Las Vegas Sun

November 23, 2014

Currently: 54° — Complete forecast | Log in | Create an account

Letter to the editor:

GOP doesn’t want a safety net ‘fix’

I know why Mitt Romney “retracted” his comment about not being concerned about the very poor because they have a safety net, which, if broken, he would fix. He said he misspoke. But I think he realized that the safety net that protects the poor from even worse poverty is the same safety net that Republicans have vowed to destroy. To his base, he’s not supposed to “fix the safety net”; he’s supposed to end it.

Goodbye, food stamps, Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security and all those other “entitlements imposed by the Democrats” that barely keep the poor alive. And also goodbye to any Wall Street regulations that might have prevented the crisis that has caused a third of the middle class to drop into the “poor” category. Mitt doesn’t just misspeak; he misthinks.

Join the Discussion:

Check this out for a full explanation of our conversion to the LiveFyre commenting system and instructions on how to sign up for an account.

Full comments policy

Previous Discussion: 26 comments so far…

Comments are moderated by Las Vegas Sun editors. Our goal is not to limit the discussion, but rather to elevate it. Comments should be relevant and contain no abusive language. Comments that are off-topic, vulgar, profane or include personal attacks will be removed. Full comments policy. Additionally, we now display comments from trusted commenters by default. Those wishing to become a trusted commenter need to verify their identity or sign in with Facebook Connect to tie their Facebook account to their Las Vegas Sun account. For more on this change, read our story about how it works and why we did it.

Only trusted comments are displayed on this page. Untrusted comments have expired from this story.

  1. Since Republican policies created more poor people in this country, it seems only fair that they should fix our safety net -and increase its capacity in case they win in November.

  2. The letter writers comment belongs in the same category as R's who comment that President Obama and D's want America to be a Socialist nation.

    We can never have a rational conversation or reach a compromise on anything as long as views like these prevail.

    The truth is that most R's and Conservatives believe that safety nets are necessary. They also realize that the government does a very poor job of administering them, and controlling costs and abuses because the money used to fund them is just taxpayer money.

    The same truth holds for D's and Progressives, most of whom do not want a Socialist nation but realize that the government often does a very poor job of curbing abuses in the captialistic private market.

    These hyperbolic comments on both sides simply harden the positions on both sides and make compromise impossible.

    Michael

  3. I don't believe that anything can prevent the democrats from useing Mitt Romney's words against him If he wins the nomination.Taken out of context he said he likes firing people.He also repeated more than once at a rally,that his concern is not for poor people but more for the middle class.Former President H.W.Bush stated in 1992 that there will be no new taxes "read my Lips". This was played over and over in the campaign of that year and cost the former President the election to former Ark Gov. Bill Clinton.Who went on to be President For 2 Terms. Watch what you say .

  4. The ignorant Simmons is at it again. Making up facts to meet his crackpot agenda. And Weber isn't far behind. Both ignore (intentionally?) the fact that since the "Great Society" began with LBJ and right down to the present cretin in the Oval Office, the USA, under mostly Democratic administrations and/or Congresses, has spent trillions on the "War on Poverty" and, by all accounts, there are more people in "poverty" than ever before. When LBJ began his twisted policy, there wasn't one person on food stamps. Today there are 43 million! And poverty has grown. How can that be if government programs work so well? Dumb as dirt, Simmons and Weber will defend the indefensible by fudging the facts and ignoring the truth. But it fits their loony agenda, doesn't it? And, at the same time, they have fun spending other people's money.

  5. Frank says 'The Government does a great job handling these programs....' Frank, Frank, Frank...if you had any credibility, that statement alone destroys it.

    It's quite possible that privitzation of SS would not be a good idea, but to claim what you claim, in the face of all the evidence to the contrary... is just not credible.

    The government itself admits that the fraud and waste in SS and Medicare is massive but makes little if any progress in doing anything aout it. And yet you conclude that government does a fine job with these programs.

    Would you care to retract or amend that conclusion?

    Michael

  6. Enjoyed the letter, Ms. Turner.

    This brings up a point that a lot of people are overlooking.

    In November 2010, there were Governors, Senators and House Representatives for various Midwestern States elected.

    Those people all ran on platforms. Based on the issues they ran on, the people elected them into power.

    In those States, particularly the Governors, they all switched and immediately started union busting and targeting the middle class. This happened in Ohio, Michigan, Indiana and Wisconsin; to name a few.

    Romney is doing the same thing. Deflection.

    He is running on a platform, but if he snows people into voting for him, he will do otherwise when he is in office.

    I don't trust him.

    Nobody else should.

    We've since this picture already. And it ain't good.

    I don't want the forward progress halted. President Obama for another four years. AND a majority in the House and the Senate.

    We have to go forward. This Tea/Republican Party agenda is foul smelling and only intends to take us backwards. They just want their stupid agenda shoved off on the working people of America that will only benefit the rich...and no one else.

  7. The poor have their safety net, the ones who really need it. Free housing, free heat, free food, monthly checks, free medical care.
    There are problems with many who are not really "poor" IE, lack of wanting to work, and those who become poor on their own, IE, woman who have many children with no way to pay for their needs. If these problems where addressed the safety net would be much stronger.
    The candidate for president that wants to bring fundamental change to these loose safety net policies gets my vote.

    "Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime."

  8. So...Peter Fritz has been out actually talking to the poor? Or just watching talking heads for his talking points?

  9. Prez NObama said "no more handouts" Don't foodstamps count????

  10. @dennis...

    "BIN LADEN is dead, GM is alive! if it was left up to our republican friends, BIN LADEN is alive, GM is dead!"

    That could be a very simple & effective campaign slogan for President Obama.

    Also, he could co-opt the 'It's Halftime in America' bit...it seems to have the Nutjobs like the evil Karl Rove in a tizzy!
    http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2...

  11. More on those EEVIL poor:
    http://scienceblogs.com/casaubonsbook/20...
    "Let's take a look at some of Mitt'e assumption, though. First, how many people are actually poor in the US? The number is just around 40 millon at this point, not the 2-5 percent at the top and bottom that Mitt seems to think, but around 15% of the US population (relative poverty is greater, but I'm using the US census figures).

    More than half of all Americans will spend at least a year in poverty during their adult life times. Almost a quarter of those people that Mitt just said he didn't give a crap about are children. Another ten percent are senior citizens. Let us note for the record that Mitt just disavowed interest in just under 10 million children and four million elders. Just mentioning it, since kids and senior citizens get a lot of attention during an election year. But they aren't the right kind of kids or seniors."

  12. Robert Mills is just fine with hungry people begging on corners. He is practicing for Dickensian London with debtors prisons.

  13. Mark,

    Do you really believe that Romney's comment means that he doesn't care about the poor or rather that he thinks the 'most' pressing problem at this point is the large middle class that is struggling?

    Just like on the right, too many of you on the left take any comment and twist it for the worst possible meaning.

    I wonder how any of you people on either side expect any movement when you just demonize everything about the other side. If what you say were true, we should just oragnize two armies and have them fight until only one person was left.

    Michael

  14. Lastthrows,

    So the polls that show Romney just a little less popular than President Obama, who stands with a 50 % approval rating are just..... what? Wrong?

    It's true that many Conservatives are not big fans of Romney but come on. You really believe he has alienated everybody but the 2 %? Maybe in your fantasy world but not in the real world.

    Michael

  15. The "he did it so I can, too" argument is weak at the best of times, no matter *who* uses it. Even so, in some circumstances it is not reasonable to expect people to be held to different rules.

    However, in this case President Obama not only criticized the ruling, but called the practice a threat to our democracy. It sends a very mixed message for him to now engage in the practice himself.

    If super PACs are in fact a threat to our democracy (and I will agree with that belief) then for the President to use them can be cast in a light that portrays him as violating his oath of office.

    Given Obama's prior statements, the "he did it so I can" argument is not valid.

  16. Mitt Romney has more to worry about then his stupid comments regarding the poor. If newt or sanitoriom drops out early, you can say goodbye to Mitt Romney as a presidential candidate next fall.

  17. Michael, It is obvious Willard Romney doesn't give a d*mn about the poor unless your name is Michael.
    http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/econ...

  18. Joseph,

    You normally don't need any help, but I am surprised you missed this item on your list of strikes. At the time it happened, even Democrats were somewhat embarrassed by it.

    Remember when Mr. Obama was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize? He didn't have to accept it, but he did. And if the Nobel Committee had a crystal ball they never would have even nominated him in the first place.

  19. Why do so many in the GOP, when talking about "entitlements" FORGET that they are the biggest recipients of all: TAX EVASION, or as they like to call it, "Tax Shelters" --those little sneaky barely visible loopholes they keep giving themselves to avoid paying taxes.

    Even Warren Buffett admits to it.

    The second BIGGEST "entitlement" they get is buying congress with lobbyists. Especially those insider lobbyists like Newt.

    It's all semantics.

  20. Ah, once again I get brought up in a comment thread I'm not even involved in, as if Joe's subconsciously begging me to debunk his argument.

    So why don't I?

    First, the Keystone Pipeline isn't a moral issue, nor is it a "moral" issue. Not sure why Joe's using scare quotes around the word moral, but it's a decision that needs to be considered fully, not based on an arbitrary timeline set by the oil lobbyists contributing to the House GOP.

    Second, Obama's Super PAC flip-flop. Yup, it's a flip-flop. But let's explore how it's going to play out. Voters who identify as republican hate Obama anyway, so it doesn't hurt him with that group. Independents and Democrats will hear the following argument:

    A pair of boxers agree to a fight. Mitt and Obama train, practice, etc. A month before the big fight, the ref announces, "Hey, feel free to bring a knife!" Mitt laughs and pulls the knife from his back pocket. It was there all along, he was planning on bringing it anyway. So Obama has a choice: knife or no knife. Well, he'd rather have a fair fight, but if he knows Mitt's bringing a knife, the logical thing to do is to bring a knife.

    And, frankly, for the MITT ROMNEY supporters to call Obama out on flip-flopping? What a joke. Call me when your candidate has a consistent opinion on ANYTHING. May you be forever proud, yet ignorant of your rank, obvious double standard as you cast a vote for him in November. Considering these are the same geniuses convinced of the electoral prowess of Sharron Angle, I'm not sure logic's capable of sinking in...

    Third, while Obama did say that Super PACs are a fundamental danger to democracy, Mitt's said that abortion is killing babies... or at least he does now. A few years ago, he was happy to sign pledges to Planned Parenthood and to require Catholic hospitals in Mass. to provide the morning after pill. Good luck drawing a distinction there! Where's Joe and Jim's criticism of Mitt for having the EXACT SAME POLICY? Just another GOP double standard.

  21. Speaking of the contraception issue: it's completely manufactured by the right wing. See, something Joe and the lackeys on the right don't want you to know?

    "In December 2000, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ruled that companies that provided prescription drugs to their employees but didn't provide birth control were in violation of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which prevents discrimination on the basis of sex. That opinion, which the George W. Bush administration did nothing to alter or withdraw when it took office the next month, is still in effect today--and because it relies on Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, it applies to all employers with 15 or more employees. Employers that don't offer prescription coverage or don't offer insurance at all are exempt, because they treat men and women equally--but under the EEOC's interpretation of the law, you can't offer other preventative care coverage without offering birth control coverage, too."

    http://m.motherjones.com/politics/2012/0...

    That's right... December of 2000. This was the defacto policy under the Bush administration, yet the right said NOTHING about "religious liberty" when their own party sanctioned forcing Catholic hospitals to offer birth control. Why did it take 12 years for Mittens and the rest of the GOP to read their own policies? Complete and total ignorance?

  22. And finally, the lie of lies: Obama OR his administration "promised" or "guaranteed" unemployment would never, ever, ever rise above 8%. This is false. It's a lie, plain and simple. They can't quote him doing so. Independent fact-checkers have debunked it as false (http://ow.ly/8XMhz ). Romer-Bernstein released a PROJECTION that they stipulated were "subject to significant margins of error." Why? Because they were working off of estimates of GDP shrinkage that were premature and too rosy.

    Says Reuters:

    "The Bureau of Economic Analysis, the agency charged with measuring the size and growth of the U.S. economy, initially projected that the economy shrank at an annual rate of 3.8 percent in the last quarter of 2008. Months later, the bureau almost doubled that estimate, saying the number was 6.2 percent. Then it was revised to 6.3 percent. But it wasn't until this year that the actual number was revealed: 8.9 percent. That makes it one of the worst quarters in American history. Bernstein and Romer knew in 2008 that the economy had sustained a tough blow; they didn't know that it had been run over by a truck."

    Was the estimate wrong? No doubt. Would any reasonable person who actually read the report portray it as a "promise" or "guarantee" that unemployment wouldn't rise above 8%? No. Jim knew this yesterday. Why didn't he bother to correct Joe?

    As for the Nobel Peace prize, it was premature, but Osama Bin Laden is dead, so I'd say he lived up to the challenge. Plus, he donated all 1.4 million of the award money to charity, so... is this really the best you guys can do?

    Based on the pathetic "quality" of these arguments, 2012 will be Reid-Angle all over again. Good luck!

  23. Exactly. Romney never missspoke, he spoke his attitude and thoughts. If his intentions were different, he would have never used those words in the first place. No one with a TRUE concern for the underprivileged would have used those words.

    The facts are, that Romney has never served his country, never served the common good. He has lived a privileged life, provided by his Father, CEO of American Motors and Governor of Michigan. None of his children have served their country either - they lead a privileged life.

    Romney knows that the underprivileged should be the ones to join the military and do the fighting, his clan has greater callings. They are the chosen ones, called upon to lead the sheep in the paths of righteousness, for Romney's sake.

    Mitt Romney is part of the Entitlement Class, those who are Entitled to special information never made public and fat, easy cash without labor. They never put themselves in jeopardy to defend America. On the contrary, they believe that they and their class should be the recipients of escalating wealth, because of their status on Earth and the holy books they tout.

  24. Mark the system has been broke for a long time, I have witnessed "poor" people gaming the system for 30 years. Many are poor on their own behalf and have no intention or working for a living if they can get the same or better for free from the government. The system has no "release date" for someone getting on it, and no restrictions to help ween off and go better their lives on their own. I am not saying cut everyone off and let them strarve, rather create a program that gets them off via some hardship, ie they get a bag of flour and learn how to bake, not bread, if able bodied work a min of 20 hours a week at a park, school, cleaning the street,and 20 hours at some sort of schooling. whatever. Right now there is no reason for many to quit the system. Woman have more kids because everyone adds to their paycheck. This is very true and abused.

  25. Yes TEA...you are against reason. You are for "market fundamentalism" which is just another way you are wrong. Name any public health concern that the market successfully addressed and back up such assertion with a reputable source.

  26. "Sorry about that Mr/Ms Moderator.

    But sometimes...."

    Oh, pulleeeze!!!