Saturday, September 18, 2021
HomeFeatured EntriesThe 47%-ers for Mitt

The 47%-ers for Mitt

Limousine liberals and government workers for Obama are not among The 47%

Who knew that private political fundraisers produce bitter clinger identifications across the political spectrum? Famously, during the 2008 presidential campaign, thanks solely to conservative media, Barack Obama was revealed to have identified Democratic primary voters for Hillary in Pennsylvania as racist, religious, gun nuts.

Last May, Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney, in a similar private forum, identified those happily dependent on government as bitter clingers to their benefactor, President Barack Obama:

“There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what,” he said emphatically at the fundraiser. “All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That that’s an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what…These are people who pay no income tax.”

The 47% for Obama would include many, but not all, of The 47% that pay no federal income tax, as well as those dependent on Big Government for their employment. We suspect that many of the 1%-ers for Obama are bitter for having to pay protection money, from the wrath of a self righteously liberal press, via the tax code, but many are also quite happy to have the federal government carry out their Utopian experiments as they watch the tragic results from gated communities, but I digress.

There is overlap between the respective 47%-ers, and Romney would do well to make that clear, but Mitt should welcome the debate and we applaud his call for a release of the entire video. He should also acknowledge that most of those that file a tax return reporting income insufficient to be taxed under current law, work hard for their low incomes and are among those suffering the most under Obama’s FDR-like experimentation during this Second Great Democratic Party Depression. Moreover, over half of those paying no federal income tax per se, do pay federal FICA/Social Security and Medicare taxes, despite the EITC.

The coalition that constitutes Obama’s, and most any Democrat’s voting coalition, does include many low-income earners, but is better defined by identity politics groups such as labor union workers, government employees, environmentalists, feminists, pro-abortionists, gay rights activists, race and “the poor”. With respect to the latter, we suspect that most of the poor that regularly vote for Democrats actually file no federal income tax return.

The issue raised by Mitt Romney also touches upon a significant portion of American voters rarely identified in public discourse and insufficiently documented in unemployment statistics. They are a significant portion of the 47% of no-FIT payers but also part of a Silent Majority of tea partiers that can’t wait to vote for the Romney/Ryan ticket. These voters achieved their American dream of self employment via entrepreneurship from the mid-90s until the bursting of the housing bubble in 2008. Add to them, those lower income workers that desire to make more income and eventually “qualify” to pay FIT, and voila, the path to a Romney/Ryan landslide is revealed.

The two groups of 47%-ers are not the same, but Romney’s main point still obtains: If you don’t want to remain dependent on government, don’t vote for Obama and the Democrats. Instead, vote for Mitt Romney and Republicans that have maintained a safety net for the truly needy, Medicare and Social Security every time they have held power in Washington, D.C., but who also keep the boot of the federal government off of the necks of those that create jobs and wealth that benefit all.

Mike DeVine

“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson

Editor – Hillbilly Politics

Co-Founder and Editor – Political Daily

Atlanta Law & Politics columnist –  Examiner.com

Mike gamecock DeVine
A trial lawyer for two decades in South Carolina; owner of Ati Vista LLC since 2002 now associated with Lupa Law Firm; VP & Counsel for Buddy Allen Roofing & Construction Inc. since 2016 in Atlanta, Georgia; and a freelance writer, DeVine was the conservative voice of the Charlotte Observer from 2006-8 and has been the owner of HillbillyPolitics.com since 2009. www.devinelawvista.com

12 COMMENTS

Leave a Reply

12 COMMENTS

  1. One historical fact is that for the past 64 years (16 terms) no Democrat has received over 50 % for more than one term, and the only Democrat who got elected to a second term never received over 50% for either term. There are some nervous Nellys that ignore history or they forget.

  2. I, for one, am glad this video leaked out. Once it was in the open, Mitt had only two choices: walk it back…or embrace it.
    Against the advice of many of his handlers and such successful, stalwart campaign consultents like Steve Schmidt (he of McCain fame), Mitt chose to embrace it and make this election about what it should be about (and what I was hoping that the selection of Paul Ryan was all about) which is the role of government in people’s lives.
    I just hope Mitt stays away from his “handlers” long enough to actually have the discussion.

    • agreed eburke, and given that the video was an off the cuff discussion I hope that now he can more fully explore the three different categories of 47% and discuss them coherently so as to make clear that conservatives that want less government are members of two of those categories (low income workers and/or receiving some form of govt aid) and ask for their votes.

    • What Burkey said. For the analyst this is a great way to survey how Romney interacts with his handlers, as they, most likely to the man, want to walk it back, while he wants to push it forward. Let’s hope he wins. The Man from Bain would have.

      • In Atlanta today, Mitt pushed back pretty well today and given that the video was more about who to target for votes in which he mixed up three different categories of people, I think he’s doing OK. I do hope he understands by now, after blowing it with Cavuto, that many of those not paying FIT, do pay FICA and Medicare that is not offset by the EITC; and ARE receptive to his tax cut policy so that economic activity is spurred that can help them get to the point at which they do earn enough to pay taxes. Mitt should also make clear that he is NOT proposing to raise taxes on anyone.

  1. One historical fact is that for the past 64 years (16 terms) no Democrat has received over 50 % for more than one term, and the only Democrat who got elected to a second term never received over 50% for either term. There are some nervous Nellys that ignore history or they forget.

  2. I, for one, am glad this video leaked out. Once it was in the open, Mitt had only two choices: walk it back…or embrace it.
    Against the advice of many of his handlers and such successful, stalwart campaign consultents like Steve Schmidt (he of McCain fame), Mitt chose to embrace it and make this election about what it should be about (and what I was hoping that the selection of Paul Ryan was all about) which is the role of government in people’s lives.
    I just hope Mitt stays away from his “handlers” long enough to actually have the discussion.

    • agreed eburke, and given that the video was an off the cuff discussion I hope that now he can more fully explore the three different categories of 47% and discuss them coherently so as to make clear that conservatives that want less government are members of two of those categories (low income workers and/or receiving some form of govt aid) and ask for their votes.

    • What Burkey said. For the analyst this is a great way to survey how Romney interacts with his handlers, as they, most likely to the man, want to walk it back, while he wants to push it forward. Let’s hope he wins. The Man from Bain would have.

      • In Atlanta today, Mitt pushed back pretty well today and given that the video was more about who to target for votes in which he mixed up three different categories of people, I think he’s doing OK. I do hope he understands by now, after blowing it with Cavuto, that many of those not paying FIT, do pay FICA and Medicare that is not offset by the EITC; and ARE receptive to his tax cut policy so that economic activity is spurred that can help them get to the point at which they do earn enough to pay taxes. Mitt should also make clear that he is NOT proposing to raise taxes on anyone.

Must Read