Mitt Romney: ‘I’m not concerned about the very poor’

I bet that if he becomes POTUS, he will eliminate those safety nets.

 

Those 8 years were alot cheaper then the cost of three years of Obamanomics

 

and the downside to that would be?

We have had over $9 trillion in wealth tranfers over the last 40 years that was to wipe out poverty

But we are told the problem is worse then ever

Oh, and we need to spend more money to "solve" the problem

If you pay people to be poor they will stay poor

 

The 8 were the root cause of most everything post.

 

This is so simple...liberals want to poke holes in anything any GOP candidate says be it right or be it wrong. They are starting to sweat a bit. They know the economy is in the tubes and that their great leader has only gotten us deeper in debt and actually had our standing lowered. They appear to not be bright enough that we need someone who will hold tight reins on congress and not rush things like Obama does. When you have dug a hole, it takes a bit of time to climb out of it, rushing, like Obama does, allows for things to slip through the cracks that we don't need or want. Liberalism is a mental disorder, to be sure!

 

Taken out of context and done so on purpose. The rest of the statement was that they have a safety net.

 

I agree.

I don't understand why remarks like this get spun into something they clearly are not.


*shakes head*

 

The problem is the safety nets. You get the poor straightened out and the middle class will fall back in line again...

 

Oh like Romney would never take something out of context? Beyond taking things out of context, he downright LIES.

This statement was repeated by Romney on repeated occasions.

 

The best safety net is a JOB

Under Obama we now have about 1.5 fewer safety nets thanks to his policy and gross incompetence

 

Leave it to Newt to elevate that debate. He stated today that he wants to give the poor - not a safety net - but a trampoline!

 

That is what happens when the Republican candidate is more worried about what the liberal media will think about him/her then what the voters will think about him/her

 

I knew this quote would be taken WAY out of context...pathetic American media and bloody short attention span American voters...on both sides.

Romney is still (IMO) a useless candidate.

But the mutation of the context of his quote is ridiculous and highlights one of the big things that is wrong with U.S. politics.

 

Hey the liberal media is part of the Obama re-election team

How could anyone expect otherwise?

 

Both 'sides' of the media are, imo, about 70% useless/harmful, 20% harmless and 10% useful.


Funny, that's about what I think of both parties.

 

Strange how Fox News continues to pull in the rarings when they do give both sides and allow everyone to give their opinion. Fox News is the exception to the rule

Objective journalism died in 2008, now the liberal media no longer tries to hide their bias and slanted covergae toward Obama and the Dems

 

I have no idea I don't listen to him.

How so?

 

And the premise of that belief is what?

 

I don't agree. I saw Romney make this statement repeatedly. It wasn't out of context or a misspeak. Go ahead and add back the next sentence about the safety net and its still same thing, that he's not concerned about the poor. Is that all he wants to do is keep a safety net under them? Maintain status quo ? Doesn't sound like much of a CHANGE to me.

At least Newt is talking about ways to give the poor a leg up, not just leave them with a safety net like foodstamps, welfare, etc.

The more Romney talks, the more he sounds like BO. They already have same health care now they have the same policy for just maintaining the poor with safety nets.

 

IMO, the poor don't need a 'leg up'.

They need the basic necessities of life AND the governmeoutta GET OUT OF THE WAY and let free enterprise work and the rest is up to them.
But none of these bozos running for the WH has a clue about this it seems (except Paul of course).

Forcibly taking money from more successful, hard-working people and giving it to the poor for no other reason then they are poor is ridiculous.

Give them food, shelter and medical care....and that is it.

They want more...they have to do what most others do...earn it.


I don't mind at all if my tax dollars go to help keep poor people fed, housed and with adequate medical/dental care. But anything else...yes I do.

If they expect more...there is always charity.

If that is not enough..tough.

 

If I decide to help a homeless person with money for food, shelter, and clothes - that is my choice

If someone comes up to me, points a gun at me, and takes money from me and does the same thing - that is armed robbery

Yet the government does the same thing via the tax system and the left demands even more theft via the tax system

 

Povide us a cite, Sparky

 

I think Newt has demonstrated time and time again, he doesn't give a rat's ass what the media thinks about him.

The trampoline statement is just a continuation of what he has been saying about getting people off programs and in jobs. Allow them a way to get an Ass. Degree rather than 90 more days of extended unemployment. Give them a way to help themselves, not continue with handouts.

Compare that to BO and MR... Romney isn't concerned about the poor since he'll continue BO's safety nets, i.e., food stamps & welfare, extended unemployment benefits, Romney/Obama care , etc.

Super Tuesday is around the corner and Mitts momentum is going to die out by then.

Don't count Newt out yet.

 

Aren't most people in the USA very poor? By comparison to Australia they are.

It must suck to be you. But I have a shiny dollar for anyone that can dance like a bear!

 

Newt has as much of shot at winning as Ron Paul does

It is over and we are stuck with Mitt