Romney's plan would shred safety net for poor

Discussion in 'Politics' started by kidrocks, Feb 2, 2012.

  1. kidrocks
    Offline

    kidrocks Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2012
    Messages:
    3,315
    Thanks Received:
    379
    Trophy Points:
    130
    Ratings:
    +420
    Eat your food stamps.




    http://www.cnn.com/2012/02/02/opinion/dolan-romney-poor/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

    (CNN) -- "I'm not concerned about the very poor." Oops. Mitt Romney messed up. Again. This was a bigger "oops moment" for Romney than when he said a few weeks ago that the $374,327 he earned in speakers' fees over the course of 12 months amounted to "not very much." It was bigger than "I like being able to fire people." It was the biggest since he blurted out that corporations are people, my friend" at the Iowa State Fair.

    Call it a Freudian slip, call it overconfidence emerging from a big win in the Florida Republican primary, call it a classic, out-of-touch-sounding "Rich Romney" gaffe. It may be all of those things, but this comment represents a scripted piece of the Romney campaign strategy. He hopes to co-opt an Obama campaign message aimed at appealing to the middle-class voters each will need in the general election.


    Karen DolanDid his inept remark reflect a poor understanding of this position except as an election strategy? One has reason to wonder. Whether it's policies that affect poor Americans, women, immigrants or the nation's ever-shrinking middle class, one gets the uneasy feeling that the positions Romney recites are crafted for political gain rather than from a sense of conviction about what is good or bad for this country.

    Why? On abortion, for example, the former Massachusetts governor supported the right to choose and a greater role for government in helping spread access to health care -- which won him votes in that liberal state. But he shed those positions when they would prevent him from attracting conservative Republicans on a national stage. He has famously and repeatedly done similar turnabouts, most recently when he faced Florida's Latino primary voters with a kinder, gentler version of his previously anti-immigrant rhetoric.

    Romney taking heat for "poor" comments

    Obama strategist's take on Romney Of course, a conservative political candidate trying to both woo a big-government-averse base and appeal to general-election moderates would focus on the middle class. We may even understand when particularly cynical politicians tune their strategies toward higher-income Americans, who tend to vote in greater numbers than lower-income folks. But what is far more puzzling is the reason Romney gave CNN's Soledad O'Brien for what sounded very much like callous disregard for the poorest Americans. "I'm not concerned about the very poor," he said. "We have a safety net there. If it needs a repair, I'll fix it."

    Actually, if you look at Romney's policy agenda, you will see that "fixing it" could not be further from his plan, unless it's doublespeak for "eviscerating it." Romney calls for immediate across-the-board cuts in nonsecurity discretionary spending. That would mean slashing the budget for many of the programs that comprise our safety net, by 5%, according to his spending proposal. These cuts would come on top of the 17% cut already affected by this summer's Budget Control Act.

    Romney: Middle-income Americans are focus, not very poor

    Further, according to analysis from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, his proposals to cap total spending at 20% of gross domestic product, along with increasing already bloated military spending, cutting taxes and pursuing a balanced budget, would necessitate enormous cuts to vital programs. "The cuts would measure 21% in 2016 and 36% in 2021," the center said. "If policymakers exempted Social Security from the cuts and then cut all other nondefense programs by the same percentage, the cuts would rise to 30% in 2016 and 54% in 2021."

    Funding could all be gutted that helps low-income students afford college with Pell grants, enables low-income women and their children to eat a more nutritious diet, covers the cost of the highly successful Head Start early-education program and pays for job training, housing assistance and veterans' health care.

    In short, Romney's plan would incinerate the very safety net that he claims to be his excuse for expressing no interest in addressing the needs of the "very poor." Oh, and how poor are the poorest 5% or 10% of Americans he seemed to be referring to, exactly? Even the census, which tracks household income for all Americans, doesn't say with precision, although it does note that households with annual income of $15,000 or less made up 13.7% of our population in 2010. I don't know about you, but I'm concerned about them.

    If Romney's lack of concern about the very poor came with a real plan indeed to fix a tattered safety net so that poverty rates could begin to decrease, he might be less vulnerable to the charge of being out of touch with voters. But as long as his gaffes and policy prescriptions continue to belie either a lack of understanding of the economic plight of Americans or a cynical political calculation that both ignores and will exacerbate that plight, Romney will go the way of his fellow "oops"-prone 2012 presidential candidate.

    When he joins the ranks of the also-rans, don't worry about him. Given that his net worth is somewhere between $85 million and $264 million, if anyone in America has a "very ample" safety net to fall back on, it's Mitt Romney.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 2
    Last edited: Feb 2, 2012
  2. rdean
    Offline

    rdean rddean

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2009
    Messages:
    60,164
    Thanks Received:
    6,900
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    chicago
    Ratings:
    +15,011
    Rush Limbaugh said the problem with Romney wasn't that he said he didn't focus on the poor, but the "safety net". He should be getting rid of the safety net.
     
  3. Soggy in NOLA
    Offline

    Soggy in NOLA Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2009
    Messages:
    32,926
    Thanks Received:
    4,331
    Trophy Points:
    1,130
    Ratings:
    +11,632
    Safety net? More like a safety queen sized bed with a mini-bar, free WiFi and cable, free omelets and cell phones.
     
  4. J.E.D
    Offline

    J.E.D What's tha matta?

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2011
    Messages:
    10,904
    Thanks Received:
    1,774
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +2,576
    But but but I thought he cared about poor peo---oh wait.

    "I'm not concerned about the very poor" Mitt Romney
     
  5. JimH52
    Offline

    JimH52 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2007
    Messages:
    19,289
    Thanks Received:
    3,103
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    US
    Ratings:
    +8,275
    Those Darn Poor People! Have they screwed this Country or what? They were probably behind the Wall Street collapse. And it was most of their sons and daughters who fought that war in Iraq which ballooned the deficit. POOR PEOPLE ARE DRIVING THIS COUNTRY DOWN THE DRAIN...

    The Perfect Republican Agenda = GET RID OF POOR PEOPLE!
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  6. Chris
    Offline

    Chris Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2008
    Messages:
    23,154
    Thanks Received:
    1,958
    Trophy Points:
    205
    Location:
    Virginia
    Ratings:
    +2,089
    Conservative America is like the French Revolution in reverse - millions of poor folks streaming into the streets to defend the interests of the wealthy.
     
  7. rdean
    Offline

    rdean rddean

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2009
    Messages:
    60,164
    Thanks Received:
    6,900
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    chicago
    Ratings:
    +15,011
    I don't think so. I think they just hate having a black president and will do anything to get him out of office. Even if it fucks up their own lives and the lives of their children, to racists, it's definitely worth it.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  8. Gadawg73
    Offline

    Gadawg73 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2009
    Messages:
    14,426
    Thanks Received:
    1,603
    Trophy Points:
    155
    Location:
    Georgia
    Ratings:
    +1,677
    I remember a few years ago there was a couple at church that we knew, no kids and the husband had just finished college. They were on food stamps.
    One weekend we were over there for dinner and it was the end of the month. "Come on, let's go to Kroger. It is the 30th and we have about $40 left we need to use. How about rib eyes."
    Now this is not the norm but it does happen.
    I am not skeptical of scientists at all, believe in evolution and global warming but that has nothing to do with the giveaways the United States of Santa Claus has become 365 24/7.
    Most people on government assistance are moochers.
    I know it, Obama knows it, YOU KNOW IT, EVERYONE KNOWS IT.
     
  9. sealybobo
    Offline

    sealybobo Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2008
    Messages:
    50,758
    Thanks Received:
    3,200
    Trophy Points:
    1,845
    Location:
    Michigan
    Ratings:
    +10,220
    And notice they call Obama the foodstamps president when actually more people filed for foodstamps under GW Bush. Of course that was for 8 years and Obama has only been in office for 4 years, but consider most if not all of those people filing for foodstamps now are still the fault of GW Bush and the GOP who ran the show from 2000-2006 and have since obstructed all the solutions.

    Regardless of if its Romney or Paul, the goal is smaller government and more power to the rich and corporations. They are taking over America. No longer is government for all of us. Its every man for himself. Sure the rich want that. But that isn't the America they succeeded in. That's changing the rules so its harder for us to achieve what they achieved. The successful manufacturing executive who worked 30 years and now has a fat pension and 401K, plus good social security and medicare. Now its no pension, companies don't even match the 401K anymore and every day the politicians loot the social security and medicare programs.

    Even Clinton and Obama have gone along with the rich who clearly own our country. They have to. But at least they understand American workers should not have to compete with chinese and mexican slave labor.

    Ron Paul talks a good game but he's still bad for the poor and middle class. I hope he runs as a third party ticket.

    Here is a way to determine if you should vote Democrat or Republican. Do you like working 40 hour work weeks or do you wish it would go back to 60 hour work weeks? If you want 60 hour work weeks, vote GOP. Or if you think you should take a $10,000 pay cut because we could get it cheaper overseas, vote GOP.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  10. Gadawg73
    Offline

    Gadawg73 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2009
    Messages:
    14,426
    Thanks Received:
    1,603
    Trophy Points:
    155
    Location:
    Georgia
    Ratings:
    +1,677
    Who would you want to have the most power?
    The moocher class or the working class?
    The wealthy have the power because they earn the power.
    I work 60 hours every week and I am wealthy.
    Did you just learn something that will help you become wealthy?
    If not go ahead and cry, whine and moan and be poor.
     

Share This Page