whatdidyousay!

Mitt Romney: 'I'm not concerned about the very poor' | masslive.com

Deafness

__________________
This advertising will not be shown in this way to registered members.
Register your free account today and become a member on AllDeaf.com

Steinhauer

That is why you should vote for Newt.

__________________
Annuit Cœptis

><((({*>

Once upon a time men could speak honestly and wisely and people would listen. Now it seems that propaganda is the preferred method of communication regardless if there is any truth behind it or not.

DeafCaroline

Newt doesn't care about the poor either.

Steinhauer

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).

__________________
Annuit Cœptis

><((({*>

Once upon a time men could speak honestly and wisely and people would listen. Now it seems that propaganda is the preferred method of communication regardless if there is any truth behind it or not.

Daredevel7

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.

TXgolfer

..

__________________
Ps 109:8 let his days be few,and let another take his office -KJV-

Beowulf

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.

__________________
.

Grayma

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.

Quote:

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.

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.

Beowulf

Let them eat cake.

__________________
.

DeafCaroline

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?

Reba

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?

Beowulf

Where did I say that??

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????

__________________
.

SteveMcGarrett

amen!

whatdidyousay!

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!

TXgolfer

What?

__________________
Ps 109:8 let his days be few,and let another take his office -KJV-

DeafTim

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.

__________________
It might be,it could be...It is! A homerun! HOLY COW!!

Harry Caray

Mitt: I have 5 point plan

President Obama: Mitt doesnt have 5 point plan,
He has one point plan!

(ZINGER)

Mitt Romney is a scam!!

Jiro

what were his plans?

__________________
- Don't forget to buy Jiro's Special Edition Sunglasses for $19.95

whatdidyousay!

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!

The GOP want to take away women rights to have abortions . This should not be anyone business what a woman what to do !

TXgolfer

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

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

__________________
Ps 109:8 let his days be few,and let another take his office -KJV-

DeafCaroline

And most of the people living on foodstamps live in the red states. Hm.

TXgolfer

You mean red states like the Gulf Coast states? I wonder why they might be hurting.

__________________
Ps 109:8 let his days be few,and let another take his office -KJV-

DeafCaroline

About Obama and jobs - since someone brought that up,

"The job collapse bottomed out at the beginning of 2010, as the stimulus took effect. Since then, the U.S. has added 2.4 million jobs. That’s not enough, but it’s far better than what Romney would have you believe, and more than the net jobs created under the entire Bush administration. In 2011 alone, 1.9 million private-sector jobs were created, while a net 280,000 government jobs were lost.

...The right claims the stimulus failed because it didn’t bring unemployment down to 8 percent in its first year, as predicted by Obama’s transition economic team. Instead, it peaked at 10.2 percent. But the 8 percent prediction was made before Obama took office and was wrong solely because it relied on statistics that guessed the economy was only shrinking by around 4 percent, not 9. Remove that statistical miscalculation (made by government and private-sector economists alike) and the stimulus did exactly what it was supposed to do. It put a bottom under the free fall. It is not an exaggeration to say it prevented a spiral downward that could have led to the Second Great Depression."

If you wish to read the source, it's here

JanatheShort

Cool link, I will share that article on my Facebook and see what everyone thinks of it. I personally haven't decided which of the republican candidates to vote for (some states allow you to vote in the Republican or Democrat primaries, regardless of which party you claim.) and need to do some more research.

TXgolfer

Did unemployment exceed 8% after the stimulus?

__________________
Ps 109:8 let his days be few,and let another take his office -KJV-

DeafCaroline

The answer is right there in the quote I posted.

rolling7

No more excuses. Each and every voter must understand America can not wait four more years for relief from the situation we are in. We all can look and listen at the plans of those running for president and then decide if someone had a plan that will solve our situation. However, this is based on faith because you can not be sure.
Nevertheless, you can know that our president today plans are failures, it is there in black and white for all to see. The wise vote is not to continue a fail plan.

DeafCaroline

Just strikes me as funny that Republicans, notorious for being so anti-welfare and social assistance would make up the greater share of those on assistance.

Please do elaborate on how Obama is responsible for the Gulf coast states.

TXgolfer

The blog you quoted is pretty inaccurate. First of all it was never about bringing unemployment down to 8%.....Unemployment was below 8% at the time. The 8% number was put out by Rommer on Jan 9, only 11 days before Obama took office while unemployment was still in the 7's. But if you want to stick with the "miscalculation" argument that's cool. Basically, by that argument, Obama rushed something through congress without having good numbers and the project failed to live up to expectations. And given that we should blame numbers instead of Obama. I disagree with that line of thinking.

As for the bold.....Can you name the project I am referring to? Unemployment, CLASS Act, Fast & Furious, GM Bailout, Stimulus, Solyndra, Spectrawatt, Solar Millennium, Ener1. They all fit. That is an Obama admin pattern.

Looks like that Obamamath is pretty bad.

As for the 2.4 million jobs gained...

A) Thank you "jobs saved" statistical invention

B) Is still less than the 3.6 million workers who became working age during the same time period.

C) Would equal $362,500 per job created given the $870b stimulus

__________________
Ps 109:8 let his days be few,and let another take his office -KJV-

DeafCaroline

I think you're way off and not able to step back and look at the big picture nor do calculations well nor able to see that Obama didn't cause the unemployment levels to go up. That's my opinion. Will just have to agree to disagree with you. No biggie.