GOP frontrunner says his focus will be on middle class
This is a non story.Mitt would be good for America.
Romney was correct on this issue, and the liberal msnbc/cnn crowd is having a
field day with it? Obviously they must believe that Americans are too stupid to
see what this is, an all out class warfare attack. When are we as Americans
going to wake up and see that our country is better than this nonsense that the
Obama administration keeps spoonfeeding to all of us. The bottom line is that
most middle class Americans are hurting between loosing jobs, the high cost of
food, and housing, and the rising cost of healthcare. As a True Generation X'er
I am getting sick and tired of politicos who make high in the sky promises they
don't intend to keep. Frankly I don't really trust anyone in government these
days. The poor do have a safety net, working at a poor title 1 school in
the city it's obvious. My poor students get free breakfast and lunch daily.
They get reduced daycare through a fabulous after school program, they get free
tutoring, top of the line classroom materials and small class sizes. My own
children in a middle class school get NONE of these types of programs. I have
talked to teachers where these students are coming to school hungry, and tired.
These kids are crammed into huge classes of over 30 in some cases, and these
middle class families are struggling to make it. Too "rich" for
welfare, yet scraping the barrel to get by. Who needs the reality check here?
After watching Mitt for the past few years, I've come to the conclusion that he
is sometimes guilty of putting his foot in his mouth, and saying things in such
a way that they DON'T say what he's trying to convey. When he said "I'm
not concerned about the poor" I am positive that he did not mean he doesn't
CARE about the poor. There are many definitions of the word
"concerned": involved, focused, attentive, regarding, attending to
something viewed as important...and many more similar meanings. If you read the
whole comment, he is explaining that his focus or his concern, is not on the
people who currently have some type or means of care. The rich can take care of
themselves pretty well. There are many programs in place for those who are poor
for whatever reason, but there are very few programs available to the middle
income people who are seeing their incomes eroded by loss of job, reduction of
hours, etc. They make too much to qualify for help, but not enough to meet
needs. This is his FOCUS, or his CONCERN at this time.
You have to love the media, they'll twist it and turn the truth to anything you
allow them to do so!! Anyone in Utah should know we take care of the poor!!
I agree with Mitt. There are programs in place to care for the poor. The rich
do not need help, just stop trying to punish them for working hard. I lost a
good paying job with benefits and was out of work for a year and then found a
part time job paying $8.00 and hour untill a full time position opened and now I
make $8.50 an hour with no benefits, no sick time, and no insurance, I drive a
1996 car, payed my house off early, pay property taxes and utilities,buy
groceries, and pay tithing.My neighbor next door is getting welfare,
foodstamps, medicade, subsidized rent on a house, subsidized utilities,has a
daughter with children by different fathers, never married living there and they
get a welfare check every month and can buy smokes and beer and drives a new
pick up truck.I am not looking for a handout, just relief for doing
what is right and working hard and paying my own bills. So yes Mitt, I agree
Our wonderful media has to find something about him to criticize. I agree with
Romney though, there are lots of programs in place for the poor, it's the middle
class that needs the most help. If you help the poor too much, it takes away any
motivation for too many of them to rise out of poverty.
I consider this much ado about nothing. And we wonder about why a lot of
quality people will not run for office.
well that was a dumb thing to say.
It is laughable that Mr. Romney's advisors would actually blame this gaffe on
the media. I watched it live. Ms. O'Brien was actually quite good about the
situation and stated that she was sure this comment would be awkward to many
Americans and then offered him the opportunity to correct it. He didn't. He
chose to try to play the Newt card and blame the media for spinning his words.
This was not the media's problem. If you make a mistake, whether you think it
was justified or not, own it. That's what damage control means; it doesn't mean
you continue to try to convince people that you didn't mean what they're all
thinking. Quite disappointing for Mr. Romney. Unfortunately it's
hardly the first time. While one gaffe can be excused and you might even get
away with two, you combine this with the "I like to fire people" and
the "Let the foreclosures run their course" and the "Corporations
are people" you begin to wonder whether these are really gaffes or are
glimmers of the real Mr. Romney (the question everyone has been asking is who is
he). If he wants to win, he has got to learn to not say everything
that comes to mind. It may make sense in his head, but it sounds ridiculous out
loud, something we all have a problem with from time to time. Unfortunately, a
Presidential campaign is not as forgiving.
Mitt Romney also said he doesn't care or isn't worried about the very rich too.
Where's the outrage over that comment?What Romney said is entirely
true. He's not ignoring the difficulties of the poor but for those of us who
qualify for all sorts of governmental programs because of our low income, life
is quite comfortable because of the help we receive. Yes, I could waste money
and have all sorts of difficulties but with frugality (which people of any
income should have) and with the governmental programs (Medicaid, WIC, EITC,
etc.) in place, my lifestyle is quite comfortable.What happens is
when you start to make just enough money that you do not qualify for much if any
governmental assistance. Then the costs of things can add up.That's
all Mitt Romney was saying - that the poor have safety nets (we do); it's others
who need more help, by improving the economy.I love the Gingrich
campaign comment about Romney being out of touch with the average American;
actually, that's exactly who he is in touch with - the average Americans. The
poor and wealthy are not the average Americans - they are outliers.
This is a meme the media is attempting to float to the general public that
Romney is a robot, that he doesn't relate to the poor, that he is rich and we
all know the rich don't deserve their riches, and that Romney isn't in touch
with common people. All are lies. Romney has demonstrated at a
personal level a deep devotion to people regardless their economic status. He is
focused on real problems in the econonmy and of course his policies will benefit
America as a whole. It's telling to me that the critics can dismiss
the middle class except when pointing the finger at republicans to make the
absurdist claim that republicans don't care about the middle class and only the
rich benefit from their policies.
Whats the issue here, its the Dang Truth.In fact, the system is broke for
the poor, and now there lazy and acting like children.
Everybody knows exactly and precisely what Mitt meant--but its just too tempting
to the sharks to let words like this go by without turning a big nothing into a
flaming something. If he is to go on to the nomination and the fight
against Obama, he will lose the ability to just speak his mind. He will have to
carefully weigh every single word and carefully craft every sentence, knowing so
many will not take the meaning and spirit of what he says (as in this quote) but
will leap on every little thing and make it a mountain, when it really wasn't
even a molehill.
The poor have better health benefits than congress....they have zero
copy.......call it Marxist medical
Middle class Americans may be suffering, but the pain started long before Obama
took office.Romney is aware of that (hopefully, if he isn't then is
certainly isn't suited to be president), but chooses to blame Obama becuase its
politically expedient and boosts his chances to become president himself.
In the article;Still, John McCormack at The Weekly Standard pointed
out, "A candidate can say he's 'focused' on the middle class without saying
he's 'not concerned' about the very poor, just as a candidate can say he's
'focused' on the economy without saying he's 'not concerned' about national
security."Romney chose terrible words to explain his focus. He
definitely shot himself in the foot.
This is the Mittster's problem. He doesn't know how to communicatate with the
masses. He seems incapable of "hunkerin' down and drawin' in the dirt with
a stick." He meant well and the point he was trying to make was logical and
reasonable. He just said it wrong...again. Don't personalize it, Mitt. Don't say
you don't care. Just say, "There is a safety net for the very poor, and the
very rich can take care of themselves."If Romney loses the
nomination and/or general election it will not be because of his ideas and
agenda; they're solid. It will be because he doesn't know how to communicate
What the article didn't report:Romney is catching it from BOTH sides
of the political spectrum on this one.Conservative Senator Jim
DeMint (Tea Party favorite) called for Romney to "backtrack" his
comment, saying:" But I think he was trying to make a case that
theyâre taken care of. But, in fact, I would say Iâm worried about
the poor because many are trapped in dependency, they need a good job; they
donât need to be on social welfare programs. I think he needs to turn that
around...."Both Ann and Mitt Romney grew up in affluent homes
and attended private prep schools.Neither Mitt or Ann worked while Mitt
was going to school, they paid expenses by selling stock that Mitt's dad had
invested for him. They bought their first house when Mitt started Harvard,
with money loaned to them by George Romney, and sold it 7 yrs later for more
than double what they had paid for it. In an interview with the Boston Globe,
Ann remarked, "we lived rent-free."Bottom line: Mitt
enjoyed the great benefits of family wealth and his attempts to portray himself
as anything different is not accurate.His father, George's story, on the
other hand, is inspirational.
Lets be honest for a change, Mitt may be the best choice, but he is out of touch
with the poor and the middle class, that is why he continuously puts his foot
squarely in his mouth. Don't blame the media, blame the person who made the
comment. To lump the poor and the wealthy in the same sentence is stupid when
talking about anything economic is quite simply a stupid thing to do. I do
understand why he is not worried about the wealthy, because under his economic
plan, they will pay even lower taxes. As a member of the middle class I don't
see the love he claims to have for me. I don't see anything he has proposed
that will help me. His policies are the same ones that republicans since Reagan
have been pushing which make the wealthy wealthier, the poor poorer and the
middle class working more for less.
I'm just glad I don't have untold numbers if reporters breathlessly waiting with
recorders in hand for me to say something that can easily be taken wrong. I'd be
quoted in the news all day.
Why this is so controvesial among liberals is because liberals need victims to
advance their agendas. If you take away liberal's victims, they have no power. A
rational mind would realize that for the last 75 years the government has
transfered some $40 trillion to be a saftey net and we still have poverty.
That's why all we hear from liberals is conservatives want to push old grandma
off a cliff, or that conservatives don't care about the poor! Maybe poverty can
not be solved with liberalism? Now there is a politically incorrect but very
true statement, right?
As a member of the middle class, I'm glad to see that Mitt has his focus on
people such as me. The opportunists who are trying to make an issue of his
non-issue statement by isolating it outside of its full context are showing just
how shallow their thinking is. For Newt to make an issue of it is to show how
desperate he is in his campaign. I would vote for Obama before I would vote for
Gingrich. I had no respect for him as a person when he was the Speaker of the
House, and he has said or done nothing to convince me to change my thinking
about him during his campaign. I am still flummoxed that he has managed to
become a viable contender for the Republican nomination. I think Santorum is a
far better candidate than Gingrich is.
Vote for Mitt! Then you can mow his lawn, walk his dog and wash his cars, and
pay his taxes.Then he'll fire you.That was the first honest
thing he's said yet, and it shows his true colors.Mitt ain't taking
President Obama out, happy to report.Sorry, Utah and GOP everywhere.
And the welfare queen lives on..I never got it but Regan apparently was a great
communicator. The devil is not in the details here, it's in the attitude. He
continually speaks as a CEO, or a dispassionate evaluator. If Mitt doesn't
learn to embrace who he is and explain why that is good for the poor, and the
middle class, he's going to be run over by Obama. To try and convince people
that he's just a common Joe who worked hard (I'm unemployed too, I've feared
getting a pink slip, )is never going to fly because he has to say those things
with a giggle..literly..giggling at the time. Think of John Kerry.
Kerry had the same problem, to a lesser degree, but he just couldn't relate to
the average Joe. The bigger issue is that Romney's policies reinforce the
perception that he doesn't care about the poor..let the foreclosure market run
it's course, the bottom 40% of Americans don't pay any taxes and they should, a
tax policy that raises taxes on the bottom 10% and decreases taxes on the top
1%. Regardless of whether you feel these policies are right or wrong, on their
surface they reinforce the dispassionate I don't care about the poor attitude.
When I first heard the comment, I thought it was ill-advised. Not because he
said something wrong. How can you argue with it?"I'm not
concerned about 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 America, the 90-95 percent of Americans who
right now are struggling."I thought it was ill-advised because
I knew that it had given fodder for the media to use to stir up and polarize the
masses. Not because the media is so opposed to Romney, but because they need a
horse-race in order to get people to pay attention to them. They want to hobble
the lead horse. In the end, it would also work to favor their man, President
Obama.Over the next months, the only part of that quote we will hear
is the first phrase.
'Tis much ado about nothing.
Anyone who gives 15% of his income to charity (including 5% beyond what he gives
to his church) should not be accused of being insentive to the needs of the
@Mike in SandyBuddy, you sound like "Baghdad Bob" when the
bombs are falling all around you. Can you honestly say most Americans are
better off than they were four years ago? Unemployment is at 8.5%. Home values
have fallen by half. Gas prices have doubled. The national debt has gone from
$10 trillion to $15 trillion. And, Mike in Sandy, if you are
keeping score about who is showing their true colors, Mitt Romney has donated
MILLIONS to charity. Romney is infinitely more qualified to be the President
than Obama. Obama doesn't give a hoot about the poor. He's the most
thin-skinned, self-centered President we've ever had.
I have said it before, I will say it again, Romney and (drop-out) Huntsman were
spoiled brats born with silver spoons in their mouths. I am by all means
considered poor, but by government considered lower middle class. Consistent
with Romney's remarks, no need to worry about me starving to death, but, I can
not make enough to pay the most essential bills - House payment, utilities,
transportation, health care, etc... but to somebody that is worth over $ 200
million, I don't think he cares about the lower middle class either.
Mitt is spot on. Maybe people don't like the truth... but the poorest have
assistance and are better off in some cases than others.
'"I'm not concerned about the very poor," he told CNN's Soledad
O'Brien in a morning interview. "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.' - article quoting Mitt Romney. Poor: **'GOP
rivals turn Romneys jobs record against him' - By Kasie Hunt - AP - Published by
DSnews - 01/09/2012 'A separate AP analysis found that at least
4,000 workers lost their jobs at 45 companies bought by Bain...' article Rich: **'Study: Rich get a lot richer, outpace middle
class' - By Andrew Taylor - AP - 10/26/11 'It finds that after-tax
income for the top 1 percent of U.S. households almost tripled, up 275 percent,
from 1979 to 2007.' article Safety net: **'Senate
Republicans - again - kill bill for jobless aid' - By Stephen Ohlemacher - AP -
Published by DSNews - 06/30/10 **Senate Republicans likely to kill
Obama jobs bill By Andrew Taylor AP Published by DSNews 10/11/11
I love the cut and paste politics in or politicial environment today. Anything
to muddy the water, get readership, or further peoples own political agenda.
The fact is corporations create jobs not government so why are they so evil. We
should be able to fire people who are not performing to our expectation. And the
middle class should be the primary concern of the next president.
It was a poor statement yes,well DuuuhhhHe said in a after thought
interview,it was a out of place unspoken slip of that out of place
toungue and a nervous out spoken voice!please dont start to studder
Just another example in a very long list of examples why this man is totally
un-electabale for president as far I'm concerned. At this point it really
doesn't matter who wins the GOP nomination. Mr. Obama will keep his job for four
more years and america will be better off for it.
"A safety net"? The fact that people are in a "safety net"
in the first place demonstrates a fall from someplace of safety. This isn't
something to worry about? Nobody forced Romney to say what he said. He wasn't
going from any script. He chose these words. Let him be held responsible
for what he says. I actually applaud the reporter for stopping Romney and
forcing him to explain a comment that truly sounded "off". It really
did come off as, "I don't care about the poor"? Whatever happened to
"the tired, poor, huddled masses, yearning to breath free,the wretched
refuse, the homeless, and the tempest tossed."? Because it was a
comment made in passing, it truly demonstrates Romney's out-of-touch world.
This is not a good candidate for President. Republicans have no serious
options. Unless Obama commits some heinous crime, he'll probably win again.
Mitt doesn't say things exactly how people think he should so he gets in
trouble. The fact is, Romney is correct. The poor have a huge safety net and it
the middle class doesn't propser neither do the poor. Romney is
dealing with reality. Put his quotes in context and he has definitely the best
vision and skills to lead Amercia.
"Breaking News"Now Donald trump is backing MittRomney?
The sad thing is he is right but is criticized for being right. No one wants to
hear it. Some "poor" families are better off than my lower
middle-class because they qualify for handouts. I don't want a handout, but it
would be nice to not feel like everything the gov't does now just hurts the
Although I would never vote for Romney, I give him credit for what he says he
meant by his comment. However, he is claiming to focus on the 90 - 95 percent
because those are the votes he is seeking. That's what is all about and anyone
who thinks otherwise is a complete idiot.
Romney is spot on and anyone that disagrees with his assessment is not using
their brain (Newt, Obama, people who comment on this board). This was not a
gaff as it is being portrayed. It is the absolute truth. The very poorest
among us have a safety net we don't need to worry about them, other than lifting
them up to do better.He also said as part of the same conversation
that he wants to get the economy going so that the middle class gets richer and
the poor move to the middle class. What's wrong with that? Absolutely nothing.
Anyone who would pull that comment out of context and try to use it against him
has already made up their mind, and is looking for something to criticize.In context, he was addressing the question that was asked, and
everything he said was on target.We have paid a lot of attention to
the very poor, and they do have opportunities for education and training to make
their lives better. They also have assistance with day to day needs. Romney is
correct. It is the middle class who are trying to get by on their own. The question is.. Do we help by giving handouts (Obama) or do we help by
providing opportunities (Romney)?
Mitt Romney! The best thing to happen to the Democrats since Sarah Palin.
'The question is.. Do we help by giving handouts (Obama)...' - cval | 9:28 a.m.
Feb. 2, 2012 Reply: **'Bailout is law' - By Jeanne
Sahadi - CNN Money - 10/04/08 'NEW YORK -- After two weeks of
contentious and often emotional debate, the federal government's far-reaching
and historic plan to bail out the nation's financial system was signed into law
by President Bush on Friday afternoon.' - article **'Bush signs $700
billion bailout bill' - AP - Published by Denver Post - By Tom Raum - 10/03/08
I'm no fan of romney, or the republican party for that matter, but romney was
just trying to explain his focus and phrased it really badly. Then it gets
jumped all over. We really need to cool down and accept candidates of persuasion
Keep in mind, Romney gave 3 million to charity in the last 2 years. He's shown,
by his actions, that he is concerned about helping the poor. Nevertheless, the
left will use this comment to make Mitt Romney out to be Ebeneezer Scrooge.
It seems few people have followed the televised republican presidential
candidate debates. Mitt Romney made exactly the same statement in the same
context half a dozen times, and no one had any problem with it, except Santorum
who claimed it was "class warfare" for Mitt to say "middle
class". An offender for a word; nothing new there.I am pleased
the Mr Romney references such a large "middle class" Ninety to
ninety-five percent is rather an inclusive proportion of the nation. It might
give solace to the millions of unemployed and retired among others. What Mitt
aims to do for them has never been clear to me, but that's politics -
apparently.However, so far as his reasoning on the need for the
middle class to catch up in the economy I think that has been clearly
demonstrated in the recent figures that confirm that only the richest among us
have been at least inflation proof over the last thirty years. We should keep
talking about that.
Our schools have been degraded with emphasis placed on low achievers. Likewise
our nation has been degraded with the over emphasis of the poor. Our leadership
has gained power with this philosophy, and focus of helping the less
fortunate.The safety net is great for those who really need it, but
our attention should be on improving on the countries strengths and
abilities.Focusing on talent leads to greatness. Even the super
bowl will testify to this. Thank you Mitt for a great comment.
'The fact is corporations create jobs not government...' - SoUtahBoy2 | 9:10
a.m. Feb. 2, 2012 Not true. **'American Airlines may
cut up to 14,000 jobs' - By David Koenig - AP - Published by DSNews -
02/01/12 **'GOP rivals turn Romneys jobs record against him' - By
Kasie Hunt - AP - Published by DSnews - 01/09/2012 'A separate AP
analysis found that at least 4,000 workers lost their jobs at 45 companies
bought by Bain...' article **'Let Detroit Go Bankrupt' - By Mitt
Romney - NY Times - 11/18/08 Estimated result? **'How
Many Jobs Depend on the Big Three?' - By CATHERINE RAMPELL - NY Times -
11/17/08 'In both cases, there would be major short-term shocks to
employment; depending on which scenario you use, a contraction of the Detroit
Three would result in direct and indirect job losses of 2.5 million to 3 million
in 2009.' - article The LOSS... of 3 MILLION, American
Everyone KnowsAmerica needs help weve been in depth with poverty
unemployment soo much more) We need a new President thats what
its All about! Everyone in UsA back on the right source?Its
not about Religion? its not color of skin its who we are in America up
lifting lives - As being a honest Trustful Helping many in America in ways
to keep moral values for the future of many people!
Can hardly wait til this man is President and he hauls off with an offensive
zinger to a leader of a country in the Middle East. Could be a little bit more
deadly than the "Romney spoof" we will see on SNL , John Stewart, and
Colbert Report this week.
Re: Pagan | 9:38 a.m. Feb. 2, 2012 Your cut and paste doesn't make
sense. Bush isn't running for office.People interested in taking
personal responsibility for their lives will vote for Romney while those
interested in cradle to grave assistance will vote for Obama.
I'm not rich enough or stupid enough to vote for Romney.Apparently, many
What Romney said has merit. I have a family member who has an advanced degree
along with his spouse. They live in a poor rural area that was hit with a
natural disaster. He makes too much for federal help but can't afford health
insurance. They are drowning in debt now. If he quit his job he'd be better off
than if he keeps working.
I've heard of people who don't qualify for some programs the "poor"
get because they make a little too much money, so Mitt does have a point. If an
ad is run against him taken out of context the Democrats had better remember
that there is a Repbulican ad that lasts about 2 minutes showing Obama saying a
lot of stupid things, and they don't have to be taken out of context.
Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romneyâs tax proposal would add
$600 billion to the U.S. budget deficit in 2015, according to a study released
by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center in Washington. Since Romney would
also allow some of President Obamaâs tax cuts to expire, his plan would
effectively raise taxes on some people earning less than $40,000 a year. Romneyâs tax plan â which calls for permanently extending
the Bush administrationâs tax cuts, reducing the corporate income tax rate
and eliminating the estate tax â would cut the taxes of people earning
more than a million dollars a year by an average of $295,874. The
Tax Policy Center has calculated that by extending the Bush tax cuts,
Romneyâs tax plan would add $1.2 trillion to the deficit in just two
years. (Bloomberg, NYTimes)
For those of you who think Mitt cannot relate to the "average Joe" and
therefore won't be elected, consider what Obama has shown us in the last 3
years. He has lived a more grandiose lifestyle than Donald Trump. And mostly
at the taxpayers expense. I doubt his "I'm a regular guy like you"
will play this time. Not in Peoria anyway
mgscott"...If an ad is run against him taken out of
context...".Romney's first "ad" against President
Obama was a quote taken out of context.That fact will determine the
tenor of the conversation leading to November 2012. "...the
Democrats had better remember that there is a Repbulican ad...".The Democrats saw Romney spend 16 million trashing NG (ok by me, BTW). The Democrats are well prepared to go toe to toe with Romney.And, when that happens, Romney won't be able to outspend his oponent 5 to 1.
So, on the one hand, we have Republicans, Libertarians, and Tea Partiers all
saying that government needs to be cut and we need to eliminate all these social
welfare programs and let the private sector handle it instead of the government,
etc., etc., etc.(And several posters on these threads echo those
sentiments.)And on the other hand, we have Romney saying these
social welfare programs need to stay in place and maybe even be funded better
and improved to continue to provide a safety net for the poor so that we don't
have to worry about them or try to make their situation better - and
a great many of those posters who were previously calling for an end to such
programs are upset that Democrats and Liberals and even some Republicans are
calling Romney on the carpet for not wanting to help people get off
welfare....So which is it? Should we be trying to help people get
off those government programs or should we just ignore those who are on them?Because these are two conflicting ideals and you cannot - with any
credibility - support them both.
Re: Mike in Sandy"Mitt Romney, the best thing to happen to the
Democrats since Sarah Palin."Sarah Palin was a key to the
T-Party success in 2010, so I assume that you mean the best thing to happen to
Democrats is to lose their jobs. I agree.
Mike in Sandy writes: "Mitt Romney! The best thing to happen to the
Democrats since Sarah Palin."You must have a short memory. To
paraphrase President Obama it was Sarah Palin and the Tea Party that sent Nancy
Pelosi and the Democrats in the US House of Representatives to the back of the
Actually, all the clips I saw of Romney's statement (including "The Daily
Show") included the entire quote--"we have a safety net there and if
it needs repair I'll fix it...etc." Romney got much more
consideration than any Democratic candidate would've gotten from him (case in
point Romney's first ad against Obama and Romney's book, "No Apology")
or conservative media such as Fox. Romney falsely portrayed Obama
as going around the world and apologizing for America. Romney is not
above dirty politics.
I hope people don't let themselves be herded like sheep with silly talking
points. It does not disunify America to acknowledge that there are poor people,
and a middle class. I have been saying for years that there are programs for
helping the poor, but our economy has been slipping for the middle class. Wages
have not kept up with cost of living increases. Most families have to have both
parents working.Sure, Romney should have worded this better, but
finally someone has the courage to say let's focus on straightening out the mess
for the middle class.
Wow. m.g. scott | 10:57 a.m. Feb. 2, 2012, Flying Finn | 11:05
a.m. Feb. 2, 2012, Sarah Palin was 'good' for the Republican
party?? **'Sarah Palin claims Paul Revere warned the British' - By
Tony Pierce - LA Times - 06/03/11 **'Sarah Palin: I Went to Canada
for Health Care as a Child' - By Brian Montopoli - CBS News - 03/08/10 You know... 'Death panels.' But back on topic... **Romney failed to disclose income from Swiss Bank By Kasie Hunt AP
Published by DSNews 01/26/12 **Mitt Romney downplays $374,000 in
speaking fees as Not Very Much By Ryan Grim & Luke Johnson Huffington Post
01/17/2010 The text was taken out of a larger statement, it's
true. But Romney was 'quoting' Obama with his FIRST campaign
ad... that was said by a John McCain aid. This comment
by Mr. Romney only shows how out of touch he is with the average American. So,
we cannot expect any HELP from Romney, to get Americans, jobs.
**'Mitt Romney as job creator clashes with Bain record of job cuts' - By Lisa
Lerer, Bloomberg News - Published by DSNews - 07/20/11 As: 'Corporations, are people'
Sammy B. is absolutely correct in his comment: I hope people don't
let themselves be herded like sheep with silly talking points. It does not
disunify America to acknowledge that there are poor people, and a middle class.
I have been saying for years that there are programs for helping the poor, but
our economy has been slipping for the middle class. Wages have not kept up with
cost of living increases. Most families have to have both parents working.Sure, Romney should have worded this better, but finally someone has the
courage to say let's focus on straightening out the mess for the middle class.
Mitts loyalty is only to offshore bankers and that's it. Obamney will not make
Bush, that improvident lack-wit, created all the war expense, debt and pocket
lining of the fat cats, yet the GOP continues to sling mud at Obama.Ha!Go ahead Mitt.Spend a billion dollars on your campaign.You're
better off not wasting it. Give it to the IRS
Mitt said he's not concerned about the very poor or very rich, tells the media
to read the whole sentence and the context and says "of course I'm
concerned about all americans". No Mitt you aren't. Or at least your first
wording even in context says you aren't. Just admit you made a bad word choice
and this can be fixed. Oh right, a politician admitting they are wrong is a rare
@Mountanman"Why this is so controvesial among liberals is because
liberals need victims to advance their agendas. If you take away liberal's
victims, they have no power."Says someone whose political party
pushes the idea that Obama is destroying this nation and that we may not have a
country left if Obama gets another term. Liberals need victims? Republicans need
fear. @Flashback"The very poorest among us have a safety
net we don't need to worry about them, other than lifting them up to do
better."So we don't need to care about people whose homes are
getting foreclosed upon? Do you call yourself a Christian?
Government cause job lay offs with their regulations, free trade agreements, and
taxes. It's just that simple.Because of this, our economy,
education, space exploration, military and medical fields, are all being
downgraded.It's become most important to vote in patriotic leaders
with character. It's just common sense,- BO is a cause, and not an answer.
Re: There You Go Again I'd like to see President Obama run for
re-election based on his record as President alone. And not what is wrong with
the other guy. I don't think he could win. You do. We'll see.
Could someone please share with me what Mitt plans to do that will help the
middle class? Great he said that is his focus, well what is his plan?
Re: Fred44 | 12:51 p.m. Feb. 2, 2012 "Could someone please share with
me what Mitt plans to do that will help the middle class?"What
has Obama done to help the middle class .... besides increase the national
"I am not concerned; they have a safety net that I will fix if
necessary" is an attack on the poor? I disagree. It is a statement
regarding the real (and current) role of government in ensuring the safety of
this portion of its citizens. The rest of the comment is more
telling. Romney sees the need to focus on improving the plight of Americans so
they can function without government intervention. Believe me the most difficult
place to be in America is just out of that group defined as "poor".
There are all the same financial needs but no assistance in meeting them. This
group is the "at risk" group and it is growing. I am
Romney all the way because he is honorable, caring, intelligent and focused. Any
job that he takes on, gets his full attention and is done in the best way as
defined by the goals or mission statement. We need to elect him and we need to
define what we want him to do.
The not worried comment is less worrisome to those who do not define themselves
as poor. Since Romney identifies that it is the 90-95% that he is focused on, he
apparently does not define very many as poor. The media who think it is an
awkward statement probably find it that way because nobody really knows what
level of financial resource in necessary to leave the designation of poor. We
all feel poor whenever we want something we cannot afford to have, but at least
in my experience there is a difference between want and need.
Yeap...typical jump to conclusion by the press in thier ever present need to
scoop everybody else. They lambasted and crucify before Mitt even finishes the
sentance and brings out exactly what he really meant. He was right on target
about both very poor and very rich as well as the need to address the 95% of
this country who find themselves crushed in the middle. But the press didn't
get the whole story... because they didn't listen... to the entire story.
Having Donald Trump throw his support to Mitt Romney in Sin City Las Vegas, the
day after this gaffe is like throwing fuel on a Public Relations wild fire.Nobody likes the chard remains after the fact, by you gotta admit,
we all LOVE watching the flames being fanned!
Re: LDS Liberal | 3:37 p.m. Feb. 2, 2012 "the day after this gaffe is
like throwing fuel on a Public Relations wild fire"The story
didn't make the front page. The firestorm in the headlines is Attorney General
Eric Holder who is trying to hide his involvement in the botched ATF gun-running
program. You may recall "Operation Fast and Furious"? The widow of
the border patrol agent who was murdered is suing the US Government.Sorry to burst your bubble.
Effectively, there is more to Romney than meets the eye, and a lot less in the
eye in Main Stream media. Romney did not misspeak; he was very clear and right.
The best way to help the underclass, to uplift it is to create a strong middle
class. They are two things that are very different when considering the faith or
well-being of populations. Upward or downward mobility is an individual
phenomenon; while wage collapse is a demographic one. If we analyze upward or
downward mobility, we must understand that it is a zero sum game, for one who
goes down he is replaced by one who goes up, and vice versa; because we analyze
on the basis percentile regrouping. Growing inequality has a tendency to lower
rates of vertical mobility creating consanguine economic clusters and preventing
competition among the well to do, so they become a complacent aristocracy. What
we are currently witnessing is effectively a diminishing of vertical mobility,
but also wages collapse that is moving standard of living of whole classes
downward, this is a group phenomenon.Economists have not yet come to a
clear understanding about what is best in term of preventing or diminishing the
negative effects of poverty. But income inequality obviously worsens the
landscape. Recent analysis have observed that transitory stages from one form of
economy to another may be cause of wage distribution transformations, stages
from agriculture to industrial, from industrial to service economy. Clearly,
most agree that a purely service sector economy has the effect of exacerbating
income inequality, and most agree that a strong middle class contract
inequalities, with the result that government may not have to invent and create
new safety nets on a permanent basis. So Romney, by concentrating on rebuilding
the Middle class, will better the situation of the underclass, will create more
tax revenue for public administration, will decrease future fiscal burden of a
potentially increasing binary wealth distribution demographic,increase the rate
of vertical mobility, etcâ¦Romney was right and media was wrong,
but he remains naive thinking that Main Stream Media is of good faith.
rnoble:"is an attack on the poor?"Ten trillion
dollars spent on the poor over the past thirty years, and you think they 're
being attacted? We have the wealthiest poor people in history, and yet, most
are spoiled whiners who vote in the corrupt leaders we have. Except for poor
health, we can all be successful in this free country. Work and effort, out
Counter Intelligence and Rifleman, So I take it from your answer you
don't think Romney has a plan either since you can't articulate it?He has laid out a plan for reducing taxes for the wealthy, but unless we are
still buying the trickle down theory which over the last thirty years has not
worked for the middle class (but has worked very well for the wealthy), he has
no plan for the middle class. Its easy to criticize as you both
proof by attacking the President, but it is harder to lay out a vision and it
will be even harder to implement it. One thing we can probably bet on is that
if the democrats become the minority they will take the same obstructionist
tactics that the republicans have used during this Presidency. Before you start I know the Democrats had control of both houses and the
Presidency for the first two years, much like the Republicans did for the first
4 years of Bush. Neither group accomplished anything, both groups made
increased the deficit significantly.
Re: Fred44 | 6:02 p.m. Feb. 2, 2012 "So I take it from your answer
you don't think Romney has a plan either since you can't articulate it?"Romney's plan is to decrease unemployment by strengthening the economy.
That is Obama's Achilles' heel, and it is why he will only be a one term
president. He just didn't have what it takes to turn our economy around.
Rifleman,I don't mean to be disagreeable, but I would not call that
a plan I would call that a goal. I would assume that even you would have to
admit that is the same goal that President Obama has. I am still looking for a
plan. How is he going to improve the economy. The only thing I have been able
to find is a rehash of the old trickle down mentality where you cut the taxes
for the wealthiest Americans the "job creators" and somehow that money
will make its way down to the middle class. If you look at the numbers for the
last thirty years of trickle down economics, what you find is that the rich are
much richer and the rest of America has seen no significant gain as measured
against inflation, and in many cases have experienced a net loss. Add that to
the fact that this current generation of workers under the age of 55 should have
no expectation of social security being available when they retire and should
expect to see dramatic cuts to medicare. Giving rich people tax breaks has not
helped the middle class, and I have not seen Governor Romney propose any other
solution. If he truly can articulate a plan for helping the middle class, a
real plan, then he has my vote.
Are America's poor taken care of by the government? Do they starve? Are they
left out in the cold? Are their children denied an education? Those
who pay taxes are compelled by the government to pay for those who will not work
or who cannot work. SOME of them should be cared for, but not by the
government. Family, friends and neigbhors should care for those who need help.
That would serve two purposes: 1. Those who know them best should
have the greatest amount of concern for them.2. Those who receive
help would be more inclined to do more for themselves if they had to face their
family, friends and neighbors every time they needed money.Welfare
has not solved poverty in America even though grand and majestic plans have been
in force since 1935. If anything, we have more poverty. We have more people
who look to Washington for their every need. We have more people who are
willing to sell their vote for "a chicken in every pot".The middle and upper class pays those bills. Prosperity comes
when people work hard.Mitt Romney knows that no matter how his words
Romney made a Poor Comment about the Poor, nothing more.He also told
the Truth, there is a Safety Net. Poor Americans: Have Cars, Have
40" TV's and eat Steak and BBQ. They sit in there Section 8 homes or
Apartments, Weigh 350 lbs or more and won't work and complain that the checks
and FS amounts are to small. They also for the most part do not vote. They also
cannot be made to work. There kid have kids at young ages and drop out of school
like fiies hit with Raid. The Next generation of poor and Welfare is
as assured as the Sun Raising over Daimond Head.Mit was right on but
tacky. Of course the poor did not jump on Mitt. It was/is the Socialist Dem
Welfare Types many who make a good living "in helping the poor".Social Work like helping the Poor is a Degreed Position. The Poor create
jobs for the educated.
When Romney's not in front of a teleprompter (when he goes off script), he puts
his foot in his mouth. Consistently. He comes across as stiff, awkward,
out-of-touch, and tone deaf to the needs of the people who aren't in the country
club. The FACT is, the economy is improving, which invalidates his
whole platform. Maybe Christie will lose some weight and run in
2016, but this election is in the bag for Obama and the Dems.
The 'very poor's safety net' is being systematically dismantled by the
Republicans. Romneyâs budget proposals would take a chainsaw
to that safety net. We need to continue to eek forward. That doesn't
involve returning to failed trickle down policies.
Romney is so wrong for this country at so many levels:His constant
wavering back and forth - You do not know where he stands all of the time. He
uses his rhetoric to appeal to the masses, which to me lacks principle. His apparent solutions to social issues are non-solutions - immigration,
marriage equality, and education, to name a few.He backs down from
answering the real questions. How can anyone vote for someone who backs off
answering the questions so that we know where he stands? He will obfuscate the
issue, blur the question, re-direct focus, aim at targetting his opponent(s)
instead of what's at stake, answering the questions during political debate.More to the point, however, why would anyone not make everyone the focus
of his presidency? To alienate anyone group of people, poor, middle class, etc.
- would be to make believe that those constituents do not exist.