Mitt Romney doesnt care about the poor

Post Reply New Topic

http://www.cnn.com/2012/02/01/politics/ ... ?hpt=hp_t2

I guess it shows what he really believes of those less fortunate and in dire circumstances.

Doesn't he have like a gazillion tons of grain stored?

Grain? i am sure he has millions in the canary islands with tax exempt status...

The guy manages to put his foot in the mouth all the time.

It's not that he doesn't care about the poor,
it's just that he and those like him truly believe "poor" means "living the high life off a copious bounty of government programs".

You have to get into the delusional mindset to understand the statements.

Ohh I think he is delusional and I also think he doesn't care about the poor...they go hand in hand...his mindset is from the upper crust that think those who collect welfare, SSI/DI are lazy bums who live lives of luxury....its a continouus pattern with him when he made a reference to " firing'" people in the debate a few days ago....his corporate side is showing and its not pretty.

The grain was a reference to the Mormon practice of food storage. The goal is to have a years worth of food stored to feed you and your family when something happens. They are also supposed to do that with money. Have a years worth of money that can either be cash or readily available as cash or gold for emergencies.

Most Mormons who do long term food storage pick the grains to store which can be ground into flour, oatmeal, corn meal, etc as needed. That was the grain reference.

In practice, we are poor. When my MIL dies my husband will get an inheritance, as will his brother and sister. He can draw off that inheritance theoretically in emergencies, but in practice he has to have the executor's permission to get to it. It's set up that way. It's really hard to get at. It's also not in his name yet. So therefore, we will pay the inheritance tax on it then.

As it is now, our house is paid for, my husband is the only one working. I'm a housewife, but the kids are old enough now so I could work. However there are no jobs in this town. Really. None. It's very small, and the closest place to work is an hour away. I wouldn't make enough to pay for gas, plus I don't have a car anymore. So, we struggle pretty hard. We have nice things, that were gifts, or that we bought long ago, and we do try to keep them. We are on food stamps. My kids have Medicaid. My husband and I have no insurance at all. We go to the emergency room when sick or when he's sick he asks our neighbor to treat him. (Our neighbor is the doctor we use. They watch football together and are friends. I don't feel right about asking a friend to do his job that he does for a living for free just because I don't feel good, so I go to the ER and see the nurse practitioner) We have a LOT of financial worries right now. Things like how to pay this bill or that bill soon, or this fine or that fine soon, and what to eat until we get the food stamps Sunday. His company hasn't had much work since Christmas and so we have no money at all. He's tried getting some of his money but his sister wont let him because my oldest son told my brother in law a bunch of lies about us because his baby mama hates me. Really. It's a freaking Jerry Springer show around here and my son's baby mama is truly psychotic. Seriously. She's been hospitalized a bunch, but my BIL believes her because she is the one who supplies him with the certain herbal suppliment that he and his son consume about $200 a week worth of. So, my little family here is pretty poor, even though my husband comes from money.

I don't know if Romney would cut money to people who need it. I hope not. There is no way we could pay bills AND eat without food stamps. I'd be happy to work, but theres no jobs here. Can't move.

I just don't know who to vote for this time. There isn't anybody I like.

It's going to be either him or Newt to run against Obama. All I have to say is I would Like to congratulate Barack Obama on his reelection.

He never said he didn't care about the poor. Maybe he doesn't, but he never said so.

" I'm not concerned about the very poor"....his words, not mine....

Some commentators are complaining that his statement is being taken out of context.

Really? Fine, then here. Read it in context. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0212/72297.html

Not only did he say it in so many words, he REPEATED it in so many words AFTER the reporter said, "“I think there are lots of very poor Americans who are struggling who would say, ‘That sounds odd,’” (Actually, no. They are more likely saying something far stronger than that.)

Just the fact that we would say it again, in so many words, reveals how out of touch he actually is. To repeat a statement like even after having it pointed out how people might react to it negatively, plainly demonstrates Romney is clueless. Not just clueless. Heartless. Numb, heartless and clueless.

So I heard it out of context at first. Reading it IN context he looks even worse than before.

For him to be doing nothing but defending the statement and making excuses for it is reprehensible. The ONLY proper response to that is "I'm very sorry, that was a terrible thing to say and I should never have said it."

Keep talking Romney. You're doing a better job of sinking your own ship than Gingrich.

What a circus.

I don't care about the poor either. So sue me.

ruveyn

You're not running for president, so I don't really care. Sue me.

I don't think he'll cut money.....

Did you see his latest campaign ad?

[youtube]http://youtube.com/watch?v=euqf_UKFtgY[/youtube]

It's being taken out of context. He said he isn't concerned about the poor because they have a safety net. I saw his speech and he was very clear in it. I was put off by it at first until he said they have a safety net and then saying if anyone needs help, he will do it so I guess that means people who fall in the gray would be helped and he would try and help them.

So read it in context: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0212/72297.html

Even after it being pointed out to him that the "very poor" would probably take exception to the remark, he said it again, in so many words. "I'm not concerned about the very poor..."

So fine. Put totally in context.

Romney: “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.”

O'Brien: "“I think there are lots of very poor Americans who are struggling who would say, ‘That sounds odd,’” she said.

Romney: "“Well, you had to finish the sentence, Soledad. I said, I’m not concerned about the very poor that have a safety net, but if it has holes in it, then I will repair it.”

As one who happens to be a member of the group of whom he is speaking, even in context, the way he worded that, TWICE, is insulting.


Now let's put in the larger context of what he was really trying to get at (that his main concern is the middle class):

"“But my campaign is focused on middle-income Americans,” he added. “My campaign — you can choose where to focus. You can focus on the rich. That’s not my focus. You can focus on the very poor. That’s not my focus.”

So, in context, what he really meant is "I'm not focused on the very poor."

Yeah, okay, I'll give him that. I knew what he meant too, but that's not the real iss]ue.

What the real issue is, is that he used an extremely poor and insulting choice of words, and won't own up to it.

Later, when confronted again with it, he responded:

“No, no, no, no, no, no, no. I — no no,” he said. “You’ve got to take the whole sentence, all right, as opposed to saying, and then change it just a little bit, because then it sounds very different. I’ve said throughout the campaign my focus, my concern, my energy is gonna be devoted to helping middle-income people, all right?”

Sorry Mitt. You lose. Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes! You said, "I'm not concerned about the very poor..." That is EXACTLY what you said. We don't care if that's out of context. Even in context, you REPEATED it in so many words!

What Romney is not getting is that whether in context or not, his wording was INSULTING. What he OUGHT to have done is to acknowledge that it was a poor choice of words.

THIS, if he had said instead:

"I apologize. It was a very poor choice of wording. I SHOULD have said, 'I'm not focused on the very poor so much as I am focused on the middle class at this time.' It was a mistake to word it the way I did, and it's wasn't accurate. I am, of course, concerned about the very poor and want to fix any of the safety nets in place for them that need fixing. It was a mistake. I shouldn't have said it, and I'm very sorry."

...that I could have accepted.

I cannot and do not accept his attempts to weasel his way out of what he did. In fact, at this point, it's too damned late for an apology now.

I did read it in context and I don't see what point you are trying to make. Looks like to me you are telling me "Agree with me" by saying "Take it in context."

I don't understand what the person is trying to say at the end of the article.