Mitt Romney calls 47% Of Obama supporters “victims”

Mitt Romney in his own words finally tells us what he really thinks. I thank Romney for his straight talk and I hope people listen carefully to what he shares. Share your thoughts.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.


  • JanCorey  On September 18, 2012 at 12:25 am

    Mitt may be right. There are far too many uneducated people in America.

  • Espresso Rose  On September 18, 2012 at 12:59 am

    Reblogged this on espressorose and commented:
    I am NO victim because I support my President! What are your thoughts?

    • JanCorey  On September 18, 2012 at 1:57 am

      Basically, my guess is that if you support the President, then you likely do not have a college degree, with all due respects.

      • Spanish Inquisitor  On September 18, 2012 at 1:58 pm

        Well, that’s just stupid.

        For Example:

        According to an ABC News/Washington Post poll taken last week, Obama trails Romney among white men with college degrees by 13 points, 55 to 42 percent. This is comparable to ’08, when Obama also secured 42 percent of the college-educated white male vote. But with non-college-educated white men, Obama runs 29 points behind Romney in the ABC/WaPo survey, 61 to 32 percent.

        And this.

        So, it’s really all the uneducated blue collar voters that comprise a significant portion of the Romney base. That’s a base that’s clearly not known for it’s educational superiority.

        Anecdotally, I have a college degree and a graduate degree, and I support Obama on purely intellectual, evidence-supported grounds.

        My “educated ” guess is that you are an idiot….With all do respect. 😉

      • Espresso Rose  On September 24, 2012 at 4:32 pm

        Really, sir? I have three degrees: BA in Sociology, BSW (Bachelor of Social Work), MSW (Master of Social Work) an LMSW (Licensed Master Social Worker) and am working toward yet another social work licensure. So, what is your point???

      • JanCorey  On September 24, 2012 at 6:06 pm

        Yes, really. It’s one thing to hold a piece of paper (T too have several), it’s another to gain the knowledge being taught.

  • Bill  On September 18, 2012 at 3:01 am

    Are you offended by Romney stating the statistic that 47% of the income tax filers pay no federal income taxes or are you suggesting that it is an inaccurate stat.

    Your headline on your blog is deceptive and inaccurate. Romney did not call Obama’s supporters victims; he said those who receive government benefits see themselves as victims. This is a direct quote:

    “There are 47% of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right there are 47% who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who BELIEVE they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe they are entitled to healthcare, food, to housing, to you name it. That that’s an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what”.

    Do you disagree with his premise? If you care to take exception to what was actually said then do so. I have personally seen more that my share of freeloaders who game the system and will vote for Obama in hope of keeping the free stuff coming. I’ll bet you have too.

    • Spanish Inquisitor  On September 18, 2012 at 2:30 pm

      I understand what he’s saying, Bill. He’s saying those that pay no income tax (the poor and lower middle class) will not be convinced to vote for a man who’s sole economic policy is to cut taxes for people who are not them. So it looks like he’s writing them off, as he claims Obama has written off the rich.

      I disagree with him, however, in the generalization that people who pay no or little taxes feel like victims, and will vote for Obama in order to retain the presumed benefits of their “victimhood”. That seems like such a simplistic, and frankly, condescending view of almost half of America, and tends to show just how insulated he is from the people he wants to represent. (Do you really think half of America wants to be on welfare, or food stamps, or otherwise receiving some form of charity? If so, you’re deluding yourself.)The issues are far more complex and nuanced than that. To write them off as potential voters is insulting, and they should be insulted. If I was one of them (my tax returns say I’m not) I would be insulted. So would you.

      It’s also a very divisive viewpoint. Instead of thinking of Americans as “we’re all in this together” he breaks us up into competing subgroups, fighting each other for the same slice of the pie. How demeaning, how cynical can you get?

      • Bill  On September 18, 2012 at 5:00 pm

        SI that is your understanding of what he is saying , my take is different. My understanding is based on my life experience and a direct connection to the social underclass in America. In fact, I consider myself one who escaped and emerged from the social underclass. I saw first hand the attempts of white liberals to enlist those in the black community where I grew up into various and assorted “victimization” programs. Thank God (no offense meant by invoking his name) that I had the benefit of parents who were wise enough to recognize the pitfall of dependency on government and taught me to eschew it. That has changed only in the fact that those attempts are even more pervasive today. Imagine advertisements on television and radio promoting everything from food stamps to free cell phones. Romney’s going to compete with this? Right.

        I believe that most of the white liberals who were and still are the purveyors of the poverty programs are generally well intentioned, though misguided. The so called compassion that motivates those of that ilk is in rooted in the inveterate belief that minorities are innately intellectually inferior. Of course we can’t be expected to thrive and prosper without what they call tilting the playing field and providing additional support. Please forgive me for invoking race into this discussion but I’m unable to discuss this topic, particularly when my opponent is a white liberal, without pointing out their culpability in this issue. Then there are the politicians who recognize that creating dependency on government can amass a huge voting constituency as we are discussing.

        Perhaps in the world where you grew up and live it is incogitable that anyone would consciously choose to live on the dole. But let me assure you that although does not apply to everyone who receives government benefits but there are many.

      • Spanish Inquisitor  On September 18, 2012 at 6:15 pm

        I’m not the only one saying it.

        Imagine advertisements on television and radio promoting everything from food stamps to free cell phones.

        I can’t imagine it. But apparently you can…The imagination being the only place you’ll find it.

        “…but there are many.”

        “Many” and 49% of the population of 320 million does not equate.

  • rjasondavis  On September 18, 2012 at 6:51 pm

    Truth hurts. Obama is a socialist President and feeds off the ignorant with the perception that he cares for the poor. He doesn’t care for the poor, he cares for their votes. The easiest person to manipulate is someone that is in dependent mode. Its that simple.

  • Bill  On September 18, 2012 at 7:04 pm

    SI please check out the links to my imagination:

    Let’s get on the food stamp train

    Free cell phones

    Also, I totally don’t get your point about “Many” and 49% of 320 million does not equate. But go figure, I don’t have a masters degree.

    • Spanish Inquisitor  On September 18, 2012 at 8:24 pm

      You learn something new every day. 😉

      Didn’t know about the food stamp radio spots, but then they weren’t in my state. (And I don’t trust that FOX clip.)Though if you read down that article, you find that they are informational, not “promotional” (which implies that they are actually soliciting people who wouldn’t otherwise be eligible) and it’s because 3 out of 4 people don’t know they qualify, despite needing the program. I’m not exactly sure what you think is going on here that you feel Romney needs to “compete” with. And then there’s this:

      President Bush launched a recruitment campaign, which pushed average participation up by 63% during his eight years in office. The USDA began airing paid radio spots in 2004.

      As for the cell phones, they aren’t being promoted on TV (at least that clip you provide doesn’t indicate it) and the program actually goes back to Reagan. Again, what is he competing against? He’s running for President with a political plan to run the country. If he wants to get rid of food stamps and cell phones for the poor, he should just say so, and let the voters choose. Like he is with Medicare (during those moments he’s against it – hard too say when). The fact that Medicare is a program that the government runs does not mean he’s competing against it. He’ll be in charge of it if he wins.

      49% of 320 million is 157 million. according to your cite, only 46.4 million are on food stamps. As mind boggling as that number is, it’s not 49% of the country. You don’t need a master’s degree to do arithmetic.

      It started when you said “many” consciously choose to live on the dole. Aside from the question of “choice”, how many actually of that 49% do you think would prefer food stamps to a good job? Your implication is that Romney is right to ignore 49% of the population ,because they are all shiftless losers who would prefer to receive government benefits, than vote for a man who will take them away. My point is that if you really could drill down though all those numbers, your “many” would be a lot less than you think it is. Probably closer to >1%

      • Spanish Inquisitor  On September 18, 2012 at 9:18 pm

        Two more things. It’s 47%, not 49%. My bad, though the extra two percent makes no difference to my argument.

        Second, this.

      • Bill  On September 18, 2012 at 10:56 pm

        SI, Informational not promotional? You have to be an attorney to come up with this kind of spin. But you are right about one thing. Many people are unaware that they are now eligible for food stamps because the Obama admininistration has lowered the threshold so much. That is an absolute fact. How else do you think the expansion of the program has almost doubled since 2009? To be fair I suppose the president’s failed economic policy which has destroyed the jobs of so many has caused many to fall VICTIM to eligibility for the program.

        Actually, they’ve done the very same thing with the Social Security Disability program. Individuals who have exhausted their unemployment benefits are being directed to file disability claims declaring emotional distress. This type of claim is very difficult to disprove. Oh yes, and the beneficiaries are not counted as unemployed which helps those statistics and it certainly endears the president to them. He’s gotta lock up those votes.

        What I think is going on that Romney has to compete with is a current president who has vastly expanded the giving away of free stuff. Romney, being a big government progressive, is unlikely to differ very much in terms of government expansion. Unfortunately for him, he allowed the Democrats to define him.

        Check out the link on the success of the president’s disability program and the failure of jobs creation.

        I’m aware of your disdain for FOX NEWS but unfortunately stories that don’t redound positively for the president are difficult to find in mainstream news sources. Please feel free to point out any inaccuracies that you uncover.

      • Bill  On September 21, 2012 at 5:29 pm

        CRS report: number of able-bodied adults on food stamps doubled after Obama suspended work requirement

        SI, I saw this story and thought it would disabuse you of the notion that everyone who receives public assistance only do so as a last resort. If that is the case, then why did the enrollment in the food stamp program among able bodied adults double after the president suspended welfare work requirements?

      • Spanish Inquisitor  On September 21, 2012 at 7:12 pm

        Just saw your response from the other day…

        To be fair I suppose the president’s failed economic policy which has destroyed the jobs of so many has caused many to fall VICTIM to eligibility for the program.

        I’m sorry, Bill. I can only laugh when I read this stuff. If only we could pin the blame on the current President. Alas, we can’t. But we can try…You sure are making an effort, just like all the Republicans in Congress who refuse to vote for legislation that may help the economy so that they can advance the interests of their political party.

        This type of claim is very difficult to disprove.

        Actually, it’s very difficult to prove. Have you ever handled a SS claim? I didn’t think so. The burden of proof is on the claimant. Go try and tell the SSA that you’ve been emotionally distressed. Be prepared for more laughter.

        I’m aware of your disdain for FOX NEWS but unfortunately stories that don’t redound positively for the president are difficult to find in mainstream news sources.

        Gee I wonder why? And from that you conclude a massive news conspiracy to prop up the President, with only FOX gallantly paving the way to truth? You do keep me chuckling there, Bill. Keep it up.

        You know, Bill, we’re getting away from Joni’s point in her post, which is that Rmoney thinks that 47% of the population are to be ignored, because they are sucking on the government teat. Joni thanks him for his honesty. I do too. It’s refreshing to hear his innermost thoughts, told only to people who were paying $50,000 apiece to hear him say it. For $50K, he better damn well be honest with them.

        I don’t doubt that there are people out there who will game the system. Anecdotally, I can think of lots who do. I had 3 people in my office a week or so ago, and in conversation with them, I found out that all three were receiving SS disability, or so they said. They didn’t look disabled, and they looked like they were in their 20s. I didn’t think very highly of them for it, and wondered what their disability was, but I really didn’t have all the facts either, so I withheld judgment.

        But what I didn’t do is decide to vote for Romney because of it. Nor did I blame Obama.

        I have another client who lost her job 19 months ago. She got unemployment, then that ran out. Needed three operations on her back in the meantime. Not sure what she’s doing now for income. Fortunately she has medical benefits paid through her ex-husband, who is retired military. If you ask Jan, who comments here, she would have those benefits cut off. That’s good anecdotal evidence to vote for Obama, but I wouldn’t do that either.

      • Spanish Inquisitor  On September 21, 2012 at 8:04 pm

        I saw this story and thought it would disabuse you of the notion that everyone who receives public assistance only do so as a last resort.

        No need to do so. I never said that nor do I believe it. See my previous comments.

        What really surprises me is is that you seem surprised that adults on food stamps might increase significantly when the unemployment rate went from about 4.25% to 10% in about a year. That, to me, is simply one of those “D’uh” moments.

        You do know why work requirements were suspended don’t you? it’s in the statute. It’s a fail safe measure for when the economy tanks, as it did in 2007. Able bodied adults couldn’t find jobs. Without jobs, they find it hard to pay for groceries. Food stamps are the safety net we, as a society, set up to help people in need. The statute says that the states have the ability to request waivers of the work requirements in times of national need. They did, many of them Republican controlled states, because people needed it. And now, you want to vote for a guy WHO DOESN’T GIVE A SHIT ABOUT THOSE PEOPLE!? And is openly honest about his lack of empathy?

        Sorry, I find that absolutely incredible, heartless, and unchristian like.

        And you wonder why I’m not a Christian? With Christians like those, who needs enemies.

      • JanCorey  On September 21, 2012 at 8:35 pm

        Well put S.I.,, you described it so well. Thanks. Personally, I think food-stamp-money should all be a loan and make it mandatory to be repaid in full; but make the required payments very small.

  • Bill  On September 21, 2012 at 9:05 pm

    What on earth makes you think that I wonder why you’re not a Christian?

    • Spanish Inquisitor  On September 21, 2012 at 11:12 pm

      The generic, plural “you”. Not you personally. The subject has come up here elsewhere.

    • elogam  On September 23, 2012 at 2:28 am

      S.I., Romney is NOT a christian; he’s a Mormon. And you insist that he doesn’t care about these people. He cares about them just as much as does Obama. Only difference is he doesn’t pander to them and offer bread and circuses to appease them. Both sides are being too general and painting too broad a brush here. There ARE people who are content to be on the public dole, and many more who do not. Romney said he spoke “ineligantly” and could have said it better meaning there are some in that 47% who match that description to a ‘T’ but a spectrum of others who want nothing more than to get off the dole. Nobody gets to this level in politics being so ignorant as to think EVERYONE on public assistance WANTS to be there permanently. The MSM wants this to continue and fester so they don’t have to get back to pointing out the failures of this administration to deliver on it’s promise of “Hope” and “Change”. Don’t blame the Republicans, the Dems had two years of a filibuster-proof majority and they squandered it on Obamacare. The electorate issued the administration a yellow card warning at the mid-terms, and the president didn’t take a page from the Book of Clinton and moderate itself. We need to get back on message and tell the truth: Obama is a nice guy, but he’s just not presidential material.

      • Spanish Inquisitor  On September 24, 2012 at 4:57 am

        Elogam, lets be precise. Romney IS a Christian, by the nature of his beliefs. Anyone that believes in Christ, by definition, and label, is a Christian. He is not of the Protestant sect, and all its variations, because historically Mormonism did not arise out of the “protests” of the Reformation. In fact, the formal name for Mormonism is “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints”

        Catholics are Christian also. In fact they are the original Christian religion.

        Romney’s “47% speech” has nothing to do with his Christianity, or his Mormonism.n fact, in many ways it’s contrary to the teachings of the so-called Christ. It’s even contrary to the teaching of the LDS church. It’s opportunistic, because, as usual, he says what he thinks his audience wants to hear. and those paying $50,000 a plate to hear him speak don’t want to hear him repeat Jesus teaching about taking care of the poor. So he skips that.

        But you have me convinced.

        Yeah, and that’s what’s wrong with this country. All those people out there on the dole, spending our tax dollars, wasting them on food, and medical care, and housing. How dare they spend 5% of the federal budget on the non-working poor! We ought to be properly adding that to the 55% we spend on the military. Hey, I know, why don’t we draft the non-working poor into the military and kill two birds with one stone? Then we could just add the cost of the poor to the 3.7 trillion we’ve already spend in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan.

        Yes. That’s the ticket. That should solve all our problems.And then get rid of the black man in our White House because he started those wars.

        Didn’t he? I’m sure he did. That sneaky, Muslim Kenyan is just not presidential materiel.

        …don’t have to get back to pointing out the failures of this administration to deliver on it’s promise of “Hope” and “Change”.

        I guess Hope and Change, like beauty, are in the eyes of the beholder. Some of us are still waiting for Bush to deliver on his “compassionate conservatism,” and his promise to “be a uniter, not a divider”. We’re not holding our breath though.

%d bloggers like this: