, a charge with far more than a grain of truth, at least that charge shows they (most of them) recognize the connection between revenues and expenses. Sadly, the same does not seem to be true of the opinion leaders of the modern Republican Party.
September 18th, 2012 | 2:14 pm
“If the economic result of lowering tax rates on high income earners is the generation of additional economic activity…”
this, however, is the canard upon which it all hangs. and has any economic idea been more thoroughly disproven?
the tax take in this country has not been lower as a share of GDP since WW2. in particular, effective tax rates on high-net-worth individuals and corporations have not been lower as a share of GDP since the 1920s. meanwhile, corporate profits as a share of GDP have never been higher anytime in the national data.
and where is the growth?
it’s far past time for us as conservatives to begin to more closely analyze some dearly-held but half-baked economic tropes that have wrongly become closely associated with conservatism. i’ve worked in a high-net-worth wealth management office for nearly 20 years, and it sickens me to see the regularity with which mischaracterizations, oversimplifications and plain falsehoods are propagated as though they were truth in the name of a high moral, social and institutional standard that has nothing whatsoever intrinsically to do with them.
September 18th, 2012 | 2:16 pm
“And what is going to have to go from our bloated and staggering expenditures?”
Maybe we could start with our bloated and staggering military?
The idea that the Romney/Ryan tax cuts will be revenue-neutral is so ridiculous that it doesn’t merit argument. If you want to believe that, go ahead – nobody else does.
September 18th, 2012 | 2:22 pm
Ms. Fincke errs in language, I suspect.
The 47% does not pay federal income tax. There are taxes the 47% pays.
This language clarification is necessary for precise discussion and not demagoguery.
September 18th, 2012 | 2:33 pm
Solving a $ 1.3 trillion annual deficit and $16+ trillion national debt by cutting defense (approximately 20% of the federal budget) is not going to get the job done. Entitlements are breaking the bank, and if you defend entitlements in the name of compassion then ask yourself what kind of compassion is it that saddles your children and grandchildren with this debt.
September 18th, 2012 | 3:17 pm
@Travis: The military is being cut and has been on a downward trend since WWII. Vietnam bumped it as did Regan and, no doubt, the 2000′s wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. But as a portion of the U.S. budget it keeps getting smaller.
On the other hand, entitlements have grown enormously, overshadowing the rest of the budget. Worse, their growth shows no sign of abating even if we do nothing more. That growth threatens to bankrupt the entitlements programs, one by one and possibly, if we can’t bring that spending under control, the country itself.
The threat vector, to use military jargon, is clear. Can we get people like you to face up to it?
September 18th, 2012 | 3:20 pm
I believe Anna McCauley has it right. Romney was talking about who his campaign will appeal to. The “zero liability voter” as Michael Wilkow calls them, are not likely to vote for anyone but Obama. Hence Romney’s not going to expend campaign resources to try to win them over. That’s not to say that his policies, once he’s in office, will not benefit lower income folks and allow them to relinquish some of their entitlements as their job/career outlook improves.
September 18th, 2012 | 3:24 pm
the 53% vs the 47% is no more facile than the 99% vs the 1% is.
September 18th, 2012 | 3:53 pm
You do realize that all those benefits you cited are in fact real money [food stamps, earned income tax credit, subsidized housing and daycare] but are not counted as income and alos increases your “example worker’s” annual income to about $40,000 or so? So he is not so bad off afterall – he has about the same after-tax disposable income as a single Dad who went to college, got a degree and maybe works as an accountant. Ask youself why our system thus provides an equal outcome to these two very, different individuals?
September 18th, 2012 | 3:58 pm
There is something wrong with a social safety net system when it has to catch Ivy League post-grad professionals that find it ‘too burdensome’ to pay for their own OCPs. The Federal support systems we have should not, and should never be the lifestyle that they have become for so many.
And to marius: Corp profits are up because investment is down. These Co’s are sitting on their hands & cash due to the uncertainty caused by grand swaths of federal regulation(EPA, ACA, etc.).
September 18th, 2012 | 4:06 pm
The threat vector, to use military jargon, is clear. Can we get people like you to face up to it?
Mike Melendez,
Knowing that we can’t keep going at this same pace is one thing, and everyone needs to know that. How to solve the problem is another matter entirely. I think if Romney had been at all specific about his economic plans, he could said, “Forget about my remarks. Here’s what we’re planning to do. But his plan all along has been deliberately to avoid specifics. (I believe he even says that in the video.)
So, sure, put me down as someone who is absolutely convinced entitlements can’t continue to grow at this pace. Now, what is Romney’s plan? His outline of a plan has been costed out, and the numbers don’t add up. When Romney and Ryan are presented with that, they say, “Oh, but you made assumptions we don’t make.” The answer is, assumptions need to be made when Romney-Ryan won’t give specifics.
I realize the appeal of Romney to those who are concerned about debt, but in essence Romney is offering a “secret” plan for which the numbers don’t work. Does he have a real plan? And will he be any better at reigning in government than Reagan, with whom this whole mess actually began, and the two Bushes?
September 18th, 2012 | 4:22 pm
Romney’s hidden-camera video is merely an unremarkable statement of the facts. The only reason that the left and its media allies are “shocked” is that they and their political philosophy are impervious to facts. “Hope and change”, after all, was designed to avoid the inconvenient truth that productive Americans are only useful to liberals to the extent that they’re willing to finance the redistributionist state. Bottom line is summed up here:
“People like free stuff. Mean guy Romney wants to take it away and put our civilization back on a paying basis. A significant amount of Obama’s support is just this simple to explain.
This election isn’t a battle between the haves and have-nots, as the Democrats want to paint it.
It’s a battle between the responsible and the irresponsible; the realistic and the unrealistic; the self-reliant and the dependent.
Frankly, it’s a battle between an adult’s view of the world and a child’s. And the adults are precariously close to losing.”
from: “Ace of Spades”
September 18th, 2012 | 4:25 pm
Whether or not they work a difficult job is beside the point, though Romney would have done well to acknowledge folks such as those highlighted here (especially since they are likely Republican). The problem comes when people cast their vote based on the security governmental provisions, um, provide, as opposed to the opportunities for growth afforded by liberty.
There are kids with masters degrees clamoring for student loan debt forgiveness because they attained a degree with no market value. There are teachers striking in Chicago because the equivalent of a $100k per year job just isn’t enough for them. There are people who will not consider voting Republican because the party deigns to believe we should enforce our existing immigration laws.
These people do not experience the cost of the programs they favor. To them, it is a freebie, and who doesn’t want a freebie? My fear is that our society is transitioning to a new expectation that government will provide a middle class standard of living. My hope is that it is a temporary blip, such as that experienced during the great depression.
Either way, the Democrats (whose electoral appeal is the provision of aforementioned freebies) are benefitting from the zeitgeist. By any empirical standard of economic performance, Obama has failed, but he will likely be re-elected. That is depressing, no pun intended.
There is an open question as to how many great depressions we can endure. Why must we wait for one to occur before we attain the appropriate perspective on government?
September 18th, 2012 | 4:44 pm
Unfortunately, the example above is a real stretch. I think you’ll find too many who, though making very little, go out drinking, frequently eat out at fast food, have not only a cell phone, but a large screen tv and cable, too. They expect the government to cover their essentials while they pick up the tab for the extras they like. Kind of like adult children living at home. They make a salary and like to live as adults but use the parents to cover the regular stuff, i.e. rent, food, insurance,etc.. This insidiously comes to be seen as so normal, so ordinary, that it looks cruel to expect people to live spartan lives that are independent fiscally from gov’t or extended family.
We are on a downward spiral, no doubt, but don’t shoot the messenger (Romney).
September 18th, 2012 | 4:56 pm
A review of glass door.com and Omaha Steaks shows your guy would be making $35-38k before overtime. That is about 50% more income than your example – which also does not indicate whether the spouse is working too … or is a stay at home dad. I think this is a significant and critical error on the part of the author, but one that appears to be ‘designed’ to support a predetermined thesis:
This family needs govt assistance in the way of food stamps (food), section 8 (housing), and pell grants (higher Ed).
Generally speaking, this family sounds very much like “takers” vice “makers” – not that I think this family really exists anyway.
My father made equivalent to your under estimated pay scale when I was growing up. My mom worked part time jobs occasionally which made us “feel” rich because we would go for corn dogs and fries at a local stand. However, they gave good values and we didn’t use public assistance, food stamps, or government housing. (I did have reduced lunches through my school lunch program – so, I suppose a little tiny bit of assistance).
I joined the Army. An earned benefit of which was a college education. After retirement, opened my own business and now earn solidly in the top 1% in our country.
In college I learned what a ‘straw man’ was. As a heavy consumer of news, I have discovered the bias of progressive media.
Make no mistake, I have been blessed. But what [non classical] liberal/progressive journalists and politicians are doing is cursing future generations.
September 18th, 2012 | 5:05 pm
The meat packer arguement is silly. Most meat packers are illegals. The reason is that it doesn’t pay enough. However, for illegals, it’s a better life because it’s a job for those with little education. Of course the real reason for their debt is that the dollars they earn are worth less each year. If they have savings, it’s evaporating. Real things like Cars/Gas/Food prices are escalating. The pinch for everyone is terrible because our government can’t say no. $16T and counting is affecting all of us. THe President refuses to negotiate.
September 18th, 2012 | 5:18 pm
All of this misses the point of Romney’s comments.
Should this mythical guy vote for Obama to get his share of government loot taken from his neighbors? Or should he vote for Romney, continue to be responsible for himself and his family, and try to build a better life for his family and his community? Should he be a victim? Or an American?
September 18th, 2012 | 5:18 pm
Let me get this straight. A guy has a family, his wife doesn’t work, two kids, no post highschool education, no drive, no planning, not much overtime, no second job and this theoretical guy still has money left over at the end of the month? I guess he’ll stay at $12 an hour the rest of his life too. Cry my a river.
When I was born my dad was a buck seargent in the Army and worked two extra jobs to make ends meet. We were too young then to work but later we did – and had our situation still been tight, money would have gone into the family budget. My wife and I have made similar sacrifices. Get some schooling, get some skills, work an extra job – not just some occational overtime, make sure your wife gets some education, skills & gets a job. It really won’t kill you. It really won’t make your life miserable. RR Reno, you’ve live a charmed life if you’ve never gone through this. Too bad – it’s good for character, both for the laborer and the laborer’s kids. Your kids grow up to respect the sacrifices you’ve made and not feel sorry for themselves. They’ll know how to make ends meet.
September 18th, 2012 | 5:36 pm
In all these discussions of hypothetical cases and whether there are people who rely too much on the government and different policy disputes – we are overlooking what Romney actually said -
“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.”
“These are people who pay no income tax. So our message of low taxes doesn’t connect. I’ll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives.”
I have plenty of relatives who are unemployed and under-employed who do not view themselves as victims or believe they are entitled to lifetime support from the government. The suggestion that Romney thinks they don’t “take personal responsibility or care for their lives” is ridiculous and insulting.
None of this says anything about what policies we should pursue – it’s about an orientation that assumes that half the people in our country are a bunch of cry-baby bums who want to live off the government. That’s just not true of many people I know who are facing hard times. Maybe he was just talking off the cuff but how did it ever occur to him to even think this way? It’s odd.
September 18th, 2012 | 5:36 pm
Unfortunately, this “imaginary” American meat packer is not the norm. No American family would “forego” internet access, Apple gizmos, flat screen tvs, not take vacations, or never visit Starbucks.
Does the wife not work? They don’t have credit cards? Cash advances? Cousins won’t lend you money? Your grandparents won’t take money out of their saving and retirement to support your business and or family?
Attempts to humanize the “takers” (a crude term, admittedly) is understandable, but in reality, they’re like every other American. They run up their credit card bills, buy fashionable clothes, take on loans they can’t repay. I’m on some welfare, and I hang out with folks on unemployment checks. They’re living with their parents or roommates and having a time of their lives. “Welfare” in this country is more like a supplementary income than it is a “safety net”.
Americans take more than they give, and most of the folks who we prop up aren’t likely to ever rise out of poverty. That’s a fact. Romney played partisan politics by narrowing that to Obama supporters, but even that’s not factually inaccurate.
September 18th, 2012 | 5:43 pm
Mr. Reno makes an interesting argument for the takers. He could make it more effective if perhaps the meatpacker worked in a sweat shop for minimum wage at, say, $8/hour. Then he would make only $16,000 year before deductions.
However, the median household income for the current year is just a tad under $51,000. So Mr. Reno’s straw man is hardly representative.
As noted elsewhere, the rich already are paying their share and more.
Perhaps it is fair that they are paying more, but is it just? Government is concerned with justice, not fairness. Is it just to confiscate a large percentage of one’s income and flat give it to someone else? That sounds like an invasion of one’s right to acquire and possess the fruits of his labors, otherwise known as property rights.
It was for the preservation of property rights that the Union was founded.
September 18th, 2012 | 5:53 pm
How about an alternate scenario? Wherein dad foregoes having children until he can afford it, or at least provide better. In fact, maybe our mythical meat packer stays single and goes to school at night to learn a trade etc. then gets married. He works hard and saves some money and then along with his wife they set down every few years and decide if they can afford a child. In a brilliant white light of rational thinking they come up with a proper budget and make good decisions about children, cars, homes, life insurance and a future where they live within their means without dooming their children to a life of poverty. Not to mention the personal torture they will endure when their marriage collapses. I’m sorry, that might be too much to ask. That would be a Conservative blueprint for not being a taker or a non tax payer. What was I thinking? It would also be so uncool!
September 18th, 2012 | 5:57 pm
“The threat vector, to use military jargon, is clear. Can we get people like you to face up to it?”
That comment must have been directed at Vice President “Deficits don’t matter” Cheney.
The other “People like you” are those who were willing to fight two wars without increasing the taxes to pay for those wars. That would be the President before Obama, “he-who-must-not be-named” and all of his supporters.
That President, whoever he was, was so fearful of looming inherited defict surpluses he cut taxes and went to war to wipe them out.
The answer: Tax increases. But nobody, not the 99/1% nor the 47/53%, want that.
September 18th, 2012 | 5:57 pm
You make a good argument, but it’s becoming increasingly clear that entitlement programs and democracies don’t mix. You cannot allow people the ability to vote themselves a helping handful of somebodies money. You will inevitably come to the point we are currently at. You bleeding hearts don’t want to hear that but it’s the truth.
Financial collapse is a feature of entitlements in the same way that down turns are a feature of Austrian economics. It’s a shame that you’re going to have to learn that the hard way.
September 18th, 2012 | 5:57 pm
This article (and the author) ignores the whole point. Romney, in his comments mentioned “personal responsibility”. Of course, the author never touches upon this big elephant in the room.
“He’s married with two small kids”
Really? How did this happen? Someone put a gun to his head and forced him to marry? What about his spouse? Doesn’t work,huh? Why? Oh, because she taking care of TWO KIDS.
Did anyone FORCE them to have TWO KIDS?
Did he think that maybe supporting a wife who doesn’t work on 24K a year might make things a bit tight?
If not, how about after marrying her and taking on the financial responsibility of supporting her and seeing the costs the resulted in THAT decision why did they BOTH go ahead and have a child? Then after seeing the added burden they just took on with that added strain of their budget, they went ahead and HAD ANOTHER KID.
TOO BAD SO SAD.
Yes, they are indeed moochers if they then find things so damn hard financially that they then utilize “Section 8 housing and food stamps”, making them “in many ways profoundly dependent on government programs for their survival, to say nothing of any opportunity to advance”.
Maybe he should have “advanced” before he went and got married to a non-working woman and then had TWO KIDS with her.
NO ONE in this comments section has mentioned this and THAT is the problem in this country. All of a sudden the “poor” like the worker in this article become dependent on the government because of the personal CHOICES HE MADE.
And the rest of us who DID NOT make those choices and “advanced” BEFORE or DURING we got married and had kids have to PAY FOR HIS CHOICES.
Mr. meat plant worker made his own bed and shouldn’t get to sleep in someone else’s.
September 18th, 2012 | 6:02 pm
Regarding the example working man in the article he should definitely get his wife a job at the meat packing plant.
It would double his income.
September 18th, 2012 | 6:28 pm
publius is correct about the projected budget numbers. at projected rates, entitlements will bankrupt the nation. let’s not even talk about debt servicing…. alas, numbers are not partisan.
September 18th, 2012 | 7:15 pm
Are the members of the military ‘takers’? They are paid by the government. Or should their role be outsourced to the private sector? Perhaps off-shore our military to India or Indonesia? Or even on-shored to Halliburton. That is an impressive corporation.
September 18th, 2012 | 7:15 pm
Most commenters seem to miss the fact that the majority of the 47% that Gov. Romney is referring to are his own voters. The majority of states that take in more federal tax dollars than they contribute are red states. In addition, the majority of the 47% that don’t pay income taxes are the elderly, disabled, veterans, military, mostly people who have contributed to the tax base and usually vote Republican. Unfortunately, Mr. Romney refused to even clarify his statement.
September 18th, 2012 | 7:20 pm
I don’t see the fuss. Isn’t this what Paul Ryan has been saying all long? That his generation and all non-seniors should not cling selfishly to the unsustainable promises of government welfare? That the reform of entitlements and the balancing of our budget will come through not more government powers to over-promise and under-deliver, but through trusting and supporting the very person invested in their own betterment?
That 47% don’t pay income taxes and of that most (nearly 40%) don’t even pay FICA taxes (contrary to Reno’s example) is a serious problem. It’s a huge stumbling block to any one from any party attempting to cut, reform or even deny spending increases (the whole Washington Monument syndrome isn’t limited to the NPS). It’s Stockholm syndrome run large. They defend the distributors of the pork they’re captured by.
September 18th, 2012 | 7:24 pm
“it is the result of the laziness or irresponsibility of working people and the wicked plots of collectivist liberals.”
Not quite. But it is the result of the laziness or irresponsibility of us, all of us, toward ourselves, our brothers and sisters. The wicked plots of collectivist liberals are to provoke the crisis and install their trojan horse programs when we fail. It’s Mount Horeb and the golden calf all over again.
September 18th, 2012 | 7:32 pm
Re: “American income inequality is at its highest point in decades”
Among households and families, not individuals. It’s about how we structure our households and families, or really how we don’t at all. Leaving our poor cousins in the street. Marrying at age 30 to an equally rich person. The poor too ashamed to marry at all. Income inequality among households is a social problem. The steady behavior of inequality among individuals shows it has little to no economic influence.
September 18th, 2012 | 7:35 pm
lee above is a disturbing individual.
His experience is opposite my experience. Most folks I have as patients forego some benefits, never actually receiving everything that could qualify for.
Most are families struggling to make it to the next month, do not have wealthy family to borrow from, and are often afflicted with illnesses beyond the norm. The lives are not the constant party described.
lee is promulgating, by describing his and his friends’ vices, lies around the activites of poor families.
This thread demonstrates how embedded the Ayn Randian model of makers vs. takers really is. Most folks think they are really the “makers” though and one gets the idea that Dr. Reno perceives himself as such. Dr. Reno and his family are really just “takers” in Marc Leder’s and Mitt Romney’s and Paul Ryan’s world.
September 18th, 2012 | 7:46 pm
Re: “if you defend entitlements in the name of compassion then ask yourself what kind of compassion is it that saddles your children and grandchildren with this debt.”
Amen. But of course it’s not about compassion at all. It’s about ourselves. Our own selfish claims over this or that pork, or our friends’ claims or our political allies’ claims. One day we might end up fighting in the streets over which promises the government will fulfill. Until then we just fight with commercials of people pushing grandma over cliffs and commercials of people being weak on the military.
September 18th, 2012 | 8:20 pm
I’m glad to hear that there are so many on here who don’t know anyone having hard times.
I have two brothers and a brother-in-law who are all out of work. Another brother’s job is continually pared back to where he’s now on three days a week as a television editor, no benefits, no job security.
All of them have some college at least and were in professional jobs that no longer exist. They’ve sent resumes to every low level entry type job you can think of – Petsmart, Kmart, dog walkers. They no longer even get replies. They are trying to start their own service type jobs, but they aren’t taking off much.
None of them has declared bankruptcy or walked away from a mortgage, and they’ve had mini temp jobs from time to time that tide them over.
Yes, two of them have wives that work, but at low-paying jobs. The other two are divorced with kids foregoing college as there’s no way to pay for it. Two of them still get some unemployment benefits, and I doubt they are paying much income tax. One of them gets food stamps.
Yes, we other siblings pull together to help them out every month or two but can’t be expected to support 4 families around the country for years at a time with our own struggles too. I won’t even begin to get into the situations of my cousins… I can’t believe the experience of my family is so unique. Just to be clear – I’m no supporter of Obama. But I don’t appreciate these disparaging remarks toward people who are not by any means moochers.
September 18th, 2012 | 9:07 pm
I’m one of those people as is my entire family. EIC, food stamps, child care, income-cap housing, etc. I don’t consider Romney’s remarks to be disparaging at all. In fact, I’ve heard the same exact line – that voting GOP is supposedly against my economic interests (perhaps in the short term) – from a liberal in our family so often, Romney’s analysis isn’t shocking to hear at all. That he is wise enough to recognize it, and that Ryan and him are appealing people not to feed the leviathan (or accept its trojan horses or protect the status quo of unfulfillable promises) only encourages me to vote for them even more.
September 18th, 2012 | 11:37 pm
Let’s say the meatpacker decides he wants a better financial life for himself. He does some handyman jobs for his neighbors and saves up to attend school. He goes to school at night for years, missing out on time with his family, leisure time, ad sleep. But at last the day comes when he gets a better job. After additional years of hard work and constant striving to improve his marketable skills (skills that serve others), he receives a few promotions and is earning a decent living.Then the Democrats come along, demonize him as a greedy rich man and try to tax him until he’s netting as much as he was as a meatpacker making $12 an hour.
September 19th, 2012 | 12:14 am
R.R.: Thank you.
September 19th, 2012 | 1:22 am
All of this fuss brings to mind a few moments from the 2008 campaign: first, candidate Obama’s remarks to Joe the Plumber regarding spreading the wealth around and second, a woman named Peggy Joseph (who lives in Youtube infamy) so excited at an Obama rally that she actually said that if she helped him (with her vote), he’d help her and she wouldn’t have to worry about putting gas in her car or paying her mortgage.
While most receiving some type of government assistance are not what I would call a moocher, there are way to many like Peggy out there, waiting with their hand out for their “Obama money”, made possible only by spreading the wealth around. Those are the moochers.
September 19th, 2012 | 3:13 am
Thank you, Mr. Reno.
Objectively, whether you happen to pay that one tax, the Federal Income Tax, doesn’t determine whether you are a useful, working citizen or a moocher … who should be grateful daily for the largess of Job Creators. Governor Romney’s mistake was to say plainly what a significant proportion of GOP big donors believe.
September 19th, 2012 | 8:53 am
Absurd rhetoric it may be Mr. Reno. But you failed to mention that the tape was selectively edited. You also must know that that tape was produced illegally. In the state of Florida we are not permitted to tape a private event without permission. Secondly, the people in that room know that Mitt was not referring to the retirees, disabled, or people in true need of a safety net. He is trying to expand opportunity for all of our citizens. By their fruits you shall know them…tell me whom you trust with your nest egg – President Obama or Mitt Romney. Thirdly, without the respect for Life – all of these other issues are mute.
September 19th, 2012 | 9:17 am
Mr. Romney’s statements are shocking – not because of his beliefs, which I find loathsome, abut because he doesn’t include in his 47% the millionaires/billionaires who use every deduction and place their money overseas to avoid taxes. He doesn’t distinguish those people who have deductions and who have low salaries so their federal taxes are refunded, he doesn’t distinguish those in the military who when serving in conflict zones pay no taxes – in other words he has no idea of who makes up that mythical 47%.
To Mr. Romney only the “makers” are important -so his borrowing money from the feds to keep Bain Capital alive is fine, the fact that Wall Street needed a massive taxpayer bailout is fine, because these are his kind of folks. By the way lowering taxes on the “makers” has not created many jobs, in fact it has seemed to hurt job growth.
Maybe since this is a Catholic site the words of Jesus to the rich young man should be kept in mind. I see people commenting that Jesus did not say that the government should take money and redistribute it – that is right – he said to the rich many sell all that you have and give it to the poor and follow me, and the man walked away. A clearer statement of what is wrong with Romney’s statement I cannot think of.
September 19th, 2012 | 10:13 am
On the one hand Romney wants to accuse a large section of America of not pulling their weight on the other hand he is willing to exploit others by not giving them a say in whether their jobs should be shipped off to China let alone see them as equal stakeholders entitled to an equitable share of any profits made in the companies he controls. His position is intellectually and emotionally untenable from a Christian viewpoint.
September 19th, 2012 | 11:11 am
Bizarrely, it seems to me, Romney is both standing by his comments and blatantly contradicting them.
It is really quite impossible to square this with his 47% comments, but it squares with reality more than those comments did. Of course there are people out of work, or poor people, who would love to be making enough money to pay taxes. I already play plenty in taxes myself, and I would be happy to jump up a couple of tax brackets and pay at an even higher rate.
September 19th, 2012 | 11:26 am
“No American family would “forego” internet access, Apple gizmos, flat screen tvs, not take vacations, or never visit Starbucks. ”
Hello, nice to meet you, except that apparently I don’t exist. Well, okay, we’ve been on two vacations in 22 years other than purely family visits on holidays (and even on those “vacations” we stayed with family nonetheless) and yeah, we have internet access, but other than that, that’s us. Oh, I’ve been to Starbucks all right — with my kids, who pay out of their part-time earnings while I “forgo” a drink.
And no one said his wife doesn’t work — apparently she’s raising the kids, which someone has to do. Either the wife’s going to do it, or they’re going to pay someone else to do it less well, which, with the other costs associated with employment, will probably be a losing proposition all around.
September 19th, 2012 | 12:39 pm
While the language usage level here is far superior to, say, the back-and-forth yelling on Yahoo! comment boards, the circular discussion is exactly the same. I’m disappointed, to say the least.
Perhaps one of these days, the mythical “real” discussion about these issues will be held.
September 19th, 2012 | 12:53 pm
“Thirdly, without the respect for Life – all of these other issues are mute.”
A mind is a . . . oh, forget it.
September 19th, 2012 | 1:29 pm
For those who believe that facts actually matter, there is a fascinating article in the New York Times that concludes as follows:
So all this time, it has been Republicans who have been making citizens more dependent on government, and thereby buying their votes! :P
September 19th, 2012 | 3:24 pm
I found this blog post very insightful in explaining what’s wrong with Mr. Romney’s argument
http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/the-47-percent-and-the-fundamental-attribution-error/
Also, I haven’t heard Mr. Romney’s argument (in his press conference) as morally judging “takers” … it was more discussion about their expected relationship towards his ideas. I think his argument is wrong (see Cato article for explanation), but I don’t think it is wrong on moral ground, because his argument was not moral judgement.
September 19th, 2012 | 3:29 pm
It’s amazing to me how much ink has been spilled over a video clip, especially considering the origins of the video and the fact that we don’t even have the context for the whole clip. Romney may be gaffe prone, but to judge his intelligence, or his true thoughts, by a video clip from a fundraiser, where he’s expected to serve up redmeat, is misguided. If people really think that Romney doesn’t have a more sophisticated understanding of the breakdown of the “47%”, they need to chill out for a while, and reassess the situation.
September 19th, 2012 | 4:44 pm
If people really think that Romney doesn’t have a more sophisticated understanding of the breakdown of the “47%”, they need to chill out for a while, and reassess the situation.
Ezra Brooks,
But Romney insists he is standing by what he said, although claiming he could have been more eloquent. And yet (see my message earlier), he is now saying something different.
As for offering “red meat” to his donors, if he wins the election, why would they not expect him to give them what they forked over their money for?
the fact that we don’t even have the context for the whole clip
The complete video has been released.
September 19th, 2012 | 6:09 pm
Granted, the clip has been released. That doesn’t really change things. The context of his remarks was a private fundraiser. I’m quite sure that a great number of candidates for office in this election cycle are now trying to remember what they’ve said at their fundraisers, with the hope that no video cameras were rolling. While Romney might revise the 47% figure downward after reflection (or better yet, avoid such a divisive remark altogether!), the only things he’s really promised the electorate are an economic recovery and jobs. Hopefully he delivers on those promises. Romney is rightfully castigated for a divise remark; unfortunatley, his 47% remark has obscurred his critique that a culture of dependency has increased, and is likely to continue to increase, if the president is re-elected. And, to further critique Romney, he needs to do a better job of presenting what (and how) he’ll do if elected president.
September 19th, 2012 | 8:58 pm
The United States cleared the $16 trillion mark for its national debt two weeks ago, yet last night, appearing on The David Letterman Show, the president was asked how large the national debt was… He did not answer the question, either out of ignorance or a desire not to upset the audience. Whatever the reason, it was a shocking but revealing response.
September 20th, 2012 | 12:04 pm
“But it’s historically, intellectually, and morally stultifying to imagine that this mess is somehow unnecessary, that it is the result of the laziness or irresponsibility of working people and the wicked plots of collectivist liberals.”
It “may be” fiscally unsustainable, despite the unabated growth of the national debt into trilllions of dollars with no end in sight but I’m supposed to accept the ipso facto assertion that calculating and opportunistic politicians haven’t sought to capture vast swaths of people into pliable constituencies, despite mountains of evidence to the contrary.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact