Mitt Romney: 'I'm Not Concerned About The Very Poor'

[The T]

Well, finally he comes outright with it.

Well, only if you lie about what he said. But you already knew that. You just love the lies.

Let me guess, "die hard Republican"? Or am I mistaken?

No, YOU are just an idiot speaking out of turn.

 

[JoeB131]

[
Most small companies the workers ARE the stockholders.

Not sure what small companies you are talking about. I've worked for small companies and big corporations. Both are evil in their own special ways. In some ways, the small companies are worse because the greed is more banal.

Both abuse their employees whenever they think they can get away with it.

You are a Masochist. Get treatment for that and all of your troubles with employers go away.

Naw, I'm more of a sadist...

But anyway, that wasn't my point. I mean, if it was fun, they wouldn't have to pay you, would they?

So the question becomes, what should the pay to abuse ration really be?

I think the thing is, the smaller a company, really the worse it is, not the better. As Sarte said, Hell is other people.

The guys I find who have the biggest problems with unions almost always are business owners who would be real shitheels to work for.

Nothing a plutocrat hates more than a fair fight.

 

[FactFinder]

Mitt Romney: 'I'm Not Concerned About The Very Poor'


What a bonehead thing to say. But, this MA resident can attest that he has been long 'out of touch'.

 

[California Girl]

Mitt Romney: 'I'm Not Concerned About The Very Poor'


What a bonehead thing to say. But, this MA resident can attest that he has been long 'out of touch'.

Again?

Are you actually brain dead? Serious question.... look at the next sentence... context. It will help you to be less stupid.

 

[JoeB131]

You'll notice, perhaps, that Joey completely ignored my questions. I wonder why?

Ok, I don't 'wonder why'... I know why.... he doesn't know the answers. I do. The 'Great Society' is a ******* failure. The numbers confirm it.

No, the problem is, your question was so poorly worded, I wasn't entirely sure if you were criticizing the Great Society or bashing it. Let's review, shall we....

Do you know how many poor people we had in the US prior to the 'Great Society'?

Do you know how much money we have spent on social programs for the poor since the 'Great Society' shit?

Do you know how many poor people have been lifted out of poverty by those programs?

Do the damned math. Throwing ******* money at the poor is not working. We need to try something else. Romney's way - helping the middle class will be a start. If, after we stabilize the economy and help the middle class, we'll have more money which we use to address the actual problems - the ******* welfare shit is not working!

What does that even mean? Are you saying that there were more poor people after the Great Society- which, by the way, wasn't just about poor people. Medicare expansion was part of the Great Society.

Also a key part of the Great Society was the Civil Rights Acts... any sensible person can see that did a lot to help minorities. But I'm not talking to a sensible person, am I?

It should be pointed out that the poverty combating parts of the GS were dismantled almost as soon as Nixon and Ford got there. The popular stuff was kept in place. But usually, for a Conservatard (which is not sensible, reasonable conservatives, but folks like you) "Great Society" becomes shorthand for "Welfare". Welfare existed before the GS and afterwards.

However, from Wiki-

One of Johnson's aides, Joseph A. Califano, Jr., has countered that "from 1963 when Lyndon Johnson took office until 1970 as the impact of his Great Society programs were felt, the portion of Americans living below the poverty line dropped from 22.2 percent to 12.6 percent, the most dramatic decline over such a brief period in this century."[25] The percentage of African Americans below the poverty line dropped from 55 percent in 1960 to 27 percent in 1968.[

So, um, yeah, it did bring people out of poverty. Now, it shouldn't get all the credit, there were economic factors in there that also played a part- a War ensuring full employment, high union membership, and so on. But if I were living in 1969, I'd be inclined to say Keynesian economics were working just fine.

Not really the case, the problems came later, of course. But not because of the "Great Soceity".

 

[JoeB131]

Mitt Romney: 'I'm Not Concerned About The Very Poor'


What a bonehead thing to say. But, this MA resident can attest that he has been long 'out of touch'.

Again?

Are you actually brain dead? Serious question.... look at the next sentence... context. It will help you to be less stupid.

Okay, let's look at the next sentence-

"There's a safety net to take care of them."

Really? Do you really think that the "safety net" is adequate or that anyone- anyone- really desires to be caught in the Safety Net?

Then you have his next sentence "I'm not concerned about the very Rich, they can take care of themselves"- (And I'm paraphrasing, but that's the gist, don't get whiny about words like you usually do). But yet his policies give some big wet smoochies to the rich. More tax cuts, more credits, etc.

Meanwhile, the economy is getting fine just on it's own, it seems. So what's the rationale for thowing all principles under the bus again?

 

[California Girl]

You'll notice, perhaps, that Joey completely ignored my questions. I wonder why?

Ok, I don't 'wonder why'... I know why.... he doesn't know the answers. I do. The 'Great Society' is a ******* failure. The numbers confirm it.

No, the problem is, your question was so poorly worded, I wasn't entirely sure if you were criticizing the Great Society or bashing it. Let's review, shall we....

Do you know how many poor people we had in the US prior to the 'Great Society'?

Do you know how much money we have spent on social programs for the poor since the 'Great Society' shit?

Do you know how many poor people have been lifted out of poverty by those programs?

Do the damned math. Throwing ******* money at the poor is not working. We need to try something else. Romney's way - helping the middle class will be a start. If, after we stabilize the economy and help the middle class, we'll have more money which we use to address the actual problems - the ******* welfare shit is not working!

What does that even mean? Are you saying that there were more poor people after the Great Society- which, by the way, wasn't just about poor people. Medicare expansion was part of the Great Society.

Also a key part of the Great Society was the Civil Rights Acts... any sensible person can see that did a lot to help minorities. But I'm not talking to a sensible person, am I?

It should be pointed out that the poverty combating parts of the GS were dismantled almost as soon as Nixon and Ford got there. The popular stuff was kept in place. But usually, for a Conservatard (which is not sensible, reasonable conservatives, but folks like you) "Great Society" becomes shorthand for "Welfare". Welfare existed before the GS and afterwards.

However, from Wiki-

One of Johnson's aides, Joseph A. Califano, Jr., has countered that "from 1963 when Lyndon Johnson took office until 1970 as the impact of his Great Society programs were felt, the portion of Americans living below the poverty line dropped from 22.2 percent to 12.6 percent, the most dramatic decline over such a brief period in this century."[25] The percentage of African Americans below the poverty line dropped from 55 percent in 1960 to 27 percent in 1968.[

So, um, yeah, it did bring people out of poverty. Now, it shouldn't get all the credit, there were economic factors in there that also played a part- a War ensuring full employment, high union membership, and so on. But if I were living in 1969, I'd be inclined to say Keynesian economics were working just fine.

Not really the case, the problems came later, of course. But not because of the "Great Soceity".

My question was perfectly well worded - neither pro nor anti the 'Great Society'. I notice you have to go and read up and quote others to answer it. I don't. I already knew.

And you still haven't answered my questions. You can't.... I understand that. I know the numbers and I know the percentage of people that were 'helped' out of poverty. Eventually, even the liberals will realize that it hasn't worked. It is not doing what it was supposed to do. We're just dogpiling money into one very, very deep hole.

You bore me with your inability to answer straightforward questions... No wonder you support Gingrich.... perhaps you'd be more comfortable backing Obama... neither of them are very good with straight answers. But both are exceptionally good at promising everyone everything. Anything to get your vote.

A fool and their vote are soon parted.

 

[FactFinder]

Mitt Romney: 'I'm Not Concerned About The Very Poor'


What a bonehead thing to say. But, this MA resident can attest that he has been long 'out of touch'.

Again?

Are you actually brain dead? Serious question.... look at the next sentence... context. It will help you to be less stupid.

I prefer not to join into the context of 'silliness'. Just the facts, Maam!

 

[JoeB131]

My question was perfectly well worded - neither pro nor anti the 'Great Society'. I notice you have to go and read up and quote others to answer it. I don't. I already knew.

quite right. So poorly worded I wasn't sure if you were praising or condemning...

And you still haven't answered my questions. You can't.... I understand that. I know the numbers and I know the percentage of people that were 'helped' out of poverty. Eventually, even the liberals will realize that it hasn't worked. It is not doing what it was supposed to do. We're just dogpiling money into one very, very deep hole.

Actually, whatever numbers you "know" probably come from BS websites and really wouldn't stand up to even a minor scrutiny... The governments own figures say that people were lifted out of poverty in the 1960's, so the GS worked.

Now, I think there are a lot of things VERY WRONG with our welfare system. I think there are too many problems with it, not the least of which is calling them "entitlements". But the overall notion that we should lift people out of poverty and shouldn't let them starve or die if a rich douchebag can't make money off of them isn't one of them.

You bore me with your inability to answer straightforward questions... No wonder you support Gingrich.... perhaps you'd be more comfortable backing Obama... neither of them are very good with straight answers. But both are exceptionally good at promising everyone everything. Anything to get your vote.

I'm waiting for the one who will turn Utah into a giant cult deprogramming camp... but I'll vote for whoever the Not Romney is. Romney is a scumbag.

A fool and their vote are soon parted.

As long as Romney loses, I don't care.

 

[California Girl]

My question was perfectly well worded - neither pro nor anti the 'Great Society'. I notice you have to go and read up and quote others to answer it. I don't. I already knew.

quite right. So poorly worded I wasn't sure if you were praising or condemning...

And you still haven't answered my questions. You can't.... I understand that. I know the numbers and I know the percentage of people that were 'helped' out of poverty. Eventually, even the liberals will realize that it hasn't worked. It is not doing what it was supposed to do. We're just dogpiling money into one very, very deep hole.

Actually, whatever numbers you "know" probably come from BS websites and really wouldn't stand up to even a minor scrutiny... The governments own figures say that people were lifted out of poverty in the 1960's, so the GS worked.

Now, I think there are a lot of things VERY WRONG with our welfare system. I think there are too many problems with it, not the least of which is calling them "entitlements". But the overall notion that we should lift people out of poverty and shouldn't let them starve or die if a rich douchebag can't make money off of them isn't one of them.

You bore me with your inability to answer straightforward questions... No wonder you support Gingrich.... perhaps you'd be more comfortable backing Obama... neither of them are very good with straight answers. But both are exceptionally good at promising everyone everything. Anything to get your vote.

I'm waiting for the one who will turn Utah into a giant cult deprogramming camp... but I'll vote for whoever the Not Romney is. Romney is a scumbag.

A fool and their vote are soon parted.

As long as Romney loses, I don't care.

Holy shit, you are one dumb ****. A question does not have to be 'praising' or 'condemning'... it was a few clear questions. And you cannot answer them. Instead, you deflect with some crap about what numbers I know... assuming that they come from 'some bullshit website'... which they don't... I don't do bullshit websites... everyone on here knows that.

Still won't answer those few perfectly rational questions.... I doubt you ever will. You're jack shit stupid.

 

[JoeB131]

I don't know what everyone here knows...

Only thing I know is that you respond to contradiction with name calling, which tells me you aren't very mature...

I gave you numbers... Contradict them from a source that is credible, or we're done.

 

[del]

I don't know what everyone here knows...

Only thing I know is that you respond to contradiction with name calling, which tells me you aren't very mature...

I gave you numbers... Contradict them from a source that is credible, or we're done.

 

[California Girl]

I don't know what everyone here knows...

Only thing I know is that you respond to contradiction with name calling, which tells me you aren't very mature...

I gave you numbers... Contradict them from a source that is credible, or we're done.

You didn't answer my questions - you deflected and whined.

If you want that to be 'done', I'm good with that. You can't answer a few basic questions. Good to know.

I call you jack shit stupid... because that is what the evidence demonstrates. If that is an issue for you, perhaps you should edumacate yourself.

 

[J.E.D]

Josie,

I get online this morning and sign onto USMB and what do I find? Yet another PM from you. I told you I'm not gay, I'm not interested in your suggestions and that I wouldn't read anymore PM's from you. I tossed it unopened. Sorry Alice, you'll have to ask me for sex out here in public and the answer will always be no. Move along *****.

Still butthurt?

I guess you are *****.

But in your PMs, you said you wanted to be my bottom-*****. Change your mind?

 

[J.E.D]

Talk about owning. You can't stop talking about me. Obsess much? By the way, what about my avatar makes you think I'm pretending to be black? It's a white zombie. Explain that to me. Come on now, you accuse me with every post; I ask you in every response; you ignore it every time. My gawd, you truly are one stupid ************.

Wow, you are the man. You get people to respond to you on message boards. Well done.

I own you because you know you've got nothing, which is why you go to the only little lashing out you can do in your tiny world, negative rep. Which you did again. Oh stop, negative rep, I can't take it. Actually it cracks me up. You slither around giving negative rep because you have no brain in your head to make rational points and you have no dick in your pants to stand behind them. And I don't do it back because I do. I just mock and laugh at you for the pathetic little wanna be black man you are.

Man, you have got to be the dumbest ************ on this entire board. Entertaining, but dumb as ****. Got any more?

 

[rdean]

Obama agrees to the tax cuts extensions because he knows the right wing of the GOP in Congress will cave and agree to all the other Obama demands. BHO has made the GOP congressmen look like gutless wonders. In the debt ceiling fight, the GOP caved.

Gawd you're dumb. What is it exactly the right wing caved on?

Speaker Boehner: “I Got 98% of What I Wanted”

 

[JakeStarkey]

Obama agrees to the tax cuts extensions because he knows the right wing of the GOP in Congress will cave and agree to all the other Obama demands. BHO has made the GOP congressmen look like gutless wonders. In the debt ceiling fight, the GOP caved.

Gawd you're dumb. What is it exactly the right wing caved on?

Speaker Boehner: “I Got 98% of What I Wanted”

Speaker Boehner wanted the tax cuts, which allowed BHO to get almost everything else he wanted. The GOP caved in on several things, DADT being just one.

 

[JoeB131]

I don't know what everyone here knows...

Only thing I know is that you respond to contradiction with name calling, which tells me you aren't very mature...

I gave you numbers... Contradict them from a source that is credible, or we're done.

You didn't answer my questions - you deflected and whined.

If you want that to be 'done', I'm good with that. You can't answer a few basic questions. Good to know.

I call you jack shit stupid... because that is what the evidence demonstrates. If that is an issue for you, perhaps you should edumacate yourself.

I did answer you silly questions by citing what Califano said. There were LESS people in poverty after the GS. And there were numbers. The GS was good for the country, overall. Sorry, I know that doesn't fit into you little "Let them Eat Cake" paradigm, but it is what it is.

Some day, you'll grow up, maybe develop some human compassion, but I kind of doubt it.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Smart Republicans know that the GS did work. Smarter Republicans know that it could have been done more smartly, with less money, and more credit for Republicans.

The stats prove it.

 

[Greenbeard]

My question was perfectly well worded - neither pro nor anti the 'Great Society'. I notice you have to go and read up and quote others to answer it. I don't. I already knew.

And you still haven't answered my questions. You can't.... I understand that. I know the numbers and I know the percentage of people that were 'helped' out of poverty. Eventually, even the liberals will realize that it hasn't worked. It is not doing what it was supposed to do. We're just dogpiling money into one very, very deep hole.

It's not "doing what it was supposed to"? Five million people were kept out of poverty at the height of the last recession by SNAP, a Great Society program. Eight million were able to retain access to health care over the last few years--even as they lost jobs, income and employer coverage--by enrolling in Medicaid, a Great Society program. Nearly fifty million people (60% of which are children) in total have access to care through that program. Almost forty million seniors retained access to care through the depths of the last recession thanks to Medicare, a Great Society program.

Meanwhile, foodbanks operated by community action agencies (a War on Poverty holdover) have fed the hungry during this downturn, disadvantaged young folks continued to develop important skills through Job Corps, and others entered into the service of their communities through AmeriCorps. Eligible college kids retained an easy pathway to jobs through the work-study program, another War on Poverty remnant.

The conversation is taking an absurd direction.