Facebook
Fark
Digg
Reddit
Stumble
Wednesday, Feb. 8, 2012 | 2:01 a.m.
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.
"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."
Yes, lying is an democratic/OLV tactic. This is what happens when you can't defend Obama's record. Lie and distract.
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.
It's easy to picture Romney as uncaring when he misspeaks. It was a gaffe, albeit on a small scale compared to President Obama/HHS' law which violates Catholic teachings and First Right Amendments. [Gov't will graciously cave].
Romney is a practicing Mormon who tithes more than 10 percent annually to the Mormon Church every year for years. I doubt seriously that the letter writer's concerns about the poor will come to fruition if Romney is elected. Mormons have a strong belief that assisting those in need, Mormon or not, is an obligation of all humans deeply rooted in moral and religious tenents. A Romney presidency will be/do the same.
Carmine A. DiFazio
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
The democrats safety net program is designed to kept their voting block poor and inescapable.
Democrats must kept these people in a box to increase there power base.
Another drama queen.
You can't reform anything anymore in this country without the liberal propaganda machine spewing out false information. Liberals love our near bankrupt status quo. Liberals are either too dumb to understand our dire need to reform entitlements or they want a socialist form of government. Liberals offer no solution to our entitlement problems.
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 .
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.
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
"Now we see these Greeks rioting in the streets and burning German flags because the Germans refuse to "bailout" the Greek Government".
And we see Occupiers burning our US flag as well.
How do we solve together problems in an election year when the democratic party has to spend time and money rallying its liberal base by throwing out lies and insults like this letter writer has in an attempt to distract voters from focusing on the three biggest issues facing our country: jobs, debt and deficit spending?
Another American flag burned at an Occupy Oakland rally
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/20...
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.
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."
If one of the republican nitwits wins the WH (won't happen of course) those parents with young children should send them to a GOP janitorial summer camp where they can learn the cleaning-scrubbing-washing skills that were common for youngsters during the industrial revolution.
And if your kid wants to become a scientist or engineer it'd be best if they went abroad to Europe or the Far East where technical knowledge is highly valued.
Just a observation of what to expect if one of the anti-science, budget slashing teabag conservatives becomes president (again, won't happen but nothing wrong with being prepared for more GOP misery).
Great letter Linda.
When the republicans say they will fix something, they really mean destroy it. That is their way of fixing programs that help working or poor people.
They support the Ryan Plan which will voucherize Medicare. Try having a 70 year old man buy health insurance for $8,000.
They hate social security because they can't get their hands on the $2.7 trillion dollars we have invested in government securities. They can steal your money when you buy stocks and bonds from Wall Street and corporations.
Too many people do not know the history of food stamps.
Food stamps were given in the 1930's because we found out that half the people in the South and 1/3 of the total population was the verge of starvation. Most of the young men brought in under the WPA, TVA and other projects were malnourished to the point of starvation. Food stamps were given out to white residents in the South and all residents in elsewhere.
Social security was insurance guaranteeing older people would have some financial security in their old age.
Until Medicare, a retired person could not get medical help unless a child, relative or good Samaritan signed for them so their medical bills could be paid.
Poverty and dependence on others brought shame and helplessness to older Americans.
Suicide rates dropped from 24 per 100,000 in the 1930's to less that 10 per 100,000 after Social Security and Medicare was made into law.
So...Peter Fritz has been out actually talking to the poor? Or just watching talking heads for his talking points?
Under Obama policies Average energy costs for gasoline and electric has increased from 14% to 25 % of the family budget in recent years for those making from $10k to $30k per year - the poor and the retired.
$4 gas - Where is the energy cost safety net
Speaking of safety nets, looks like one-time inevitable nominee Willard's "I'm not concerned about the very poor," comment has come back to bite him in the form of a Santorum caucus sweep yesterday.
Of the four candidates Rick Santorum is the least anti-government. While staunchly conservative, he seems to understand that it's wrong to ignore the have-nots and many GOP caucus voters seemed to agree.
The GOP race has come down to which candidate is less disliked rather than which is well-liked.
I'm sure the letter writer isn't aware of the unfunded liabilities of these programs since during the SOTU address the president voted 'present' on them, nary a word being mentioned.
It is an election year afterall.
Prez NObama said "no more handouts" Don't foodstamps count????
samspeaks said "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. Watch what you say."
True, but it wasn't just the Democrats. "In the 1992 presidential election campaign, Pat Buchanan made extensive use of the phrase in his strong challenge to Bush in the Republican primaries." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Read_my_lip...
In this primary season, it isn't the Democrats who are attacking Mitt Romney most effectively; it's Newt Gingrich.
I want to hear these types of comments from politicians. Sometimes you learn how the politician really feels about a topic. Sometimes you learn that the politician is an inartful speaker (Romney keeps doing it). Bushisms anyone?
What's really telling is what the politician says afterwards. VP Cheney seemed to always deny having said something and would not appear with anyone who would show video to the contrary. Romney was waiting days to deal with it but now it's a day or less. He's learning.
@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...
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."
Robert Mills is just fine with hungry people begging on corners. He is practicing for Dickensian London with debtors prisons.
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
Michael Casler said "we should just oragnize two armies and have them fight until only one person was left"
We tried that 150 years ago in this country and the liberals won. ;)
(I can't wait for the conservatives to spin this one.)
Willard Romney, who has no job yet "earns" $57,000 per day, has been campaigning non-stop for eight or nine years. In that period he hasn't learned a thing about how most of us live or the struggles middle class and low income families face everyday.
So it's not surprising Willard had his clock cleaned by Santorum since he continually makes idiotic statements that alienate everybody except only those he truly understands, the top 2%.
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
Michael, Romney is like a fish out of water and he flip flops like one too. He's clumsy, awkward and comes off as a rehearsed, complete phony. Rick Santorum may not be the most polished campaigner but he is authentic.
Maybe republican voters have looked at the polls and an improving economy and said "What the hell, if we're gonna lose we may as well lose with a real conservative representing the party instead of (another) RINO."
Non-Citizens United is the maybe the worst decision handed down by a (conservative majority) SCOTUS ever.
President Obama has repeatedly stated his opposition to the ruling including during his SOTU speech a year ago. But anyone who thinks the president will play by one set of rules while his GOP opponent collects unlimited donations through a super pac is smoking some powerful stuff.
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.
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.
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...
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.
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.
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.
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?
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!
Linda.....Great letter, right-on.
YES, republicans ALWAYS say they misspoke.
Even THAT statement is just another republican
lie.
Republicans can't stop lying, that's how they
roll.
Looks like it doesn't matter anyway.
Yesterday, Sanitarium cleaned Romney's clock and
won all three states.
Romney will probably lose his second try at
running for president.
Even republicans don't like Romney.
WOW! The fun is just geting started.
Who's going to step out of the republican
clown-car next?
LIVE BETTER/WORK UNION!
Kevin....Great comment, 100% on the mark.
I would only add that a Catholic Hospital is a
business and must follow the new law of the land.
My insurance covers a Catholic Hospital and I am
not Catholic.
If a non-Catholic woman, in my family, needs
birth control pills, she should be able to get
them at the hospital that we are insured at.
The mandate DOES NOT FORCE Catholics to use
birth control pills.
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.
Service to others, and America, does not mean/have to be military only. Peace Corp. Missionaries. VISTA. And so on. If you think it is limited to and must be the military, you have a narrow minded view of service.
Carmine A. DiFazio
Great Spaghetti Monster TEA! Nothing you asserted in your response to my post is in touch with reality except in that funhouse mirror distorted way. You really aren't rubbing two neurons together when you post such nonsense.
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.
Could we start with ELIMINATING BENEFITS FOR ILLEGALS and ANCHOR BABIES. This is bankrupting our governments, local, state and federal.
Some GOPers have figured out that the courts won't allow "discrimination" in benefit eligibility so illegals STEAL BENEFITS and we do nothing about it. THINK FOR A SECOND: if you were in a third-world impoverished situation and you could get here and receive "safety net" food stamps, free medical care, K-12, low-cost college, housing support, non-profit assistance (as pointed out yesterday re domestric violence). If ..., wouldn't everybody come here? They have and more are coming. We MUST STOP ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION and do SOMETHING TO STOP THOSE HERE FROM BANKRUPTING US. Look at Greece--they allowed social welfare programs / safety net to expand so much they cannot afford to live comfortably any more: add 10-15 years to retirement age, cut minumum wage by 40%, eliminate it all.
Anyone bother to figure out that Obama care is scheduled to triple Nevada's Medicaid costs? K-12 will NOT be a priority when we have to pay for optional health care for every person who wanders across the state line.
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.
"Sorry about that Mr/Ms Moderator.
But sometimes...."
Oh, pulleeeze!!!
Good to have person with accurate mind telling us what we might left unnoticed. To point out where we should watch again and reconsider inconsiderated wording. Need to see open mind and writer in his/hers presence.