Romney: "I'm not concerned about the very poor"

[VirtualStranger]

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2012/02/romneys-not-concerned-about-very-poor/48142/

"I'm in this race because I care about Americans. I'm not concerned about the very poor. We have a safety net there. If it needs repair I'll fix it," he told CNN Tuesday night after his Florida win

You mean that safety net that you're actively trying to destroy? That one?

[MaybeNever]

Well obviously the safety net for the poor is broken; it doesn't pander to the rich at all! I hope Romney can fix it, and soon!

[Meshakhad]

I actually listened to what he said afterwards. What he meant was that he wasn't concerned with any specific segment of American society, but rather American society as a whole. He also said "I'm not concerned about the very rich".

[KZN02]

That was a completely dangerous phrase for him to say.

[Lt. Fred]

I actually listened to what he said afterwards. What he meant was that he wasn't concerned with any specific segment of American society, but rather American society as a whole. He also said "I'm not concerned about the very rich".

And that's a stupid position to take. It's quite possible for you to be concerned about the poor- who have almost no safety net to protect them- AND the middle class.

What, exactly, is his plan to get the middle class back to work anyway? Cross his fingers?

[largeham]

Why should anyone be concerned for the rich? And of course he doesn't care about the poor, he made $43 million dollars last year.

OT: this reminds me of a quote by John Raese: "I made my money the old-fashioned way, I inherited it. I think that’s a great thing to do. I hope more people in this country have that opportunity as soon as we abolish inheritance tax in this country, which is a key part of my program."

[N. De Plume]

I actually listened to what he said afterwards. What he meant was that he wasn't concerned with any specific segment of American society, but rather American society as a whole. He also said "I'm not concerned about the very rich".

Sounds like some variation on the Golden Mean Fallacy to me. Not sure if there is a term for this specifically.

OT: this reminds me of a quote by John Raese: "I made my money the old-fashioned way, I inherited it. I think that’s a great thing to do. I hope more people in this country have that opportunity as soon as we abolish inheritance tax in this country, which is a key part of my program."

So, he doesn’t realize that taxes on inheritance don’t apply to most people’s inheritance. It’s not the inheritance tax that keeps people from inheriting the riches. It is the lack of rich relatives.

[armandtanzarian]

The problem as with most Romney gaffes, once I read the full quote I get his point. I usually disagree vehemently but I understand what he's trying to say.

But then he somehow goes and says it in the worst possible way.

[rookie]

Of course he's not concerned about the poor. The only surprising thing is he came out and said it.

[sandman]

If he is unconcerned about the wealthy, why does he insist they need more tax cuts? Sounds pretty concerned to me.

He says that he is unconcerned with the poor because there are "safety nets" in place, and when he is President (god forbid) he will "plug any holes" in that safety net. Does he not realize what a "safety net" is? It's meant to prevent death from disaster! When a trapeze artist winds up in the net, it's because something has gone horribly wrong, and the net is there to prevent the spontaneous formation of a human pizza. When the poor wind up in the "safety nets" of society, it is because things have gone horribly wrong! The safety net is not intended to be the normal status quo for life! It is intended to prevent you from dying of poverty, not to support the poor so you don't have to be "concerned" about them. If you're in that safety net, it's because things have gone very, very badly.

And was I the only one slightly offended by a multi-multi millionaire telling a bunch of poor people they're OK because they have food stamps and welfare?

[TenfoldMaquette]

Looks like Romney got stuck in full-on WAARRGARBL mode with this one.

He not only told the poor "class" that he (and by extension, his party) doesn't care about them, but he actually out-and-out says that the Democratic party does. The man has never spent a day in his life as middle class, never mind poor,  yet he's cool with spouting off about how the "safety net" for the poor is not only sufficient, but not worth his further attention? He wants to see more people move into the middle class, yet he (and his party) support removing funds from the very organizations that make this in any way feasible. None of what he said makes sense.

The Republican party has got to learn that you cannot build a house on a shitty foundation and expect it to stand. The (growing) poor and (shrinking) middle class are the foundation, and if their lives become one of subsistence only, they will not have the spending ability necessary to prop up our economy. This will in turn drag everyone else down, and the rich and super-rich will have no one left to buy the products that their money-making corporations produce. This is just simple logic - what happens to the least of us happens to us all.

[m52nickerson]

Romney: "I'm not concerned about the very poor."

Obama: "Fukken Saved"

[sandman]

The Republican party has got to learn that you cannot build a house on a shitty foundation and expect it to stand. The (growing) poor and (shrinking) middle class are the foundation, and if their lives become one of subsistence only, they will not have the spending ability necessary to prop up our economy. This will in turn drag everyone else down, and the rich and super-rich will have no one left to buy the products that their money-making corporations produce. This is just simple logic - what happens to the least of us happens to us all.

the Republican party long ago ceased to be concerned with the poor, working, or middle classes. I have become convinced that the party that was originally founded to combat slavery, the party of Lincoln, has undergone several major transformations in its history. In the 80s it was taken over by the religious right when Reagan used blatant pandering to evangelicals to clinch the nomination. Then in 2000 with the election of Bush the neo-Cons took over. While they still paid lip service to the religious right, and still talked the whole Reagan-era "small government" audioporn, they had transformed the party yet again.

I am utterly certain that the core leadership of the GOP, the people who meet quietly behind the scenes to determine the direction, efforts, and ideology of the party have only a single goal now: to transfer as much of the tax burden as possible off of the wealthy and corporations and onto the middle and working classes.

That's their point, now. Everything they do is in some way designed to either transfer the tax burden or to distract the public from how they are transferring the tax burden. They care nothing about encroaching Muslims, or Sharia, or abortion, or gay marriage, or job creation, or any of the other issues they are screaming about. All of these things are just bugbears meant to frighten their base and distract everyone from what they are really doing. The fact that by doing this they are inevitably killing off the middle class and creating a two-tiered society with a very wealthy, privileged elite minority and a vast, dead-ended underclass of the poor doesn't matter to them, because they will be firmly in the first category.

[rtvc2012]

Typical Republican

[TenfoldMaquette]

The fact that by doing this they are inevitably killing off the middle class and creating a two-tiered society with a very wealthy, privileged elite minority and a vast, dead-ended underclass of the poor doesn't matter to them, because they will be firmly in the first category.

Ah well, sucks to be them. I'm too poor to end up with my head in a basket - they really can't say the same.