Let The Media Tell You What To Think
Matt Yglesias explains what Obama meant when he said this about redistributing wealth:
The concept of “redistribution” falsely implies that the existence of property is prior to the existence of the state. #mythofownership
— Matt Yglesias (@mattyglesias) September 18, 2012
Uhm. Ok. Redistributing doesn’t really take from the individual, because everything belongs to the state.
The purpose of bringing this up is to get to the true ideologies of the men running for President. Which comments have meaning, and which are gaffes? Is Obama a redistributive communist?
Obama’s explained, yesterday, the meaning behind Romney’s gaff. The spin is that Romney doesn’t care about 47% of the population. But President Three Putt does. Obama knows, he continued, he needs to be president to all the voters.
So this becomes the new meaning of Romney’s statement; he wasn’t misstating the numbers while pointing out the obvious fact that government dependent voters will vote for the guy who is going to continue to hand out the goodies. He was saying, per Obama, that he didn’t CARE about them. With a little media messaging, this becomes the next new “fact” we know about Romney.
Romney’s comments were a bit befuddled.
As to Romney’s comment itself, it is a highly flawed bit of political analysis. He is making an apples-and-oranges comparison between the percentage of voters who will cast ballots for the Democrat “no matter what” and the percentage of households that have no income-tax liability. The latter is in fact currently about 47%. The former is impossible to determine with precision, but 47% is a plausible guess, if perhaps a tad high.
In truth, while there is no doubt significant overlap between the Democratic base vote and the voters in the income-tax-nonpaying 47% of households, the Democratic base includes many voters who do pay income taxes: well-heeled social liberals, middle-class and affluent blacks and government employees, to name three obvious demographics that lean heavily donkward. If Obama could count on the votes of every adult citizen in the Romney-identified 47% of households, the election really would be over already.
But don’t let all that confuse you, because Obama has neatly explained that the gaffe simply meant that Romney is a richy-rich who doesn’t care about the welfare of 47% of Americans.
But then let’s go back to Obama’s comments regarding redistributing wealth. Did he misspeak?
Socialism is neighborly:
Money you don’t need:
It’s about fairness: