Romney: "I'm Not Concerned About the Very Poor"

Originally posted by DrNotforhire
sounds like it was taken out of context to me....

and I'm not even a Romney Supporter!

I'm not a Romney fan either but I think this is taken out of context, although I don't trust him enough to say 100%. What he is saying is true. In this country, especially New York State, where I live...you're either better off being poor or rich. There are so many entitlement programs and services in NY that there is no sense getting off public assistance. There is no incentive. The middle class continues to bear the brunt.

He is probably hoping that a few hundred thousand or so will die of hunger, cold or lack or medical care so he and his Congregations can convert them posthumously to Mormonism. If he can't get converts while there are alive by knocking on doors or chasing people down the street he is not going to let a little thing like death stop him. I see a Conspiracy looming - get rid of the poorest, sickest, least productive members of the US and then convert them after death to double the size of the Mormon church (as with all good Conspiracy theories it is so ridiculous it may actually be true !)

reply to post by Cosmic911


Can I ask why people "think" this is taken out of context this is the problem with Americans in general. If you'd like to "know" that it wasn't do some freaking research and by the way the OP has the original quote, word for word, not taken out of context. The point is regardless how you feel about this that that as a politician you should NEVER and I mean NEVER mention the words "I don't care" and "poor people" in the same thought. The point is that Romeny is out of touch, not that we don't need to look at how welfare is being spent, Obama is pretty much for that same thing, the point is he clearly doesn't understand the average Americans attention span and has no idea what can of worms he just opened up. Clearly you are also apart of the American attention span phenomia because you'd rather just say something instead of looking it up.

I'm Just waiting for the moment where he changed his notion about the "Very" Poor. It would be wonderful to have a positive reliance on our fellow congressmen, those whom are eccentric and steady in their thoughts, speech and actions.

How are people voting for this guy...Who do you think funds these social safety nets.? There are too many people relying on it as is and it's putting a strain on our economy which eventually comes out of the pockets of the middle class. The satistics are no static, they're increasing exponentially.! Nobody wants to rely on subsidy from the government. Give me a job and I will be content.

Originally posted by Desolate Cancer
This is taken way out of context and he is right even if he wanted to be more aggressive.

The very poor have medicaid, section 8 housing, food stamps and many other programs, They have not been affected by the recession it is the middle class who work and try hard at raising themselves up and being self sufficient who have been hit hardest by the recession.

It is the middle class who dont have medicaid or section 8 housing and need to worry about losing their homes or going bankrupt for lack of health insurance.

What do the very poor contribute to society anyway? Nothing, they are a worthless group, most (not all) of which cant keep or want a job (since they can get by on the handouts), all their handouts should be taken away and given to the working class to provide them the working and middle class with subsidized health care and subsidized housing. Free makes people even more lazy, subsidies makes things attainable during the hard times for those who work for it.

It is the middle class like mitt said, the middle 90% who are having a hell of a time during this recession, the very poor are still slumming it up like they where during the boom times, nothing has changed for them except maybe they have more neighbors because the middle class has been getting pummeled.

I see that you have caught a lot of flack from offened members of this forum but unless they are doing something daily to help the poor then they are just blowing hot air. And who gives the most to charities? It's not the liberals and democrats thats for sure.

Here's the rub, folks. The Government will continue to give away money as long as there is a government- that is part of what they do. The question we have to ask ourselves as citizens is whom shall we give it to? Multinational corporations ala Mitt, or the Military Industrial Petroleum Conglomerates ala Gingrich?

I watched the interview....it wasn't taken out of context. The reporter asked him the same question again because he couldn't believe Romney's answer. Political suicide if you ask me.

Originally posted by jimnuggits
Here's the rub, folks. The Government will continue to give away money as long as there is a government- that is part of what they do. The question we have to ask ourselves as citizens is whom shall we give it to? Multinational corporations ala Mitt, or the Military Industrial Petroleum Conglomerates ala Gingrich?

One might also go far as to say the government will continue to take money as long as there is a government-that i part of what they do. The question we have to ask ourselves is do we want to tax the lower and middle classes and give breaks to the rich and the corporations (which is backwards), or do we want to take more from the latter?

I do think, however, that there are other alternatives to the either/or corporations/ MI Complex.

ETA:

I loathe taxes. I am in line with Thoreau, in that we should pay only the most necessary taxes (who decides?). We pay WAY too many taxes, and the tax code (what with loopholes) is unfair (and Romney and his 14%), BUT this is the system we have, and since we have this system it should be proportional and fair. It isn't. By far. Wealth Distribution Thanks to NoJoker13 for the link.

This is also why a fair and flat tax is a bad idea: it hurts and taxes the poor and struggling classes on practically every purchase on top of the current sales and state taxes.

Originally posted by Liquesence

Originally posted by AuranVector

Originally posted by Liquesence
Romney "Not Concerned About the Very Poor

...
Safetly nets that YOU want to GET RID OF!?! To even say such a thing--that he is not concerned about the VERY poor--shows his true despicable nature....

I read the ABC article. Where does Romney say he wants to "get rid of safety nets" for the poor?

Romney never said that.

True, he never explicitly said that; however, in general, republicans, of which he is one, want to get rid of government assistance programs, which are these safety nets. I think it's called the welfare state, and redistribution of wealth, etc.

But, he did say "fix," which i conject is code for eliminate or greatly reduce in substance.

He should have better coded his don't care statement.

You assumed that when he used the word "fix" Romney meant "eliminate or greatly reduce in substance."
I have to disagree with that assumption. Romney said that if the safety net is broken, he would fix it.

Someone on this thread called Romney "Obama-lite" -- that's so true. Romney is about as center-of-the-road Republican as you can get, a true RINO (Republican in name only). Romney implemented Obamacare-lite in Massachusetts when he was governor. Romney was Pro-Choice and probably doesn't have any strong objections to Gay marriage, etc.

Of course, Romney has to pander to the Evangelical Republicans -- so now he's Pro-Life. etc. It's really very funny. The Republican elites have chosen Romney. Ron Paul will NOT be the nominee, it will not be allowed.

One of the things I find amusing on this thread is that Obama supporters actually think Obama is more compassionate & caring about the poor than Romney. They haven't gotten the message after three years that Obama is all about Obama. Obama cares about his personal power, cares about all the perks of being POTUS.

I believe Obama does what he's told to.

Obama will probably get a second term. A billion dollars in his war chest and the MSM in the tank for him -- as in 2008. With a second term, the world will see what the real agenda is. None of it is good for either you or me. The middle-class will continue shrinking and the growing numbers of poor will become increasingly desperate.
I suspect this play has already been written. I'm hoping Obama is NOT assassinated. Chaos galore.

I will come out to vote against Obama -- again. I think he's an even worse fraud than Romney. There is no one to vote FOR -- as usual.

“I’m not concerned with the very poor. We have a safety net there,” Romney told CNN. “If it needs repair, I’ll fix it.” There's a certain logic to that position. Except that if you read Romney's policy agenda what he appears to think about the social safety net for the poor is that it should be drastically curtailed. He proposes the following five points:

Immediately cut nonsecurity discretionary spending by 5 percent.
Reform and restructure Medicaid as block grant to states.
Align wages and benefits of government workers with market rates.
Reduce federal workforce by 10 percent via attrition.
Undertake fundamental restructuring of government programs and services.

In other words he wants to cut the safety net, cut the health care part of the safety net, muck around with the federal workforce, and then cut the non-health care part of the safety net. To further clarify, he states that he "will immediately move to cut spending and cap it at 20 percent of GDP" while increasing defense spending. Which is to say he wants to cut social safety net spending. What's more "as spending comes under control, he will pursue further cuts that would allow caps to be set even lower so as to guarantee future fiscal stability," thus cutting social safety net spending even further.

Source

I think this is the main point the OP is making. Mitt Romney says that he is not worried about the poor because there are safety nets in place, but he is planning on taking those same safety nets down.

I hope this is equal to ricks "oops" comment.

What do the very poor contribute to society anyway? Nothing, they are a worthless group, most (not all) of which cant keep or want a job (since they can get by on the handouts), all their handouts should be taken away and given to the working class to provide them the working and middle class with subsidized health care and subsidized housing. Free makes people even more lazy, subsidies makes things attainable during the hard times for those who work for it.

It is the middle class like mitt said, the middle 90% who are having a hell of a time during this recession, the very poor are still slumming it up like they where during the boom times, nothing has changed for them except maybe they have more neighbors because the middle class has been getting pummeled.

your arguement is invalid and here's why...

you start by saying (essentially) screw the poor they're worthless.

then during the part where you are giving reasons why not to care about poor people you state - the only difference they see are more neighbours, those who have joined from the middle class.

So wait a minute.....

you say that the middle class citizens are worth more than there 'worthless' lower class counterparts, i.e. they are better people.

but when the middle class is destroyed and the middle's become low's will you simply call them worthless too?
in that case it would mean that you only define a persons worth by their income.

Alternatively, once you and your middle class neighbours join the poor in the lower classes, will you conveniently and hypocritically change your tune?

"oh poor people are great they're just victims of the system..."

your arguement just doesn't make sense.

-TF

Originally posted by AuranVector

You assumed that when he used the word "fix" Romney meant "eliminate or greatly reduce in substance."
I have to disagree with that assumption. Romney said that if the safety net is broken, he would fix it.

Someone on this thread called Romney "Obama-lite" -- that's so true. Romney is about as center-of-the-road Republican as you can get, a true RINO (Republican in name only). Romney implemented Obamacare-lite in Massachusetts when he was governor. Romney was Pro-Choice and probably doesn't have any strong objections to Gay marriage, etc.

Of course, Romney has to pander to the Evangelical Republicans -- so now he's Pro-Life. etc. It's really very funny. The Republican elites have chosen Romney. Ron Paul will NOT be the nominee, it will not be allowed.

One of the things I find amusing on this thread is that Obama supporters actually think Obama is more compassionate & caring about the poor than Romney. They haven't gotten the message after three years that Obama is all about Obama. Obama cares about his personal power, cares about all the perks of being POTUS.

I believe Obama does what he's told to.

Obama will probably get a second term. A billion dollars in his war chest and the MSM in the tank for him -- as in 2008. With a second term, the world will see what the real agenda is. None of it is good for either you or me. The middle-class will continue shrinking and the growing numbers of poor will become increasingly desperate.
I suspect this play has already been written. I'm hoping Obama is NOT assassinated. Chaos galore.

I will come out to vote against Obama -- again. I think he's an even worse fraud than Romney. There is no one to vote FOR -- as usual.

You know, i agree with almost everything you said up until the point about the "real agenda," whatever that is. I believe that the decline of the middle class started because of Bush's reckless policies. I do not think Romney's policies will turn anything around, like people hope. True, Romney is a businessman, which *might* be a good thing from an economic point of view, and even though he might care about the middle class, i do not think his policies will help them to any great degree.

I hope that things get better. I do not see this happening under the GOP, in part because there is so much anti-social (program) theocracy (even though Mitt is a Mormon) and corporate pandering (the latter the dems are also guilty of, true). True, Mitt might be the best GOP outside of Paul, but that's not going to cut it for me.

I also agree with your very last sentence; however, I see the best bet as voting against the republican candidate.

Interesting..

I agree about Obama changing in his second term , he would have to since he was overwhelmed from the GOP. We need to make a decision; ultimately it will be Obama or Romney and we need to decide do we want the same congress and senate? Personally I feel that this election is not about party but more about change. I feel we vote out all incumbents and start fresh, but that is my opinion. We need to start change within this government and not let the anyone in the government feel comfortable, change all legislative offices and all its people. Don't let them get familiar with the lobbyists and PACs, we need to change some of these recent laws that have been overlooked and brought against the common man( remember him?). Change out all incumbents in all federal state and local governments, why?, because no one is happy with what we presently have at any level of government and we need a drastic change now. This is my opinion and what I plan to do, it is also what I tell friends and family.

Romney is proof that if you have enough money you can do anything. I get the same feeling watching this man speak that I got watching Obama speak four years ago. Sometimes when I wonder why no democrats are running against Obama I remember Romney is running. This guy makes more money when he goes to the bathroom then I made all last year thanks to the job market. He has been a wealthy person since the day he was born and has no grasp on what the middle class is really going through. If Romney goes to the White House the only thing that will change is the name of our president. I want St. Paul to win but I would be able to accept Newt if I had to, even though is name reminds me of a smiley little water lizard. Please don't vote Romney into office with the reigns in his hands we will continue the same path Obama is leading now.

Originally posted by DrNotforhire
reply to post by neo96

 

NEO this is a great angle!!!

Let's roll with it... just so we can give em a taste of their own medicine... Fight fire with fire..

but also... I wish the class JEALOUSY would stop... if you dont like someone because they make more than you... WORK HARDER

Ya, Romney sits around doing nothing, making residual money ($57,000 a day) for destroying
American jobs and companies, very cool dude

I S@Fed this thread earlier, not sure if I did post or not, but it really stayed with me today, in fact I even discussed it several times with various people. This really is the worst case scenario for America.

DUH! and he dosen't care about me and none of you all, but his bank account and feeding his family

I don't like Romney, but I'm not concerned about the very poor either. Reason being, if things don't change to help the MIDDLE CLASS (you know, the ones who pay for the very poor's welfare, food stamps, government housing, etc.) the country will be OVERRUN by the "very poor" when the middle class joins them.