People are being too hard on Mitt Romney. He meant well when he said he wasn’t concerned about the poor. After all, they do have safety nets like Medicaid and food stamps. It’s the millions of middle class families who are struggling right now who need help. I think Romney means that we shouldn’t help raise the poor out of poverty because then they would become members of the middle class who are struggling without safety nets. By that reasoning, I’m surprised he didn’t say we should do nothing to help the middle class because then they would become members of the poor, and the poor have safety nets. So does that mean we should do nothing for anyone? I’m so confused. I don’t think I get the hang of this politics thing.
Calendar of Posts
Join 1,735 other subscribers
The Tweet LifeTweets by comingeast
- 124,412 hits
Pingback: On poverty, Romney should heed Reagan – The Washington Post « Ye Olde Soapbox
Mitt. The name says it all, really.
LOL, Leah. It will be interesting to see how he does in debates with Obama.
I don’t understand any of it either…
It’s certainly over my head!
Trump is responding to Romney’s brilliant strategy. That explains…
Well put. Thank you, Susan!
I’ll have to check in with the news and see what the Trumpster is saying. Thanks, Amy.
I meant by endoring Romney. I don’t normally pay attention to what Trumpster said.
Here’s my take Susan. If we concentrate our efforts on “bailing out” the very poor, even if we raise their standard, we do nothing to help the economy. I’m not saying don’t help them, we do now and I’m sure we will continue to do so. The effort must be put toward the people who, with the right tools and structure in place, will rebound and contribute to the economy, by becoming gainfully employed again, spending more money, and starting businesses and creating jobs. This is classic trickle down economics. If Romney really wants to get things kick started he HAS to concentrate where it will produce the best and quickest results. That’s what he means.
Having said that, and knowing what Romney really meant, it is still an arrow in the heart of his campaign because pundits and campaign advisers will twist it and blow it up so that it does become the issue. And Romney has no true charisma to counter that. Obama has tons of it. The Republicans better get wise and understand how much of an election is about personality. Even an abrasive personality like Newt’s is better than none at all. My proof: John Kerry in 2004.
I agree, Big Al, with what you’re saying, but it sounds so cold coming out of Romney’s mouth, doesn’t it? It didn’t need to be said, especially in a way that came across as being so flip. You are so right about Mitt not having any charisma, so he needs to be very sure that what he says doesn’t sound callous as that statement did. Being a part of the middle class, I do worry about what is happening to us, and I don’t see any improvement. We’ve got to put people back to work in good jobs. Thanks for your comment. You know my post was just tongue-in-cheek.
Pingback: What safety net? « All Tied Up and Nowhere to Go
Well, you know I have to chime in. Maybe Mitt Romney was saying that, because there are “safety nets” in place for the poor, they don’t have as far to fall as the middle class does, and we should at least try to keep people from falling. Personally, I don’t know if that’s enough, but I understand the idea. But I respectfully disagree with Dor. His comment cannot be taken out of context. The exact quote was “I”m not concerned about the very poor. We have a safety net there and if it needs repair, I’ll fix it.” That was the full context – it was not like many other soundbites, extricated from more convoluted sentences. It can’t mean anything other than “the very poor will be just fine with what we do.” He cited Medicaid, food stamps and housing vouchers as that “ample safety net.” Ample for what? They all face the possibility of cuts, and we could argue about their efficacy.
I suspect his thought was simply this: the very poor don’t vote. Being concerned about the middle class is better for a campaign. He’s not incorrect. But at bottom, any candidate’s advisors would know it’s bad to say you’re not concerned about the very poor, especially for a man who’s had a struggle with how to deal with his substantial wealth (which I don’t necessarily begrudge). As a person, to say you’re not concerned about the very poor is proof that you have no idea just how very poor they are.
Well said, SC. There is enough misery for every segment of society, except for the very rich, of course, that our politicians better darn well be concerned for all of us. And you are so right about the cuts.
There is not enough space in this comment area for me to expound on how the saftey nets for the poor are inadequate, and frequently yanked out from underneath them just as they make a little headway. I think out of touch rich white men such as Mitt have not business trying to lead our country.
Unfortunately for Romney, that one statement will be taken out of context and used in ads against him if he is the nominee running against Obama. I think everyone knows what he really meant to say. He just said it the wrong way.
Yes, Dor, very true. I’m sure politicians could Edit the little blogpost in their head before they ever verbally publish it.
Well said… the older I get the less I understand politics. My only comment would be that there is no longer a middle class. What used to be middle class have lost their jobs and are struggling to keep their homes and provide food and medical care for their families. They’ve become a new group of sub-middle who used to be middle, aren’t quite lower (with supports) and feel like they’re drowning every day. Back to your time traveler idea… I want to go back to adolescence or my 20’s when I clearly knew what was right, and believed it could happen.
Oh, my, yes, Carol. Back then we had Walter Cronkite! How I miss him! I agree with your take on the middle class. They supposedly have too much money to take advantage of those safety nets Romney was talking about, but where the heck is that money? I sure don’t see it.
I’m with you. I’m so confused by politics that I don’t know what to believe. So I don’t believe any of it any more. What a jaded response. But you expressed it well.
You are so right about not believing anything that comes out of a politicians mouth. How sad is that?
I have only three words for you, Oh My God!