Romney - "Im not concerned about the very poor."

[JoeChalupa]

http://news.yahoo.com/romney-im-not-concerned-very-poor-142659270.html

WASHINGTON (AP) — Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney said Wednesday that he's "not concerned about the very poor" because they have an "ample safety net" and he's focused instead on relieving the suffering of middle-class people hit hard by the bad economy.

In comments likely to become fodder for his critics, Romney emphasized, "You can focus on the very poor, that's not my focus."

He brought up the subject of the poor in a CNN interview marking his big win in Florida's GOP primary Tuesday night, a major step toward becoming the party's challenger to President Barack Obama in the fall. A multi-millionaire former venture capitalist, Romney has been criticized by Democrats and his Republican rivals alike for earlier remarks seen as insensitive, such as saying "I like being able to fire people" and declaring that he knew what it was like to worry about being "pink-slipped" out of a job.

"I'm not concerned about the very poor." he said Wednesday. "We have a safety net there. If it needs repair, I'll fix it. I'm not concerned about the very rich. They're doing just fine. I'm concerned about the very heart of America, the 90-95 percent of Americans who right now are struggling."

Asked whether his comment about the poor might come across as odd to some, Romney reiterated.

"We will hear from the Democrat party the plight of the poor and there's no question, it's not good being poor, and we have a safety net to help those that are very poor," Romney said, adding that he's more worried about the unemployed, people living on Social Security and those struggling to send their kids to college.

"We have a very ample safety net and we can talk about whether it needs to be strengthened or whether there are holes in it. But we have food stamps, we have Medicaid, we have housing vouchers, we have programs to help the poor," Romney said. "But the middle-income Americans, they're the folks that are really struggling right now."

~~He just needs to learn how to put things in better terms.

[boutons_deux]

Coming off his big win in Florida last night, GOP front-runner Mitt Romney told CNN this morning that helping the poor is not his priority, suggesting that Democrats worry enough about the “plight of the poor” already:

ROMNEY: I’m not concerned with the very poor. We have a safety net there. If it needs repair, I’ll fix it. I’m not concerned about the very rich, they’re doing just fine. I’m concerned about the very heart of the America. [..]

HOST: You just said said, ‘I’m not concerned about the very poor because they have a safety net.’ But I think there are a lot of very poor Americans who are struggling who would say, that sounds odd. [...]

ROMNEY: The challenge right now — we will hear from the Democrat party the plight of the poor. And there’s no question it’s not good being poor. And we have a safety net to help those that are very poor, but campaign is focused is on middle-income Americans. My campaign — you can choose where to focus. You can focus on the rich, that’s not my focus. You can focus on the very poor, that’s not my focus.

Watch it:

Later, Romney said, “we have a very ample safety net and we can talk about whether it needs to be strengthened or whether there are holes in it. But we have food stamps, we have Medicaid, we have housing vouchers, we have programs to help the poor.”

Romney’s claim that the safety net is “very ample” suggests a lack of understanding . While safety net programs kept seven million Americans out of poverty in 2010, according to a study from the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, government assistance fell far short of insulating all, or even most, poor Americans.

But his comment is especially tone deaf considering that Romney has proposed weakening many of these safety net programs. Under Romney’s proposed reductions in federal spending, it’s likely that Medicaid would be cut by $153 billion by 2016, the food stamp program would have to throw 10 million low-income people off the rolls, and a key program supporting poor children’s health would face cumulative cuts of $946 billion through 2021. As ThinkProgress’ Igor Volsky has said that Romney is living in a “dream world” when he claims his Medicaid cuts won’t hurt the poor.

And Romney’s tax plan suggests his focus is really on the wealthy, as it includes massive giveaways to upper-income earners and investors, while doing almost nothing for middle- and low-income Americans.

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/02/01/416152/romney-not-concerned-poor/

========

His tone-deafness is exposing his fucking stupidity and ignorance. Like all the Repug candidates, he's a fucking insult to and shit stain on USA.

[Ashy Larry]

I can see where he's going with that statement because there's programs out there for the "really poor" ... but what's gonna happen when the GOP start cutting those same programs for the "really poor." Will he care about them then ????

Dumb thing to say ....... and I think he's so out of touch with blue collar folks that it really didn't surprise me that a statement like that would fly out his hole.

[cheguevara]

at least he's being honest.

:tu

[Wild Cobra]

at least he's being honest.

:tu
Amen.

[mercos]

Wow, that is an incredibly foolish thing to say as a politician. Its not like most don't know he feels that way, but to say it in an interview is insane. He already knows Democrats will paint him as a rich, out of touch elitist when the general election campaign begins. Now he is adding fuel to their fire. Terrible mistake for someone who has been running for president for half a decade.

[Ashy Larry]

Wow, that is an incredibly foolish thing to say as a politician. Its not like most don't know he feels that way, but to say it in an interview is insane. He already knows Democrats will paint him as a rich, out of touch elitist when the general election campaign begins. Now he is adding fuel to their fire. Terrible mistake for someone who has been running for president for half a decade.

what he failed to remember is each of those very poor people's vote carries the exact same amount as the rich folks out there ...... honest? yes. Smart? No.

[Wild Cobra]

Wow, that is an incredibly foolish thing to say as a politician. Its not like most don't know he feels that way, but to say it in an interview is insane. He already knows Democrats will paint him as a rich, out of touch elitist when the general election campaign begins. Now he is adding fuel to their fire. Terrible mistake for someone who has been running for president for half a decade.


what he failed to remember is each of those very poor people's vote carries the exact same amount as the rich folks out there ...... honest? yes. Smart? No.
Do you think those people who want more government subsidies would vote for him anyway?

I think he's doing the right thing. Being honest. Saying what needs to be said, instead of being a politically correct Pansie.

[mingus]

not really sure how this helps his cause. this will put a lot of people off, but at least he put it out there.

[Ashy Larry]

Do you think those people who want more government subsidies would vote for him anyway?

I think he's doing the right thing. Being honest. Saying what needs to be said, instead of being a politically correct Pansie.


I can ride with that. Honesty can come back and bite you in the ass though. And that's the double edge sword. In a case like this, it's better to be left unsaid. Kinda like that fat girlfriend who ask does this dress make me look fat. Do you tell her she looks fine or tell her that she makes that dress look fat ........ just better to walk out the door and take out the trash and pretend you didn't hear the question.

the poor folks probably already had their minds made up but some on the fence, those swing votes, kinda make Mitt look like he doesn't give a shit.

[Ashy Larry]

not really sure how this helps his cause. this will put a lot of people off, but at least he put it out there.

it will be used at some point against him and brought up.

[mercos]

Do you think those people who want more government subsidies would vote for him anyway?

I think he's doing the right thing. Being honest. Saying what needs to be said, instead of being a politically correct Pansie.

It is not the poor people he has to worry about. Of course they were not going to vote for him, with the exception of those in my neck of the woods (the south). Saying you are not worried about the poor, and that you like to fire people is not going to resonate with independent voters. Comments like these make him come off as elitist. Look no further than John Kerry to see how voters treat a supposed elitist, and Kerry was a war hero.

[boutons_deux]

"each of those very poor people's vote carries the exact same amount as the rich folks"

absolutely false. Human-Americans' votes are trumped completely by "rich folks" who vote directly into the pockets of politicians and judges, where they outweigh the H-A votes.

btw, Willard Gecko's party has been and continues to play the fraudulent "voter fraud" whine into disenfranchising as many poor, young, student, old, disabled H-As as it can.

At very best, all Repugs are terminal hypocrits, but mostly, along with Fox, THEY JUST LIE LIE LIE, and successfully count on dumbfuck Americans to believe them.

[Ashy Larry]

"each of those very poor people's vote carries the exact same amount as the rich folks"

absolutely false. Human-Americans' votes are trumped completely by "rich folks" who vote directly into the pockets of politicians and judges, where they outweigh the H-A votes.

btw, Willard Gecko's party has been and continues to play the fraudulent "voter fraud" whine into disenfranchising as many poor, young, student, old, disabled H-As as it can.

At very best, all Repugs are terminal hypocrits, but mostly, along with Fox, THEY JUST LIE LIE LIE, and successfully count on dumbfuck Americans to believe them.

I'm saying one person, one vote. We all know about the voter fraud especially in Florida (2000). Hell, I was in Orlando when all that shit went down and a large number of minorities were allowed to vote. Damn shame when you really think about it.

[Viva Las Espuelas]

Hmm. Now if people wouldve been this outraged when candidate Obama was pushing for cap and trade and said energy prices would "necessarily skyrocket". That wouldve actually affected everyone including poor people. Did poor people have more money back then to afford it because I never heard any outrage back then.

Keep up the good job, Joe :golfclap

[Winehole23]

lol damning political outrage with faint praise, then immediately drumming up indignation over a cap and trade bill that never passed

[JohnnyMarzetti]

Romney says he came from privileged, but missionary work taught him poor have good times too. Laughter helps stave off the hunger pains.

[mingus]

it will be used at some point against him and brought up.

no shit. just terrible phrasing on his part. wasn't he lawyer? wtf.

[The Reckoning]

what he failed to remember is each of those very poor people's vote carries the exact same amount as the rich folks out there ...... honest? yes. Smart? No.


lol no it doesnt

[jack sommerset]

Chalupa is one dumb son of a bitch

God bless

[ChumpDumper]

Why is he worried about the middle class? All they have to do is become very poor, and then no one has to worry about them anymore.

[rascal]

what he failed to remember is each of those very poor people's vote carries the exact same amount as the rich folks out there ...... honest? yes. Smart? No.

Those poor were not voting for him anyways. He needs the middle class support.

[z0sa]

A misstep. I don't think anyone who's running for leadership of an entire country can afford to leave millions out of his agenda, particularly the financially downtrodden. Romney needs realize he is already painted as an out of touch millionaire and he should combat that image vigorously if he wants any chance of competing with Obama.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Romney says he came from privileged, but missionary work taught him poor have good times too. Laughter helps stave off the hunger pains.

As it stands right now the only people that go hungry are the mentally disabled and children. Thats typically because of issues with physical access. We have enough farm production to justify using the surplus.

[DMX7]

Do you think those people who want more government subsidies would vote for him anyway?

I think he's doing the right thing. Being honest. Saying what needs to be said, instead of being a politically correct Pansie.

It's not just about being pc, it's about having a sensible conscience.

[TheProfessor]

He needs to walk this back ASAP. I can just imagine the attack ads the DNC has lined up with these kind of quotes from Romney.

[Wild Cobra]

He needs to walk this back ASAP. I can just imagine the attack ads the DNC has lined up with these kind of quotes from Romney.
And walking it back will help... how?

If anything, he needs to expand on how the DNC coddles these people, keep them in their place, so the DNC can continue to trick them into voting for them.

[ElNono]

hope he's concerned with his poor choice of words...

[ElNono]

And walking it back will help... how?

If anything, he needs to expand on how the DNC coddles these people, keep them in their place, so the DNC can continue to trick them into voting for them.

You look concerned about the very poor...

[NewcastleKEG]

Daily Show hit a home run with this one

[NewcastleKEG]

"Let them eat cake" is the traditional translation to English of the French (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_language) phrase "Qu'ils mangent de la brioche (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brioche)", supposedly spoken by "a great princess" upon learning that the peasants had no bread. Since brioche was enriched, as opposed to normal bread, the quote supposedly would reflect the princess's obliviousness to the condition of the people.

[boutons_deux]

A Clarification from Mitt Romney

LA JOLLA, CA – Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney today released the following letter to the American people:

Dear American People:

Yesterday, comments I made about poor people made me look terrible. This always seems to happen when I say what I really believe.

The fact is, I do care about poor people. That’s because I’m poor myself, when you compare me to Mark Zuckerberg.

According to most projections, Facebook’s IPO should net Mr. Zuckerberg a personal fortune of $28 billion. I couldn’t make a pile of dough-re-mi like that even if I fired people twenty-four hours a day.

Now, let’s take a look at Mitt Romney’s net worth: a measly $200 million. Now do you see why I consider myself poor? Compared to Mark Zuckerberg, Mitt Romney is practically a crack whore.

Now, I’m not going to sit here and envy a rich person like Mark Zuckerberg. That’s exactly what President Obama wants poor people like me to do. Mark Zuckerberg made his money fair and square, by creating useful products like imaginary sheep and angry birds. Say what you will about Facebook, it has totally revolutionized the way we waste our lives.

The fact is, if you’re poor in America, you should do what Mark Zuckerberg did: create a social network. I’ve just started my own, called TwoFaceBook. With TwoFaceBook, your profile doesn’t stay the same for more than two seconds.

In closing, there’s one more reason I don’t worry about poor people. They have Groupons.

Vote for me,

Mitt Romney

http://www.borowitzreport.com/

[boutons_deux]

"Let them eat cake" is the traditional translation to English of the French (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_language) phrase "Qu'ils mangent de la brioche (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brioche)", supposedly spoken by "a great princess" upon learning that the peasants had no bread. Since brioche was enriched, as opposed to normal bread, the quote supposedly would reflect the princess's obliviousness to the condition of the people.

brioche is more of a patisserie/pastry than a boulangerie/baker daily bread

[Das Texan]

I get Romney's point and it makes sense.

He should have chosen his words better though.

The Middle Class people have gotten the shaft for years. But its from both the right and the left they have gotten the shaft from.

I get his point in that he would like to do more for the middle class, but based on history, I find it more of a vote getting maneuver.

I would love for a politician to just come out there and say fuck the rich, fuck the poor, my goal is to actually do something that benefits the largest group of people being the middle classes.

But its a system of extremes whether its stated overtly or not.

[boutons_deux]

no, it doesn't make sense.

the poor and very poor are ALWAYS worse off, by definition, than the middle-class voters Willard Gecko is courting.

WG's economic/budget plans also cut bigger holes in the safety net. He has NO intention of finding holes, since he won't look for them, other than to make them bigger.

His gaffe exposes his and Repugs' real, sociopathic position and policies.

[Wild Cobra]

I would love for a politician to just come out there and say fuck the rich, fuck the poor, my goal is to actually do something that benefits the largest group of people being the middle classes.

But that wopuld be too constitutional for a candidate...

Promote the general welfare

[NewcastleKEG]

I get Romney's point and it makes sense.

He should have chosen his words better though.

The Middle Class people have gotten the shaft for years. But its from both the right and the left they have gotten the shaft from.

I get his point in that he would like to do more for the middle class, but based on history, I find it more of a vote getting maneuver.

I would love for a politician to just come out there and say fuck the rich, fuck the poor, my goal is to actually do something that benefits the largest group of people being the middle classes.

But its a system of extremes whether its stated overtly or not.
Romeny basically did that. Problem is he's a Republican so no one believes he actually cares about the middle class

Middle Class Republicans are still waiting for Reagan's economy to trickle down to them

:lol

[xrayzebra]

Middle Class Republicans are still waiting for Reagan's economy to trickle down to them


I guess you weren't around during the Carter years......believe me, Regan's economy
did trickle down and none too soon. I was tired of seeing 20 percent interest rates
on buying homes. Do you remember a little thing called the "misery index".

[NewcastleKEG]

I guess you weren't around during the Carter years......believe me, Regan's economy
did trickle down and none too soon. I was tired of seeing 20 percent interest rates
on buying homes. Do you remember a little thing called the "misery index".
Reagan's 1st term was a complete disaster & then he started selling Americans out for his own poersonal glory. Knowing he would be a brain dead fish living on a ranch in a couple years

This country still has not recovered from the bullshit he put in place. Carter saw the writing on the wall and warned the ignorant and naive Americans but they didn't want to hear the truth and now the Middle Class is in the position it is.

Americans have only themselves to blame for electing an actor known as the Teflon President. Link to Carter selling weapons to terrorist or going behind the Presidents back and negotiating with terrorist? I'm not even mentioning the complete abomination of Reagans domestic policies

[boutons_deux]

"Regan's economy did trickle down and none too soon"

You Lie

[xrayzebra]

My, my, my. I must have hit a nerve. Seems our little communist and
liberal get all upset when the truth is spoken.

Regggie was most probably the greatest President in mine and your time.

I can understand Boutons getting all upset, he ran the Communist out
of town and out of business in Russian and many other countries.

But no sweat, we got Obama to fill in where Carter let off.

:toast

[ElNono]

Reagan knew a thing or two about living off the government credit card...

lol star wars

[SnakeBoy]

He needs to walk this back ASAP. I can just imagine the attack ads the DNC has lined up with these kind of quotes from Romney.

I'm not so sure that Mitt talking about helping the struggling middle class and Obama focusing on the plight of the poor would be so damaging to Mitt in the general.

[NewcastleKEG]

My, my, my. I must have hit a nerve. Seems our little communist and
liberal get all upset when the truth is spoken.

Regggie was most probably the greatest President in mine and your time.

I can understand Boutons getting all upset, he ran the Communist out
of town and out of business in Russian and many other countries.

But no sweat, we got Obama to fill in where Carter let off.

:toast
Teflon President. Lied to your face & made deals with the enemy to help his legacy. As time goes by, Reagan is exposed more and more

So let me get this straight. The guy who was mentally impaired through half of his Presidency is the ''Greatest President in our time''

I think that says it all about America Post 1970's

[NewcastleKEG]

"Regggie was most probably the greatest President in mine and your time."




Reagan was a serial tax raiser. As governor of California, Reagan “signed into law the largest tax increase in the history of any state up till then.” Meanwhile, state spending nearly doubled.



Reagan nearly tripled the federal budget deficit. During the Reagan years, the debt increased to nearly $3 trillion, “roughly three times as much as the first 80 years of the century had done altogether.”



Unemployment soared after Reagan’s 1981 tax cuts. Unemployment jumped to 10.8 percent after Reagan enacted his much-touted tax cut, and it took years for the rate to get back down to its previous level. Meanwhile, income inequality exploded.



Reagan grew the size of the federal government tremendously. Reagan promised “to move boldly, decisively, and quickly to control the runaway growth of federal spending,” but federal spending “ballooned” under Reagan. He bailed out Social Security in 1983 after attempting to privatize it, and set up a progressive taxation system to keep it funded into the future.



Reagan did little to fight a woman’s right to chose. As governor of California in 1967, Reagan signed a bill to liberalize the state’s abortion laws that “resulted in more than a million abortions.”



Reagan was a “bellicose peacenik.” He wrote in his memoirs that “[m]y dream…became a world free of nuclear weapons.”



Reagan gave amnesty to 3 million undocumented immigrants. Reagan signed into law a bill that made any immigrant who had entered the country before 1982 eligible for amnesty.



Reagan illegally funneled weapons to Iran. Reagan and other senior U.S. officials secretly sold arms to officials in Iran, which was subject to a an arms embargo at the time, in exchange for American hostages. Some funds from the illegal arms sales also went to fund anti-Communist rebels in Nicaragua — something Congress had already prohibited the administration from doing.



Reagan vetoed a comprehensive anti-Apartheid act. which placed sanctions on South Africa and cut off all American trade with the country. Reagan’s veto was overridden by the Republican-controlled Senate.



Reagan helped create the Taliban and Osama Bin Laden. Reagan fought a proxy war with the Soviet Union by training, arming, equipping, and funding Islamist mujahidin fighters in Afghanistan. Reagan funneled billions of dollars, along with top-secret intelligence and sophisticated weaponry to these fighters through the Pakistani intelligence service. The Talbian and Osama Bin Laden — a prominent mujahidin commander — emerged from these mujahidin groups Reagan helped create, and U.S. policy towards Pakistan remains strained because of the intelligence services’ close relations to these fighters.

[NewcastleKEG]

^ Utter Failure ^

But the wealthy got wealthier. If you aren't wealthy & you pound the Reagan drum.....you are an uneducated, ignorant, & naive sheep.

Simple as that

[JoeChalupa]

http://s3-ak.buzzfed.com/static/enhanced/web03/2012/1/19/21/anigif_enhanced-buzz-2946-1327026302-16.gif
"What do I think of the very poor?"

[AFBlue]

He needs to walk this back ASAP. I can just imagine the attack ads the DNC has lined up with these kind of quotes from Romney.

He admitted it was a misstep and clarified it on Hannity, saying he cared about all Americans and wanted to focus on lifting them out of poverty. I think he should've said his "focus" is on middle-income Americans getting squeezed, because that was the intent of his message.

[Wild Cobra]

Reagan knew a thing or two about living off the government credit card...

lol star wars
I think SDI was a worthwhile expenditure. I believe they are still developing some of the weapon ideas.

dq6ZsF6bzOA

[ElNono]

^ of course you think it was worthwhile... the program was targeted specifically to ignoramus like you.

I'm sure you're also happy that we're probably still paying interest in the money St Ronnie borrowed to spend on that project.

[LnGrrrR]

Well we wouldn't have to worry about that interest if poor people would stop having babies... [/WC]

:lol

[boutons_deux]

Two Days Later, Romney Gives Up Defending Comments About The Poor: ‘I Misspoke’

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/02/03/418029/video-two-days-later-romney-gives-up-defending-comments-about-the-poor-i-mispoke/

==========

Yes, he MISSPOKE/EXPOSED his/Repug/VRWC/conservative TRUE sociopathic strategy towards the 99%

[boutons_deux]

Krugman trashing 0.01%er Willard Gecko

Romney Isn’t Concerned

If you’re an American down on your luck, Mitt Romney has a message for you: He doesn’t feel your pain. Earlier this week, Mr. Romney told a startled CNN interviewer, “I’m not concerned about the very poor. We have a safety net there.”

Faced with criticism, the candidate has claimed that he didn’t mean what he seemed to mean, and that his words were taken out of context. But he quite clearly did mean what he said. And the more context you give to his statement, the worse it gets.

First of all, just a few days ago, Mr. Romney was denying that the very programs he now says take care of the poor actually provide any significant help. On Jan. 22, he asserted that safety-net programs — yes, he specifically used that term — have “massive overhead,” and that because of the cost of a huge bureaucracy “very little of the money that’s actually needed by those that really need help, those that can’t care for themselves, actually reaches them.”

This claim, like much of what Mr. Romney says, was completely false: U.S. poverty programs have nothing like as much bureaucracy and overhead as, say, private health insurance companies. As the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities has documented, between 90 percent and 99 percent of the dollars allocated to safety-net programs do, in fact, reach the beneficiaries. But the dishonesty of his initial claim aside, how could a candidate declare that safety-net programs do no good and declare only 10 days later that those programs take such good care of the poor that he feels no concern for their welfare?

Also, given this whopper about how safety-net programs actually work, how credible was Mr. Romney’s assertion, after expressing his lack of concern about the poor, that if the safety net needs a repair, “I’ll fix it”?

Now, the truth is that the safety net does need repair. It provides a lot of help to the poor, but not enough. Medicaid, for example, provides essential health care to millions of unlucky citizens, children especially, but many people still fall through the cracks: among Americans with annual incomes under $25,000, more than a quarter — 28.7 percent — don’t have any kind of health insurance. And, no, they can’t make up for that lack of coverage by going to emergency rooms.

Similarly, food aid programs help a lot, but one in six Americans living below the poverty line suffers from “low food security.” This is officially defined as involving situations in which “food intake was reduced at times during the year because [households] had insufficient money or other resources for food” — in other words, hunger.

So we do need to strengthen our safety net. Mr. Romney, however, wants to make the safety net weaker instead.

Specifically, the candidate has endorsed Representative Paul Ryan’s plan for drastic cuts in federal spending — with almost two-thirds of the proposed spending cuts coming at the expense of low-income Americans. To the extent that Mr. Romney has differentiated his position from the Ryan plan, it is in the direction of even harsher cuts for the poor; his Medicaid proposal appears to involve a 40 percent reduction in financing compared with current law.

So Mr. Romney’s position seems to be that we need not worry about the poor thanks to programs that he insists, falsely, don’t actually help the needy, and which he intends, in any case, to destroy.

Still, I believe Mr. Romney when he says he isn’t concerned about the poor. What I don’t believe is his assertion that he’s equally unconcerned about the rich, who are “doing fine.” After all, if that’s what he really feels, why does he propose showering them with money?

And we’re talking about a lot of money. According to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, Mr. Romney’s tax plan would actually raise taxes on many lower-income Americans, while sharply cutting taxes at the top end. More than 80 percent of the tax cuts would go to people making more than $200,000 a year, almost half to those making more than $1 million a year, with the average member of the million-plus club getting a $145,000 tax break.

And these big tax breaks would create a big budget hole, increasing the deficit by $180 billion a year — and making those draconian cuts in safety-net programs necessary.

Which brings us back to Mr. Romney’s lack of concern. You can say this for the former Massachusetts governor and Bain Capital executive: He is opening up new frontiers in American politics. Even conservative politicians used to find it necessary to pretend that they cared about the poor. Remember “compassionate conservatism”? Mr. Romney has, however, done away with that pretense.

At this rate, we may soon have politicians who admit what has been obvious all along: that they don’t care about the middle class either, that they aren’t concerned about the lives of ordinary Americans, and never were.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/03/opinion/krugman-romney-isnt-concerned.html?_r=2&hp

[xrayzebra]

You gotta love it. :rollin

Poor babies, all they got is Carter, Clinton and Obama to crow about.

And their prize or prizes has just about destroyed the nation and they
want to harp on Reagan.

Hang in there sunshine(s). You may learn what is really going on in this
world one of these days.

[boutons_deux]

XZ, you don't even know when you're been bitch-slapped .... with your own hand.

More Repug "compassionate conservatism" and "free market solutoins to everything":


Santorum Tells Sick Kid Not To Complain About $1 Million Drug Costs Because People Pay $900 For An IPad

GOP contender Rick Santorum had a heated exchange with a mother and her sick young son Wednesday, arguing that drug companies were entitled to charge whatever the market demanded for life-saving therapies.[...]

“People have no problem paying $900 for an iPad,” Santorum said, “but paying $900 for a drug they have a problem with — it keeps you alive. Why? Because you’ve been conditioned to think health care is something you can get without having to pay for it.”

The mother said the boy was on the drug Abilify, used to treat schizophrenia, and that, on paper, its costs would exceed $1 million each year.

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012/02/03/417657/santorum-tells-sick-kid-not-to-complain-about-1-million-drug-costs-because-people-pay-900-for-an-ipad/

[TDMVPDPOY]

being honest dont mean shit when it comes to votes, where a majority are ppl earning check to check

[JohnnyMarzetti]

"If you’re an American down on your luck,Mitt Romney has a message for you: He doesn’t feel your pain."

[FuzzyLumpkins]

The DNC 's spin on this is lame for two main reasons. First because its completely out of context. Mostly however its because this is the narrative that our elections are decided on. What policies about the poor or middle class are we talking about here?

Most of us have no idea and they want it that way. We fall right into the trap.

[JoeChalupa]

https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/431642_3010323852803_1103691616_33171701_195409938 _n.jpg

[boutons_deux]

Reagan knew a thing or two about living off the government credit card...

lol star wars

He also was head of the actors' UNION!

http://www.sag.org/ronald-reagan

[JohnnyMarzetti]

The repugnants get what they deserve.

[JoeChalupa]

Just another notch closer to clinching the nomination.....which he already has.

[boutons_deux]

Poll: Low-income Republicans say do more for poor


A significant portion of low-income Republicans might not embrace Mitt Romney’s comment this week that he is “not concerned about the very poor” because they have government programs that serve as a safety net, according to recent polls.

About a quarter of Republican and Republican-leaning registered voters have annual family incomes less than $30,000,


the majority of Republicans that fall in this lowest income category, 57 percent, believe that the government doesn’t do enough to help the poor. Only 18 percent of this group said the government does too much to help the poor, while 21 percent said government aid for the poor is at the right amount.

Meanwhile, 44 percent of Republicans that have annual family incomes of $75,000 or more said the amount of federal aid for the poor is excessive, while only 21 percent said it is not enough.

Also, lower-income Republicans have a markedly different view about the fairness of the economic system than higher-income Republicans – 51 percent of Republicans with an annual income of less than $30,000 said in a December poll that the country’s economic system unfairly favors the wealthy, while just 28 percent of Republicans with an annual income $75,000 or more said the same.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0212/72405.html#ixzz1lXGyAJZZ

and yet, these sub $30K-Repugs will reliably vote for Repugs and therefore against their own best interests. dumbfucks, probably single-issue-voters-no-matter-what, issues like Guns, Gays, God, Abortion, and kill-all-Muslims.

[RandomGuy]

The whole comment is probably taken more than a little out of context.

In context though, his illusion that we have a social safety net worth a shit that doens't need fixing right now is telling.

We perpetuate poverty in this country by short-changing the children of people with low incomes in so many ways it makes me a bit ill thinking about it.

Leading the charge is the right wing War on the Poor, in which people who like to feel better about themselves at the expense of others take on an air of false piousness, "the poor are only poor because they make bad choices and are somehow morally weak/flawed".

This then becomes the excuse to cut back on the social safety net and anything that might have a whiff of "wealth transfer", God forbid it break the poverty cycle.

[Wild Cobra]

He has explained his comments about not worrying about the poor because of the safety net. He said he is worried about the middle class losing numbers to the poor, and want the poor to become middle class. I don't remember his exact words, but yes. It was really blown out of proportion.

[boutons_deux]

"because of the safety net"

which is the shittiest, hole-iest of any industrial country, to say nothing of Americans working longer per year than any European country, and with the punitive 2 weeks/year vacation.

Repug/conservative social/economic Darwinism at its very best.

[JohnnyMarzetti]

He has explained his comments about not worrying about the poor because of the safety net. He said he is worried about the middle class losing numbers to the poor, and want the poor to become middle class. I don't remember his exact words, but yes. It was really blown out of proportion.

BS, the man no idea what it is like to be poor and he did not misspeak. I don't think he can even relate to the middle class as he has always been above them. Misspoke my ass.

[elbamba]

https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/431642_3010323852803_1103691616_33171701_195409938 _n.jpg

I think Obama donated about 1% of his income to charity last year. Romney gave about 40%. Biden gave a few hundred dollars.

[boutons_deux]

"Romney gave about 40%."

You Lie

[AFBlue]

"Romney gave about 40%."

You Lie

His numbers are off, but the point he's trying to illustrate isn't. People are trying to villify the rich by saying they're money-grubbing whores, when in fact there are extremely generous and philanthropic people with money. Romney paid the taxes he owed and faithfully tithed to his church. The democratic leaders want to talk about more taxes to help the poor, but how much did they give in charitable contributions to groups that support the cause? It's a fundamental difference in philosophy; let rich people be philanthropic on their own or get pennies on the dollar for their contributions by taxing the shit of them and letting an inefficient government distribute their wealth.

[boutons_deux]

"extremely generous and philanthropic people with money"

tax deductible, and negotiating all kinds of private deductions with IRS.

Most charities, eg Komen, are scams, and probably hire members of the the donors' families with salaries in the $100Ks.

[JoeChalupa]

And Willard fires his debate coach who got him where he is today? What an idiot.

[Nbadan]

His numbers are off, but the point he's trying to illustrate isn't. People are trying to villify the rich by saying they're money-grubbing whores, when in fact there are extremely generous and philanthropic people with money. Romney paid the taxes he owed and faithfully tithed to his church. The democratic leaders want to talk about more taxes to help the poor, but how much did they give in charitable contributions to groups that support the cause? It's a fundamental difference in philosophy; let rich people be philanthropic on their own or get pennies on the dollar for their contributions by taxing the shit of them and letting an inefficient government distribute their wealth.

I would say the redistribution is pretty damn efficient when it happens and nothing stimulates the economy better than increasing benefits to the poor and unemployed...that's why the greedy 1% is short-sighted, give the poor money in benefits and with the multiplier effect of money, the greedy corporate robber-barons make more money too..

[JoeChalupa]

Not everyone wants to vilify the rich as most would like to be rich but more of a position of fairness. There is a difference.

[AFBlue]

"extremely generous and philanthropic people with money"

tax deductible, and negotiating all kinds of private deductions with IRS.

Most charities, eg Komen, are scams, and probably hire members of the the donors' families with salaries in the $100Ks.

So now you're suggesting that people get taxed on income they give away to organizations voluntarily? And you're also attacking an organization that is researching a cure for cancer?

There's all kinds of fail in just your short response.

[boutons_deux]

"people get taxed on income they give away to organizations voluntarily"

the tax code, as social policy/engineering, encourages charitiable donations.

Komen actually gives a small %age of their income for breast cancer research. Komen's finances have been well aired over the past week, if you know how to Google.

[101A]

"people get taxed on income they give away to organizations voluntarily"

the tax code, as social policy/engineering, encourages charitiable donations.

Komen actually gives a small %age of their income for breast cancer research. Komen's finances have been well aired over the past week, if you know how to Google.

Komen's not bad:

http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=4509



And, if the govt. is SO efficient at redistributing wealth, as Krugman suggests above, what are ALL of those Federal Employees doing, and what are they being paid with?