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

What is the definition of the term very poor when you make over 50k a day?

Thats the real question.

I don't know a single person who makes 1k a day, let alone 50. I would say making 1k a day to be very poor if I was making 50 times as much.

I'm sure his standards are a little off.

After age 40 I started realizing that the various Presidents of this country had very little to do with my success, happiness, failure, health or sickness. It's the accumulation of little and big personal choices we've made every day that have brought you and me to where we are now.

I listen to people at my job having heated and passionate discussions about Obama, Romney, etc.. One guy is a 310 pound walking time-bomb. Another is borderline bankrupt.. the list goes on. If each of these people invested as much passion into improving their lives as they do in political arguments, they'd all have a much improved quality of life and far less personal worries.

Romney said that the poor have safety-nets, and he's right. That's a fact. It's hard to believe that this thread is 8 pages long. But then again, ATS membership probably mirrors the work-place, so I suppose 8 pages is about right, LOL.
-CWM

reply to post by Liquesence


Leave it to the left to take his statement out of context and pass it off as something its not.

Whats funnier is some media outlets have said the exact same thing.

reply to post by superawesomenobody


No Democrats are running against Obama because he is the incumbent. It's very simple. They don't need to run anybody against someone who's done so very much to move the radical socialist agenda forward. Even if the Republicans win, this admin has done more to destroy America than any other Prez since FDR.

Meh, America is a farce built on the foundation of materialism and greed. Pay attention to what truly drives society........even the "poor" buy into it.

Let's examine some very common scenarios that smell of hypocrisy from all sides:

1) A poor family can afford to buy their household cigarettes (including their underage children) but they will regularly call me and ask me to buy them groceries.

2) An evangelical Christian middle-class family has an abundance of money (beyond their basic needs) and even though they read the words of Jesus, they only give out of the uppermost of their abundance (can't go risking any amount of their livelihood to give to those starving children in Africa).

3) Liberals talk about the need for fair labor and pollution controls to protect our environment, but they could care less that most of the junk they buy comes from China or another supplement of manufactured goods from other countries. Of course they may rave against the injustice in academic situations but when it comes to real politics and the real world where are their cries for Chinese tariffs, boycotts, and where is true action?

4) The Obama administration raves against the rich for the disparity between the poor and rich yet their actions through the Federal Reserve of printing money lowers the spending power of the poor and middle classes and at the same time forces the increase in prices of goods like food and energy. The wealthy of course can absorb costs associated with basics needs much more soundly than either of these groups. Where are the liberals rising to meet these injustices? Where are the cries of hypocrisy?

5) The conservatives can parrot reduced spending, family values, and Christian principles yet when it comes to war mongering against Iran all you'll get is politicians stating, "Andrew Jackson knew how to treat his enemies.......kill them!" and the standing ovations, smiles, cheers that follow. You get Gingrich getting a free pass for his affairs while people continue to rant against the homosexual community (even though conservatives clearly struggle with sin daily themselves).

6) You can have a poor family that could care less about the nutrition of its family members, the education of its children, and priority will always fall to the iphone and the bill attached. They can't possibly send their kid to school looking outside the norm.

A worldview, nation, and people built upon a foundation of sand and hypocrisy. There is no truth within our nation besides the truth that people will fight tooth and nail for one side that is just as evil and depraved as the other. Who will shatter the idea that wealth is what life is about? Until that facade is erased there will be no change in this nation because the master of most is money.

So put your head in the ground, support Obama, support Romney, make threads that paint one side as better the other or more worthy of money than the other or whatever your patsy mind is telling you think and ignore the truth of reality screaming around you.

Romney is a part of the game as is Obama and the rest.

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus

No Democrats are running against Obama because he is the incumbent. It's very simple. They don't need to run anybody against someone who's done so very much to move the radical socialist agenda forward. Even if the Republicans win, this admin has done more to destroy America than any other Prez since FDR.

Now , lets not forget ole Dub-ya.
Even though he had to have a L and R monogramed on his shoes to wear his shoes properly.
He managed to isolate the US from the Entire planet, no small feat,

Romney isn't even the nominee and in this thread people have already attacked him on his;
Wealth
Ethnic background
Religion

Yet the Obama fans have defended Obama on his
Wealth
Ethnic background
Religion

Romney isn't concerned about the very poor?
Well Obama must love the very poor, because his policy creates more very poor people every day.

This will be a fun political season. Just watching liberals twist themselves into knots is a hoot!

You guys are all talking as if almost everybody is stuck in the class they were born into you realize that right? I suppose that is the problem. I find the poor born poor are generally of the disposition that with all the odds stacked against you its not worth the effort their usually not well educated and not the brightest anyway..... pretty much makes it impossible to get a well paying job right? ok so # it watch the tube eat # food give up all hope and work whatever craptastic job you can find and enjoy yourself instead of wasting your life at something thats damn near impossible.



and if you were in that position it makes a lot of sense right? or do you want to pretend you and yours would all work labor intensive jobs for minimum wage while trying to put yourselves through school for a degree thats becoming more and more worthless and expensive for a chance at a better paying job so you can save enough money to invest a little and hopefully if everything goes right 2 or 3 generations down the line minimum your family will have achieved wealth and power?

sounds pretty god damn psychotic in that context i guess but i suppose it is

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by Liquesence

 

Leave it to the left to take his statement out of context and pass it off as something its not.

Whats funnier is some media outlets have said the exact same thing.

What's out of context about he "doesn't care about the very poor because they have safety nets?" That's pretty much in context.

It also implies he has no desire to help them better themselves, that he writes them off. And combined with his proposed policies...those safety nets will likely be cut.

And as i have said before, that he could even say such a thing speaks volumes to his character. C'mon Mitt, at least phrase it differently!

I suppose he could legalize drug trafficking for the poor, if only to make amends.

Why woould he be concerned with the poor? They are not the ones who are carrying him. The system is not set up that way. He does not get paid to work for the people. In fact he should just come out with it and say his only concerns are for the well being of the very large businesses. It's the way of politics these days, well mostly always has been.

Originally posted by beezzer
Romney isn't even the nominee and in this thread people have already attacked him on his;
Wealth
Ethnic background
Religion

Yet the Obama fans have defended Obama on his
Wealth
Ethnic background
Religion

Romney isn't concerned about the very poor?
Well Obama must love the very poor, because his policy creates more very poor people every day.

This will be a fun political season. Just watching liberals twist themselves into knots is a hoot!

But at least Obama *tries* and *says* he cares!

Oh, and he loves to give out food stamps!

What would Mitt do?

For the record, i only attacked Mitt's wealth. When a man worth 200+ MILLION says he does not care about poor people, that is a problem, a serious character issue.

And, I could care less about his--or anyone's--ethnic background or religion.

reply to post by Liquesence
There is not one of them that gives a crap about any one but their own. The only chance that we may have would be Ron Paul and even at that I know a wolf will wear sheep's clothing. The only way we will be able to deal with the issues of today would be to put a stop to the world bankers and their agendas. Come on lets start bashing the so called elite here. A politician is only a illusion, a puppet.

Originally posted by Tw0Sides

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus

No Democrats are running against Obama because he is the incumbent. It's very simple. They don't need to run anybody against someone who's done so very much to move the radical socialist agenda forward. Even if the Republicans win, this admin has done more to destroy America than any other Prez since FDR.

Now , lets not forget ole Dub-ya.
Even though he had to have a L and R monogramed on his shoes to wear his shoes properly.
He managed to isolate the US from the Entire planet, no small feat,

Well, at least he managed to not send back the bust of Churchill to one of our best allies. Obama has been snuggly wuggly with all the European socialists but not England. He gives tax money to Brazilian nationalized oil companies but puts moratorium on our own offshore drilling. He gave Russia the advantage in the SALT treaty. Which side is he on anyway?

reply to post by sirhumperdink

You guys are all talking as if almost everybody is stuck in the class they were born into you realize that right?

Excellent point. That was the whole context of Buddha's enlightenment and his searching. Buddha wanted to find a way to overturn the caste system because they truly were stuck in it. Statist methods of equalizing wealth by forced redistribution will never be truly effective. Just ask Karl Marx. He died in poverty even after taking handouts from his friends.

Originally posted by beezzer
Romney isn't even the nominee and in this thread people have already attacked him on his;
Wealth
Ethnic background
Religion

Yet the Obama fans have defended Obama on his
Wealth
Ethnic background
Religion

And there are several thousand anti Obama threads you can go and drool in

And BTW who brought ethnic background??? NEO did

Romney makes TWO times Obama's net worth, every 50 days...

Obama is a pee on - Romney is an elite

reply to post by Liquesence


It does not bother you that Obama told all those lies to get elected. Do you expect him to keep his promises this time? How about the fact that he had complete control and a Democrat ruled Congress, both Houses and still his ideas were so out there he could not get them passed.

You do know that they quietly did away with the core of his healthcare plan? Not anyone else, his own people did it. He also cut hospital care by $500 billion.

I applied for the fake insurance for pre-existing conditions and I need it. It's limited to just a few people and costs over $800 more a month than I could get it for from a private carrier before his travesty. Not only that it went up for private carriers by $400 a month overnight. Why is he against opening competition to immediately lower health care costs? He is a liar of the highest order.

How about his promise of transparency that nobody can now deny was a snow job for votes.

Dog bites me once, it's the Dog's fault.
Dog bites me twice, it's my fault.

Liars lie and Con Men Con. It's what they do. Obama is not the savior, he is the problem. He's even worse than Bush was.

Luckily I gave up being a Party Member long ago when I realized the whole thing is a Con. Sad some still don't seem to get it. Give them and extra $20 bucks a week and they are like Lambs to the slaughter.

He will buy the White House and I can't be a part of that. I'll likely write in a name again. At least I'll be honest.

reply to post by MikeNice81


That was the best post I read today. If I could give you a thousand stars, I would. Just to add, if you make over $1.00 the allowable amount, everything is taken away. Yet that dollar does not cover what you gained in assistance. Most of the time that leaves the family in worse condition.

I believe that the system needs to change, but am afraid that if someone does change it that it would be worse than it is now.

reply to post by sirhumperdink

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by sirhumperdink

 

You guys are all talking as if almost everybody is stuck in the class they were born into you realize that right?

Excellent point. That was the whole context of Buddha's enlightenment and his searching. Buddha wanted to find a way to overturn the caste system because they truly were stuck in it. Statist methods of equalizing wealth by forced redistribution will never be truly effective. Just ask Karl Marx. He died in poverty even after taking handouts from his friends.

That's the problem and the conflict we have. The system is broken. People have a harder time rising out of their positions and classes, into which they were born, and more people are falling downward. Wages remain pretty much the same (if not reduced) and the CoL rises. The system helps continue this. We must change the system. But how? Not by the same old failed policies that got us into this mess. In the meantime, people need to eat, to survive, to be given opportunity. Today is not the same as yesteryear. Redistribution is certainly not necessarily favorable (to those forced to redistribute), but it does help some people. And yes, people take advantage, as with anything, just as the wealthy take advantage to keep more...

And endless cycle. Who intervenes, at what degree, and at which point?

What is best for us a nation, to help those who need it?

Originally posted by Liquesence

...>.
It also implies he has no desire to help them better themselves, that he writes them off. And combined with his proposed policies...those safety nets will likely be cut. . . . . .

This is the core problem right here.

A president used to be a leader.

People took care of themselves.

Now, (and for a while) it has been the role of government to "take care" of the people. Like people are too stupid to take care of themselves.

The Nanny state is expected and anticipated now.

And that's the real damned shame.