Mitt Romney said He is Not Concerned about the Poors!

DeafCaroline said:
Newt doesn't care about the poor either.
Click to expand...

In fact, yes he does. I know it all sounds good to smear a political "adversary" - but read about his plans to create jobs sometimes (specifically, for the poor).
 
Read the whole article and well.... I have to agree with him. To me, extremely poor people are not the focus at hand. Seemed like he was talking about the services for the bottom 5% poorest people.

Don't confuse "not focusing on" with "not giving a care".

There are so many wrong things (or even things that just could be better) going on with America all at once. Sometimes one just has to ignore some of the issues. It's all about priority.
 
"I'm not concerned about the very poor." he said Wednesday. "We have a safety net there. If it needs repair, I'll fix it. I'm not concerned about the very rich. They're doing just fine. I'm concerned about the very heart of America, the 90-95 percent of Americans who right now are struggling."

Asked whether his comment about the poor might come across as odd to some, Romney reiterated.
"We will hear from the Democrat party the plight of the poor and there's no question, it's not good being poor, and we have a safety net to help those that are very poor," Romney said, adding that he's more worried about the unemployed, people living on Social Security and those struggling to send their kids to college.
"We have a very ample safety net and we can talk about whether it needs to be strengthened or whether there are holes in it. But we have food stamps, we have Medicaid, we have housing vouchers, we have programs to help the poor," Romney said. "But the middle-income Americans, they're the folks that are really struggling right now."
Click to expand...
..
 
Tsk tsk. I don't understand the passion. There is no paper trail so we are at the mercy of the "vote counters." Oh well.
 
Look, I can't stand Mitt, and even if I were a Republican I would never vote for him. But what he said was the poorest already have a safety net.

This 'poverty line' goalpost was devised and released in 1965, part of Johnson's 'War on Poverty.'
We base federal funding on these calculations. We gauge the success or failure of an administration (to some degree) on these numbers.

What we are not told is that the goalposts have changed. The poverty line has been moved and it continues to be moved. Being poor in America today simply does not mean what it used to mean.
The poor are buying more than ever before. How can the poor be spending more money on more stuff than at any other time in history at the same time we are decrying increased poverty? Perhaps 'poor' doesn't quite mean what it used to.
While the official poverty rate suggests that the proportion of the American population living below a fixed “poverty line” has stagnated — or increased — over the past three decades, data on U.S. expenditure patterns document a substantial and continuing increase in consumption levels for the entire country — including the strata with the lowest reported income levels. And while the poverty threshold was devised to be measuring a fixed and unchanging degree of material deprivation (i.e., an “absolute” level of poverty) over time, an abundance of data on the actual living conditions of low-income families and “poverty households” contradicts that key presumption — demonstrating instead that the material circumstances of persons officially defined as poor have improved broadly and appreciably over the past four decades.
Click to expand...
The safety net for the poorest of the poor has largely worked. Where it's failed with the poorest of the poor, it's usually because of problems government cannot fix. Mitt was talking about broadening the safety net to offer help to those who don't currently get any help.




​
 
It's possible that Mitt was talking about the most overtaxed class - the middle class which makes up 90% of the population. They are the hardest hit. Right now, USA has the greatest disparity of wealth between the rich and poor of any first world country. Not a good thing. By building up the middle class, the poor will suffer less for who hires them? Hint, the middle class.

After learning that Mitt post-humously baptized his atheist grandfather, rolled my eyes and tuned him out after that.

As for Newt, how much did he really care about the poor when he endorsed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the firms responsible for the 2008 collapse leading to hundreds of thousands losing their homes and jobs?
 
Beowulf said:
Tsk tsk. I don't understand the passion. There is no paper trail so we are at the mercy of the "vote counters." Oh well.
Click to expand...
I'm confused. You said that when Gingrich won, and now you say that when Romney wins. Who do you think is tampering with the vote count?
 
Reba said:
I'm confused. You said that when Gingrich won, and now you say that when Romney wins. Who do you think is tampering with the vote count?
Click to expand...

Where did I say that?? :confused:

I am just saying that without paper trails or ANY PROOF of voting results, we are at the mercy of the vote counters. Do you believe them to be squeaky clean when trillions of dollars are involved????
 
Steinhauer said:
That is why you should vote for Newt.
Click to expand...

No Way I will vote for Newt! He said he would seriously think of having Sarah Palin work with him!! And I can't stand her!! And Newt is against woman rights all the GOP candidates are against woman rights!
 
whatdidyousay! said:
No Way I will vote for Newt! He said he would seriously think of having Sarah Palin work with him!! And I can't stand her!! And Newt is against woman rights all the GOP candidates are against woman rights!
Click to expand...

What?
 
FOUR more yrs for Obama,please... Mitt is a tool and so is Newt. I wonder which is worse, Newt and Mitt goin at each other or gay porn. :lol:
 
Steinhauer said:
In fact, yes he does. I know it all sounds good to smear a political "adversary" - but read about his plans to create jobs sometimes (specifically, for the poor).
Click to expand...

what were his plans?
 
Grayma said:
Look, I can't stand Mitt, and even if I were a Republican I would never vote for him. But what he said was the poorest already have a safety net.

This 'poverty line' goalpost was devised and released in 1965, part of Johnson's 'War on Poverty.'
We base federal funding on these calculations. We gauge the success or failure of an administration (to some degree) on these numbers.

What we are not told is that the goalposts have changed. The poverty line has been moved and it continues to be moved. Being poor in America today simply does not mean what it used to mean.
The poor are buying more than ever before. How can the poor be spending more money on more stuff than at any other time in history at the same time we are decrying increased poverty? Perhaps 'poor' doesn't quite mean what it used to.
The safety net for the poorest of the poor has largely worked. Where it's failed with the poorest of the poor, it's usually because of problems government cannot fix. Mitt was talking about broadening the safety net to offer help to those who don't currently get any help.

​
Click to expand...
And if Mitt become president he take away any safety net the poor do have and if you really think the poor have good safety net why are more poor people going to food pantries for free food. The food pantries in and near my city are running out of food and always having food drives to get more food.




Romney: Cut Health Care for the Poor, Not Defense Spending | Video Cafe
 
whatdidyousay! said:
And if Mitt become president he take away any safety net
Click to expand...

The quote in your link says "give it back to the states"

the poor do have and if you really think the poor have good safety net why are more poor people going to food pantries for free food. The food pantries in and near my city are running out of food and always having food drives to get more food.
Click to expand...

Because the stimulus has not created the jobs Obama promised it would create. The number of people on food stamps has risen from 28 million to 47 million (roughly) in 4 years
 
Back
Top