A Romney on Welfare? (George, not Mitt)

Well, it seems that George Romney, The Romney Unit's own father, would probably not have voted for his own son, as he was once on Welfare - www.buzzfeed.com...
Why is Mittens sticking with this ill-thought out, divisive rubbish?

reply to post by AngryCymraeg


Embedded the video here for you...at the 50 second mark.

Romney's mother on Romney's father..."He was on relief....welfare relief for the first years of his life"




See...In opposition to what the social darwinists aka GOP profess...Welfare can catch people when they fall and offer them a chance to recover both thier dignity and thier economic future...

Economists actually see this in numbers. Safety nets actually increase GDP by returning people to productivity and prosperity rather than allowing them to spiral into irrecoverable destitution and homelessness.

Expect the right wing to show up shortly...but the truth remains...Romney would not have attended his elite schools and benefited from his fathers wealth and connections..unless his father was once caught by the safety net that Romney now claims to abhor.

Romney's campaign seems to be marked by grotesque irony at every turn.

Yes, life and death, survival, when he was a youth. Romney wouldn't be in any political races, for he wouldn't have been here if his father had failed to survive in a true dog eat dog ugly heartless system, now would he?

George came from Mexico as a child in a refugee family. Are you surprised that he was on welfare?

George was 22 when the Great Depression started. Are you surprised that he was on welfare?

Isn't this proof that Mitt came from a family that started with nothing?

Do you think that Romney wants to eliminate all welfare?

What does George Romney have to do with anything?

Why aren't we discussing serious issues instead of "gotchas" from the distant past?

Inquiring minds . . .

EDIT TO ADD Since there have been edits to the OP since I posted, I'd like to shift my emphasis to my third question.

Do you think that Romney wants to eliminate all welfare?

I don't see how anyone can claim that he does. There are huge amounts of waste, fraud, and inefficiencies in the current system. Anyone who doesn't want to make changes shouldn't be allowed to be a Congressman, let alone President.

If you want to talk about whether Romney's plan would be an improvement over the current system, that might be a worthwhile discussion. Let's lay out the two plans, see how the old one is working, and talk about it.

YET ANOTHER EDIT

Economists actually see this in numbers. Safety nets actually increase GDP by returning people to productivity and prosperity rather than allowing them to spiral into irrecoverable destitution and homelessness.

I know that is the theory, but how is it working out? Are people being returned to prosperity, have they been saved from homelessness? Just more evidence that a new approach should be considered.

Originally posted by charles1952

Do you think that Romney wants to eliminate all welfare?

Romney has explicity stated that those on welfare "take no responsibility for thier lives" and see themselves as "victims"...and when offered the chance to qualify the remarks...doubled down on his position.

Romney has spoken often about "opportunity" for future generations and claimed his own fortune as an example of capitalistic opportunity as credentials. It is not unfair to examine how he came to have the opportunity to amass that fortune...and that story includes a father who made use of WELFARE to feed and clothe a young Romney while he got back on his feet and built his own fortune...which paid for Private schools, a Harvard degree and all the "opportunity" that being born with a wealthy father in politics affords you.

Romney's own mother thought it was a critical fact to share...that Romney's father benefited from welfare..It is a bit disturbing the extent to which Mitt seems to want both to USE his parents story and DISOWN it at the same time for political purposes.

Originally posted by charles1952

YET ANOTHER EDIT

Economists actually see this in numbers. Safety nets actually increase GDP by returning people to productivity and prosperity rather than allowing them to spiral into irrecoverable destitution and homelessness.

I know that is the theory, but how is it working out? Are people being returned to prosperity, have they been saved from homelessness? Just more evidence that a new approach should be considered.

edit on 19-9-2012 by charles1952 because: Add

edit on 19-9-2012 by charles1952 because: Add more stuff.

Yes...contrary to rhetoric...long-term welfare recipients are a very small minority. No one likes being on Welfare...

Right now...as of July 2012, despite the near economic collapse...
Of those on Welfare...
1 in three or roughly 35% on welfare less than a year.
55% on Welfare for less than 2 years
After 5 years...over 80% of those that went on welfare are off of welfare.

Other interesting stats...

Welfare recipients are 39% white and 39% black...with the remainder being other ethnicities.
www.statisticbrain.com...

reply to post by Indigo5


Thanks for that. I'm not very proficient at embedding yet.

reply to post by AngryCymraeg


And apprently this was the 2nd Time that Romney's father was saved by a "Government Handout"

"Fortunately for the Romneys, the U.S. government, which had once chased Miles to Mexico due to his polygamy, now welcomed the Romneys and other Mormons to the United States.

Congress established a $100,000 relief fund that enabled the Romneys and other Mormon exiles to receive food and lodging. "

www.npr.org...

Romneys father on the same experience...

GEORGE ROMNEY: I've been poor. I worked from the time I was 12. My parents were driven out of old Mexico when i was only 5. My people were revolutionary refugees. They had to be fed by the United States government and housed by the United States government . I know what poverty is. I've been up through it.

www.dailykos.com...


Edit to add Romney at CPAC in 2008
"The threat to our culture comes from within. The 1960’s welfare programs created a culture of poverty. "
2012.republican-candidates.org...

Strange...cuz they seem to have rescued his family to great benefit?

reply to post by AngryCymraeg


And you have to love Jon Stewart..

"Oh my God. George Romney was on welfare. So according to Mitt Romney's own logic, Mitt Romney could not win the vote of his dad."

reply to post by Indigo5


Jon Stewart is my hero actually - the guy is sooo damn good!

reply to post by Indigo5

Dear Indigo5,

It's really good to see you again. I always learn something when you're around. My original point was not statistics driven, but as your response was, let's start there.

My first, general, problem is definitional. What are we talking about when we say "welfare?" The numbers you show for the length of time people are on welfare, comes from a portion of the chart that indicates it is dealing with AFDC only.

If you mean that AFDC is the only welfare program, then I'm a little less interested in the discussion. By the way, AFDC was ended more than a dozen years ago, to be replaced with TANF. Just simple oversight on the part of the table makers, I suppose.

As far as people getting off TANF by the 5 year point, that's not really surprising since that's all people are eligible for under federal rules. They have to be gone. Now, many states allow the children to collect for more than 5 years, but not the parents, which explains the 20% that are still on after 5 years.

In a 2011 article, Forbes reported, "The best estimate of the cost of the 185 federal means tested welfare programs for 2010 for the federal government alone is nearly $700 billion, up a third since 2008, according to the Heritage Foundation. Counting state spending, total welfare spending for 2010 reached nearly $900 billion, up nearly one-fourth since 2008 (24.3%)".

en.wikipedia.org... That $ 700 billion dollar expense is an interesting figure. Keep it in mind for just a second.

During FY 2011, the federal government spent $3.60 trillion on a budget or cash basis, up 4% vs. FY 2010 spending of $3.46 trillion and up 20% versus FY2008 spend of $2.97 trillion. Major categories of FY 2011 spending included: Medicare & Medicaid ($835B or 24%), Social Security ($725B or 20%), Defense Department ($700B or 19%), non-defense discretionary ($646B or 19%), other ($465B or 12%) and interest ($227B or 6%). (Emphasis added)

en.wikipedia.org... We're spending 20 % of our budget on means-tested spending, the same as our entire defense budget. Yet, poverty, unemployment, and homelessness are going up. (By the way, local, county, and state, benefits are estimated to add another $200 billion. We're knocking on the door of a trillion dollars a year taken from people and given to those who are short.)

Nobody, not Romney, not Ron Paul, not the Grinch that stole Christmas, wants to end welfare. How do we get it to the point where we're getting real benefit from it? No, not in individual cases, but for the country as a whole. That's a discussion I wouldn't mind having.

With respect,
Charles1952

Originally posted by charles1952

In a 2011 article, Forbes reported, "The best estimate of the cost of the 185 federal means tested welfare programs for 2010 for the federal government alone is nearly $700 billion, up a third since 2008, according to the Heritage Foundation. Counting state spending, total welfare spending for 2010 reached nearly $900 billion, up nearly one-fourth since 2008 (24.3%)".

en.wikipedia.org... That $ 700 billion dollar expense is an interesting figure. Keep it in mind for just a second.

OK...For that claim Wiki cites an article by Peter Ferrera...Who has worked for the Cato Institute, Heritage Foundation, Club For Growth etc. all Right Wing Think tanks whose mission is to provide cover for far right policy.

If there is any question about the authors's "opinion for hire"...see here...

Ferrara took money from erstwhile lobbyist Jack Abramoff to write op-ed pieces favorable to Abramoff clients.
....
Ferrera: "I do that all the time. I've done that in the past, and I'll do it in the future."

en.wikipedia.org...

So I question the source...not syaing the number is wrong, but given his non-existent tether to journalistic integrity and history...and his history of producing right wing agenda materials...I don't trut the source.

During FY 2011, the federal government spent $3.60 trillion on a budget or cash basis, up 4% vs. FY 2010 spending of $3.46 trillion and up 20% versus FY2008 spend of $2.97 trillion. Major categories of FY 2011 spending included: Medicare & Medicaid ($835B or 24%), Social Security ($725B or 20%), Defense Department ($700B or 19%), non-defense discretionary ($646B or 19%), other ($465B or 12%) and interest ($227B or 6%). (Emphasis added)

en.wikipedia.org...

We're spending 20 % of our budget on means-tested spending, the same as our entire defense budget. Yet, poverty, unemployment, and homelessness are going up. (By the way, local, county, and state, benefits are estimated to add another $200 billion. We're knocking on the door of a trillion dollars a year taken from people and given to those who are short.)

You seem to have excluded non-discretionary defense spending from your comparison...total defense spending is 1.35 Trillion annually?

Either way...let's get to the point? Welfare costs a lot of money? Yes...so does near economic collapse, so does unwarranted wars, so does corporate welfare, oil spills, bailing out a corrupt financial system ...ad infinium.

Running a government is expensive...

Nobody, not Romney, not Ron Paul, not the Grinch that stole Christmas, wants to end welfare.

No they just want to appeal to thier base by heaping shame on Americans unfortunate enought to need welfare at some point in thier lives. To spit the word "entitlement" like it was a curse word.

How do we get it to the point where we're getting real benefit from it? No, not in individual cases, but for the country as a whole. That's a discussion I wouldn't mind having.

We do get a significant benefit from it. This is not an idealogical opinion, it is a statistical fact recognized by economists. In societies where there are safety nets, it's citizens return to productivity more quickly and GDP benefits.

If you are asking if the system is perfect...of course not. We can always improve it.

BUT...now that we have managed to take the conversation as far off course as you seemed to have wished? and I have patiently and mostly responded to your questions (albeit with less detail...but still an appropriate amount given it strays from the topic)....would you be willing to answer a question for me??

Do you feel those recieving welfare "see themselves as victims"? Do they think the Government owes the "food", "Housing", "Healthcare"? Do you think those receiving welfare or SS or Medicaire..."Take no responsibility for thier lives"?

Do you think that Mitt Romney's fathers life would have been different if the US Government hadn't provided him with housing, food and shelter, plus "General Welfare" payments?...would that have changed the course of Mitt Romney's life?

My personal opinion of this may seem somewhat odd. I do not care...LOTS of people have had a hand up in this country...most will not admit it though...it's not something they are proud to wear on their sleeve.

I think as far as most people go, this is far more damning for him than the video released calling 47% of America useless takers and moochers that feel entitled to food.

His mother seemed like a very nice and sincere lady that appreciated the greatness of a country that looks out for it's own. I'm very interested to see what the pundits have to say about this as it flies in the face of his "Boo-hiss entitlements" position.

The only difference between Democrats who receive entitlements and Republicans who receive entitlements, is that the Democrats are honest about receiving said benefits while the Republicans somehow play dumb and it doesn't count or that they are the only ones who deserve them. They view those on the left of leaching while they use assistance.

The fact that Red Southern states receive the most in federal aid while simultaneously demonizing said aid is all the proof we need. The "I got mine" mentality within the GOP does in fact encompass entitlements as well.
Like Craig T Nelson said.....
"I was on welfare and food stamps, did anyone help me?"


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

reply to post by spinalremain


That is also true. I don't think anyone is "living high on the hog" on social safety net programs...all they do is provide the basic needs to sustain life...there is no prosperity or joy in it. I know no one that is proud to be receiving Gov't assistance.

I still want to hear more from the pundits about this. Strangely, the media and the web have been fairly silent about it...perhaps they would prefer it just fade back into obscurity...how can a man argue with the obviously thankful and appreciative views of his mother?

There is also the case Of Mittens using tax payer money to work the deal on Steel Dynamics...the people of the town's taxes went up so they could pay for the infrastructure to facilitate the factory...I do believe this qualifies as "Gov't aide" as well.....to the tune of something like 40 million bucks...nice irony eh?

reply to post by Indigo5

Dear Indigo5,

You deserve a more thorough reply than I have for you, but if you want me to expand upon any point for you, let me know. Your wish is my command.

My point with the statistics was simply that we're spending a ton on these benefit programs now. Means tested programs get as much as our military.

You seem to have excluded non-discretionary defense spending from your comparison...total defense spending is 1.35 Trillion annually?

You might want to double check that. It actually says "non-defense discretionary" spending. So we're back down into the $700 billion range. If you want me to, I'll come up with those numbers from a government source. I just used the first one that popped up on my search.

Either way...let's get to the point? Welfare costs a lot of money? Yes...so does near economic collapse, so does unwarranted wars, so does corporate welfare, oil spills, bailing out a corrupt financial system ...ad infinium.

Running a government is expensive...

Oh, I agree completely. You're certainly correct. It's so expensive that I don't know of a politician or economist that thinks our present budgetary path is sustainable. My point with the numbers was that we are spending a lot of money to aid the poor and elderly, more than we do for everything else combined, and it doesn't seem to be working as efficiently as we'd like.

No they just want to appeal to thier base by heaping shame on Americans unfortunate enought to need welfare at some point in thier lives. To spit the word "entitlement" like it was a curse word.

I'm not sure I agree with you. But even if that were true (and I assume you're talking about the secretly recoded video), isn't that standard politics? You'll probably recall the words Obama has had for the rich, bankers, CEOs, Christians, gun owners. and Holder's reference to "our people."

We do get a significant benefit from it. This is not an idealogical opinion, it is a statistical fact recognized by economists. In societies where there are safety nets, it's citizens return to productivity more quickly and GDP benefits.

Except it isn't happening here. And of course it depends on what the nets are. You may have heard of the disincentives to work found in a "Welfare Trap."

If you are asking if the system is perfect...of course not. We can always improve it.

Wonderful, thank you. What measures would you be open to for improving it? Every politician calls for the elimination of fraud waste and abuse, so I assume that's acceptable. But what about a reduction in benefits, a tougher threshhold for eligibility? Is there any acceptable way to reduce the money going out? If not we have to get more going in. Borrow more from our great-grandchildren, who already have a great debt? Raise taxes? How do we arrange to get enough from any source to make these programs sustainable? My opinion is that it can't be done.

Do you feel those recieving welfare "see themselves as victims"? Do they think the Government owes the "food", "Housing", "Healthcare"? Do you think those receiving welfare or SS or Medicaire..."Take no responsibility for thier lives"?

It's tough for me to tell you how groups of individuals may think. I believe most see themselves as victims of something; an absent father, drugs, violence, the economy, health problems, or a poor decision long ago. The "owes" is tough, too. If they meet the requirements, I suppose the government "owes" them, but I don't think that's quite what you mean. "Responsibility for their lives?" I can give you a simple, clear cut answer to that one. Some do, some don't. There are both kinds and it may be very useful if we could find a way to differentiate them.

Do you think that Mitt Romney's fathers life would have been different if the US Government hadn't provided him with housing, food and shelter, plus "General Welfare" payments?...would that have changed the course of Mitt Romney's life?

I'm certain his life would have been different. But, would it get to the same result from a different path? Would it have destroyed the family? I don't know, but just by providing benefits, peoples lives are changed. Some for better, some for worse. Look at lottery winners.

Anyway, thank you very much for posting. I am glad to see you.

With respect,
Charles1952

Consider this an unsolicited "bump" to this thread.



I wanted to see what more Romney supporters had to say about it. It's actually genuine curiosity...I was rather dismayed at my third post equating his use of taxpayer funded assistance to Steel Dynamics to welfare did not draw fire...it was an honest attempt anyway.

But seriously. How does this effect the base? Just not care about the hypocrisy? Different age, different circumstances? I mean...obviously his dad didn't lie down and die cause his family got assistance...do some out there give up? I'm sure they do...but you can't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Ok...enough of the devils advocate...I'm not a huge fan of programs that have indefinite life expectancies...A hand up is fine...but it needs to be short lived and very conditional.

Still...I want to know how this feels to those that were dead against the programs to find out your front man came up living with and then succeeded because his family had some help.

reply to post by Jeremiah65

I feel as though I've failed you. I was hoping my post above yours would have answered your questions, but I do get wordy, so I probably buried my message. (Please allow me to use generalizations)

Nobody wants to end all welfare. That some people use it for a while does not earn them immediate condemnation from Republicans.

As do you, Republicans are worried about indefinite programs and programs which pay so much that there is no reason to get off them.

Republicans don't mind that Romney's dad got benefits, in fact it shows that the Romney family built themselves up from zero. That's considered a plus.

I got lazy and didn't look up your steel case, but may I assume that the deal involved governmental tax breaks or other benefits? If so, Republicans have two thoughts. One, change the stupid laws. And, two, you've got to play by the rules that exist. Turning down money which can be legally obtained, strikes just about everybody, not just Republicans, as really weird.

I hope it helped, but maybe I'm not a real Republican (Although, I'm not sure what that is.) you might have to keep bumping.