If there was really a safety net for the poor, they would not be poor. Pretending that life is alright for them is just a way to rationalize their corrupt trickle-down philosophy. If there is any way to prove that Romney is a true Republican, this was it.
"Now, the banks aren’t bad people, 'They’re just overwhelmed right now. They’re overwhelmed with a lot of things. One is a lot of homes coming in right now that are in foreclosure or in trouble and the other is with a massive new pile of regulations'.”
Romney has a problem and that problem is talking to people, I mean he has a lot of these anytime he has to go off script I picture a campaign manager biting his nails.
Ugh... Corporations are NOT people. Chevron is not a person. If Chevron (as a completely random example) decides to give 10 million dollars to a political campaign in order to sway policy, that is not the will of a person, or a group of people. That's the will of a greedy corporation that's trying to corrupt their way to prosperity by cheating.
I like how you posted what Romney said as if it fixes what Romney said.
I also like how Romney is running for President of a country with only two major political parties, but he does not know the name of the party he is running against.
I like how he doesn't realize or acknowledge that the middle class is BECOMING the poor, and that that needs to be taken care of before anything else even matters.
He knows that the majority of the 'very poor' are not registered voters and cannot vote - due to being so poor and probably not even having a valid state ID. I love it...basically Romney is saying that unless you have something to offer him (your vote) he doesn't give a damn about you.
Actually, I understand what he is saying completely. My employer doesn't offer health Insurance and my wife is a full time student. In an attempt to be responsible I have purchased high deductible Insurance plans for us both with an annual out of pocket deductible of $5,000 each. (In our case the family plan would not have been a better option). The plans cost us almost $300 a month and we are still responsible for 100% of the cost until we meet that deductible. We are about to have our first child and found out that our plan does not cover maternity as most non group plans (employer plans) don't cover maternity unless you can afford almost $700 a month, which we, like most Americans can't. We have several friends who have recently had children and Medicaid paid for 100% of the cost. They were able to deliver in one of the nicest hospitals in Dallas and medicaid continues to subsidize everything from food to vaccinations. I do believe that there are cases where this type of help is justified and I'm glad that it exist for those that truly need it, but the problem is when you are busting your butt to provide for your family without this type of assistance and every year health insurance premiums continue to rise, college tuition continues to rise, as well as gas, utilities etc., if you really look at the numbers, we would be in much less debt, if we just worked a minimum wage job, and received the grants and other financial aid (now we are only eligible for unsubsidized loans), medicaid, government subsidized housing, food stamps, etc. that comes with it. I can really see how for most people there is absolutely no incentive to try and get off of this type of aid. Even if you were able to find a decent paying job, after losing all of the above mentioned benefits, you are taking some big steps back! We have to set the stage for middle class Americans to be able to maintain a decent quality of life, and to uphold the ideals that made this country what it is today, and that is, if you continue to work hard and lead a proper, responsible human living, it will be a realistic possibility for you to own a home and send your kids to college and lord willing spend the last 15 or so years of your life fishing with your grand kids instead of stocking the shelves of home depot because you can't even afford your medicare premiums. Beware of any message that utilizes fear mongering tactics and one dimensional audio bites such as "they want your children to go without food" etc. I do believe that we are still capable of having rational, human discussions about the collective problems that we face, and as far as the solutions, they are not going to come from a single political party or some radicalized zealot, but from our ability to be honest with each other and recognize the facts for what they are, even if that means we all have to make certain sacrifices.
As I stated up thread: We only have a couple of safety nets for the poor that Romney can "fix" as president: welfare and food stamps. If he planned on eliminating those programs, we would no longer have the safety net that allows Romney to sleep at night. Do you understand this?
No. No he did not. The closest he came to saying it was to blame Obama for the fact that "people are struggling." The rest was just drivel about how the poor has a safety net and they're fine, and then as an afterthought says that he'll fix holes in the safety net (which, as others have already stated, is not really a viable option beyond messing with welfare and food stamps). He didn't say a damn thing about the fact that the middle class is shrinking. He called the middle income Americans "the 90, 95% of Americans," suggesting that the middle class is actually still that big. It's not.
Don't even bother wasting your energy. The likes of DiggFerkel don't give a flying f**k about the poor (who make up half the country's population), and will automatically devolve to their programmed 'blame the victim' mentality (as evidenced by his reply to you) or some other reprehensible and intellectually bankrupt line of logic.
langfordFeb 1, 2012Buried
If there was really a safety net for the poor, they would not be poor. Pretending that life is alright for them is just a way to rationalize their corrupt trickle-down philosophy. If there is any way to prove that Romney is a true Republican, this was it.
diggit83Feb 1, 2012Buried
Hi, im the Enter key, have we met?
etubruteFeb 1, 2012Buried
"Corporations are people my friends"
"Now, the banks aren’t bad people, 'They’re just overwhelmed right now. They’re overwhelmed with a lot of things. One is a lot of homes coming in right now that are in foreclosure or in trouble and the other is with a massive new pile of regulations'.”
Romney has a problem and that problem is talking to people, I mean he has a lot of these anytime he has to go off script I picture a campaign manager biting his nails.
dustinthewind2Feb 2, 2012Buried
Ugh... Corporations are NOT people. Chevron is not a person. If Chevron (as a completely random example) decides to give 10 million dollars to a political campaign in order to sway policy, that is not the will of a person, or a group of people. That's the will of a greedy corporation that's trying to corrupt their way to prosperity by cheating.
usarugulaFeb 1, 2012Buried
I like how you posted what Romney said as if it fixes what Romney said.
I also like how Romney is running for President of a country with only two major political parties, but he does not know the name of the party he is running against.
dustinthewind2Feb 1, 2012Buried
I like how he doesn't realize or acknowledge that the middle class is BECOMING the poor, and that that needs to be taken care of before anything else even matters.
neverstandstillFeb 1, 2012Buried
He knows that the majority of the 'very poor' are not registered voters and cannot vote - due to being so poor and probably not even having a valid state ID. I love it...basically Romney is saying that unless you have something to offer him (your vote) he doesn't give a damn about you.
papasunshineFeb 1, 2012Buried
Actually, I understand what he is saying completely. My employer doesn't offer health Insurance and my wife is a full time student. In an attempt to be responsible I have purchased high deductible Insurance plans for us both with an annual out of pocket deductible of $5,000 each. (In our case the family plan would not have been a better option). The plans cost us almost $300 a month and we are still responsible for 100% of the cost until we meet that deductible. We are about to have our first child and found out that our plan does not cover maternity as most non group plans (employer plans) don't cover maternity unless you can afford almost $700 a month, which we, like most Americans can't. We have several friends who have recently had children and Medicaid paid for 100% of the cost. They were able to deliver in one of the nicest hospitals in Dallas and medicaid continues to subsidize everything from food to vaccinations. I do believe that there are cases where this type of help is justified and I'm glad that it exist for those that truly need it, but the problem is when you are busting your butt to provide for your family without this type of assistance and every year health insurance premiums continue to rise, college tuition continues to rise, as well as gas, utilities etc., if you really look at the numbers, we would be in much less debt, if we just worked a minimum wage job, and received the grants and other financial aid (now we are only eligible for unsubsidized loans), medicaid, government subsidized housing, food stamps, etc. that comes with it. I can really see how for most people there is absolutely no incentive to try and get off of this type of aid. Even if you were able to find a decent paying job, after losing all of the above mentioned benefits, you are taking some big steps back! We have to set the stage for middle class Americans to be able to maintain a decent quality of life, and to uphold the ideals that made this country what it is today, and that is, if you continue to work hard and lead a proper, responsible human living, it will be a realistic possibility for you to own a home and send your kids to college and lord willing spend the last 15 or so years of your life fishing with your grand kids instead of stocking the shelves of home depot because you can't even afford your medicare premiums. Beware of any message that utilizes fear mongering tactics and one dimensional audio bites such as "they want your children to go without food" etc. I do believe that we are still capable of having rational, human discussions about the collective problems that we face, and as far as the solutions, they are not going to come from a single political party or some radicalized zealot, but from our ability to be honest with each other and recognize the facts for what they are, even if that means we all have to make certain sacrifices.
anomaly100Feb 1, 2012Buried
She pasted that from another thread. What a quirky thing to do.
usarugulaFeb 1, 2012Buried
As I stated up thread: We only have a couple of safety nets for the poor that Romney can "fix" as president: welfare and food stamps. If he planned on eliminating those programs, we would no longer have the safety net that allows Romney to sleep at night. Do you understand this?
neverstandstillFeb 1, 2012Buried
http://www.census.gov/prod/2010pubs/p20-562.pdf
shows that low-income people, minorities and renters are less likely to register and to vote than their wealthier, white, home-owning counterparts.
dustinthewind2Feb 1, 2012Buried
No. No he did not. The closest he came to saying it was to blame Obama for the fact that "people are struggling." The rest was just drivel about how the poor has a safety net and they're fine, and then as an afterthought says that he'll fix holes in the safety net (which, as others have already stated, is not really a viable option beyond messing with welfare and food stamps). He didn't say a damn thing about the fact that the middle class is shrinking. He called the middle income Americans "the 90, 95% of Americans," suggesting that the middle class is actually still that big. It's not.
http://www.mybudget360.com/plundering-the-middle-class-35-percent-of-american-households-live-on-35000-or-less/
Romney is another rich American that just does... not... get it.
diggit83Feb 1, 2012Buried
You get a digg from a liberal, sir. Bulls**t misrepresentation deserves to be called out no matter who its coming from, or what its about.
mobislinkFeb 1, 2012Buried
It really does read differently out of context. If you are pragmatic you try to focus efforts where they will have the most positive impact.
kingnovaFeb 2, 2012Buried
Fix it HOW? He is the guy who lobbied to have Capital Gains lowered to 15%, then said "hey, it's the legal rate!"
What exactly has he done for the poor? Again I say, show your work.
crom99Feb 1, 2012Buried
Translation: "My campaign is focused on the largest percentage of voters."
TheMightyZordonFeb 2, 2012Buried
Don't even bother wasting your energy. The likes of DiggFerkel don't give a flying f**k about the poor (who make up half the country's population), and will automatically devolve to their programmed 'blame the victim' mentality (as evidenced by his reply to you) or some other reprehensible and intellectually bankrupt line of logic.
theghoulFeb 1, 2012Buried
New paragraph indent here, why don't you call me anymore?
fertilebastardFeb 1, 2012Buried
That's pretty much what Romney said... He's not concerned with the rich.
mobislinkFeb 1, 2012Buried
I agree and I am left leaning but logic and facts rule my reasoning.