WatchSonoma Watch

Romney just can’t escape this number

Garry Trudeau called one of his “Doonesbury” collections “Bravo for Life’s Little Ironies.” File this one under the same heading: The Washington Post is reporting that Mitt Romney’s share of the popular vote is likely to be, you guessed it, 47 percent.

“According to the latest numbers tallied by David Wasserman of the Cook Political Report, President Obama has expanded his share of the popular vote to 50.8 percent, while Romney has fallen to 47.49 percent,” the Post said. “By virtue of rounding, Romney’s share of the popular vote will be recorded here and elsewhere as 47 percent, so long as it doesn’t rise above 47.5 percent again. That seems unlikely. Wasserman projects that Romney’s vote share will actually head more toward 47 percent flat — 47.1 percent or 47.2 percent — because many of the outstanding ballots in the presidential race come from California and New York, which both voted for Obama by a large margin.”

- Jim Sweeney

39 Responses to “Romney just can’t escape this number”

  1. Kay Tokerud says:

    Who are the 47%?

    1)Working poor-huge numbers of illegal immigrants and their offspring are in this group. Many of these don’t even pay payroll taxes because they are part of the underground CASH economy. Most can receive some kinds of government benefits however. Other low income wage earners do pay payroll taxes. These legal workers can and do tend to advance over time and increase their earnings enough to pay income taxes later in their careers.

    2)Permanent unemployed- Once people discover that they can just live off the government many decide to never get a job. The perverse incentives of the social welfare system that discourages earning money feeds into this. Benefits get cut whenever these people REPORT earnings. Many, then decide to work in the underground cash economy on the side to supplement their government benefits.

    3)Retired people-Many people end up living solely on their social security benefits and are poor. Unlike others who earned pensions or saved for their retirement this group of seniors failed to adequately plan to support themselves in their retirement. Seniors that are supporting themselves are usually contributing by paying income taxes. Some seniors never worked enough to even receive social security and are on medicaid and other programs.

    What should we say then, that the 47% are for the most part consuming more than they produce? That’s an awfully high number. Anyone who’s capable of working should be working if at all possible, then those that truly need help can get it. Government should not create policies that perpetuate permanent dependence nor should they plan for this by subsidizing massive quantities of low-income housing. They are planning for poverty instead of getting out of the way of private enterprise and productivity.

    Spreading the wealth around incentivizes living off the government while at the same time discourages entrepreneurs who could be successful and create jobs. This is the recipe for disaster. We need to reduce the 47% down to a reasonable number, say 20% of the population.

    Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3

  2. sarkyfish says:

    Lincoln may have put it this way: A nation divided begins when their leader proclaims the producers greedy and the slackers all needy. Some split rails for a dollar a day, while others recline envious as they doze on the hay.

    Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1

  3. Ricardo Sorentino says:

    RE: Skippy – “Everything, everywhere, forever will always be their fault. I know that ‘cuz I read it in the NY Times.”

    And Obama tells us so!

    RE: Dan J Drummond – “Revenues may also decrease as the need lessens.”

    Now THAT’S funny!

    Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1

  4. Skippy says:

    Debt means nothing to desperate drug addicts and Democrats.
    But I repeat myself.
    When our creditors overseas finally realize that President Santa Claus has no intention of making good on his debts, and pull the plug on his insane borrowing, and prices skyrocket like Germany in the 1920′s, it will still all be the fault of Republicans.
    Everything, everywhere, forever will always be their fault.
    I know that ‘cuz I read it in the NY Times.

    Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2

  5. Dan J Drummond says:

    Lincoln may have put it this way:

    A house divided against itself cannot stand. I believe this government cannot endure permanently low revenue and high expenditure. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved—I do not expect the house to fall—but I do expect it will cease to be divided. Needed revenues must increase and wasteful expenditures must decrease. Revenues may also decrease as the need lessens.

    Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3

  6. GAJ says:

    The National Debt exceeded 50% of GDP starting with Ronald Reagan and as Baby Boomers of both parties began to take the reigns of government the pace only increased.

    Other similar runups in the past were met by eventual correction but this one has no end in sight as we seem unwilling to live within our means.

    We elect people who have no desire to cut services or are unwilling to raise taxes.

    Both recipes are doomed to fail.

    Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

  7. Dan J Drummond says:

    You’re ignoring the cause behind the increase in the national debt. Reason it out, Jack, if you can.

    Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3

  8. Sarkyfish says:

    Dan J. Drummond, do the math (if you can).

    The national debt under Bush: 4.89 trillion.
    The national debt under Obama: 15.56

    Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4

  9. Dan J Drummond says:

    Elephants shouldn’t forget that George W. Bush and the Republican Party led us to all this debt by cutting revenue, increased discretionary spending, and an unregulated financial bubble. The majority of the public hasn’t forgot. But don’t worry, next year revenue will increase, discretionary spending will be cut, and the greedy deceivers will be held responsible for their crimes against the people.

    Thumb up 4 Thumb down 6

  10. Sarkyfish says:

    Obama just can’t escape this number: he has now amassed more debt for our country than all previous presidents combined. That’s George Washington to George Bush. You’ll never hear it from the pom-pom boys at the Press Democrat, but Obama has taken us to the precipitous top of Mt. Everest when it comes to the fiscal cliff. Have a nice descent.

    Thumb up 7 Thumb down 4

  11. Reality Check says:

    LBR, “. . . have produced $1.5 trillion in savings in discretionary spending for fiscal years 2013 through 2022.”

    Houston, we have a language problem here. One doesn’t use the past tense when referring to the future, especially when we are talking about something that’s discretionary. That is, in 2018, to pick a year, Congress will appropriate money to be spent as it sees fit. And the sitting president at the time will sign or veto that spending as he sees fit. This is silly.

    In 1997 Congress enacted a law to limit Medicare costs, reducing reimbursements to doctors based on a complicated formula. The projected savings were immediately counted in all 10-year budget projections. Have they been realized? NO! The so-called doc fix is passed each year to rollover the cuts to the next year, yet the projected savings are still counted.

    The folks who worked for Enron and are now sitting in jail must be scratching their heads wondering what about their accounting tricks were worse than what Washington does routinely.

    Thumb up 6 Thumb down 3

  12. Reality Check says:


    When someone says “We’ve already made around 1.4 trillion in cuts over the last few years . . . ” I assume they mean spending that *has been* cut. But this is all projected reductions, virtually all far into the future. Convenient. And they’re the kind of cuts politicians are good at, ones that take place after they’ve left office.

    Actually, other than a few minor cuts in some discretionary programs Republicans forced on Obama, no spending has been reduced. Yes, the stimulus spending has expired, but only because a Republican House prevents more.

    Five years ago Americans would have been horrified at the thought of a trillion dollar deficit. Now were told that anything less will result in a nasty recession.

    Discretionary spending is not lower then when Obama took office, but that’s a minor quibble. The problem is a sluggish economy, which Obama’s proposals have made worse, and entitlements that are unsustainable.

    Thumb up 5 Thumb down 4

  13. Lets be Reasonable says:

    @RC – here is a better breakdown of spending cuts already made under Obama:

    Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4

  14. Lets be Reasonable says:

    @RC – “I’d like to see the math on that number. Federal spending jumped under Obama.”
    Actually, the number is closer to 1.7 trillion:
    The stimulus is over. Discretionary spending is now lower than when Obama took office. Once the economy picks up some more, then other spending like unemployment and food stamps and the like will also go back down. Most economists credit the stimulus (that both parties supported – the only argument was over how big it should be) with preventing another depression. When Obama’s economist made the prediction about unemployment under the stimulus, it was wrong not because the stimulus didn’t work, but rather because the economy had already lost much more than was realized at the time.

    Thumb up 4 Thumb down 4

  15. Michael Koepf says:

    I propose taxing the wealthy at a 100% rate. This will be enough money to run the government for about 19 days. After that, it’s Obama’s move. What do you think will happen next?

    Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3

  16. James Bennett says:

    I think Romney’s numbers were much higher than were realized in our controlled ballot process and media. I bet at least 15% higher. There were shenanigans ‘o plenty that could make this an even longer post.


    It doesn’t really matter.

    The “election” only representing which Goldman Sachs globalist puppet fooled more people.

    Our consciousness, our discernment, our savvy, our understanding of UN Agenda 21 and their partners in crime at The Federal Reserve and recognizing all of their instruments will actually matter.

    Preempting their contrived false flags.
    Sharing truth. Strengthening our neighborhoods and communities. Becoming more self sufficiant. Less dependent, more independent.

    Redefining what’s real and what’s imposed BS.

    Redefining what Us & Them really means.

    We’ve all been lied to, we’ve all been duped. Alienating, marginalizing our fellow citizens because they were fooled a little more, a little differently doesn’t matter any more. Judging each other based on political party is a waste of time and maintains their paradigm.

    Thumb up 7 Thumb down 3

  17. Reality Check says:

    LBR, “We’ve already made around 1.4 trillion in cuts over the last few years . . . ”

    I’d like to see the math on that number. Federal spending jumped under Obama. And the middle class pays a smaller portion of the federal income tax today than any time in the last 30 years.

    The middle class is in trouble for reasons unrelated to the tax code. More likely reasons are the collapse of the nuclear family, conspicuous consumption financed by debt, and poor job prospects caused slow economic growth. None of these problems will be solved via the tax code or more wasteful “stimulus” spending.

    Thumb up 6 Thumb down 3

  18. walk it backwards says:

    Humm I wonder if the PD staff have the courage to walk it backwards
    501c, Public unions, food stamps, housing, welfare etc
    Charities, Food banks etc

    Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2

  19. Lets be Reasonable says:

    @RC – I guess I’m one of those forgetful voters – I don’t remember the $1 / week figure, but it is true that the benefits of the Bush tax cuts went disproportionately to the most wealthy. If they had actually stimulated the economy as advertised, It might have been worth it, but instead, it just resulted in deficits. Between my wife and I, they probably come to 3-4 thousand a year – nothing close to the income we’ve lost since the crash, and inconsequential compared to the 100s of thousands of value lost in our house. Considering how close to the edge we are, the loss of that tax cut would be painful, but I would be willing to eat it if need be. Obama has laid out what he wants to see happen, and has dared the Republicans to itemize the cuts they would like to see.
    We’ve already made around 1.4 trillion in cuts over the last few years, and it is time to see some revenue restored. I would rather it not hit the middle class, who have taken it in the gut over the last 30 years, but if that is the way it has to happen, then so be it. If Capital Gains is raised, along with the Estate tax, then it would be worth it. These two tax cuts are what has led to the biggest wealth disparity since the 30s.

    Thumb up 6 Thumb down 3

  20. GAJ says:

    Anyone who thinks that those making under $250k won’t have to pay higher taxes to help solve our fiscal mismanagement (by both parties) is delusional.

    Everyone has to help bail out the boat, those with big buckets as well as those with small buckets.

    The politicians are simply afraid to tell us the obvious truth.

    Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3

  21. Reality Check says:


    That Republicans will get blamed is guaranteed. More interesting to me will be the wailing if the tax cuts expire for everyone.

    Who but those with Alzheimer’s can forget the rage over Bush’s “tax cuts for the rich.” Over and over we were told that the rich got the cuts while the middle class was left with crumbs, about $1 a week or so.

    Now, horrors of horrors, a catastrophe will befall everyone and the economy if those middle class tax cuts aren’t extended. I guess they were so meaningless after all.

    Fortunately for Democrats voters have short memories, and their willing accomplices, the media, have no memory at all. What a scam.

    Thumb up 6 Thumb down 4

  22. Lets be Reasonable says:

    @FedUp – “Time to jump off the cliff. It’s the 47% who voted to tax someone else to line their pockets who will get hurt the most.”
    Yes, let’s do it. Sure, my taxes will go up some, but I can live with it. Payroll taxes are going back in the near future regardless. And while we’re at it, Estate Taxes will go back to their 55% for anything over $1 Million instead of the current 35% for anything over $5 million. Good trade off in my book.
    If Republicans don’t accept higher taxes on the wealthy, and everyone loses their tax break, it will be the Republicans who get blamed, not the Democrats. Face it, Obama has the stronger hand right now, and this time “compromise” will look more like a Democratic win than it has recently.

    Thumb up 4 Thumb down 4

  23. Skippy says:

    “I call the confidence of a clear mandate.”
    Welcome to mandatory bankruptcy.

    When your little world of kumbaya dreams, money from the evil rich white men and unicorn energy collapses, we’ll be here to rescue the country…again.
    The Traditions of American Exceptionalism & The Free Market.

    Thumb up 6 Thumb down 5

  24. Follower says:

    When companies like GE pay little or no taxes it’s called “Corporate Welfare”. But when 47% of Americans pay no Federal Income tax it’s called “fairness”.

    The Republicans are currently in the process of adopting the “if you can’t beat’em, join’em” tactic. They’ve become convinced that the only way they can win is if they give away more Government goodies than the Democrats.

    They just don’t seem to understand that the reason they’re loosing is because they have abandon their base in pursuit of the Democrat’s base and in doing so have demonstrated beyond a shadow of a doubt that they are FAR TOO STUPID to be elected to anything.

    Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4

  25. FedUp says:

    Exactly why the repubs should walk away from the fiscal cliff talks. Obonga’s opening proposal was to increase taxes _and_ spending and put off entitlement reform “until later”. Time to jump off the cliff. It’s the 47% who voted to tax someone else to line their pockets who will get hurt the most. Ah, the sweet irony when they find out on Jan 1, surprise, _you_ have to pay for it. The country’s doomed anyway. Might as well go down swinging.

    Thumb up 5 Thumb down 7

  26. Dan J Drummond says:

    What you call gloating, I call the confidence of a clear mandate.

    United we stand = thumbs_up
    Divided we fall = thumbs_down

    Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3

  27. Michael Koepf says:

    Gloating is a most revealing emotion. It reveals an inner emptiness that may never be filled.

    Thumb up 6 Thumb down 6

  28. MOCKINGBIRD says:

    Skippy,I always believed that income taxes were the government’s way of sucking up the middleclass workers’ income and giving it away to the rich and powerful. I THINK you got it backwards.

    And from my perspective, and historys’, times were good when taxes were high.

    Taxes need to go back to Clinton era taxation and need to be focused on job creation. No more borrow and spend Republicans who borrow to further enrich the rich then blame unions, public workers and the middleclass’s and poor’s safety nets as the cause of all the problems this country has. WE didn’t gamble away the money on Wallstreet to make ourselves millions and billions of dollars, then cried to be bailed out. WE weren’t bailed out and WE didn’t create this economic disaster.

    It’s time governments’ focus is on the American people, not the 400 or so billionaires who don’t need any help.

    Thumb up 6 Thumb down 9

  29. Skippy says:

    I’ll start taking your thinly veiled class-warfare seriously as soon as President Santa Claus proposes a wealth tax.
    Income taxes are designed to keep working people down by sucking up their limited dollars into the insatiable maw of Big Govt.
    No rate will ever be too high for those who see everyone with more than them as the enemy; someone who got theirs at the expense of another more deserving person.
    Do you support Buffets tax-me-more proposal? If implemented, it would pay off Pres. Santa Claus’ 2011 budget deficit in only 514 years. Then we can start paying off his 2012 deficit.
    Wanna see the folly of Democrat tax-and-spend greed?
    Pass a wealth tax of 100% and seize the assets of the evil rich.
    After the first year, when the hated millionaires are flat broke, invite Arab oil sheiks to immigrate so they can be taxed into poverty next.
    Just keep up the profligacy while the adult 47% plan for the inevitable collapse of the Democrat house of Red Chinese credit cards.
    When you win, you’ll lose.

    Thumb up 5 Thumb down 6

  30. Lets be Reasonable says:

    @RC “California is a rich state. Poverty program money, Medicaid, food stamps, etc., is spent in poor states. Isn’t that the way it’s supposed to work?”
    If I didn’t know better, I would think you were a liberal…!

    Thumb up 3 Thumb down 6

  31. Lets be Reasonable says:

    @Skippy “You remember the neighbors; the producers; the taxpayers; the employed.”
    The problem with this statement is that it is flat ass wrong. In that 47%, you have the working poor (employed), who pay payroll taxes and sales tax, but don’t earn enough to pay income taxes (in large part because of Reagan and Bush tax cuts). You also have retired folks eking by on Social Security – many of whom actually voted for Romney.
    Furthermore, if the Republicans had not gerrymandered the representative districts, the House would also be in Democratic hands – there were 2 million more votes for Democratic candidates than for Republican candidates for the house. The people have voted, including me, a working, tax paying, individual. They have voted to turn around the trend of income and wealth being concentrated into the hands of the few. They voted to have workers share in the productivity gains, which have instead ONLY gone to the top management and investors over the last generation. We haven’t had such disparity in wealth and upward mobility since before the great depression.
    Obama has given in to Republicans and cut spending. It is time for Republicans to show some good faith and allow tax rates for the wealthiest 2% to go up a bit. It is time for the wealthiest to pay their fair share – no one who makes millions should only pay 14% in Fed tax. All income should be treated as equal, and taxed the same, whether it is created by hard labor, or investments.

    Thumb up 4 Thumb down 4

  32. Reality Check says:

    I tear up every time I hear a Californian complain that we don’t get back a dollar in benefits for every dollar in taxes we send to Washington. The stunner is that anyone thinks we should or could.

    California is a rich state. Poverty program money, Medicaid, food stamps, etc., is spent in poor states. Isn’t that the way it’s supposed to work?

    Then of course there is the spending that heads overseas. That’s not going to any state. Also, some states have large military installations that consume federal dollars.

    Bottom line, if we want our money back, why send it to Washington in the first place? Democrats like to enact the very programs that spend money in other states and then complain about the consequences.

    Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3

  33. MOCKINGBIRD says:

    Dan Drummond-you are right on. Not only that but for every tax dollar California (and New York and many other blue states) sends to Washington we get much less back in this state. Guess where that difference goes? To red states who have low state income taxes so they are considered “poor”. I think those states SHOULD SECEED, then California will get our money back.

    The feds takes all that tax money in from all the states then redistributes it according to how poor the state is. We lose, they win. Our cost of living in higher, we lose. Their cost of living is lower, they win. We are subsidizing the many of the red states. Those very same red states that wanted Romney as President even though it meant less aid for their “poor”.

    Thumb up 4 Thumb down 6

  34. Dan J Drummond says:

    Funny thing about Romney’s comment about the 47% of the people who pay no income tax, Romney won 8 out of the 10 states that have the highest percentage of “non-payers.”

    Wahoo, Obama won! = thumbs-up
    Wahoo, Romney lost! = thumbs-down

    Thumb up 7 Thumb down 6

  35. Paul says:

    Entitlement programs can buy a lot of votes.

    Thumb up 9 Thumb down 6

  36. PeterM says:

    Wow, what a sore loser. Typical response from the entitled class.


    Thumb up 9 Thumb down 5

  37. Sue St. Claire says:

    Romney for all of his faults did have it right. 47% of the voting population are federal dependents and would never vote for a Republican. He got that right.

    This nation under Obamo is becoming a socialist state which has long forgotten what President Kennedy proclaimed, “Ask not what your country can do for you.Ask what you can do for your country.”

    This country is headed quickly to the financial cliff and with Obamo at the controls, it will go over that cliff at high speed. The sudden stop will not be pretty for all of the public unions and the dependent class in this country.

    Thumb up 8 Thumb down 10

  38. Skippy says:

    He was and is correct; only the % has been reversed. 53% of America voted to pick their neighbors’ pockets.
    You remember the neighbors; the producers; the taxpayers; the employed.
    The folks who work for rather than vote for a living.
    The 47% that has to pull the wagon so the O’Bama loafers can ride for free.
    I applaud the re-election of King Santa Claus.
    It will hasten the collapse of the Ponzi nation in which we, the 47%, slave.
    When it all falls down, the takers will starve or become adults. I’m betting they starve. Work is just sooo 20th century.
    I also suggest that all Conservatives apply for every Big Govt giveaway program out there.
    Take every dime and demand more.
    Let the system crash and the 99% weep.

    Thumb up 15 Thumb down 16

  39. MOCKINGBIRD says:


    Thumb up 5 Thumb down 9

Leave a Reply