Makers vs. Takers
September 18, 2012
Anna Williams
In a secretly taped video that became public on Monday night, Mitt Romney tells a group of donors that 47 percent of Americans—those who pay no federal income taxes—“will vote for the president no matter what” because they are “dependent upon government” and “believe that they are victims.”
His words are just the latest formulation of what has become a standard Republican claim: that society is divided into “makers,” who work hard and pay taxes, and “takers,” who live off of others by consuming government benefits. This simplistic categorization is both laughably ridiculous and morally repellent.
We are all takers, and very nearly all of us are makers, at some point in our lives. Unless you sprang from your mother’s womb fully mature and self-sufficient, you were a ‘“taker” as a child. Unless you die before you reach retirement, you will be a “taker” in your old age. Unless you never hold a job or do anything productive over the course of your entire life, you’ll be a “maker” at some point.
But most of the time, we’re both takers and makers simultaneously, if “taking” means accepting government benefits and “making” means paying taxes. The vast majority of Americans receive some type of government benefits, and the approximately 47% of Americans who don’t pay federal income taxes are still paying taxes.
Or suppose we acknowledge those facts and restrict our analysis to the “takers” who receive more in government benefits than they pay in taxes. That many people fall in this category is not a bad thing: On the contrary, it illustrates that the safety net, which involves richer people’s taxes providing a basic standard of living for poorer people, is working. Moreover, as others have pointed out, this arrangement is the result of many policies championed by Republicans, from the Reagan-era tax cuts to the child tax credit and the earned income tax credit.
To expose the silliness from a few other angles: If a retiree is a “taker” for accepting Medicare, is an electrician a “taker” for accepting his employer’s health insurance coverage? If a lawyer is a “maker” because he pays taxes, is his daughter (a college student) a “taker” because she’s not earning taxable income for herself? If an unemployed person is a “taker” for accepting unemployment insurance, is a stay-at-home mom a “taker” for living off her husband’s earnings? If a church secretary is a “maker” because she pays income taxes, is her pastor a “taker” because his income is largely tax-exempt?
The plausibility of the maker-vs.-taker distinction depends on ignoring every aspect of civic life besides the government budget—a mistake that conservatives should avoid precisely because we emphasize the many ways of contributing to and benefiting from society aside from the state. (Families, businesses, voluntary associations, sports teams, and religious groups come to mind.)
Granted, the narrative draws on a small grain of truth: that a few Americans depend on government benefits rather than employment as their primary source of income. The recent expansion of the Social Security Disability program may demonstrate this fact, but even that is mainly a result of unemployed Americans’ inability to find a job. (The ongoing decline of the labor force participation rate, meanwhile, is also at least partly explained by factors other than laziness, like the aging of the population.)
Yes, work is integral to human flourishing, and we should encourage the development of every individual’s talents to enable as many people as possible to contribute to the common good. Demonizing the jobless in the midst of an economic slump, though, is not going to help.
Yet we should reject the maker-vs.-taker distinction for reasons beyond the shortfalls mentioned here. Behind the flawed narrative is a very nasty worldview, one that Romney and Ryan would reject if presented starkly, but one that their rhetoric nonetheless invokes.
This reductionist, utilitarian idea says that one’s worth as a human being is determined by one’s contributions to society. An individual has no dignity as an individual; he has dignity only if he works, only if he pays taxes, only if he produces more than he consumes. If he needs help or cannot work, he is a weak, lazy, good-for-nothing taker.
Any moral person would reject this idea as utterly repellent—but pro-life Christians must take the lead in refuting it, if we truly stand for the unique, inalienable, God-given dignity of every human person.
After all, a society that regards “takers” as mere burdens will abort babies with Down syndrome, stigmatize the disabled, and euthanize the elderly. It will not relieve the oppressed, defend orphans, plead for the widow. It will simply let them die, because the “makers” would be better off without them.
Anna Williams is a junior fellow at First Things.
RESOURCES
R.R. Reno, Absurd Republican Rhetoric
Matthew Schmitz, Stop Berating the "47 Percent"
Joseph Knippenberg, Homo Sapiens and Homo Economicus
USA Today, “Romney: Obama voters ‘believe they are victims’”
New York Times, “Our Hidden Government Benefits,” Suzanne Metler
Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, “Misconceptions and Realities About Who Pays Taxes”
Reihan Salam, “Makers, Takers, Taxpayers, Etc.”
Wall Street Journal, “Jobless Tap Disability Fund”
The Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, “Explaining the decline in the U.S. labor force participation rate”
Become a fan of First Things on Facebook, subscribe to First Things via RSS, and follow First Things on Twitter.
Comments:
9.18.2012 | 12:10pm
Patrick says:
Although Romney's remarks were not "elegantly" stated, as he said, he seemed to be talking more about public perceptions and the campaign, rather than about whether or not people really are dependent. Dependence can be purely psychological as well as real. Yes, your points are all valid and the Republican narrative can sometimes look like something out of an Ayn Rand novel. The Democratic narrative, though, isn't much better -- remember "you didn't build this?" If one were to give Romney the benefit of the doubt, I think it's possible that what he had in mind was more the perception, fostered fairly strongly by the Democrats, that many people are indeed dependent on the government, and that's a good thing -- even though that perception may not actually be true. Because the more people who feel themselves powerless before unpredictable economic forces, with only Obama to save them the more people who are going to vote Democrat, right? Romney started off by talking about people voting Democrat for a particular reason, and I think he was right that that reason often does have to do with a feeling of needing the government.
9.18.2012 | 12:14pm
toddes says:
It seems to me that you really had to stretch your sense of outrage concerning what Romney said to accommodate this diatribe.
You do note "that a few Americans depend on government benefits rather than employment as their primary source of income." Would you care to expand on this and provide an actual percentage to compare to the 47%?
"After all, a society that regards “takers” as mere burdens will abort babies with Down syndrome, stigmatize the disabled, and euthanize the elderly. It will not relieve the oppressed, defend orphans, plead for the widow. It will simply let them die, because the “makers” would be better off without them."
This is nowhere in the Republican platform nor can it seriously be extracted from anything Romney or Ryan has stated but it appears that the other major party is striding toward it with exuberance, IMO.
You do note "that a few Americans depend on government benefits rather than employment as their primary source of income." Would you care to expand on this and provide an actual percentage to compare to the 47%?
"After all, a society that regards “takers” as mere burdens will abort babies with Down syndrome, stigmatize the disabled, and euthanize the elderly. It will not relieve the oppressed, defend orphans, plead for the widow. It will simply let them die, because the “makers” would be better off without them."
This is nowhere in the Republican platform nor can it seriously be extracted from anything Romney or Ryan has stated but it appears that the other major party is striding toward it with exuberance, IMO.
9.18.2012 | 12:25pm
Scott Wolfe says:
I don't think Mitt Romney said any of the things you've attributed to him, except of course the direct quotes. It seems to me that you're jumping to a lot of conclusions about him. I grant you that it's easy, based on a short video, to set up a straw man and knock him down, but that doesn't strike me as a very charitable exercise.
9.18.2012 | 12:39pm
John Bissell says:
I am marveling at those who have grabbed the flag of moral superiority and headed to the highest possible hill to plant it. If you listened to whole thing in context, that word again, you would find he was merely pointing out that he could not reach non-taxpayers with a lower tax pitch. Common sense. I enjoyed your last paragraph as my wife and I have run a Non-Profit to serve families with Disabled Children for 30 years and as we do not take funds from the Federal Government the children have been the beneficiaries of people who seek us out to support us, people of means and to a person they are like Mitt Romney, wealthy ,self made and generous. Their Charity is real, without coercion, you better look at the political alternative for Down Syndrome children, very few will be Born Alive in Illinois or anywhere ekse when ACA is fully implemented.
9.18.2012 | 12:51pm
sds1781 says:
He was talking about income tax! I read his entire statement and thought "Finally, someone is speaking the truth." He is absolutely right, and its a shame that First Things, like the rest of the media, seems to want to crucify him for speaking the truth. Look at the latest poll that shows 67% of Democrats think the government should do more for them.
I'm at my wits end to see that First Things calls his statements "morally repellent" What immoral about it? Even if you think its stupid, the statement is not moral or immoral its an opinion about the state of our nation.
Good grief!!!!
I'm at my wits end to see that First Things calls his statements "morally repellent" What immoral about it? Even if you think its stupid, the statement is not moral or immoral its an opinion about the state of our nation.
Good grief!!!!
9.18.2012 | 1:11pm
Poet and Priest says:
Of course some extrapolation is necessary, and specific interpretations will always be debatable. But the basics of this column are sound. To say ALL of the 47% of people who don't pay INCOME tax will vote for Obama, for instance, is simply false; Romney must have known this. So why did he say it?
Because he may believe it, in its meaning or truth, not just its specific factual content. Everyone, it turns out, is interpreting.
So for the writer here to give some examples of what seems to follow from such a view is certainly not out of line. Romney is wrongly focusing on purely economic value.
Just as we can say President Obama's "clinging to guns and religion" comment is a *meaningful* indication of certain elements of his thinking, so too can we suggest Romney should rethink this stupid (and wrong and unwise) thing he just said.
Because he may believe it, in its meaning or truth, not just its specific factual content. Everyone, it turns out, is interpreting.
So for the writer here to give some examples of what seems to follow from such a view is certainly not out of line. Romney is wrongly focusing on purely economic value.
Just as we can say President Obama's "clinging to guns and religion" comment is a *meaningful* indication of certain elements of his thinking, so too can we suggest Romney should rethink this stupid (and wrong and unwise) thing he just said.
9.18.2012 | 1:27pm
Doug Taylor-Weiss says:
Where did you get the cockamamie idea that pastor's wages are largely tax-exempt? The housing allowance is, but only if it's really used for housing.
9.18.2012 | 1:28pm
Greg Bedell says:
Let us step back from the indignant rhetoric that is surrounding this issue and examine it more critically. Indeed, the best place to start is the last paragraph of Ms. Williams' article. On a purely partisan level, which party defends the un-born and which defends the murder of innocent children, even through "late term?" Who approvingly said he understood China's one child policy, which leads more often than not to the termination of female fetuses? It was our current Democrat Vice President Joe Biden. The "war on women" created to criticize the GOP centers around the defense of killing babies (I no longer say the sterile word "abortion" but prefer to call it what it is) on demand and government paid-for birth control; a not insignificant part the of the DNC national convention was devoted to the so called "defense of women." So, the history of the GOP on the issue of life is, I believe, unassailable.
Why is that? Does this say something about how each party views human life and human dignity? I think it does. The GOP defends life and with it human dignity. How does it support dignity? With a fishing pole rather than a fish.
Having lived in Europe for a few years and now living again in Chicago perhaps skews my perspective. Expectation that someone else will provide - that someone being the government - leads inevitably to dependence. This dependence saps us of our dignity, leading to a slow spiritual death; growth, creativity and life itself are crushed under the weight of system that does not demand the best of human kind. My proof? 70 years of a failed system in Eastern Europe. Look at the Czech Republic and Poland as just two examples of how the human condition - IN EVERY WAY - improved when the forced "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" straight jacket of communism/socialism was removed. And this is an important point: human charity and kindness is just that, human. If it is forced it is not real but is terrifying. If a government can decide who gets and who gives, well that's what the 70 years of a failed experience should teach us. This does not even consider the inherent corruption in that system, a corruption we witness even till today in China.
Equally devastating to the human condition is that it creates a sense of entitlement. One need only look at Greece to see this. And, as I said I live in Chicago, look at our current teacher's strike. The Chicago teachers are among the best paid in the country, for the shortest work day in the country. The school system is broke; the state is broke, the country is broke. Still, they were offered a 16% raise over 5 years. The union said no; the CTU doesn't care about any of this because it sees itself as entitled to more. The needs and interests of the citizen taxpayers and children be damned. There is no consideration of other's needs or wants, only mine.
And this is the point of Mitt Romney's statement: When 47% of the population does not contribute to the Nation (as opposed to state or local taxes for police, fire, parks, etc), the real, true and immanent fear is that the 47% will become dependent, become entitled and, if encouraged, it will grow. Further, should this state of affairs be accepted as the norm? My answer, and that of Romney, is NO. Our country and its culture is at a cross roads; will we accept mere existing with the false comfort and multi-faced dangerous consequences or will we be a culture that expects active participation, one that invites us as humans to live, grow and create?
The GOP is not heartless; it simply believes in creating opportunity. We want to increase the "makers," decrease the "takers" and stand for a system that values the former and, through mostly private charity, cares for those who truly can't care for themselves so they don't become permanent takers.
The caring Democrats, well they defend killing innocent children, stomp on the Freedom of Religion and send us a health care system that offers more care to more people with no way of providing more doctors and nurses and without having any idea how to pay for it. Ooops, my mistake; that would be the "Independent Payment Advisory Board," the unelected, unaccountable group that will decide if the government will pay for the latest and greatest, or even the most mundane, forms of healthcare. Once again, the big promise leads to the big dependence and, ultimately, to the big disappointment.
In sum, sometimes its better to say no to the candy and yes to the castor oil. Moreover, don’t be fooled that the candy man cares about you, especially when he's the government. This is a lesson Pope John Paul II knew and all who are paying attention to HHS should have learned by now.
Why is that? Does this say something about how each party views human life and human dignity? I think it does. The GOP defends life and with it human dignity. How does it support dignity? With a fishing pole rather than a fish.
Having lived in Europe for a few years and now living again in Chicago perhaps skews my perspective. Expectation that someone else will provide - that someone being the government - leads inevitably to dependence. This dependence saps us of our dignity, leading to a slow spiritual death; growth, creativity and life itself are crushed under the weight of system that does not demand the best of human kind. My proof? 70 years of a failed system in Eastern Europe. Look at the Czech Republic and Poland as just two examples of how the human condition - IN EVERY WAY - improved when the forced "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" straight jacket of communism/socialism was removed. And this is an important point: human charity and kindness is just that, human. If it is forced it is not real but is terrifying. If a government can decide who gets and who gives, well that's what the 70 years of a failed experience should teach us. This does not even consider the inherent corruption in that system, a corruption we witness even till today in China.
Equally devastating to the human condition is that it creates a sense of entitlement. One need only look at Greece to see this. And, as I said I live in Chicago, look at our current teacher's strike. The Chicago teachers are among the best paid in the country, for the shortest work day in the country. The school system is broke; the state is broke, the country is broke. Still, they were offered a 16% raise over 5 years. The union said no; the CTU doesn't care about any of this because it sees itself as entitled to more. The needs and interests of the citizen taxpayers and children be damned. There is no consideration of other's needs or wants, only mine.
And this is the point of Mitt Romney's statement: When 47% of the population does not contribute to the Nation (as opposed to state or local taxes for police, fire, parks, etc), the real, true and immanent fear is that the 47% will become dependent, become entitled and, if encouraged, it will grow. Further, should this state of affairs be accepted as the norm? My answer, and that of Romney, is NO. Our country and its culture is at a cross roads; will we accept mere existing with the false comfort and multi-faced dangerous consequences or will we be a culture that expects active participation, one that invites us as humans to live, grow and create?
The GOP is not heartless; it simply believes in creating opportunity. We want to increase the "makers," decrease the "takers" and stand for a system that values the former and, through mostly private charity, cares for those who truly can't care for themselves so they don't become permanent takers.
The caring Democrats, well they defend killing innocent children, stomp on the Freedom of Religion and send us a health care system that offers more care to more people with no way of providing more doctors and nurses and without having any idea how to pay for it. Ooops, my mistake; that would be the "Independent Payment Advisory Board," the unelected, unaccountable group that will decide if the government will pay for the latest and greatest, or even the most mundane, forms of healthcare. Once again, the big promise leads to the big dependence and, ultimately, to the big disappointment.
In sum, sometimes its better to say no to the candy and yes to the castor oil. Moreover, don’t be fooled that the candy man cares about you, especially when he's the government. This is a lesson Pope John Paul II knew and all who are paying attention to HHS should have learned by now.
9.18.2012 | 1:39pm
Matthew Taylor says:
In response to the comments that Ms. Williams has misinterpreted Romney's remarks, just restating the words with which she opened the article:
He made an identity between
- people who pay no income tax
- people who believe they are victims
- people who will vote for Mr. Obama no matter what
Ms. Williams is careful to distinguish between Romney's rhetoric, and the repugnant idea which underlies that rhetoric. Her critique was of the idea, not the rhetoric per se.
It's always difficult to judge a person's true motives and beliefs, even when they make a sincere attempt to state them plainly themselves. It's almost impossible to make judgments about the motives and beliefs of a politician on the campaign trail -- and Romney was just as much on the campaign in that private room as he is when he's speaking on the stump.
But Ms. Williams wasn't making a judgment about Romney. She was making a judgment about philosophical distinctions that underlie and ground his words, and following those ideas to their logical conclusions. And in that analysis she's dead on.
Current Republican rhetoric is using the language, not of the founders, but of the the libertarians. The false distinction between makers and takers comes straight from Ayn Rand. It is morally troubling and politically divisive. James Joseph wrote an excellent piece on this subject over at DoubleThink. http://americasfuture.org/doublethink/2012/09/ayn-rands-paradox/
If Romney wants to lead this country past the election, he's going to have to find the rhetoric which will inspire the country at all levels. Completely giving up on the moral strength of 47% of the electorate speaks to a lack of political imagination.
He made an identity between
- people who pay no income tax
- people who believe they are victims
- people who will vote for Mr. Obama no matter what
Ms. Williams is careful to distinguish between Romney's rhetoric, and the repugnant idea which underlies that rhetoric. Her critique was of the idea, not the rhetoric per se.
It's always difficult to judge a person's true motives and beliefs, even when they make a sincere attempt to state them plainly themselves. It's almost impossible to make judgments about the motives and beliefs of a politician on the campaign trail -- and Romney was just as much on the campaign in that private room as he is when he's speaking on the stump.
But Ms. Williams wasn't making a judgment about Romney. She was making a judgment about philosophical distinctions that underlie and ground his words, and following those ideas to their logical conclusions. And in that analysis she's dead on.
Current Republican rhetoric is using the language, not of the founders, but of the the libertarians. The false distinction between makers and takers comes straight from Ayn Rand. It is morally troubling and politically divisive. James Joseph wrote an excellent piece on this subject over at DoubleThink. http://americasfuture.org/doublethink/2012/09/ayn-rands-paradox/
If Romney wants to lead this country past the election, he's going to have to find the rhetoric which will inspire the country at all levels. Completely giving up on the moral strength of 47% of the electorate speaks to a lack of political imagination.
9.18.2012 | 2:26pm
Greg Bedell says:
In response to Matt:
I would tend to agree with your last statement; Romney does need to inspire (great choice of words, by the way) everyone. Without getting into the weeds on this point, I think you're right about sharpening the message.
On the Founders v Ayn Rand point thought, I take issue. The "entitlement" and "regulatory" regulatory state could not even have been contemplated by the Founders, with one noted exception: As Ben Franklin said "“Once the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the Republic.”
That the government would send ordinary people money or create programs was simply not what the national government was seen as capable of doing; moreover, is was set up so it couldn't do these things. But that's a different blog site.
I would tend to agree with your last statement; Romney does need to inspire (great choice of words, by the way) everyone. Without getting into the weeds on this point, I think you're right about sharpening the message.
On the Founders v Ayn Rand point thought, I take issue. The "entitlement" and "regulatory" regulatory state could not even have been contemplated by the Founders, with one noted exception: As Ben Franklin said "“Once the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the Republic.”
That the government would send ordinary people money or create programs was simply not what the national government was seen as capable of doing; moreover, is was set up so it couldn't do these things. But that's a different blog site.
9.18.2012 | 2:59pm
Thomas Martin Cothran says:
Judging from some of the comments, like that of Mr. Bedell, the fact that Romney's comment was not only morally deficient but factually incorrect needs to be reiterated.
A supermajority of those who do not pay income taxes pay either the payroll taxes or are elderly and do not work. The working poor who do not pay income tax but are subject to payroll taxes--i.e., well over half those who do not pay income tax--even pay on average a higher effective tax rate than Mr. Romney (a little over 15% versus Romney's slightly under 14%)!
Romney is not stupid, and there's no doubt he doesn't actually believe this stuff. He clearly is aware of the advantages wealthy investors get from the capital gains tax cut. But it does show that this sort of Randian rhetoric is popular in the upper echelons of the Republican donor class.
A supermajority of those who do not pay income taxes pay either the payroll taxes or are elderly and do not work. The working poor who do not pay income tax but are subject to payroll taxes--i.e., well over half those who do not pay income tax--even pay on average a higher effective tax rate than Mr. Romney (a little over 15% versus Romney's slightly under 14%)!
Romney is not stupid, and there's no doubt he doesn't actually believe this stuff. He clearly is aware of the advantages wealthy investors get from the capital gains tax cut. But it does show that this sort of Randian rhetoric is popular in the upper echelons of the Republican donor class.
9.18.2012 | 3:04pm
Josh says:
Thanks for the primer, Matthew Taylor! I was confused about why Mitt Romney's words did not appear to match the column, but now I see that you cannot simply take the words at face value. First you have to impute a worldview to the speaker that is as uncharitable as possible, assert that the words must relate to the same, then seek the moral high ground in refuting that worldview. Now I wonder why I missed it the first time around.
9.18.2012 | 3:43pm
J Solters says:
No matter how much slicing and dicing one makes about people that pay no income taxes, the simple fact remains that they get a completely free ride on paying the high cost of funding the federal government. Period. They are not stake holders on federal budget issues except for welfare (or tax rebates which are welfare). Yet they can and will always vote for more welfare spending. The number of non-payers is about 50% of tax returns. Obviously this can't go on endlessly. Borrowing the money to pay their bills only goes so far. Somebody else must pay their bills which they can't pay. America's founders recognized that the program they formulated under the constitution would ultimately fail if voters could and would vote to force the federal government to pay their bills. This is exactly what is happening today; and there is no neat, clear solution at hand.
9.18.2012 | 3:50pm
Mike D'Virgilio says:
It is really amazing to see the difference between Democrats and Republicans when their guy ostensibly makes a gaff. Democrats downplay Obama's, put a positive spin on it, etc. When Romney says something that might not be perfectly in accord with everything that is true and just and good and perfect, he is pilloried by Republicans and conservatives. Like the author of this piece, they make it look absolutely the worst it could possibly look. Could these people see the forest for the trees please, and maybe be more constructive in their tone? For gosh sakes, do they want Obama re-elected????
9.18.2012 | 4:00pm
Artaban7 says:
I've seen firsthand the dehumanizing influence of our excessive welfare state, and for that reason find much truth in Romney's statement. I have a friend and an uncle that were content to accept unemployment benefits for 99 weeks rather than take a job that paid "only marginally more". They became lesser men for their sloth, and were only too eager to take the marginally better job once the golden goose stopped producing eggs.
So Romney's words are pretty much spot on.
Of course, the discussion here is just a strong argument for abolishing the income tax entirely and going to a pure sales tax. That neither party has seriously tried to do this is only proof that both irresponsibly keep things as they are in order to play political games of class warfare.
A pure sales tax means everyone pays something, and those who would have more (the rich) pay more. Perfectly fair, and too devoid of manipulation for the corrupt in politics to actually implement.
So Romney's words are pretty much spot on.
Of course, the discussion here is just a strong argument for abolishing the income tax entirely and going to a pure sales tax. That neither party has seriously tried to do this is only proof that both irresponsibly keep things as they are in order to play political games of class warfare.
A pure sales tax means everyone pays something, and those who would have more (the rich) pay more. Perfectly fair, and too devoid of manipulation for the corrupt in politics to actually implement.
9.18.2012 | 4:20pm
David M says:
Isn't "maker vs takers" a bit of a straw man? I mean, nobody really thinks that things are that simple, Romney included. This article takes a sound bite out of context, turns it into a straw man, and then knocks it down.
9.18.2012 | 4:36pm
Greg Bedell says:
Mr. Cothran,
I am flattered you called me out by name. Thank you. And, BTW, I am neither a "Randian" nor in the "upper echelons of the Republican donor class." I am a proud conservative Republican, however. I've also been in many-a-room with other fellow Republicans who feel exactly as I do and they also would not fit your description.
Now, first, free market capitalism IS the moral high ground; I will not now or ever cede this. History is on my side on this point.
As far as taxes, I am amused by your use of "supermajority" of a minority. That, however, is beside the point. Payroll taxes are not truly taxes but trust payments which are supposed to come back to the employee payer; again, if you worked and paid in (or for some years now had a parent or spouse who paid in) you get something back. With the government raiding this, who knows.
I am willing to be corrected but I think you are in error when you site as part of the 47% who pay no income taxes those who earn no income; I believe this stat applies to those who actually do earn income, that is, of those who are employed are are earning, 47% don't pay federal income tax. Of that 47% of the population who get something from the government your analysis may be correct. This issue here is who, why and for how long. This is an honest debate reasonable people can have, subject to the caveats of my earlier, and now many other, posts - e.g. Artiban above.
Also, Mr. Romney would also have paid the payroll taxes when he was an employee and, if he was self-employed as I, would pay both employee and employer shares. In any event, even accepting the 14% as the correct percentage of his income tax, how much was that in real dollars contributed to the Treasury? Millions. The percentage quote is a canard.
Lastly, back to the GOP v Democrat comparison of who is truly compassionate, let's compare what Romney gave to charity with what Biden gave, or even the president. Even though the studies are few and dated, they show conservatives give more to charity than liberals. And remember, that's on top of the taxes paid.
I am flattered you called me out by name. Thank you. And, BTW, I am neither a "Randian" nor in the "upper echelons of the Republican donor class." I am a proud conservative Republican, however. I've also been in many-a-room with other fellow Republicans who feel exactly as I do and they also would not fit your description.
Now, first, free market capitalism IS the moral high ground; I will not now or ever cede this. History is on my side on this point.
As far as taxes, I am amused by your use of "supermajority" of a minority. That, however, is beside the point. Payroll taxes are not truly taxes but trust payments which are supposed to come back to the employee payer; again, if you worked and paid in (or for some years now had a parent or spouse who paid in) you get something back. With the government raiding this, who knows.
I am willing to be corrected but I think you are in error when you site as part of the 47% who pay no income taxes those who earn no income; I believe this stat applies to those who actually do earn income, that is, of those who are employed are are earning, 47% don't pay federal income tax. Of that 47% of the population who get something from the government your analysis may be correct. This issue here is who, why and for how long. This is an honest debate reasonable people can have, subject to the caveats of my earlier, and now many other, posts - e.g. Artiban above.
Also, Mr. Romney would also have paid the payroll taxes when he was an employee and, if he was self-employed as I, would pay both employee and employer shares. In any event, even accepting the 14% as the correct percentage of his income tax, how much was that in real dollars contributed to the Treasury? Millions. The percentage quote is a canard.
Lastly, back to the GOP v Democrat comparison of who is truly compassionate, let's compare what Romney gave to charity with what Biden gave, or even the president. Even though the studies are few and dated, they show conservatives give more to charity than liberals. And remember, that's on top of the taxes paid.
9.18.2012 | 4:39pm
Kyle Miller says:
I agree the comments many people have made. This article was not well thought out.
Spinning Romney's words into a "makers vs takers" argument is wrong. This is about the problem of every increasing dependence on government, makers and takers included.
This article needs a giant press of Control-Z, UNDO.
Spinning Romney's words into a "makers vs takers" argument is wrong. This is about the problem of every increasing dependence on government, makers and takers included.
This article needs a giant press of Control-Z, UNDO.
9.18.2012 | 5:09pm
Monica Way says:
Greg said, "Let us step back from the indignant rhetoric that is surrounding this issue and examine it more critically." Thank you, Greg. However, I don't think the way to examine it more critically is to look at which political party has done more to defend human life. If the GOP is actually using the "makers vs. takers" language, Ms. Williams can criticize that based on its implications for the future (not just the track record of who said it), and has done so quite soundly. Her article does not contain some kind of hidden message of "... and therefore, you should all vote for Candidate X", but is simply taking a closer look at a troubling choice of language.
Most of the comments on this thread seem to be irrelevant to the points Ms. Williams actually made, as Matthew Taylor pointed out. He needed to give us a "primer" not because her point isn't already quite clear, but because readers are somehow turning the article into a Republicans v. Democrats debate, rather than thinking twice about the "makers vs. takers" rhetoric.
Ms. Williams writes, "Behind the flawed narrative is a very nasty worldview, one that Romney and Ryan would reject if presented starkly, but one that their rhetoric nonetheless invokes." Could she be any clearer in separating her actual criticism from the candidate in question? Unlike so many journalists, she is not looking for hidden motives behind Romney's words; rather, she is examining his formulation of the issue in light of Christian truths (after all, to whom do Catholics owe their allegiance--the GOP or the Church?).
Ms. Williams avoids criticizing the GOP and, indeed, points out that the basic idea of a "safety net" is not contrary to the historical Republican platform: "That many people fall in this category is not a bad thing: On the contrary, it illustrates that the safety net, which involves richer people’s taxes providing a basic standard of living for poorer people, is working. Moreover, as others have pointed out, this arrangement is the result of many policies championed by Republicans, from the Reagan-era tax cuts to the child tax credit and the earned income tax credit."
Unfortunately, with the election so close at hand, it becomes increasingly difficult for people to think critically about the many issues which are bundled together into each political party's platform. Perhaps it is valid to criticize the timing of this article as interfering with votes at a crucial time. I do think, however, that this kind of criticism--of one's own political party, from within--is very important for the health of the party. If conservatives and Christians stop questioning how their individual stances are being expressed by politicians and in the media, and simply wage the "us vs. them" war between Republicans and Democrats, it may be asked whether there is much difference between those who strive for what they believe in and those who play the political game.
Most of the comments on this thread seem to be irrelevant to the points Ms. Williams actually made, as Matthew Taylor pointed out. He needed to give us a "primer" not because her point isn't already quite clear, but because readers are somehow turning the article into a Republicans v. Democrats debate, rather than thinking twice about the "makers vs. takers" rhetoric.
Ms. Williams writes, "Behind the flawed narrative is a very nasty worldview, one that Romney and Ryan would reject if presented starkly, but one that their rhetoric nonetheless invokes." Could she be any clearer in separating her actual criticism from the candidate in question? Unlike so many journalists, she is not looking for hidden motives behind Romney's words; rather, she is examining his formulation of the issue in light of Christian truths (after all, to whom do Catholics owe their allegiance--the GOP or the Church?).
Ms. Williams avoids criticizing the GOP and, indeed, points out that the basic idea of a "safety net" is not contrary to the historical Republican platform: "That many people fall in this category is not a bad thing: On the contrary, it illustrates that the safety net, which involves richer people’s taxes providing a basic standard of living for poorer people, is working. Moreover, as others have pointed out, this arrangement is the result of many policies championed by Republicans, from the Reagan-era tax cuts to the child tax credit and the earned income tax credit."
Unfortunately, with the election so close at hand, it becomes increasingly difficult for people to think critically about the many issues which are bundled together into each political party's platform. Perhaps it is valid to criticize the timing of this article as interfering with votes at a crucial time. I do think, however, that this kind of criticism--of one's own political party, from within--is very important for the health of the party. If conservatives and Christians stop questioning how their individual stances are being expressed by politicians and in the media, and simply wage the "us vs. them" war between Republicans and Democrats, it may be asked whether there is much difference between those who strive for what they believe in and those who play the political game.
9.18.2012 | 5:48pm
Citizen Jerry says:
It appears there’s somewhat of a competition going on here to see who has the biggest bleeding heart. As I see it, different groups define compassion differently. One group defines compassion by how many people are on government assistance. The other group defines compassion by the number of people who are standing on their own and no longer in need of government assistance – which is in effect, servitude.
Yes, we need to have a safety net for the helpless, for those truly in need. But for far too many, the safety net has turned into a hammock, which I find really annoying.
Two able bodied women in Detroit were standing in line for some government program when the media caught up with them. They said they were there for some “Obama money.” When asked where the money came from, they replied “his stash. That’s why we love him.”
We need to help the helpless – but not the clueless.
Yes, we need to have a safety net for the helpless, for those truly in need. But for far too many, the safety net has turned into a hammock, which I find really annoying.
Two able bodied women in Detroit were standing in line for some government program when the media caught up with them. They said they were there for some “Obama money.” When asked where the money came from, they replied “his stash. That’s why we love him.”
We need to help the helpless – but not the clueless.
9.18.2012 | 7:30pm
Rick says:
Granted that what we hear on the video is an obvious sop offered to Republican donors who can afford to pay $50,000 just to hear Romney speak. But the real point, beyond the highly dubious statistics he uses, is the tone, the implied attitude, and it is one of dismissive contempt for people who receive some form of government aid or subsidy. Imagine, writing off nearly half the American population as parasites who "will never take responsibility for their lives."
I am one of the 47%. (Maybe this could be the basis of a movement, like "we are the 99%.") I am in this category because I am now old enough to collect my Social Security retirement. Never mind that I paid into the SS system all my life. Never mind that I was president of an NRA rifle club in Texas, or that I served my country as a B-52 crewmember, or that I spent years living in poverty conditions in Africa to work on development projects. Never mind that I now do carpentry, plumbling, electrical, and painting work on my own house and grow my own vegetables. My eldest son is now also a member of the despised 47%. He just started his ROTC training at Holy Cross College and is determined to become an army officer who can devise new military strategies for his country. But he is getting a federal student loan, so he can also be dangled in front of rich Republicans as an object of ridicule. Like me, he will never take responsibility for his own life.
I am one of the 47%. (Maybe this could be the basis of a movement, like "we are the 99%.") I am in this category because I am now old enough to collect my Social Security retirement. Never mind that I paid into the SS system all my life. Never mind that I was president of an NRA rifle club in Texas, or that I served my country as a B-52 crewmember, or that I spent years living in poverty conditions in Africa to work on development projects. Never mind that I now do carpentry, plumbling, electrical, and painting work on my own house and grow my own vegetables. My eldest son is now also a member of the despised 47%. He just started his ROTC training at Holy Cross College and is determined to become an army officer who can devise new military strategies for his country. But he is getting a federal student loan, so he can also be dangled in front of rich Republicans as an object of ridicule. Like me, he will never take responsibility for his own life.
9.18.2012 | 7:51pm
TeaPot562 says:
As "Right to Lifers", my wife and I support a local maternity home, the R-T-L League of Southern California and a couple of national organizations. We also support our local parish church, the diocesan Pastoral Services Appeal and Catholic Relief Services. In 2011 our Fed. Income Tax was about 13% of our Adjusted Gross Income (AGI). Our charitable gifts totaled about 23% of our AGI.
My belief is that the teachings of Jesus in Matt. 25:31-46 and Luke 16:19-31 are addressed to us as "individuals", not as "taxpayers".
Even though the Church may have some inefficiencies in its caring for the poor, it does a far better job, and with less corruption, than the national government can possibly do.
I suspect that Mitt Romney shares this view.
TeaPot562
My belief is that the teachings of Jesus in Matt. 25:31-46 and Luke 16:19-31 are addressed to us as "individuals", not as "taxpayers".
Even though the Church may have some inefficiencies in its caring for the poor, it does a far better job, and with less corruption, than the national government can possibly do.
I suspect that Mitt Romney shares this view.
TeaPot562
9.18.2012 | 8:05pm
Mark VA says:
I think the author of this article is off on a tangent.
It doesn't seem to me that Mr. Romney is making a case for a utilitarian approach to human life. The problem he seems to be addressing is the strangely symbiotic relationship between those who are accommodating themselves to life on welfare, and their accommodators. This seems to be an issue that, until now, was not going to be talked about.
Thus, it may be that the real issue is not welfare itself - it is needed for those who truly need it. The issue rather points to the morality of the political uses of welfare, and the human cost of such manipulations. It definitely touched a live wire in many places.
It doesn't seem to me that Mr. Romney is making a case for a utilitarian approach to human life. The problem he seems to be addressing is the strangely symbiotic relationship between those who are accommodating themselves to life on welfare, and their accommodators. This seems to be an issue that, until now, was not going to be talked about.
Thus, it may be that the real issue is not welfare itself - it is needed for those who truly need it. The issue rather points to the morality of the political uses of welfare, and the human cost of such manipulations. It definitely touched a live wire in many places.
9.18.2012 | 8:50pm
bill bannon says:
In 2005, the percent of Americans who were on welfare totally without working was 3.8%. Romney conjured that number roughly up to 47% implicitly by saying he could not convince 47% of the nation to take responsibility for their lives. Actually he was trying to head off the donors from asking him later why Obama had strong support. To have in their head that half the nation was on siesta seemed good at the moment. Reality is that few are totally on the dole but some entitlements could be used by people on this thread someday...social security checks go to the disabled, the elderly, widows with children. Other Federal medicaid money goes to any of your elderly relatives IF they die slowly over years with for example lung cancer in a skilled nursing home with bedside breathing
equipment....or dialysis machines for kidney problems. Federal medicaid money covers 37% of births in US hospitals and If Ryan decreases that money, he may be perfectly correct on doing so to prevent national bankruptcy but it will result in poor women opting for a $400 abortion at ten weeks rather than borrowing to pay for pre natal and delivery and post partum care. That is: a well intentioned budget hawk can increase abortions from an entirely different unintended angle than a liberal who passes enabling legislation.
equipment....or dialysis machines for kidney problems. Federal medicaid money covers 37% of births in US hospitals and If Ryan decreases that money, he may be perfectly correct on doing so to prevent national bankruptcy but it will result in poor women opting for a $400 abortion at ten weeks rather than borrowing to pay for pre natal and delivery and post partum care. That is: a well intentioned budget hawk can increase abortions from an entirely different unintended angle than a liberal who passes enabling legislation.
9.18.2012 | 8:50pm
Mike Porter says:
Romney was not channeling Ayn Rand so much and Daniel Patrick Monyhan, the late great Democratic senator from NY. Before that, he was an academic who wrote about the debilitating effects of the welfare state on families, particularly inner-city black families. Of course, as a Democratic senator we voted consistently for the welfare state he criticized as an academic.
9.18.2012 | 9:57pm
Faith McDonnell says:
What you attribute/insinuate is NOT the rhetoric of Romney and Ryan. It is the spun rhetoric of David Axelrod. If you are so critical of Romney for factually stating that 47% are paying no taxes and are therefore more attracted to Obama, then what is your solution then? Obama's rhetoric is just as reductionist and utiliatarian. It is a cold, calculated idea that says that the "workers" should give up their unique, inalienable God-given dignity, their individual freedom, and be dependent on the State. Don't think Richard John Neuhaus would agree with that.
9.18.2012 | 10:12pm
Mark K says:
I don’t believe Anna Williams has a full grasp of the message Mitt Romney was conveying on the bootleg video that came out Monday. And I very much disagree we are all makers and takers, whether babies, youth, adults, or senior citizens. Since the economic calamity we experienced starting in 2008, we have had large number of people taking advantage of government programs simply because they could. I’ve seen retired people in their 70s sign up for and receive unemployment and others quit working and go on disability, but continue to work on the side and paid under the table. The benefits handed out in the last four years were taken advantage of because they were there for the taking. No, babies are not takers, youths in school are not takers, senior citizens who paid into Social Security and Medicare all of their working lives are not takers. It’s the ones who take unfair advantage of these situations because the money is there for the taking who are the takers. And Mitt is right when he says 47% are never going to vote for him. Were you around for the last three presidential elections? The US is very evenly split between those who would like to see the government expand control and those who still desire to control their own lives. Catholics can’t have it both ways. If you feel you are in the 47% Mitt referred to then perhaps you’ve been taking unfair advantage of support programs, feel universal contraception is necessary, support the HHS mandate to supply sex products to all who desire it for their promiscuous pleasure, and of course plan to vote for Mr Obama. These people who may call themselves Catholic and vote for Mr Obama accept his truth and feel he is the way. Sadly they have placed their faith not in God, the true Light, Truth, and the Way, but rather place their material concerns and fulfillment ahead of all things.
9.19.2012 | 12:19am
Steven A says:
Gov. Romney apparently does not pay income tax, which he essentially admitted to in the Republican debates. He told Mr. Newton Gingrich that if his (Gingrich's) plan of 0% tax on capital gains went through, that he (Romney) would pay no tax. So, apparently, the only tax he pays is on capital gains. I guess he is among the 47% he was talking about.
9.19.2012 | 1:39am
Rick says:
Re: Mark K
OK, nice try, but the arithmetic isn't going to work. Yes, there are "welfare chiselers" and con artists who exploit gov't benefits, and every effort should be made to weed them out. In fact, I strongly supported Clinton's welfare reform. The fewer people on welfare, the better! However, the ONLY way Romney could come up with the 47% figure for people who are dependent on the gov't is to include everybody on any type of aid or subsidy program, including my Social Security retirement check and my son's student loan. He wrote off ALL these people, with obvious contempt, as parasitical weaklings who refuse to take responsibility for their own lives.
Now I understand from you that since I have no choice but to include myself in Mitt's 47%, I must surely be cheating the government, think that my local high school (which one of my children is still attending) should pass out condoms in multiple flavors in the classrooms, believe that Obama is the Messiah, and have turned my back on God in favor of my personal riches. The trick here is to try to turn people like me, along with the rest of those 47%, into moral degenerates and pariahs--exactly what Romney was trying to do.
Speaking of an overemphasis on "material concerns," I wonder if Mitt's new 20+ million dollar home in La Jolla with an elevator for the two-story garage and fleet of luxury cars (one of his three homes) says anything about his priorities vis-a-vis the pleasures of personal wealth? Do you suppose he does his own plumbing, like I do? I wonder if he even knows how to install a toilet?
I won't try to discern his heart concerning faith matters, though...that is beyond my pay grade. But then, my relation with God is rather beyond your pay grade as well, don't you think?
OK, nice try, but the arithmetic isn't going to work. Yes, there are "welfare chiselers" and con artists who exploit gov't benefits, and every effort should be made to weed them out. In fact, I strongly supported Clinton's welfare reform. The fewer people on welfare, the better! However, the ONLY way Romney could come up with the 47% figure for people who are dependent on the gov't is to include everybody on any type of aid or subsidy program, including my Social Security retirement check and my son's student loan. He wrote off ALL these people, with obvious contempt, as parasitical weaklings who refuse to take responsibility for their own lives.
Now I understand from you that since I have no choice but to include myself in Mitt's 47%, I must surely be cheating the government, think that my local high school (which one of my children is still attending) should pass out condoms in multiple flavors in the classrooms, believe that Obama is the Messiah, and have turned my back on God in favor of my personal riches. The trick here is to try to turn people like me, along with the rest of those 47%, into moral degenerates and pariahs--exactly what Romney was trying to do.
Speaking of an overemphasis on "material concerns," I wonder if Mitt's new 20+ million dollar home in La Jolla with an elevator for the two-story garage and fleet of luxury cars (one of his three homes) says anything about his priorities vis-a-vis the pleasures of personal wealth? Do you suppose he does his own plumbing, like I do? I wonder if he even knows how to install a toilet?
I won't try to discern his heart concerning faith matters, though...that is beyond my pay grade. But then, my relation with God is rather beyond your pay grade as well, don't you think?
9.19.2012 | 8:25am
Faith McDonnell says:
People need to read Jay Richards' book "Money, Greed, and God: Why Capitalism is the Solution and Not the Problem." Such a spirit of anger and envy in this country today. As Condoleezza Rice said at the RNC, we have never been a people who were envious of others' successes. Well, we are now. Why would you think that Romney's simple statement of the facts means he believes people are moral degenerates and pariahs? And why the double standard on lambasting Governor Romney's wealth when there are plenty of Democrat examples of luxury and affluence?
9.19.2012 | 8:26am
Neil M says:
"After all, a society that regards “takers” as mere burdens will abort babies with Down syndrome, stigmatize the disabled, and euthanize the elderly." Right. And we would never see such a thing happen in a society with "progressive" tax burdens that "truly cares " for the needy.
9.19.2012 | 9:16am
Bernard Gasper, CPA says:
I really don't have the time to expose all the errors in this article, fortunately, others have noticed it's many of it's problems. However I'm going to point out just one: " If a retiree is a “taker” for accepting Medicare.."
You don't "accept" Medicare, you are REQUIRED to enroll.
You don't "accept" Medicare, you are REQUIRED to enroll.
9.19.2012 | 9:45am
C Watson says:
So, a “standard Republican claim” is found by the First Things writer to be “both laughably ridiculous and morally repellent.”
It is hard to see how an attentive person could think that Romney has been “demonizing the jobless in the midst of an economic slump.” But the writer has discerned that the rhetoric of Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan involves a “very nasty worldview”. They may mean well, but apparently are just not smart enough to have figured this out.
It is legitimate to point out that in his off-the-cuff remarks at a fund-raiser, the 47% category was not the right one for Romney to have used to make his point. (Who was it who made impromptu remarks at a fund-raiser about bitter clingers to guns and religion?)
But this piece does quite a bit more than that point out the category definition mistake. And does the writer avoid mistakes of her own? “Unless you die before you reach retirement, you will be a taker in your old age.” Not true. Many (not all) persons retiring currently will receive less from social security than they paid in. And quite a few more will continue to be net makers rather than takers in retirement, even taking into account Medicare benefits in excess of amounts paid in, because of the income taxes they will continue to pay.
It is hard to see how an attentive person could think that Romney has been “demonizing the jobless in the midst of an economic slump.” But the writer has discerned that the rhetoric of Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan involves a “very nasty worldview”. They may mean well, but apparently are just not smart enough to have figured this out.
It is legitimate to point out that in his off-the-cuff remarks at a fund-raiser, the 47% category was not the right one for Romney to have used to make his point. (Who was it who made impromptu remarks at a fund-raiser about bitter clingers to guns and religion?)
But this piece does quite a bit more than that point out the category definition mistake. And does the writer avoid mistakes of her own? “Unless you die before you reach retirement, you will be a taker in your old age.” Not true. Many (not all) persons retiring currently will receive less from social security than they paid in. And quite a few more will continue to be net makers rather than takers in retirement, even taking into account Medicare benefits in excess of amounts paid in, because of the income taxes they will continue to pay.
9.19.2012 | 10:37am
Ferde Rombola says:
First, those who consider free market capitalism the moral high ground are talking about a capitalism that no longer exists. What we have today is a manipulated market capitalism which has destroyed the manufacturing sector in the USA by shipping millions of jobs overseas where employing workers at substandard wages adds enough to the bottom line to enable the American corporate executive to siphon off more cash for himself than his grandfather ever dreamed of putting in his pocket. Collectively, they and their stateside comrades extract from our economy hundreds of billions for their personal use while bragging about the millions they pay in taxes. The result to the 47% is a low wage job that can't sustain a modest standard of living or no job at all.
The phantom 'free market' championed by fiscal conservatives created an unregulated financial sector that collapsed under the weight of its culture of greed, and then took billions in government welfare while complaining about a bloated food stamp budget.
I have serioius questions about today's 'free market capitalism' and have had for many years. As for Romney and his rhetoric, he was tossing red meat to his base. For fifty thousand dollars a head, he had to come up with something to fill their bellys.
The phantom 'free market' championed by fiscal conservatives created an unregulated financial sector that collapsed under the weight of its culture of greed, and then took billions in government welfare while complaining about a bloated food stamp budget.
I have serioius questions about today's 'free market capitalism' and have had for many years. As for Romney and his rhetoric, he was tossing red meat to his base. For fifty thousand dollars a head, he had to come up with something to fill their bellys.
9.19.2012 | 11:18am
ChrisZ says:
Whether you like the sentiment or not -- and whether the candidate knows it or not -- Gov. Romney is describing the emerging configuration of American politics, as we move thoughtlessly towards a custodial society.
At present, the country in the aggregate seems unsettled by this possibility, as large numbers of people on both sides of the current left-right divide hold dear the idea of individual initiative and the traditional American conviction that anyone (really anyone) can improve his circumstances in life.
Once these people conclude (rightly or wrongly) and accept that there is a permanent division in society between its productive members and its dependent ones, we may be on the road to a polity more like what we see in places in South America than what has largely prevailed in the United States. A little permeability for individuals between the classes of "Makers" and "Takers" will not be seen to invalidate the larger "truth": that one segment of society cannot be relied on to be responsible for itself, and that the productive segment, either out of nobless oblige or (more likely) enlightened self-interest needs to provide for, possibly quarantine, and thereby pacify, the former.
Intimations of the underlying idea about the essential incompetance of large numbers of our fellow citizens can be seen on both sides of the ideological divide today. The jealous guarding of "merit" by both sides is, of course, the seed by which such a social arrangement would be justified.
Ironically, it seems to me that the fulfillment of Pres. Obama's policy dreams would only hasten the arrival of this state of affairs, which could be as imminent as a generation away. Right now, though, it all seems like the plot to a science fiction novel. Need I add that I find this entire prospect odious, and something to be avoided? Not the least of my concerns is that such a society would be inimical to religious Christians and Jews.
At present, the country in the aggregate seems unsettled by this possibility, as large numbers of people on both sides of the current left-right divide hold dear the idea of individual initiative and the traditional American conviction that anyone (really anyone) can improve his circumstances in life.
Once these people conclude (rightly or wrongly) and accept that there is a permanent division in society between its productive members and its dependent ones, we may be on the road to a polity more like what we see in places in South America than what has largely prevailed in the United States. A little permeability for individuals between the classes of "Makers" and "Takers" will not be seen to invalidate the larger "truth": that one segment of society cannot be relied on to be responsible for itself, and that the productive segment, either out of nobless oblige or (more likely) enlightened self-interest needs to provide for, possibly quarantine, and thereby pacify, the former.
Intimations of the underlying idea about the essential incompetance of large numbers of our fellow citizens can be seen on both sides of the ideological divide today. The jealous guarding of "merit" by both sides is, of course, the seed by which such a social arrangement would be justified.
Ironically, it seems to me that the fulfillment of Pres. Obama's policy dreams would only hasten the arrival of this state of affairs, which could be as imminent as a generation away. Right now, though, it all seems like the plot to a science fiction novel. Need I add that I find this entire prospect odious, and something to be avoided? Not the least of my concerns is that such a society would be inimical to religious Christians and Jews.
9.19.2012 | 11:21am
Jim Bowman says:
Romney said what he said was inelegant. Poorly chosen, I'd say. But it got the .5% who pay attention to do some serious thinking. Anna Williams wrote inelegantly, I would argue, betraying ignorance of context, that is, how much more is involved here than a disembodied explication of words floating out there somewhere. But she also got discussion going. Public forum, right? Good.
9.19.2012 | 11:36am
Rick says:
Re: Faith McDonnell
No, I'm sorry, but Romney didn't make a simple, non-judgmental statement of "fact." He said that people like me will never take responsibility for their lives. It was an attitude of towering moral superiority. You are choosing to ignore that aspect of his speech. Moreover, he said that I don't pay taxes. That is false. I pay plenty of income taxes. This was an obvious effort to discredit half the population. But you have chosen not to recognize that because it makes him look smug and self-righteous, and you don't want to see him that way.
My slam of his extravagant life-style was a response to Mark K's comment defending Romney while stating that I, with my frugal lifestyle, am really turning my back on God in favor of putting my material fullfillment above all things. Whether or not there are rich Democrats is beside the point. I haven't had a rich Democrat denigrate me as a parasitical hedonist yet. When one does, I'll deal with it.
You should read David Brooks reaction to Romney's speech: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/18/opinion/brooks-thurston-howell-romney.html?_r=0
He is a conservative Republican who was mentored by Bill Buckley, but he is not a Randian Libertarian. If you are suspicious of my opinion, maybe you would listen to him.
No, I'm sorry, but Romney didn't make a simple, non-judgmental statement of "fact." He said that people like me will never take responsibility for their lives. It was an attitude of towering moral superiority. You are choosing to ignore that aspect of his speech. Moreover, he said that I don't pay taxes. That is false. I pay plenty of income taxes. This was an obvious effort to discredit half the population. But you have chosen not to recognize that because it makes him look smug and self-righteous, and you don't want to see him that way.
My slam of his extravagant life-style was a response to Mark K's comment defending Romney while stating that I, with my frugal lifestyle, am really turning my back on God in favor of putting my material fullfillment above all things. Whether or not there are rich Democrats is beside the point. I haven't had a rich Democrat denigrate me as a parasitical hedonist yet. When one does, I'll deal with it.
You should read David Brooks reaction to Romney's speech: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/18/opinion/brooks-thurston-howell-romney.html?_r=0
He is a conservative Republican who was mentored by Bill Buckley, but he is not a Randian Libertarian. If you are suspicious of my opinion, maybe you would listen to him.
9.19.2012 | 12:10pm
Noahdiah says:
Should each Christian strive to be self-supporting financially, and to use a portion of their resources (which include, but are not limited to, financial resources) spread the Gospel, help those who need food, clothing, shelter, medical care, and education? Are not such actions consistent with, and in furtherance of, the teachings Christ gave each of us? In so doing, we both pay taxes and give to the Church and to charitable causes – and are we are also responsible stewards, accountable for how our taxes are spent by those we elect, and how our donations are spent by those to whom we donate? I believe the answers are “yes.” When I am required by law to pay into government programs (which may range from defending our nation against attack to providing healthcare for those who cannot provide for themselves) that I am convinced are failing to provide what is required, must I in conscience vote for those candidates who propose solutions? If I am required by law to pay taxes for government programs that I find incompatible with my faith – and incompatible with the Constitution – must I in conscience vote for candidates who propose changes that respect my faith and the Constitution? If I am able to be self-supporting in part or in whole, and I choose not to do so, are those actions sinful? I believe the answers are “yes.”
9.19.2012 | 12:18pm
Artaban7 says:
"In 2005, the percent of Americans who were on welfare totally without working was 3.8%. Romney conjured that number roughly up to 47% implicitly by saying he could not convince 47% of the nation to take responsibility for their lives. "
Bill, would you mind providing citation on the 3.8% number you provide?
That is still a huge number of people (11.86 million). How many more are working less than they are able? Less than they should? How many more are dishonestly claiming they are working but are not (for whatever reason, whether shame that they aren't or otherwise)? Finally, I don't believe Unemployment benefits or Workman's Compensation benefits are considered "welfare", even when Congress extends those benefits to 99 weeks (beyond what some paid into it), or someone injures themselves or is injured on the job.
I also disagree that there is an implicit claim that 47% don't take responsibility for their lives. There was a claim that 47% don't pay income taxes, and that's accurate. When 76 million don't pay any income tax, 74.1 million people are children, and 11.86 million are collecting without doing any work, how long can a system sustain itself? That's over half the population not contributing enough to be taxed on income. Minorities can't sustainably support the majority, no matter how much you take from them.
Bill, would you mind providing citation on the 3.8% number you provide?
That is still a huge number of people (11.86 million). How many more are working less than they are able? Less than they should? How many more are dishonestly claiming they are working but are not (for whatever reason, whether shame that they aren't or otherwise)? Finally, I don't believe Unemployment benefits or Workman's Compensation benefits are considered "welfare", even when Congress extends those benefits to 99 weeks (beyond what some paid into it), or someone injures themselves or is injured on the job.
I also disagree that there is an implicit claim that 47% don't take responsibility for their lives. There was a claim that 47% don't pay income taxes, and that's accurate. When 76 million don't pay any income tax, 74.1 million people are children, and 11.86 million are collecting without doing any work, how long can a system sustain itself? That's over half the population not contributing enough to be taxed on income. Minorities can't sustainably support the majority, no matter how much you take from them.
9.19.2012 | 12:20pm
Brendan says:
This article has drawn a lot of criticism, but I think that it makes some very good points. I also think that a lot of the people heavily criticizing the article have made some errors in their reading of Romney's comments.
1. Mr. Romney was talking about the campaign process and the election, and that was indeed the context for this comment. That is true. But in his comments about the 47%, he did not limit himself to the topic of the election. He made much broader statements that extended beyond the narrow confines of trying to win an election. Because of that, he ended up disparaging almost half of the nation. He should have apologized for (at least) misspeaking, and he should have clarified his position when given the chance.
2. People keep saying 47% pay "no taxes" instead of "no federal income taxes." This is a hugely important distinction. Only 18.1% (not even close to 47%) of Americans pay no payroll or federal income taxes. They may still be paying state income tax, real estate tax, and sales tax. More than half of that remaining 18.1% are elderly. That leaves less than 8% of individuals who could fall into the category Romney describes as victims with a sense of entitlement.
3. Romney himself acknowledged in a debate (responding to Gingrich) that if capital gains tax were eliminated, he would pay no taxes. If what he said was true, then he has at times paid no federal income tax. That would make him one of the so-called 47%.
4. It seems strange to blame the 47% on the Democratic party and their "government-centered society" as Romney puts it, considering that the reason this number is so high is (a) the state of the economy, which was already tanking horribly before President Obama stepped into office and (b) tax breaks originally authored by the Republican party and extended under the President Obama. Both parties played a role in this. But, on the same note, when those tax breaks expire and as the economy recovers, that number will swing back down again quite significantly.
Sure, there are people mooching off the system. Sure, there are lazy people in this country, as there are everywhere. But it's a terrible mistake to throw around numbers like 47% and conflate non-payment of federal income tax with a "taker" mentality and then say that you have no responsibility towards such people. If Romney merely misspoke, then he should clarify his statements. But in my opinion, even if he's just given up on the 8%, that's still too much of the country to write off.
1. Mr. Romney was talking about the campaign process and the election, and that was indeed the context for this comment. That is true. But in his comments about the 47%, he did not limit himself to the topic of the election. He made much broader statements that extended beyond the narrow confines of trying to win an election. Because of that, he ended up disparaging almost half of the nation. He should have apologized for (at least) misspeaking, and he should have clarified his position when given the chance.
2. People keep saying 47% pay "no taxes" instead of "no federal income taxes." This is a hugely important distinction. Only 18.1% (not even close to 47%) of Americans pay no payroll or federal income taxes. They may still be paying state income tax, real estate tax, and sales tax. More than half of that remaining 18.1% are elderly. That leaves less than 8% of individuals who could fall into the category Romney describes as victims with a sense of entitlement.
3. Romney himself acknowledged in a debate (responding to Gingrich) that if capital gains tax were eliminated, he would pay no taxes. If what he said was true, then he has at times paid no federal income tax. That would make him one of the so-called 47%.
4. It seems strange to blame the 47% on the Democratic party and their "government-centered society" as Romney puts it, considering that the reason this number is so high is (a) the state of the economy, which was already tanking horribly before President Obama stepped into office and (b) tax breaks originally authored by the Republican party and extended under the President Obama. Both parties played a role in this. But, on the same note, when those tax breaks expire and as the economy recovers, that number will swing back down again quite significantly.
Sure, there are people mooching off the system. Sure, there are lazy people in this country, as there are everywhere. But it's a terrible mistake to throw around numbers like 47% and conflate non-payment of federal income tax with a "taker" mentality and then say that you have no responsibility towards such people. If Romney merely misspoke, then he should clarify his statements. But in my opinion, even if he's just given up on the 8%, that's still too much of the country to write off.
9.19.2012 | 12:49pm
Mark K says:
Re response from Rick,
Rick you may well be the in the 47% Mitt spoke of and that’s for you to discern. He stated these are the people who will vote for Mr Obama and that he will never be able to convince otherwise. Is that you?
Social Security sounds like a big thing to you. If you worked and paid into the Social Security Trust fund, it doesn’t make you a deadbeat to be receiving benefits. It’s a trust fund, one pays in, and then receives benefits. That’s how the system was set up. However, if one worked in some field that permitted them to accept cash (I know some barbers like this), pay a minimum if any tax, and no social security or FICA tax, and now they’re claiming these benefits, …that’d qualify them as deadbeats. The point is they intentionally made the decision not to pay into the system (their fare share and Mr Obama likes to say).
You keep trying to drag your son into this as well. Society provides a period of time for kids to grow up, be educated, even go to college, with the premise this is an investment in the next generation, the next group of productive citizens. However, they are expected to eventually transition into the work place and make their contribution back into our society, by paying taxes (to include Social Security and FICA), repaying student loans, and so forth. If your son goes into the military, and is a productive member of society, that’s great, it’s what’s expected of him. However, if one returns home, sits in the basement playing video games, and defalts on their student loans, then yes, that’ll qualify them as a deadbeat. And I know several of these individuals. This is why I exclude babies, youths, etc from Anna Williams claim of makers and takers. I feel it’s quite a reach extending this topic into prolife matters.
So my point is stop playing the victim here (yes I know are Mitt’s words). No you don’t have the money and mansions that Mitt Romney has, but neither do I, most people don’t. I’ve got a clear conscious that I’ve worked for and earned the little bit I have. If you can say the same thing, then you should have a clear conscious as well. God blessed some people with great wealth but most of us (like you and me) without it. I like the story about Lazarus and the rich man, … the first will be last and last will be first. Our reward is waiting in heaven. I wish you luck in your travels to that reward. But in the mean time we need to decide who to vote for. Is Mitt Romney unworthy simply because he’s wealthy? Is Mr Obama more worthy because he’s less wealthy? As a Catholic, I need to reconcile my vote with who is most in line with the teaching of the Church (abortion, same sex marriage, HHS contraception mandate, etc). I’ll make my vote on these criteria and place my faith in God to work the other things out for us. And that will keep my conscious clear. And yes, there are at least 47% of voters who will never vote for Mitt Romney regardless of what the Catholic Church teaches!
Rick you may well be the in the 47% Mitt spoke of and that’s for you to discern. He stated these are the people who will vote for Mr Obama and that he will never be able to convince otherwise. Is that you?
Social Security sounds like a big thing to you. If you worked and paid into the Social Security Trust fund, it doesn’t make you a deadbeat to be receiving benefits. It’s a trust fund, one pays in, and then receives benefits. That’s how the system was set up. However, if one worked in some field that permitted them to accept cash (I know some barbers like this), pay a minimum if any tax, and no social security or FICA tax, and now they’re claiming these benefits, …that’d qualify them as deadbeats. The point is they intentionally made the decision not to pay into the system (their fare share and Mr Obama likes to say).
You keep trying to drag your son into this as well. Society provides a period of time for kids to grow up, be educated, even go to college, with the premise this is an investment in the next generation, the next group of productive citizens. However, they are expected to eventually transition into the work place and make their contribution back into our society, by paying taxes (to include Social Security and FICA), repaying student loans, and so forth. If your son goes into the military, and is a productive member of society, that’s great, it’s what’s expected of him. However, if one returns home, sits in the basement playing video games, and defalts on their student loans, then yes, that’ll qualify them as a deadbeat. And I know several of these individuals. This is why I exclude babies, youths, etc from Anna Williams claim of makers and takers. I feel it’s quite a reach extending this topic into prolife matters.
So my point is stop playing the victim here (yes I know are Mitt’s words). No you don’t have the money and mansions that Mitt Romney has, but neither do I, most people don’t. I’ve got a clear conscious that I’ve worked for and earned the little bit I have. If you can say the same thing, then you should have a clear conscious as well. God blessed some people with great wealth but most of us (like you and me) without it. I like the story about Lazarus and the rich man, … the first will be last and last will be first. Our reward is waiting in heaven. I wish you luck in your travels to that reward. But in the mean time we need to decide who to vote for. Is Mitt Romney unworthy simply because he’s wealthy? Is Mr Obama more worthy because he’s less wealthy? As a Catholic, I need to reconcile my vote with who is most in line with the teaching of the Church (abortion, same sex marriage, HHS contraception mandate, etc). I’ll make my vote on these criteria and place my faith in God to work the other things out for us. And that will keep my conscious clear. And yes, there are at least 47% of voters who will never vote for Mitt Romney regardless of what the Catholic Church teaches!
9.19.2012 | 1:25pm
Esteban says:
"This reductionist, utilitarian idea says that one’s worth as a human being is determined by one’s contributions to society."
No, it doesn't. It says that subsidiarity and solidarity demand that taxes both be broad and shallow. The tax base should be expanded to include everyone, even the poor, and it should be at very low rates.
No, it doesn't. It says that subsidiarity and solidarity demand that taxes both be broad and shallow. The tax base should be expanded to include everyone, even the poor, and it should be at very low rates.
9.19.2012 | 2:08pm
Matt says:
An excellent piece, Ms. Williams. I too am disturbed by the contemptuous tone Mitt Romney adopts toward people who are poor -- many of whom pay a higher percentage of their modest incomes to the government in the form of payroll, property, and state taxes, along with other local taxes. It's puzzling that eight of the 10 states with the highest percentage of people Romney considers "moochers" are solidly Republican. His base is not so much wealthy, independent people as the poor and uneducated, some of whom still believe his policies. Romney has embraced Paul Ryan's Randian, anti-government, anti-regulation ideology that caused our current economic woes in the first place. It has been a long, hard, slow, upward battle to pull the country back from the brink of the depression that Bush's policies left behind. Wanton mortgage lending, as Alan Greenspan has opined, was fueled by misplaced faith in free market ideology and has cost millions of Americans their homes, jobs, and savings. In the meantime, many of the businessmen who contributed to the problem were able to bail with huge golden parachutes made to them by the government and paid for by ... all those poor folk Romney pledges not too worry about. I don't think many Americans want European-style socialism, but we need to free ourselves of parasitic corporations that are wiping their feet on the poorest and most vulnerable members of our society.
9.19.2012 | 2:14pm
Jason Sharbaugh says:
The matter really deals with the flip side of the politically useful phrase that we "tax the rich and use that revenue to help the poor". Instead, the opposite is stated, "cut taxes and cut entitlements". Just as the former is received uncritically well many times, the latter is received poorly and thoughtlessly many times. The nature of spurning growth to benefit everyone in the economy via tax cuts and removing the effects of generational poverty in welfare statism can be and would need to be better explained to alter such reality. Untill people own productive parts of the economy with their own money, poverty continues. It may be that such may not be feasible for many people in their lives, but a movement to that carries with it greater social justice and compassion than without such a goal.
9.19.2012 | 2:16pm
Bernard Gasper, CPA says:
"If you worked and paid into the Social Security Trust fund, it doesn’t make you a deadbeat to be receiving benefits. It’s a trust fund, one pays in, and then receives benefits."
While I understand and generally agree with what you are saying, that social security benefits are related to prior payments and not gratitutious transfers, there is no "trust fund".
A trust fund, as commonly used means a reserved group of assets, held for the benefit of its beneficiaries, and subject to common trust requirements such as prudent management, the requirements of separation, diversification, exclusivity of benefit and inalienability. If a trust is not managed properly, beneficiaries have legal recourse against the trustees-with SS you not only don't have a right of recourse, you don't even have a legally enforceable right to benefits-even though you "earn" them through tax payments levied against employment earnings and you are sent a statement of "earned" benefits annually.
A fund, in government speak represents "a self balancing set of accounts", in other words merely a separate accounting (not legally separate) entity.
None of those elements are present in social security. Taxes are used to pay current recipients, and the obligations incurred as a result of taxes are only secured by the expected taxes to be levied on the future workforce, and the younger you are, the more likely your benefits will paid by people not only not yet working, but not yet born.
In short, it is social, but not secure. The publicity films from the 30's and 40's (available on the web) that showed Uncle Sam depositing your SS taxes in a vault and calling it "insurance", "bought and paid for" represent a most egregious form of deceptive advertising.
While I understand and generally agree with what you are saying, that social security benefits are related to prior payments and not gratitutious transfers, there is no "trust fund".
A trust fund, as commonly used means a reserved group of assets, held for the benefit of its beneficiaries, and subject to common trust requirements such as prudent management, the requirements of separation, diversification, exclusivity of benefit and inalienability. If a trust is not managed properly, beneficiaries have legal recourse against the trustees-with SS you not only don't have a right of recourse, you don't even have a legally enforceable right to benefits-even though you "earn" them through tax payments levied against employment earnings and you are sent a statement of "earned" benefits annually.
A fund, in government speak represents "a self balancing set of accounts", in other words merely a separate accounting (not legally separate) entity.
None of those elements are present in social security. Taxes are used to pay current recipients, and the obligations incurred as a result of taxes are only secured by the expected taxes to be levied on the future workforce, and the younger you are, the more likely your benefits will paid by people not only not yet working, but not yet born.
In short, it is social, but not secure. The publicity films from the 30's and 40's (available on the web) that showed Uncle Sam depositing your SS taxes in a vault and calling it "insurance", "bought and paid for" represent a most egregious form of deceptive advertising.
9.19.2012 | 2:45pm
bill bannon says:
Artaban
Different link...same results but more recent...4.1%
http://www.statisticbrain.com/welfare-statistics/
And you need to listen to the video again.
Different link...same results but more recent...4.1%
http://www.statisticbrain.com/welfare-statistics/
And you need to listen to the video again.
9.19.2012 | 2:48pm
Dan C says:
I think an important point is that the "Makers" are defined as the highest echelons of wealth.
Having spoken to some minor folks aspiring to be "Makers" their functional atheism is palpable. They lack senses of community and consider all government servants, such as police, ambulance, and soldiers, as a form of servant for them, as in "Don't I pay taxes so the police will take care of this?" This is the insight into this life and mind.
We are not all "Makers." That is a whitewash of the discussion that the Makers are having. Makers, at their level of wealth, are debating whether to keep their welath in the US or move it off-shore, as well as themselves, since they are becoming concenred they are taxed too highly on their multi-billions.
Ryan and Romney speak to Makers to try to keep these folks' money in the US. We are not all "makers." Few of us are, but the conservative catechism has become the following:
Q: Why were you Created?
A: To love, honor, and serve the "Makers."
Having spoken to some minor folks aspiring to be "Makers" their functional atheism is palpable. They lack senses of community and consider all government servants, such as police, ambulance, and soldiers, as a form of servant for them, as in "Don't I pay taxes so the police will take care of this?" This is the insight into this life and mind.
We are not all "Makers." That is a whitewash of the discussion that the Makers are having. Makers, at their level of wealth, are debating whether to keep their welath in the US or move it off-shore, as well as themselves, since they are becoming concenred they are taxed too highly on their multi-billions.
Ryan and Romney speak to Makers to try to keep these folks' money in the US. We are not all "makers." Few of us are, but the conservative catechism has become the following:
Q: Why were you Created?
A: To love, honor, and serve the "Makers."
9.19.2012 | 3:42pm
Thomas says:
She speaks well and makes an important point regarding our Christian responsibilities towards the weak and oppressed among us. But.....unless I'm totally missing out on some recent change in the standard fiscal-conservative argumentation on welfare, responsibility, taxation, and all that stuff; the target of her argument is an enormous straw man in place of what most Republicans and Libertarians actually believe: charity works most efficiently on the personal scale where it can uplift and restore dignity rather than stripping it away, where innovation and cost-awareness can maximize the benefit of limited resources, and where individuals can support the causes which best match their own vision of the world without being subject to the threat of force. I'll also point out that while Romney's point may have been based on exaggerated statistics and poorly spoken, it isn't hard to recognize the problems that ensue when the majority of your nation are entirely dependent on the government and a centrally planned economy, and the impossibility of being a candidate who wants to change the system once that happens (until it collapses). I would go so far as to suggest it takes a great deal of naivety and a poor memory (or lack of global awareness) not to be aware of them: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aii7mMl4gOA
Also, this (specifically the mouseover text) is incredibly topical: http://xkcd.com/1049/
Also, this (specifically the mouseover text) is incredibly topical: http://xkcd.com/1049/
9.19.2012 | 4:22pm
Esteban says:
Dan C
When the Makers become targets for the Takers, then the Makers take their ball and go home.
If the Makers are as greedy and godless as you claim (they're not), then we need to find a way to put their self-interest in alignment with our interests. That means reducing the cost of investment and production. It means lowering the cost of capital. It means lower taxes, fewer regulations, strict application of simple, sensible laws.
When the Makers become targets for the Takers, then the Makers take their ball and go home.
If the Makers are as greedy and godless as you claim (they're not), then we need to find a way to put their self-interest in alignment with our interests. That means reducing the cost of investment and production. It means lowering the cost of capital. It means lower taxes, fewer regulations, strict application of simple, sensible laws.
9.19.2012 | 4:59pm
Dan C says:
Esteban says:
"If the Makers are as greedy and godless as you claim (they're not), then we need to find a way to put their self-interest in alignment with our interests. That means reducing the cost of investment and production. It means lowering the cost of capital. It means lower taxes, fewer regulations, strict application of simple, sensible laws."
I find this indistinguishable from serving them. What does one suggest is the limit of our service? The re-appearance of child beggars and the lame on our streets?
Some folks argue that one should let the Goliath that is the government cease all support for others, despite the enormous immediate economic impact such a withdrawal of capital from the markets would entail. The response is that the moneys would go to support decent economic activity over navel-gazing government activity. Perhaps. But I say the same thing for the makers. Let them go. They prevent industry and innovation more through aggressive manipulation of markets than they do to help them. In fact, since we are not really talking anymore about people who Create things (the original John Galt standard) but people who manage money, then we have no loss of Creative talent. Just a loss of a bunch of gamblers.
Let the Makers run. They have it good here, they can try to find a better life somewhere else.
The right wing, so obsessed with family over the years has forgotten community. The Christian lives in a community, and if the Makers cannot participate in this community, we are better off without them. Everyone loses, but most of all the Makers.
"If the Makers are as greedy and godless as you claim (they're not), then we need to find a way to put their self-interest in alignment with our interests. That means reducing the cost of investment and production. It means lowering the cost of capital. It means lower taxes, fewer regulations, strict application of simple, sensible laws."
I find this indistinguishable from serving them. What does one suggest is the limit of our service? The re-appearance of child beggars and the lame on our streets?
Some folks argue that one should let the Goliath that is the government cease all support for others, despite the enormous immediate economic impact such a withdrawal of capital from the markets would entail. The response is that the moneys would go to support decent economic activity over navel-gazing government activity. Perhaps. But I say the same thing for the makers. Let them go. They prevent industry and innovation more through aggressive manipulation of markets than they do to help them. In fact, since we are not really talking anymore about people who Create things (the original John Galt standard) but people who manage money, then we have no loss of Creative talent. Just a loss of a bunch of gamblers.
Let the Makers run. They have it good here, they can try to find a better life somewhere else.
The right wing, so obsessed with family over the years has forgotten community. The Christian lives in a community, and if the Makers cannot participate in this community, we are better off without them. Everyone loses, but most of all the Makers.
9.19.2012 | 5:05pm
bpuharic says:
Amazingly enough, as a liberal atheist, I agree completely. I think the key point is that human existence can not be crudely reduced to material value, in spite of the rhetoric of the hard right. This is Ayn Randism at its purest and most outrageous.
9.19.2012 | 11:39pm
Chris B says:
The challenge for all who advocate a private safety net (including me) is that it requires significant financial support of not-for-profits, including churches. If everyone gave like the Romneys or Obamas, we could do away with government safety nets. Sadly that sort of generous giving is limited to a few, which leads to an ever-expanding government safety net.
9.20.2012 | 1:52am
Rick says:
RE: Mark K
Thank you for your thoughtful response to my response. Much of what you say makes good sense. Unfortunately, what Romney said was not so sensible.
I dragged my son into this because Romney's statistic of 47% cannot be arrived at, as I keep saying, without including EVERYONE who gets any kind of aid from the gov't, such as student loans. And by the way, student loans are on the chopping block big time if Ryan's budget proposal goes into effect, and if they aren't chopped then the interest rates are likely to go sky high when they are privatized. This is not a pretty picture to contemplate, if it happens. Even with the loans, my family is at the absolute breaking point trying to make up the tuition payments that are left over.
The most comically unreasonable part of Romney's comments, though, is that, statistically, the majority of the 47% who depend on some sort of gov't aid while not paying income taxes are NOT voting for Obama. They are Republicans! If you track the levels of dependence on gov't aid programs against the levels of income tax payments, the biggest "taker" states turn out to be red! This is why David Brooks, in his column, pointed out that Romney doesn't really know the society or people he wishes to govern.
Thank you for your thoughtful response to my response. Much of what you say makes good sense. Unfortunately, what Romney said was not so sensible.
I dragged my son into this because Romney's statistic of 47% cannot be arrived at, as I keep saying, without including EVERYONE who gets any kind of aid from the gov't, such as student loans. And by the way, student loans are on the chopping block big time if Ryan's budget proposal goes into effect, and if they aren't chopped then the interest rates are likely to go sky high when they are privatized. This is not a pretty picture to contemplate, if it happens. Even with the loans, my family is at the absolute breaking point trying to make up the tuition payments that are left over.
The most comically unreasonable part of Romney's comments, though, is that, statistically, the majority of the 47% who depend on some sort of gov't aid while not paying income taxes are NOT voting for Obama. They are Republicans! If you track the levels of dependence on gov't aid programs against the levels of income tax payments, the biggest "taker" states turn out to be red! This is why David Brooks, in his column, pointed out that Romney doesn't really know the society or people he wishes to govern.
9.20.2012 | 1:15pm
Eileen says:
I'm not sure why it is hard to comprehend that one would phrase something differently while preaching to the choir, but basically Romney expressed that he wasn't planning on spending the donations to the campaign on the large section of the electorate who would be voting to protect their government entitlement.
Regardless of whether they see that the economy is a shambles, they intend to keep their checks coming in as long as possible. A large portion of them also believe they'll be able to find work again if they really have to somewhere down the road. But not today, please.
Regardless of whether they see that the economy is a shambles, they intend to keep their checks coming in as long as possible. A large portion of them also believe they'll be able to find work again if they really have to somewhere down the road. But not today, please.
9.20.2012 | 5:50pm
Steve says:
"For even when we were with you, we used to give you this order: if anyone is not willing to work, then he is not to eat, either."
2 Thessalonians 3:10
"Takers" are not all in one category. The have-not's, who are willing to work given the opportunity, are a very different breed from the will-not's, who have no interest in hitting their potential--they just want the hand out. And they are far more numerous than "just a few." To feed the will-not's is as unbiblical as to refuse to help the have-nots, but this government makes no effective distinction. Stealing from a wealthy man to feed 20 who refuse to work is immoral, unethical, sinful and stupid.
Oh, and pastor's income is by NO means tax free--not even close. I know--I am one. Every April I pay dearly.
2 Thessalonians 3:10
"Takers" are not all in one category. The have-not's, who are willing to work given the opportunity, are a very different breed from the will-not's, who have no interest in hitting their potential--they just want the hand out. And they are far more numerous than "just a few." To feed the will-not's is as unbiblical as to refuse to help the have-nots, but this government makes no effective distinction. Stealing from a wealthy man to feed 20 who refuse to work is immoral, unethical, sinful and stupid.
Oh, and pastor's income is by NO means tax free--not even close. I know--I am one. Every April I pay dearly.
9.21.2012 | 1:18am
Charlie says:
Let's set this straight, this was a video that never should have been taken. It was taken by some Democratic pundit who could wait for the appropriate time to use it. The purpose for it was to inform his followers that they would not get a certain part of the vote no matter what. I see it all the time, Democrats will be Democrats with gay agenda and apologizing to America for the freedoms we do enjoy.
Beyond that, how much more do taxpayers have to endure so the poor can have their toys and eat too. The taxpayers are the ones making jobs for the rest. They are the ones who invest and keep America financially afloat.
Most of your comparisons do not wash nor do you compare apples to apples. Tell us when enough is enough and what percentage is fasir for you?
Beyond that, how much more do taxpayers have to endure so the poor can have their toys and eat too. The taxpayers are the ones making jobs for the rest. They are the ones who invest and keep America financially afloat.
Most of your comparisons do not wash nor do you compare apples to apples. Tell us when enough is enough and what percentage is fasir for you?
9.25.2012 | 3:41am
John O'Shea says:
Commentators have pointed out that:
1) Most Americans pay many other federal taxes.
2) The overall tax burden is relatively flat, when all state, federal and local taxes are accounted for.
3) Many people who pay no income tax are not especially parasitic – senior citizens (who paid taxes over a lifetime, and to a large degree self-funded their Social Security benefit) and veterans, to name a couple.
4) Many people who fail to pay taxes in one year did pay them before or after. Circumstances like a layoff let them off the hook for federal income tax.
5) The percentage of people who didn’t pay federal income tax spiked up 10 percentage points in 2009, largely because of the weak economy.
1) Most Americans pay many other federal taxes.
2) The overall tax burden is relatively flat, when all state, federal and local taxes are accounted for.
3) Many people who pay no income tax are not especially parasitic – senior citizens (who paid taxes over a lifetime, and to a large degree self-funded their Social Security benefit) and veterans, to name a couple.
4) Many people who fail to pay taxes in one year did pay them before or after. Circumstances like a layoff let them off the hook for federal income tax.
5) The percentage of people who didn’t pay federal income tax spiked up 10 percentage points in 2009, largely because of the weak economy.
The future of conservatism will depend on whether it can articulate the human telos in terms of the objectively good and not the subjectivity of market processes.