Do only RINOs believe in safety nets now?

[Amelia]

What's the deal over criticizing Romney for not saying he wants to dismantle the safety net for the poorest of the poor?

He's getting criticized by people on the left who took his comments about not caring about the poor out of context.

He's getting criticized by people on the right for approving of having a safety net for the poorest 5% and saying he'd fix it where it needed repair.


The only criticism I've seen so far which makes sense to me is from people who say that he needs to be careful not to hand ad makers on the left material to take out of context. But I can't even worry about that too much because he has more danger from being too guarded than from being taken out of context. Hopefully enough people will care enough to get beyond soundbites this election cycle.

 

[The T]

“I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I travelled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.”

~Benjamin Franklin

 

[Full-Auto]

What's the deal over criticizing Romney for not saying he wants to dismantle the safety net for the poorest of the poor?

He's getting criticized by people on the left who took his comments about not caring about the poor out of context.

He's getting criticized by people on the right for approving of having a safety net for the poorest 5% and saying he'd fix it where it needed repair.


The only criticism I've seen so far which makes sense to me is from people who say that he needs to be careful not to hand ad makers on the left material to take out of context. But I can't even worry about that too much because he has more danger from being too guarded than from being taken out of context. Hopefully enough people will care enough to beyond soundbites this election cycle.

Those are not the issues for me with this guy. There are many that need assistance through no fault of their own.

However I can not look past his support of NDAA or the fact he is the father of mandated government healthcare. I found it interesting they pulled many of Romneys advisers to help fashion the national model.

 

[The T]

What's the deal over criticizing Romney for not saying he wants to dismantle the safety net for the poorest of the poor?

He's getting criticized by people on the left who took his comments about not caring about the poor out of context.

He's getting criticized by people on the right for approving of having a safety net for the poorest 5% and saying he'd fix it where it needed repair.


The only criticism I've seen so far which makes sense to me is from people who say that he needs to be careful not to hand ad makers on the left material to take out of context. But I can't even worry about that too much because he has more danger from being too guarded than from being taken out of context. Hopefully enough people will care enough to beyond soundbites this election cycle.

Those are not the issues for me with this guy. There are many that need assistance through no fault of their own.

However I can not look past his support of NDAA or the fact he is the father of mandated government healthcare. I found it interesting they pulled many of Romneys advisers to help fashion the national model.

And that they did...Obama is smacking his chops waiting for Romney to debates him on the merits of the two plans.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H4iTtNGjFY4]Romney-Kennedy Health Care Bill Signing - YouTube[/ame]

Ted Kennedy lives on...

 

[California Girl]

What's the deal over criticizing Romney for not saying he wants to dismantle the safety net for the poorest of the poor?

He's getting criticized by people on the left who took his comments about not caring about the poor out of context.

He's getting criticized by people on the right for approving of having a safety net for the poorest 5% and saying he'd fix it where it needed repair.


The only criticism I've seen so far which makes sense to me is from people who say that he needs to be careful not to hand ad makers on the left material to take out of context. But I can't even worry about that too much because he has more danger from being too guarded than from being taken out of context. Hopefully enough people will care enough to beyond soundbites this election cycle.

Those are not the issues for me with this guy. There are many that need assistance through no fault of their own.

However I can not look past his support of NDAA or the fact he is the father of mandated government healthcare. I found it interesting they pulled many of Romneys advisers to help fashion the national model.

He oversaw the implementation of a STATE program.... which, if that is what his electorate wanted... was the right thing to do.

State. Not national. You're not thinking logically about the actual difference. He has never supported a national healthcare.

I don't see why the fact that Mass advisers were called in to help with ObamaCare.... they had an expertise that the government wanted. You can hardly blame that on Romney.

 

[JoeB131]

What's the deal over criticizing Romney for not saying he wants to dismantle the safety net for the poorest of the poor?

He's getting criticized by people on the left who took his comments about not caring about the poor out of context.

He's getting criticized by people on the right for approving of having a safety net for the poorest 5% and saying he'd fix it where it needed repair.

The only criticism I've seen so far which makes sense to me is from people who say that he needs to be careful not to hand ad makers on the left material to take out of context. But I can't even worry about that too much because he has more danger from being too guarded than from being taken out of context. Hopefully enough people will care enough to get beyond soundbites this election cycle.

NO, the problem is, he just doesn't get it. He's never had to work for food in his life. He's never had to worry about not having a roof over his head. He's never had to make a decision about which bill he can put off.

He keeps saying these things because he has no clue as how the rest of us are living because people like him crashed the economy into the wall.

Both the right and the left have valid complaints about his cluelessness.

For a lot of people, the safety net is inadequate. For people who really are trying to raise a family and play by the rules and just want a good job. As I've pointed out many times, 40% of households on foodstamps in fact have at least one person with a job. But usually, they are "McJobs" you can't support a family on. And when Romney says it's okay that he eliminated good paying union jobs at AMPAD (Toro and Del screaming!) because he created some McJobs at Staples kind of defeats the point. He's actually made the safety net necessary for people who are willing to work and in some cases, actually working.

The right's complaint is that there is a group of people in the safety net who are using it as a hammock. I think this is also a valid complaint, even if some of the folks saying it are a bit heartless.

Overall, I think the real problem is that we've bought into a lie. We've all gone along with the dismantling the middle class and every man for himself because we've believe the mentality that investment creates jobs. In fact, consumer demand creates jobs.

 

[JoeB131]

He oversaw the implementation of a STATE program.... which, if that is what his electorate wanted... was the right thing to do.

State. Not national. You're not thinking logically about the actual difference. He has never supported a national healthcare.

I don't see why the fact that Mass advisers were called in to help with ObamaCare.... they had an expertise that the government wanted. You can hardly blame that on Romney.

Wow, it's the Ann Coulter line. "This massive government intrusion into my life is okay, because it was done at a STATE level and a majority wanted it." So do you now support gun control at the state level?

Oh, by the way, Romney did say that his version was a good model for the nation- until Obama actually did it. Then he ran away from it faster than he would Joseph Smith's Polygamy.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

What's the deal over criticizing Romney for not saying he wants to dismantle the safety net for the poorest of the poor?

He's getting criticized by people on the left who took his comments about not caring about the poor out of context.

He's getting criticized by people on the right for approving of having a safety net for the poorest 5% and saying he'd fix it where it needed repair.


The only criticism I've seen so far which makes sense to me is from people who say that he needs to be careful not to hand ad makers on the left material to take out of context. But I can't even worry about that too much because he has more danger from being too guarded than from being taken out of context. Hopefully enough people will care enough to get beyond soundbites this election cycle.

Criticism of Romney on this issue is justified if Romney touts as his ‘solution’ conservative dogma based on the myth and canard that public assistance ‘enables’ poverty, is being ‘abused’ by those otherwise able to work, and is a liberal ‘conspiracy’ to keep minorities ‘down and democratic.’

Republicans had their chance back in 1996 to enact actual welfare reform, they elected to not do so. Instead of investing in education and training programs, they took the more politically expedient punitive route. Although reforming welfare via education and training would take longer to reduce the welfare numbers, those off of welfare and into good paying jobs would be more likely to stay off of public assistance in the future.

Because republicans elected the punitive route, public assistance recipients were compelled to take low-wage jobs requiring little or no training or education, the very same jobs that were lost as a consequence of the December 2007 recession, and the very same workers who are now back on public assistance.

If Romney is sincere about addressing the issue of public assistance, he’ll leave the ‘social safety net’ alone and correct the mistake made by his party back in 1996 by focusing funding on education and training programs, placing Americans in substantial jobs less prone to loss during economic downturns.

The problem is, of course, republicans aren’t known for forward, pragmatic thinking predicated on the facts.

 

[Foxfyre]

I am all for a safety net for those who need it, but I want it furnished by the family, churches, local charities, and local communities as the Founders intended.

A safety net furnished by the federal government siphons off most of the money to fund the massive bureaucracy necessary to administrate it and winds up being the means that elected leaders and bureaucrats increase their own personal power, influence, prestige, and personal fortunes. There is something very wrong with a government system in which all who enter it will become millionaires if they can convince people that they will continue funneling out the benefits. It is the single most corrupting influence both to those in government and those who are beneficiaries of government largesse.

Mitt, nor any other candidates, can really focus on that problem of course, or the socialist minded media would crucify them and make sure they would be unable to be elected dog catcher.

If the federal government safety net was the solution, the more than ten trillion dollars the government has poured into the "War on Poverty" would have pretty much wiped out most of the need for a safety net by now. It hasn't. It has, however, made roughly half the population dependent on the Federal government for at least some of their income/necessities.

 

[The T]

I am all for a safety net for those who need it, but I want it furnished by the family, churches, local charities, and local communities as the Founders intended.

A safety net furnished by the federal government siphons off most of the money to fund the massive bureaucracy necessary to administrate it and winds up being the means that elected leaders and bureaucrats increase their own personal power, influence, prestige, and personal fortunes. There is something very wrong with a government system in which all who enter it will become millionaires if they can convince people that they will continue funneling out the benefits. It is the single most corrupting influence both to those in government and those who are beneficiaries of government largesse.

Mitt, nor any other candidates, can really focus on that problem of course, or the socialist minded media would crucify them and make sure they would be unable to be elected dog catcher.

If the federal government safety net was the solution, the more than ten trillion dollars the government has poured into the "War on Poverty" would have pretty much wiped out most of the need for a safety net by now. It hasn't. It has, however, made roughly half the population dependent on the Federal government for at least some of their income/necessities.

Indeed. Wilsonian/FDR/LBJ policies have failed...but to want to continue them with bandaids and branch-off policies without eliminating them totally boggles the mind.

 

[JoeB131]

Criticism of Romney on this issue is justified if Romney touts as his ‘solution’ conservative dogma based on the myth and canard that public assistance ‘enables’ poverty, is being ‘abused’ by those otherwise able to work, and is a liberal ‘conspiracy’ to keep minorities ‘down and democratic.’

Republicans had their chance back in 1996 to enact actual welfare reform, they elected to not do so. Instead of investing in education and training programs, they took the more politically expedient punitive route. Although reforming welfare via education and training would take longer to reduce the welfare numbers, those off of welfare and into good paying jobs would be more likely to stay off of public assistance in the future.

Because republicans elected the punitive route, public assistance recipients were compelled to take low-wage jobs requiring little or no training or education, the very same jobs that were lost as a consequence of the December 2007 recession, and the very same workers who are now back on public assistance.

If Romney is sincere about addressing the issue of public assistance, he’ll leave the ‘social safety net’ alone and correct the mistake made by his party back in 1996 by focusing funding on education and training programs, placing Americans in substantial jobs less prone to loss during economic downturns.

The problem is, of course, republicans aren’t known for forward, pragmatic thinking predicated on the facts.

Guy, I have to disagree with your premise.

First, throwing more money at the education blob isn't going to fix it. Accountablity is. That means if you are a teacher who isn't getting the job done, you're fired. Just like anyone else.

Second, the reason we don't have those low skill jobs is because we've signed idiotic trade treaties with every third world country on the planet. Nothing wrong with a low-skill job that pays a decent wage. But we keep giving those away.

 

[Full-Auto]

What's the deal over criticizing Romney for not saying he wants to dismantle the safety net for the poorest of the poor?

He's getting criticized by people on the left who took his comments about not caring about the poor out of context.

He's getting criticized by people on the right for approving of having a safety net for the poorest 5% and saying he'd fix it where it needed repair.


The only criticism I've seen so far which makes sense to me is from people who say that he needs to be careful not to hand ad makers on the left material to take out of context. But I can't even worry about that too much because he has more danger from being too guarded than from being taken out of context. Hopefully enough people will care enough to beyond soundbites this election cycle.

Those are not the issues for me with this guy. There are many that need assistance through no fault of their own.

However I can not look past his support of NDAA or the fact he is the father of mandated government healthcare. I found it interesting they pulled many of Romneys advisers to help fashion the national model.

He oversaw the implementation of a STATE program.... which, if that is what his electorate wanted... was the right thing to do.

State. Not national. You're not thinking logically about the actual difference. He has never supported a national healthcare.

I don't see why the fact that Mass advisers were called in to help with ObamaCare.... they had an expertise that the government wanted. You can hardly blame that on Romney.

You either stand on principle or you dont. Romney does not. Its that simple.