You’d have to be living under a rock if you didn’t recognize 47 percent as the new Number-du-Jour.
Yesterday’s media frenzy over the secretly taped Mitt Romney video continues to fuel discussion over the presidential election, the GOP, not to mention the meaning of the 47 percent figure which Mr. Romney referenced while speaking to a group of wealthy supporters behind closed doors.
Lest you somehow missed the memo, allow me to hit the highlights. Mr. Romney describes 47 percent of Americans as:
… dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it… These are people who pay no income tax.
Huh.
I’m guessing I’m one of the 47 percent. What about you?
Relative to the 47 percent, it seems Mr. Romney went on to specify that his job “is not to worry about those people” and he will “never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives.”
Once again I say, Huh.
Not an eloquent response, I know. But the offending statements aren’t much in the stately rhetoric department either.
Numbers as Symbols and Sound Bites
Frankly, I’m relieved to latch on to a number other than 1 percent. I was weary of the 1 percent versus 99 percent rendition of class warfare. I’d prefer to return to a time when 1 percent conjured the sort of milk to pick up at Kroger. Then again, there’s that worry over the price of milk – and everything else – that really needn’t figure into my budget as a member of the 47 percent expecting the government to pick up the tab.
Now, now. Of course we use numbers – as symbols, as accomplishments, to illustrate a point or size a problem. We throw them around liberally (as we do catch phrases), and we don’t bother to delve into their composition, or even their context.
As to the 47 percent example, I easily fall into that category in the past 10 years – in some respects.
I’ve been one of those who didn’t pay federal income tax as my income didn’t qualify. Those were bad years. Terrible years. I have earned my keep since college (and before), and not being able to provide for my family was humiliating.
We stayed afloat as I liquidated anything I could, the result of decades of work, and I covered the rest on small sums received for projects, along with debt. So other figures come to mind – like 14 percent – in bank card interest.
Naturally, I paid other taxes – self employment tax (for Social Security and Medicare), state tax, sales tax, property taxes that nearly equal my mortgage payment. And that’s my mortgage payment after losing our home, and subsequently relocating and downsizing by two thirds.
I also took every freelancing or contract project I could get my hands on, working around the clock to keep going, while raising my sons against a backdrop of post-divorce skirmishes.
Asking for Help
It took years for me to get over my pride and ask for help.
Sometimes I asked and was dismissed, to my surprise, by those closest to me whose lack of support is something I will never understand.
Sometimes I asked and was wowed by the generosity and concern of strangers. I sensed they valued community – which isn’t about political parties, religious affiliations, geographic locations – only about extending a hand because it could be any one of us. I will never forget their kindness, and I will always pay it forward.
Things are better now, but like millions in this country I live with financial fear and zero safety net – because I do not have an employment relationship on which so-called “entitlements” are based.
And yes, I believe that my country should enable me to receive affordable health care that is not tied to the presence or absence of a job. Wait, let me clarify – an employment relationship. And no, I don’t believe I should have to choose between food on the table for myself and my children, or a visit to the doctor.
So am I dependent? Unwilling to take personal responsibility? Am I in the 47 percent or out of it? Based on which criteria?
Questions We Might Consider
Sometimes, we focus on the wrong things. Or, we focus on one thing because it’s easier when there are so many issues that plague us we feel overwhelmed.
We may focus on a salary figure we need in order to cover the bills, a number of years of marriage to feel good about our lives, an SAT score for one of our children that will increase the likelihood of college that we hope, somehow, to finance.
We may focus on a number of payments that remain before we own our car or home – though our homes may be worth less than we paid for them and what we do about that, we’re still unsure.
Sometimes we focus on a single question like “Are you better off” and we listen to various constituencies say “Yes, I’m better off” or “No, I’m not better off” and we feel the anger, the frustration, the desperation – and we get it. Maybe we’ve been there. Maybe we’re still there.
But what if reducing anything to a single number (of the moment) or a single question (equally trendy) isn’t the best approach? What if we should be asking many questions, looking at many figures, and delving into as many as we can?
At the very least shouldn’t we ask – “better off in what way, and due to what?”
47 Percent, 14 Percent, 100 Percent
Relying on numbers to paint a picture is useful in some contexts and with limited purpose. Percentages and dollar figures catch our attention with their relative magnitude. They flag problems or highlight accomplishments.
Numbers can be easy to remember, especially when they’re part and parcel of factoids.
I will nonetheless use the 47 percent figure in my own fashion, as the measure of a man – no, make that a political figure – whose easy dismissal of millions makes me uneasy.
I will use the 14% figure when it comes to credit card interest that keeps me up at night, not to mention drinking too much coffee so I may continue to work into the night, in the hope of covering my bills and eradicating my debt.
I’d call that personal responsibility, wouldn’t you?
And I will contemplate 100% – as a symbol of the percentage of the population that any nation’s leaders ought to care about, as I insist on the importance of the pronoun “we” over “I” that enabled me to keep my family going, knowing that we all want to feel good about our contributions, independent rather than dependent, and respected – even through hard times.
There is just so much wrong with that whole statement about 47% that I don’t even know where to start. So I won’t. I find politics too annoying for words.
I had to turn off the news this morning. It makes me sick.
I watched the videos. I’ve read the Republican Platform. I’ve followed the GOP for over a year as they selected their presidential candidate and formulated their strategy to “take back America”. In the beginning, it was funny. Michele Bachmann, Rick Santorum, etc. turned the Conservative movement into gaffe central. Oh what fun.
Now it’s not fun. It’s serious. Like really, really serious. Mitt Romney, the Republican Party, and the entire Conservative end of the political spectrum are so far out of touch with reality that I am scared. If these people get into power, they will knock the United States back into the Dark Ages. Democrats = warm and fuzzy. Republicans = cold and prickly. Barack Obama = step forward. Mitt Romney = step backward.
But in voicing my preference, I want to add a caveat. The electorate is an impatient lot who expect anybody in power to turn things around overnight. In 2008, the country faced the worst financial crisis since the crash of ’29. Anybody, even the Lord himself, would have a long row to hoe to get the country out of the mire it’s in. In other words, Barack Obama, the step forward, is the first step in the journey, a journey which will be long and arduous. But America, I would remind you that yes you still can.
He’s also not taking into account the fact that even if I end up with “0” as my income on my federal tax return, they still withhold an amount every paycheck, so the government has access to my funds throughout the year. I refer to that as my forced savings, and the interest on it is my own gift (tax?) to the government. And, of course, my sales taxes, my Social Security, etc.
What’s even more offensive to me than the remarks he made is that I don’t even think HE believes that. I think he just says whatever he thinks that audience wants to hear. And that is not what I seek in a leader for this country.
Well said, as usual. I find Mr. Romney’s statement so offensive and further proof that he is either woefully out of touch with real people’s problems or that he is so desperate to pander to the far right that he will say anything to placate the haters. Either way it’s shameful.
Most of us either know people who have needed help, have needed help ourselves, or have worked crazy hours at crazy jobs just to barely make ends meet. Many of us did not have parents with unlimited funds to give us a leg up- many of us were just glad not to have inherited their bills!
To dismiss millions of people’s reality is only part of what makes Romney so frightening. That and the “I’ve got mine and that’s all I care about” mentality. It is class warfare and since most of us aren’t in Romney’s class – inherited wealth, living off capitol gains, with car elevators, friends who own NASCAR teams, dressage horses and on and on – it does not bode well for us.
Perhaps I’m being stubbornly idealistic (or cynical?) in the statement I’m about to make, Deb, but what gnaws at me is that we needn’t make this about class warfare. If anything, that – to me – seems like another distraction. Sure, issues of income distribution are front and center and we’ll always be pitting the “haves” and the “have-nots” against one another to some degree.
As much as anything, what concerns me is what politics has become, and perhaps it’s nothing new – only more visible. But we don’t feel that our candidates or representatives are seeking to solve problems. Lips are loose, sound bites are simplistic, and we’re all disillusioned. Then again, as I suggested yesterday, it’s informational supply and demand. One might say we get what we deserve – through inaction as much as inaction.
That’s why I think we need to roll up our sleeves and dig in – with a newspaper, with a trusted online periodical, with discussion in our homes – including viewpoints that differ from our own. We need to think seriously about our values, our long-term vision for our communities and our country, and beyond ourselves. We need to carefully consider each candidate’s platform – and what their words and actions really mean to our future.
Part of that process, to me, is the way they deliver their message. That’s what makes this video disturbing – to me.
Agreed. We should all care about the 100%. Although I would assert that the bottom 50% deserve more attention than the top 50%. Either way you slice it, Romney seems to think that his job is to serve only those who vote for him. If he gets elected the rest of the voters are in for some tough years.
I would not consider you a part of that “47%” in any way, shape or form. The problem with the media is they thrive on sound bytes. While his wording was way off-base (just as Joe Biden’s is sometimes), I think he was trying to say that there are people in this country who do believe government can and should take care of their every need. And he probably is correct in saying that nothing will convince them otherwise. I’ve seen and known some of these types of people who try and avoid any personal responsibility for the condition of their lives, and you are definitely not of that mindset!
I don’t know what the answer is, but if 47% of the country is truly dependent on government subsidies, it won’t be long before the other 53% are taxed beyond what they will be able to handle to support these programs. It won’t just be the super rich who will be taxed more to support the government it will be everyone who is working. And then we have much bigger issues.
I am an Independent who has come to seriously dislike both parties. I can’t stomach the finger pointing and unwillingness to work together to come up with solutions that will work for everyone.
I hate listening to the ridiculous commentary that comes from both sides and I despise those who complain but refuse to vote.
And it is fair to say that I am also exceptionally irritated by those who talk about the way things should work while ignoring the reality of how they do. I have family members who make me insane because they don’t like the Electoral College and want the elections based upon the popular vote.
Fine, great. You want to amend the Constitution and make changes do something about it.
And that brings me to my friend Mitt who doesn’t understand how many of us have worked our entire lives and never asked for a handout. Mitt who doesn’t seem to recognize that has been anathema to us but some of us have gotten our asses handed to us for reasons that were truly outside of our control.
There are lots of people who want to work and are doing whatever they can to make ends meet, but some are stuck in cycles where it is virtually impossible to get ahead because you only make enough to pay the bills for this month and then there is nothing more left.
I really want to grab him and explain again the difference between a handout and a hand up because it is significant.
Sorry to rant all over your page.
Beautifully stated, Jack, if you ask me. (Rant here any time, and I share your discouragement with all the posturing, regardless of party, not to mention those who bitch but don’t act.)
And yes – a hand “up” is a far cry from a hand out.
Somebody once said that in a democracy, the people get exactly the government they deserve. I find that a scary thought, although what we have here isn’t exactly a democracy, is it?
Every time I see Mitt’s face I picture him leaning against the wall at the country club holding his drink and making fun of the people who can’t afford to be members. I live in the south and it seems like EVERYONE is a staunch republican, Romney/Ryan stickers, etc. I am SCARED of what will happen if he is elected. It will be a huge step backward. But, as bad as Mitt is, the fact that he could croak and RYAN be president makes me have chest pain and break into a cold sweat. It is so frightful.
I feel that the American people cling to numbers because they help buttress arguments. Usually, though, the arguments are spurious.
Lumping together seniors, soldiers, children, and the working poor makes for a nice big number. Looks like they’re not paying their fair share. If they’re numbers. But if they’re people: a woman who worked hard her whole life and is finally retired, a man who gave his legs fighting for a President he might or might not have believed in, teen too young to do for themselves, and parents working two minimum wage jobs and still not able to give their families three meals a day; why, then lumping them together to get a big number and then call them names is cheap. It’s cruel.
I get that some people think the government is too big. That we all pay a lot so the government can do things we don’t believe in. And there are people who think that big, multinational corporation have bent the government to their financial whims, forcing Americans to give while they (the corporations) take from workers, take from the government, and take from the planet. That banks need to be regulated; that banks will do just fine left on their own. That things will work out or that things need help to make it through okay. That people are basically hard working or that people are basically lazy.
I get that we all see things differently. But can we stop lumping each other into groups, making each other numbers of lazy vs. stupid or entitled vs. heartless?
Can we talk as people? People who are struggling, usually *really* struggling, to do the best we can? The only number I know clearly is not part of that struggle is: one. Mitt Romney. (Okay, Karl Rove makes two.) (okay, okay, Boehner makes three.) (But they’re still not a percentage of the country. They’re three people. Three people with very well paying jobs, born into opportunities and privilege and preserving those choices for their families but hesitant to give the same to others.)
I hear you, Naptime. Tossing out numbers (and tossing in all manner of unspecified groups) makes little sense, but that seems to be where we’ve arrived, in part (I think) due to our attention span.
If you are looking for more detail, you might check out this this CBS News “fact checking Romney’s 47 percent” article.
You know what scares me? It’s a lot like what Wolf Pascoe said, I think.
Democracy is by the people.
We made this mess. We are fueling this mess. It’s not the president (past, present, OR future) who is responsible. It’s not even the Congress although I tend to hold them more responsible than the Pres. It’s us. It’s our eating up all the gobblygook and crying for more more more. We’ve made this messy hateful machine and we can’t understand why it’s going on. THAT is what scares me.
I am not a fan of politics! And I’m not following Mitt or anything, but I’m also not going to jump on any bandwagon to criticize his comments either.
I was confused by what he said–maybe I heard a commentator give a twisted explanation or misheard.
Not that what he said is right either…
But I thought Mitt was saying that the 47% was 47% of Obama’s supporters and not of everyone. Either way it’s pretty bad to say, but if he meant only Obama’s supporters, maybe the percent of everyone is something like 23%.
Just wondering… If that’s the case how would it have sounded better? Would it be better to say that 23% of everyone or 47% of Obama supporters? A percentage of everyone targets everyone and sounds high just because it is out of the total. The percentage from a specific group comes off sounding lower higher when a person pays more attention to the number, but it is also a specific target to a group–which is worse?
As for his comment about not worrying about the people he won’t convince; well I do get it-though maybe I misunderstood. Though perhaps not worrying about them is not the best thing to say. But I took it as not worrying about convincing them since he won’t. If I were running for office (NO WAY I’d want to by the way) I would likely have some people that would not support me no matter what and some of those would fit into specific target groups. For exaggerated instance, I would not expect neo-nazi skinheads to vote for me, so I wouldn’t waste money trying to change their minds. And the campaigns do that. Presidential candidates spend less time in areas they feel are less convincable and more time in swing areas–and that makes sense.
Obama said that he represents everyone. Well yeah, but that doesn’t mean he will convince everyone and he knows that. But he’s not going to stop caring/worrying about them because they voted for someone else. Is Mitt going to not/stop caring/worrying for those who don’t vote for him? I doubt that is what he meant.
Now specifically regarding the 47%, that does seem absurd. Looking at the words, he wasn’t giving a statistic of those using government aid; he was interpreting the beliefs of the 47% he cited–that seems a stretch. I’m sure there are some people on assistance who feel entitled to it or are poor-me victims… But I am doubtful that most people on aid feel that way.
But I am more interested in how that data was collected. I know they do polls and stuff, but his statement was about how the people feel, not what they are doing or why? In other words, it wasn’t a statistic about what percentage of Americans receive public assistance. And what sort of assistance–was it only people over 18 he was talking about, or everyone? What about the elderly–not just the newly retired in young-older age, but people like my Grandma who needed constant care from me or my mom for her last three years? Were people who work from home without income–stay at home parents–included as people who don’t pay taxes (or are they considered paying through their spouses)?
Numbers are tricky and can often be used to show opposite things with the right interpretive spin.
How credible are political polls anyway. Scientists creating surveys spend years collecting the data which only comes after years spend creating the questions and then testing them on pilot groups and revising. Their are methods for randomization in attempts to get a sample of various age ranges or income levels or races or education levels…of course depending on the specific survey. Then they spend years coding and interpreting the data. Political polls seem pretty quick; I doubt they would pass scientific muster.
If I may intervene, I would like to say to MITT (sounds like: Mister I’m Totally Terrifying) that in my country (France) I don’t know a single citizen, rich, middle class or poor, who doesn’t feel entitled to health care. Each one of us does because: First that’s exactly what a civilized modern state does for his people, second because if we pay taxes in proportion of our means, it’s for strong primary reasons like this vital one. And we even feel entitled to that health care if we happen not to be tax payers anymore, because if some unlucky chain of economic events brought an automaker factory worker to lose his job at 50, and make him suddenly bordering bankruptcy, our response to that will never be “Don’t bother us with your distress and go die somewhere far from our eyes.”
Now if I may, is that what Mitt, the great believer in a God of love and compassion, wants to become the norm in the USA? See this video.. just asking?
It seems to me that if our politicians had to learn to live with less, if they did not get the happy pay increases whenever so that they were more like the rest of the country’s population, if they could not afford their house payments anymore but also could not sell their houses because the value had decreased so greatly, had to drive 20+ year old vehicles, wondered if they could afford to grow old – in other words, maybe if they lived like the largest percentage of this country instead of like the upper class – maybe then they’d be more willing to work hard to make things better, to spend the time they now spend slinging mud and pointing fingers thinking about what’s really needed and then acting on it – then maybe, just maybe, life could be better and we could all have a chance. Oh, and while they’re at it, they could maybe regulate those big things that need regulating and expect their population to take some responsibility for themselves. Maybe.
I’m proud to be one of the 47 % who feels entitled to healthcare.