Romney Thinks That Obama Supporters Are 'Victims' Who Rely on Government Handouts: Is He Right?

by Chris D Posted 2012/09/18 17:00:00

Related Topics: 2012 Election, Barack Obama, Mitt Romney, Obama, Democrat, Election, Democrats, President Obama, Economy, President Barack Obama, Ticket, Voters, Democrat Victims, Romney, Republican

Read More

2,242 votes
Read all 2,051 opinions
Lightning Report View Results and Demographics + View Demographics

Loading Demographics... Click an icon to see demographic results Display unknown and private
	Yes	645 votes	29%
	No	1,410 votes	63%
	Partially	187 votes	8%

Romney has gone and done it again. The Republican presidential candidate called 47 percent of Americans "victims" for supporting President Obama in a recent video of him talking at a private fundraiser.

Romney thinks Obama supporters are living off of state handouts, and he is probably right for about 10-15 percent of them... but it's that other 85-90 percent of Democrats that go to work and participate in the economy that he should be trying to get to vote for him! Insulting potential voters is most likely not the wisest strategy, and you know Obama will be all over this in the debates. Remember Regan Democrats? That's what he needs to win. Good luck with this one, Mittens.

NEWS.YAHOO.COM reports:
Mitt Romney stood by his comments captured on a hidden camera at a closed-door fundraiser earlier this year in which he called supporters of President Barack Obama "victims" and said they are reliant on government handouts. In a hastily arranged news conference Monday night, he called his words "off the cuff" and "not elegantly stated."

victims reliant government handouts hastily arranged news conference monday cuff

+49

Add a comment above

Heisenberg 2012/09/18 17:03:31

Partially

+35
More like exploiters.

The vast majority of people that take government assistance should be earning their own way instead of taking the earnings of others.

But it is easier to vote for Democrats than actually working so the collapse of our economy will continue.
>> See Replies

More polls by Chris D

R.J. to Lazaro ... 2012/09/19 09:23:38

+1
2008 crash, Think about it.

reply
Torchma... to R.J. 2012/09/19 12:32:43

+2

reply
Lazaro ... to R.J. 2012/09/20 06:11:20

I remember pretty well. Obama was a Senator during that time, and the Senate and House was controlled by Democrats. From January 2005 thru January 2011.

reply
Purple ... to Lazaro ... 2012/09/19 11:46:34

+2
Thank you!!

Best illustration I've seen on this thread.

reply
chgo to Lazaro ... 2012/09/19 19:03:16

your graphic is hardly accurate. More people have been put on food stamps under Bush than under Obama, according to the most recent figures.
the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food and Nutrition gives month-by-month figures going back to January 2001 of how many people PARTICIPATe in the food stamp program. they show that under President George W. Bush the number of recipients rose by nearly 14.7 million. Nothing before comes close to that.

And under Obama, the increase so far has been 14.2 million. To be exact, the program has so far grown by 444,574 fewer recipients during Obama's time in office than during Bush's.

http://www.fns.usda.gov/pd/SN...

reply
Lazaro ... to chgo 2012/09/20 06:15:58

Oh really?

I love the wonderland you live in.

Here are the real numbers. Www.usdebtclock.org

Www.opensecrets.org

reply
chgo to Lazaro ... 2012/09/21 00:54:43 (edited)

mmmmkaaaaaaay...so how is this drivel you've posted to me relevant to the particular subject at hand? food stamps isn't one of the programs that are causing our budget deficits why don't you stay on topic?

reply
Lazaro ... to chgo 2012/09/21 05:36:46

That's obvious you don't want to learn the truth. But that's ok, keep watching and using your source of "news" like NBC and media matters.

reply
\V/ to Lazaro ... 2012/09/20 03:00:34

$\V/$

+1
The whole rotten system is coming down

reply
Lazaro ... to \V/ 2012/09/20 06:17:29

Are you a Ron Paul guy?

reply
\V/ to Lazaro ... 2012/09/20 13:24:15

$\V/$

+1
No!

reply
Lazaro ... to \V/ 2012/09/21 05:39:37

Oh, ok. :)

reply
chgo to \V/ 2012/09/21 00:52:32

I understand your discontent with Obama, but there is never one single nominated presidential candidate you agree with 100 percent. think about it. who's worse: Obama or Romney? would you rather want Obama or Romney? If you don't vote this November, you don't win, you lose. the GOP actually wins.

reply
\V/ to chgo 2012/09/21 01:19:27

$\V/$

+1
Obama is a puppet, if you can´t see it, thats too bad. To me he is a fascist pig. I do not want either of them and the day I can really do something about it, will be a good day to die.

reply
Jeh 2012/09/19 05:30:41
sjalan 2012/09/19 05:27:43

No

+4
He's an ass looking for a political casket.

reply
lynn 2012/09/19 05:12:43

Yes

+4
I'm not sure of how accurate his percentage is (47%), but there is no arguing that Lyndon Baines Johnsons' vast expansion of welfare (the purpose of which, by his own statement, was to gain political control over those entering the programs) has created a subculture of dependents which is so far out of control as to threaten the very security of our national system. For decades, we have rewarded failure to contribute to the national economy through securing work. We have payed those on welfare to breed and increase the numbers of dependents. And we have failed to police this monster by not requiring drug testing or community service in order to "earn" those welfare checks. This is simply fact, not opinion. Now we have an influx of illegal aliens who are also being given welfare benefits, and whose children-- many of whom cannot speak English-- are being educated in our public schools, at the taxpayers' expense. Some may argue this, but I see it every day. In our small town alone, they come in, are directed straight to a government-sponsored centre which gets them set up on WIC and gets their kids enrolled in the local school system. They are aided in securing housing as well. Our local hospital was forced to close its' maternity ward because there were so many illegal...

I'm not sure of how accurate his percentage is (47%), but there is no arguing that Lyndon Baines Johnsons' vast expansion of welfare (the purpose of which, by his own statement, was to gain political control over those entering the programs) has created a subculture of dependents which is so far out of control as to threaten the very security of our national system. For decades, we have rewarded failure to contribute to the national economy through securing work. We have payed those on welfare to breed and increase the numbers of dependents. And we have failed to police this monster by not requiring drug testing or community service in order to "earn" those welfare checks. This is simply fact, not opinion. Now we have an influx of illegal aliens who are also being given welfare benefits, and whose children-- many of whom cannot speak English-- are being educated in our public schools, at the taxpayers' expense. Some may argue this, but I see it every day. In our small town alone, they come in, are directed straight to a government-sponsored centre which gets them set up on WIC and gets their kids enrolled in the local school system. They are aided in securing housing as well. Our local hospital was forced to close its' maternity ward because there were so many illegal aliens coming in, having more children, and being unable to pay for any of it. So yes, I would have to say Romney is absolutely correct in what he says, and his numbers (though frightening, and rightly so) may also be correct. And it's the working American man and woman who pay for this through an inflated tax burden.
(more)

reply
johnqpu... to lynn 2012/09/19 05:56:57

It's the abuse and fraud of the system that distort,both ideologically and financially, the original intent of those programs.

reply
lynn to johnqpu... 2012/09/19 13:50:40

+1
I agree. With a few simple adjustments, the entire welfare system could be returned to its' original purpose, that of serving as a temporary refuge for those who are between jobs or have been hurt and are unable to work for a time. One major step in the right direction would be to require drug testing to qualify for public assistance AND housing, across the board, no exceptions. Equally effective would be (unless physical injury prevented it) requiring a certain amount of hours in community service each week in order to receive any type of welfare assistance, including WIC. And if you're in this country illegally, you're already committing a crime and certainly shouldn't qualify for ANY type of government assistance. Nor should any kids be able to enter public schools without proving they are here legally. This would be a good start to bringing some common sense back to governing, and bringing relief to the overburdened taxpayer.

reply
R.J. to lynn 2012/09/19 09:25:24

+1
GOP Nut

reply
Purple ... to R.J. 2012/09/19 11:54:52

+2
GOP nut? No. Your's is the response of a simple minder.

We've had over 40 years with this War on Poverty experiment of LBJ's and it has done nothing but expand the problem, expand the rolls, and expand the budget.

At what point do you begin to expect positive results?? At what point do you admit that continuing to throw money at the failed system ISN'T WORKING?

How about the Public School system? The dems just love to throw that one out there as justification for thier bloated government. 'Oh, the republicans simply want to starve the poor and make our children suffer" comes of the mouths of the likes of Pelosi and Wasserman Schultz.

Right. We spend a significant amount of our State and local budgetst, not to mention Fed dollars on the public schools. To get what? Piss poor results? Continued declines in reading, math, and graduation rates? Having to import a large chunk of our hard sciences people from Asia? The more we spend, the worse the systems become.

Get a clue, liberals. It's damned past time for serious reform of the government structure from top to bottom.

reply
lynn to R.J. 2012/09/19 14:04:30

+2
Actually, I am a distant cousin to former president Harry Truman, and my dad worked for both Jack and Bobby Kennedys' campaigns, so no, I am not a GOP nut. The fact is that the Democratic party has abandoned its' original positions and become an extremist movement whose agenda is to undermine genuine republican democracy and replace it with a pseudo-communist/fascist state wherein everyone is, at least in some form, dependent upon the
government (and subject to government control). The Republicans are also guilty of abandoning common sense and embracing certain extremist positions which are contradictory to its' original positions when it was the party of Lincoln and (Teddy) Roosevelt. It's clearly a choice between the lesser of the two evils in this election, and while I sharply disagree with Mitts' crazy idea that the middle class are those who make $200,000 a year and completely fail to understand why the GOP ever climbed into bed with radical evangelicals, I can see the Democratic partys' platform, if successful, being the beginning of the end for the Constitutional United States. I have nothing personal against Obama, and I like to think he means well, but the direction he's taking us is nothing less than dangerous to the principles of liberty and personal responsibility this nation was built on, and to the continued security of this country.

reply
ssmithix 2012/09/19 05:05:37

Partially

+5
Let's put it this way - not all Dems are handout seekers but all handout seekers are Dems

reply
johnqpu... to ssmithix 2012/09/19 05:59:09

Uh nice try, but if you read it, the analogy, the way you wrote it, doesn't work.

reply
Purple ... to johnqpu... 2012/09/20 05:14:26

Pfffbt.

No, it indeed makes sense. Think back to elementary math class. Sets and subsets. Draw circles and label them if you must.

reply
johnqpu... to Purple ... 2012/09/20 06:18:06

Purple, take your meds and go back to your alternate reality. Better yet, just go to bed it's way past your bedtime.

reply
Purple ... to johnqpu... 2012/09/20 10:14:44

You are the simpleton that can't understand the statement. I don't need meds. You on the other hand could use a tutor.

reply
Reichstolz to ssmithix 2012/09/19 06:20:22

+2
Perfect!!

reply
rustyshackelford 2012/09/19 05:01:02 (edited)
princess_kelly 2012/09/19 04:59:54

Partially

+2
I think many of the do

reply
R.J. to princes... 2012/09/19 09:26:40

+1
You Think?

reply
Darr247 2012/09/19 04:48:02

No

+3
The only "government handout" I get is their 'hand out' to collect taxes from me.

And It wouldn't bother me a bit if they raised the eligibility age on SS/medicare by a year every other year for the next 30 years to bring the eligibility and avg lifespan ages back in line to where they were when socialist security started paying out in 1940... even though that means I'd have to wait almost 10 years longer to collect any... at least it would still be solvent then, which at the rate it's going now will NOT be the case without such an adjustment, as the actuaries have been advising since the 1960s was needed.

Average lifespan had already increased by more than 10 years when Reagan raised the eligibility age by 3 years and made the 5-year sliding benefits/age window... average lifespan in the US has risen another 10 years since THEN.

reply
Stix 2012/09/19 04:32:11

Yes

+5
The number isn't 47% but those who will vote for Obama in order to keep their government check coming are amoung that 47% who will just flat vote for Obama no matter what Romney does...but that leaves 53% for Romney if he would only grow some balls and take this lousy economy, the high unemployment rate, this hugh 6 trillion dollar deficite Obama has run up and jam it down Obama's throat...grow a pair Mitt!

reply
garyt212 to Stix 2012/09/19 04:56:52

+1
I agree 100%

reply
william... to Stix 2012/09/19 06:37:43

+1
RIGHT ON!!!

reply
miss Smarty 2012/09/19 04:27:06

Partially

+2
Depends, There are people who are dependent on the government for food and medical insurance who would give anything for a good job with health benefits so they are totally independent but can;t get the opportunity to do that because of a misfortunate chain of events. Then there are those who want to be lazy bums and sit on there asses and do nothing to help themselves.

reply
eliosc 2012/09/19 04:26:25

Yes

+3
At least, most of the Democrats I know love free stuff and hate the "rich" and those who work hard to have a decent life.

reply
Luv♥Luv 2012/09/19 04:26:03

Yes

+3
Mostly!

reply
cali 2012/09/19 04:23:19

No

+4
You know, one reason I'm not voting for Romney is because he wants to take away government funds from people who need it. That includes financial aid and student loan for college. That basically means I won't be able to go to college because unlike some people not everyone has money even though we work hard. It's also ironic because even Romney uses money from the government. You know he isn't paying for everything he gets.

reply
knothead to cali 2012/09/19 04:59:55

+2
Aw gee and did you ever think of trying to help yourself? It's a new concept called work and help yourself. Really rather unique don't you think? Stop feeling sorry for yourself and get up and do something constructive.

reply