Romney: Not focused on poor, they have safety net

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 01, 2012 5:47 PM GMT
    WASHINGTON (AP) — Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney said Wednesday that he's "not concerned about the very poor" because they have an "ample safety net" and he's focused instead on relieving the suffering of middle-class people hit hard by the bad economy.

    In comments that quickly became fodder for his critics, Romney emphasized, "You can focus on the very poor, that's not my focus."

    He raised the subject of the poor in a CNN interview marking his big win in Florida's GOP primary Tuesday night, a major step toward becoming the party's challenger to President Barack Obama in the fall. A multimillionaire former venture capitalist, Romney has been criticized by Democrats and his Republican rivals alike for earlier remarks they considered insensitive. He once said "I like being able to fire people" and declared that he knew what it was like to worry about being "pink-slipped" out of a job.

    Obama's re-election campaign was quick to pick up on Romney's reference to the poor. "So much for 'we're all in this together,'" tweeted Obama campaign manager Jim Messina.
    http://tinyurl.com/7lqh3r7

    Answering questions from reporters on his campaign plane headed to Minnesota, the former Massachusetts governor offered a clarification, saying his comments were consistent with his theme throughout the race. "My energy is going to be devoted to helping middle-income people," he said.

    Speaking earlier to CNN, Romney said: "I'm not concerned about the very poor. 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 them, 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."
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 01, 2012 5:58 PM GMT
    It's like he's trying to lose the election.
  • nanidesukedo

    Posts: 1036

    Feb 01, 2012 6:13 PM GMT
    Dare I say that I actually agree? I think he makes a very valid point that the poorest often times don't have to worry about certain things that the lower middle class do. In many states where there are plans in place to pay for the healthcare of the indigent population, they tend to actually have better healthcare than the lower-middle class...The main limitation on their healthcare is their education and compliance which leads to access issues, but not from an affordability standpoint.

    I think these programs should exist and I'm glad they do, but I think Romney makes an actually good point by pointing out that we are overlooking the lower-middle class group..
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 01, 2012 6:26 PM GMT
    Why would anyone disagree with this or have a problem with it?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 01, 2012 6:27 PM GMT
    You can tell the bias and shoddy journalism in that AP piece. When Romney said he liked to fire people, it was clearly in the context of replacing service providers, specifically insurance providers. It was about incentivizing them to provide good service. I would bet nearly every journalist understands the context, and to state it without that context was deliberately misleading. Liberal press.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 01, 2012 6:28 PM GMT
    nanidesukedo saidDare I say that I actually agree? I think he makes a very valid point that the poorest often times don't have to worry about certain things that the lower middle class do. In many states where there are plans in place to pay for the healthcare of the indigent population, they tend to actually have better healthcare than the lower-middle class...The main limitation on their healthcare is their education and compliance which leads to access issues, but not from an affordability standpoint.

    I think these programs should exist and I'm glad they do, but I think Romney makes an actually good point by pointing out that we are overlooking the lower-middle class group..



    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


    Your right that Romney does have a point to make on the safety net. The caviot is though, that he remains right, only as long as his cohorts in the repub party don't cut off the safety net as is many of their spoken goal to do so.

    So if he got in the White House, how long would those safety net programs he spoke highly of last ?

    As usual there's a hole in his theories, and this too will be a point that will be driven home once he faces Obama in the actual election process.

    Romney keeps exhibiting that he is totally out of touch with the 'common' man. His reality is not even close to understanding that a vast majority of US Citizens are one or two checks from financial ruin, one health crisis from financial ruin or one other such disaster from ruin. Many of their incomes are such that saving is an impossibility because its taking all they have to servive.

    Romney's 'Corps are people' speaks loudly about how out of touch he is.
  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19129

    Feb 01, 2012 6:53 PM GMT
    Yet another example of liberals grasping at straws and twisting any and every word uttered by Romney to mean something completely different. The article itself is extremely biased, but Romney makes a valid point. Of course he cares about the poor, he just doesn't want to add more from the middle class into the ranks of the poor if he can help it --- hence the focus.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 01, 2012 6:58 PM GMT
    CuriousJockAZ saidYet another example of liberals grasping at straws and twisting any and every word uttered by Romney to mean something completely different. The article itself is extremely biased, but Romney makes a valid point. Of course he cares about the poor, he just doesn't want to add more from the middle class into the ranks of the poor if he can help it --- hence the focus.


    Bullshit. Romney doesn't give a rat's ass about anyone but himself and his buddies. His career, his stunning lapses of judgement when speaks, and his completely inability to relate to anyone who isn't a multimillionaire are very apparent and why he will not be president.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 01, 2012 6:59 PM GMT
    jpBITCHva said
    socalfitness saidYou can tell the bias and shoddy journalism in that AP piece. When Romney said he liked to fire people, it was clearly in the context of replacing service providers, specifically insurance providers. It was about incentivizing them to provide good service. I would bet nearly every journalist understands the context, and to state it without that context was deliberately misleading. Liberal press.

    Romney's people have admitted that their candidate's ads have contained numerous lies. They just don't care. Politics is war, they say. It's all about image.

    Therefore I don't shed any tears over anyone misrepresenting is "I like to fire people" remark. He gets what he deserves. He is an amoral scumbag.

    We'll see how that fits in the fall when Obama will be subject to blistering attacks.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 01, 2012 7:05 PM GMT
    socalfitness said
    jpBITCHva said
    socalfitness saidYou can tell the bias and shoddy journalism in that AP piece. When Romney said he liked to fire people, it was clearly in the context of replacing service providers, specifically insurance providers. It was about incentivizing them to provide good service. I would bet nearly every journalist understands the context, and to state it without that context was deliberately misleading. Liberal press.

    Romney's people have admitted that their candidate's ads have contained numerous lies. They just don't care. Politics is war, they say. It's all about image.

    Therefore I don't shed any tears over anyone misrepresenting is "I like to fire people" remark. He gets what he deserves. He is an amoral scumbag.

    We'll see how that fits in the fall when Obama will be subject to blistering attacks.


    I think this is so funny. What "blistering" attacks? Both Gingrich and Romney are already resorting to ridiculous lies so I don't think there's much ammunition.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 01, 2012 7:11 PM GMT
    Christian73 said
    socalfitness said
    jpBITCHva said
    socalfitness saidYou can tell the bias and shoddy journalism in that AP piece. When Romney said he liked to fire people, it was clearly in the context of replacing service providers, specifically insurance providers. It was about incentivizing them to provide good service. I would bet nearly every journalist understands the context, and to state it without that context was deliberately misleading. Liberal press.

    Romney's people have admitted that their candidate's ads have contained numerous lies. They just don't care. Politics is war, they say. It's all about image.

    Therefore I don't shed any tears over anyone misrepresenting is "I like to fire people" remark. He gets what he deserves. He is an amoral scumbag.

    We'll see how that fits in the fall when Obama will be subject to blistering attacks.


    I think this is so funny. What "blistering" attacks? Both Gingrich and Romney are already resorting to ridiculous lies so I don't think there's much ammunition.

    You would have no idea how energized the PACs, Super PACs, and RNC are. I know you are blind to the ammunition, but there is so much, the only challenge is deciding what to use.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 01, 2012 7:23 PM GMT
    Christian73 said
    CuriousJockAZ saidYet another example of liberals grasping at straws and twisting any and every word uttered by Romney to mean something completely different. The article itself is extremely biased, but Romney makes a valid point. Of course he cares about the poor, he just doesn't want to add more from the middle class into the ranks of the poor if he can help it --- hence the focus.


    Bullshit. Romney doesn't give a rat's ass about anyone but himself and his buddies. His career, his stunning lapses of judgement when speaks, and his completely inability to relate to anyone who isn't a multimillionaire are very apparent and why he will not be president.




    --------------------------------------------------------


    Amen Christian !!


    CuriousJ = what point he has, is shot through with holes because Romney's party wants to in large part do away with the safety net. Anyway you look at it, Romney just shot himself in the foot yet again.

    If speaking in such a public manner most of us would avoid such a statement, expecially if privy to the knowledge that our partners aren't in favor of the point of the statement. LOL Doesn't he think things through logically ?

    The Hypocrisy of these repubs is so very transparent. How many in the public excepting for the most rabid of partisans will not see through this with just a little thought
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 01, 2012 7:31 PM GMT
    Christian73 said
    CuriousJockAZ saidYet another example of liberals grasping at straws and twisting any and every word uttered by Romney to mean something completely different. The article itself is extremely biased, but Romney makes a valid point. Of course he cares about the poor, he just doesn't want to add more from the middle class into the ranks of the poor if he can help it --- hence the focus.


    Bullshit. Romney doesn't give a rat's ass about anyone but himself and his buddies. His career, his stunning lapses of judgement when speaks, and his completely inability to relate to anyone who isn't a multimillionaire are very apparent and why he will not be president.


    Actually, it's bullshit because it's conservatives who are jumping all over Romney for this. Limbaugh, Steyn, and Malkin are hammering him with it today.

    I love how right-wingers love to pretend that only liberals dislike Mitt Romneycare, the flip-flopper who likes to fire the poor people he's not concerned about.

    In fact, Democrats, Republicans, and independents are all underwhelmed by Mitt's corny businessman act. Mitt Romneycare will never be President of the USA.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 01, 2012 7:34 PM GMT
    Oh My you guys have no trouble overlooking Obama's faults and broken promises. Maybe it's time to turne the other check and show the same kind, since you guys are meant to be the one with the big giving heartsicon_rolleyes.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 01, 2012 7:38 PM GMT
    Well you know he may well have a good point about the poor. Like Oz we take very good care of our poor, and there are safety nets in place to support therm. Yet your middle and middle upper classes have no such supports in place for them when thing go wrong and get tough; in that the poor are better off.

    So yes it would be right and fair of Mitt to care for the middle classes, after all Obama has done nothing but make them suffer even more. Yes they too have a right for help if other are getting it too. These are the people who support the charities when things are good, now they are in need of a hand too.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 01, 2012 7:52 PM GMT
    TrueBlueAussie said
    So yes it would be right and fair of Mitt to care for the middle classes


    A President should care for all classes.
  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19129

    Feb 01, 2012 8:26 PM GMT
    Christian73 said
    CuriousJockAZ saidYet another example of liberals grasping at straws and twisting any and every word uttered by Romney to mean something completely different. The article itself is extremely biased, but Romney makes a valid point. Of course he cares about the poor, he just doesn't want to add more from the middle class into the ranks of the poor if he can help it --- hence the focus.


    Bullshit. Romney doesn't give a rat's ass about anyone but himself and his buddies. His career, his stunning lapses of judgement when speaks, and his completely inability to relate to anyone who isn't a multimillionaire are very apparent and why he will not be president.




    You're more than just a little naive. Do you really think a man worth $250 million needs to be President? He's already rich...he's already powerful...he hardly needs the headache, not to mention the scrutiny, that being POTUS will bring. That said, just because he is rich doesn't mean he doesn't want to make a difference both in the country and the world. If you think this man doesn't have a VERY good chance of being the next President, you're possibly in for a rude awakening.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 01, 2012 8:33 PM GMT
    Of course Romney doesnt give a shitt about the poor.

    He wants to make the rich richer by not paying their fair share of taxes.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 01, 2012 8:46 PM GMT
    socalfitness said
    Christian73 said
    socalfitness said
    jpBITCHva said
    socalfitness saidYou can tell the bias and shoddy journalism in that AP piece. When Romney said he liked to fire people, it was clearly in the context of replacing service providers, specifically insurance providers. It was about incentivizing them to provide good service. I would bet nearly every journalist understands the context, and to state it without that context was deliberately misleading. Liberal press.

    Romney's people have admitted that their candidate's ads have contained numerous lies. They just don't care. Politics is war, they say. It's all about image.

    Therefore I don't shed any tears over anyone misrepresenting is "I like to fire people" remark. He gets what he deserves. He is an amoral scumbag.

    We'll see how that fits in the fall when Obama will be subject to blistering attacks.


    I think this is so funny. What "blistering" attacks? Both Gingrich and Romney are already resorting to ridiculous lies so I don't think there's much ammunition.

    You would have no idea how energized the PACs, Super PACs, and RNC are. I know you are blind to the ammunition, but there is so much, the only challenge is deciding what to use.






    Yet another post that proves that Socal is the most delusional member on RJ.

    President Obama will be subjected to "blistering" attacks in the fall?
    LMAO!
    Like you Repubs haven't already spent the last few years attacking him?
    Pray tell us what low despicable "blistering" attacks you Repubs are going to drag up from the depths of hell that you guys haven't already spewed out?
    LOL!

    And YES there will be tons of dirty Repub Super PAC $$$$$$$$$$$$$ in this campaign.
    Unfortunately for you Repubs - President Obama will have a billion dollars to spend fighting back against the Repub's hate ads - MORE THAN ROMNEY WILL - and President Obama isn't going to have to waste any of that money on a prolonged and bitter nomination fight.

    Plus with Mitt Romneycare - the human gaffe machine - sticking his big fat foot in his mouth over and over again - Romney keeps making HIMSELF more and more unpalatable.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 01, 2012 8:48 PM GMT
    CuriousJockAZ said
    Christian73 said
    CuriousJockAZ saidYet another example of liberals grasping at straws and twisting any and every word uttered by Romney to mean something completely different. The article itself is extremely biased, but Romney makes a valid point. Of course he cares about the poor, he just doesn't want to add more from the middle class into the ranks of the poor if he can help it --- hence the focus.


    Bullshit. Romney doesn't give a rat's ass about anyone but himself and his buddies. His career, his stunning lapses of judgement when speaks, and his completely inability to relate to anyone who isn't a multimillionaire are very apparent and why he will not be president.




    You're more than just a little naive. Do you really think a man worth $250 million needs to be President? He's already rich...he's already powerful...he hardly needs the headache, not to mention the scrutiny, that being POTUS will bring. That said, just because he is rich doesn't mean he doesn't want to make a difference both in the country and the world. If you think this man doesn't have a VERY good chance of being the next President, you're possibly in for a rude awakening.


    Where did I say he needed more money? You conservatives need to stop creating arguments that aren't there. icon_rolleyes.gif

    Romney's and the post-Citizens United money that will napalm the airwaves will make the race competitive but Romney's negatives have gone through the roof and the longer the primary goes on the higher they go.
  • KissTheSky

    Posts: 1980

    Feb 01, 2012 8:52 PM GMT
    Romney's claims may be pro-middle class, but his policies are exactly the opposite. Romney's tax proposal actually increases the burden on middle class families, and rewards the already-rich with huge breaks.
    People making $1million/year will receive about $300,000 from the Romney tax cuts for the super wealthy. Meanwhile families who are already struggling to get by on $40,000 will be expected to pay more.
    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/19/us/politics/romneys-tax-bill-and-gop-deficit-problems.html
    If this is his idea of 'help", I say no thanks.

    (His plan will also add $600 billion to the deficit by 2015 -- but somehow deficits don't count if it's for tax giveaways to the wealthy, right?)

    Romney is the ideal candidate to represent the 1%. His goal is to make the rich richer and screw everyone else -- which is what he's done his entire career.
  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19129

    Feb 01, 2012 8:52 PM GMT
    RickRick91 saidRomney keeps making HIMSELF more and more unpalatable.



    Yes, there is probably a good chance you'll need heavy doses of Valium, a barf bag, and probably to be fed Pepto-Bismol intravenous on election night to keep you from completely going right over the edge icon_lol.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 01, 2012 8:56 PM GMT
    CuriousJockAZ said
    RickRick91 saidRomney keeps making HIMSELF more and more unpalatable.



    Yes, there is probably a good chance you'll need heavy doses of Valium, a barf bag, and probably to be fed Pepto-Bismol intravenous on election night to keep you from completely going right over the edge icon_lol.gif





    LMAO!

    Yet another post that proves that curious is the second most delusional member on RJ!

    You're in for a bad fall.
    In more ways than one!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 01, 2012 9:03 PM GMT
    KissTheSky saidRomney's claims may be pro-middle class, but his policies are exactly the opposite. Romney's tax proposal actually increases the burden on middle class families, and rewards the already-rich with huge breaks.
    People making $1million/year will receive about $300,000 from the Romney tax cuts for the super wealthy. Meanwhile families who are already struggling to get by on $40,000 will be expected to pay more.
    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/19/us/politics/romneys-tax-bill-and-gop-deficit-problems.html
    If this is his idea of 'help", I say no thanks.

    (His plan will also add $600 billion to the deficit by 2015 -- but somehow deficits don't count if it's for tax giveaways to the wealthy, right?)

    Romney is the ideal candidate to represent the 1%. His goal is to make the rich richer and screw everyone else -- which is what he's done his entire career.






    Mitt Romneycare is also a little late in his claims to be the pro-middle class candidate!

    President Obama has been talking about the need to restore the Great American middle class for more than a year - most recently in his SOTU address.

    Mitt's just attempting to steal President Obama's campaign theme.

    Apparently Mitt Romneycare is a thief as well as a tax cheat!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 01, 2012 9:04 PM GMT
    Whats wrong with this guy. This is the stupidest remark of the entire campaign. He comes across as the prototypical rich republican.