5 ms·
That conclusion about red states being overrepresented in the untaxed 47% was the first thing I thought of. It makes me think that Romney mis-spoke, was panderi
by MartinCron 14y ago
That conclusion about red states being overrepresented in the untaxed 47% was the first thing I thought of. It makes me think that Romney mis-spoke, was pandering, or has been seriously taken out of context. I have a hard time buying into the narrative that he is so clueless about American demography.
- lotharbot 14y agoThe rest of the comment makes me think he's pandering. The picture he paints is of people who simply take from the government and don't have any interest in taking care of themselves. By connecting that picture to the 47% number, he's trying to convince people that there's a huge entitlement problem and that we need to take back the country from the lazy. But of course the 47% of non-taxpayers includes retirees who've paid their fair share of taxes in the past, students who will enter the workforce and pay plenty of future taxes, and working families who don't earn enough to offset deductions and credits (a family of 4 can earn about $51,000 without owing taxes, due to the standard deduction, personal exemptions, child tax credit, and making work pay credit.) If Romney phrases his accusation carefully enough, people in these categories will think "he's not talking about me", and yet still may get riled up about "the huge number of lazy people who don't pay taxes".
- elmuchoprez 14y agoMy guess is that he was pandering. The statements were made at a fundraiser where he's trying to echo the narrative of the crowd, not present a realistic overview.
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- antidoh 14y agoWhy? Do you think he studies demography? He studied business and business people, and he has people feeding him things to say.