Submitted by
Users who Dugg This
Jaap Brewer
792 Followers
COLLINGWOOD 007
529 Followers
etubruteFeb 1, 2012
"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.
sloppyjoes7Feb 2, 2012
That's because stupid people here quotes taken out of context by news outlets that utterly lack journalistic integrity.
"Corporations are people my friends. Of course they are. Everything corporations earn ultimately goes to people. Where do you think it goes? Whose pockets? People's pockets! Human beings, my friend."
Also, rationally, did banks do well in this recession? Well, seeing as they laid off tens of thousands of people, and dozens or hundreds went bankrupt, banks (and their *workers*) have been severely harmed. Regulations are making it harder for them, as well. And banks lose about $30,000 - $50,000 on most foreclosures.
But people aren't rational. They think corporations are actual entities themselves, when in reality, they're groups of human beings trying to make a living. They hate the bank for taking someone's house, even though the bank is eating tens of thousands of dollars, in an effort to prevent further losses. They get mad at CEOs for making too much, go after the company for more taxes/regulations/etc, then look the other way when that company lays people off, and workers lose their retirements.
You want someone to hate, so you invent enemies. Corporations. CEOs. 1%.
They're human beings, my friend.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
sloppyjoes7Feb 2, 2012
I typed "here" instead of "hear." I apologize for my careless typing.
yurmutha412Feb 2, 2012
They even dug you down for that comment. Talk about mindless burying.
dustinthewind2Feb 2, 2012
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.
sloppyjoes7Feb 2, 2012
I live in a universe composed of matter and energy. In this (real) universe, corporations don't exist. They can't be seen, cannot talk, cannot donate money, lobby, vote, or do anything which requires an actual physical presence.
Therefore, when people refer to "corporations," they actually refer to the owners, officers, and/or managers. Because only actual, real, living humans are capable of any of the above.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
dustinthewind2Feb 2, 2012
That's just not even worth an actual response.
sloppyjoes7Feb 2, 2012
Corporations aren't real.
If I own a corporation, the following is true:
If the corporation makes money, then I actually made money (I OWN the corporation!)
If a corporation donates money, then I actually donated the money. (The corporation and its assets are mine!)
If a corporation takes a political stance, then I actually took the political stance. (Corporations aren't real. I AM THE CORPORATION.)
Now, many anti-corporate people have lost their minds. They think corporations actually exist.
They don't.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
dustinthewind2Feb 2, 2012
That's like saying time isn't real. Does it f**king matter? You still have to get up at "6 o'Clock" in the morning to go to work. Your argument is completely pointless. You're talking semantics. WE are talking about politicians being bought by CORPORATIONS, and the fact that Citizen's United makes it legal.
extremephobiaFeb 2, 2012
You basically state, "Corporations don't exist. The people that run them exist. These people are people." Well way to go with your existential wisdom, I'm certainly enlightened...
OR perhaps by stating that a Corporation is a person, they actually stated that Corporations exist as an entity beyond simply their component parts? Maybe THAT is the problem?
I don't see it. If people are people, then why did we have to tell everyone that they are people? I mean, that doesn't actually require additional information, does it?
We could have said that Corporations don't actually exist and that these are groups of people acting independently. That would have solved the problem.
beforesputnikFeb 2, 2012
when a corporation breaks the law, does it go to jail?
If it's responsible for killing multiple people, is it given the death penalty?
sloppyjoes7Feb 2, 2012
Name the last time an American had all his/her assets seized, and was then cut into pieces, annihilated, and the remains sold off.
chroniccolonicFeb 3, 2012
Unions are not people either...but they collect funds and vote in ways that not every one who pays dues would want them to. Just like in unions, corporations are comprised of people who make decisions. These people are called board members.
Unions are just as greedy and use their power to sway elections in their favor.
Both unions and corporations are run by people. You may not like one union or a corporation for different reasons, but it is what it is.
You are incorrect in stating in your completely random example that Chevron is not the will of a group of people. Decisions about the company's direction are made by a group of people and shareholders because it is a publicly traded company. They may see a benefit in supporting a candidate because a candidate is pro drilling. The board members would make a decision to support that candidate with funding because in turn it could help there company grow.
Same goes for unions. Union bosses use their influence on politicians if they seem to be pro-union. Funding of a political campaign is decided by union board members as well.
Corporations are comprised of people who make decisions about the direction of the company. You make it sound like corporations are just these evil entities that run on there own.
tkellih1Feb 2, 2012
wow, that is so eloquent, thanks douchebag.
the supreme court ruling under conflict here is whether a corporation can be considered a person (hence, colbert, superPAC, etc) OK. you agree with the court, that a corporation is a person? A person. A corporation is essentially an agreement amongst a bunch of people - it has no flesh and blood - its an organization run by and for a group of people who have a stake in its goals and outcomes. You say a corporation is not even 'an entity' in and of itself. But if its not even an entity, how is it a person?
Are you saying its people. well thats plural, not singular.
Romney's point was that corporations are just made up of people. OK, fine... now that we have the civics lesson out of the way,
Can we look at this graph and discuss?
http://www.deptofnumbers.com/blog/2011/07/median-income-before-and-after-taxes/
sloppyjoes7Feb 2, 2012
"its an organization run by and for a group of people who have a stake in its goals and outcomes. "
SO CLOSE!
"its a group of people who have a stake in its goals and outcomes. "
That's better.
So, since corporations don't exist, (but humans do), and corporations cannot talk, (but humans can), if you try to silence a corporation, what are you ACTUALLY doing?
[Hint: Don't talk about corporations as though they actually exist, have a will, or are capable of doing anything within the physical universe.]Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
tkellih1Feb 2, 2012
I agree that corporations don't exist. But I have a problem with saying that just because a corporation doesn't exist, and because a corporation is really just an agreement (not even a stated agreement, just an 'intention') by a group of people, or even just saying "a corporation is just a group of people"... all of that... who friggin cares?
My point was that you can't conflate that with the ridiculous ruling that these "people" or actually singular "person" can give unlimited amounts of money to campaigns.
The fact is, this has nothing to do with whether a corporation is a person or people.
It's just about whether we ( / the courts) think its a good idea or not to allow, as DustInthewind says, "chevron to give 10 million dollars to a political campaign in order to sway policy"
I happen to think allowing that to happen is really really dumb. Do you think its wicked smaat? because frankly I could give a s*%& about whether we are gonna say that corporations don't "exist" as "entities". That's like saying a government doesn't exist, the rotary club doesn't exist, AA doesn't exist, nothing exists, we are all people.
Big friggin whoop thanks for being so freakin awesome, douchebag!
sloppyjoes7Feb 2, 2012
"My point was that you can't conflate that with the ridiculous ruling that these "people" or actually singular "person" can give unlimited amounts of money to campaigns. "
If your problem is giving money to campaigns, then argue that.
It has NOTHING TO DO WITH CORPORATE PERSONHOOD. Nothing. at. all.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
tkellih1Feb 2, 2012
just because you are correct, doesn't mean you are right.
tkellih1Feb 2, 2012
Alright, fair enough.
About corporate personhood...
Does AA exist? Does the rotary club exist? Does the NRA exist? If corporations don't exist, neither does government, civic groups, non-profits, soccer teams, furniture retailers... there is no end to it; just because someone or a groups of people / shareholders "owns" a corporation doesn't mean that corporation and its profits have the same rights as a person. That is a really ridiculous jump to make. And its a choice for our society to decide whether its a useful jump to make, or an unhelpful one.
Maybe you could point out how defining a corporation as a person is helpful to our society or country? You got anything?
>>>If your problem is giving money to campaigns, then argue that.
It has NOTHING TO DO WITH CORPORATE PERSONHOOD. Nothing. at. all.
sloppyjoes7Feb 4, 2012
If you deny AA rights, you deny its members rights.
Deny the rotary club rights, and you deny its members rights.
Deny the NRA lobbying rights, and you've banned its supperters from lobbying.
Deny corporations the right to donate to political causes, and you're denying the people behind the corporation the right to donate their own money to causes they support.
This is the way to look at it.
tkellih1Feb 4, 2012
I think we should definitely deny the rights of corporations to donate money. the people "behind the corporation" can donate their own money as individuals
dustinthewind2Feb 2, 2012
I think he says what he really believes, and just doesn't realize why what he's saying is wrong. He's sitting there defending banks and feeling sorry for them because they're 'overwhelmed' with all the foreclosures that they themselves caused.
Oh, the poor banks. Not "Oh, the poor people that just got thrown out on their asses."
The American people are fed up with banks, and here he is defending them. Not necessarily because he doesn't know how to talk to people, but because he really is on their (the bank's) side, doesn't realize why most people would disagree, and thinks what he's saying is something that's actually going to make him look good.
zulshah06Feb 6, 2012
i am agreed what u said...it just the conversational what are u talk by the way..
cheers:
http://airplanesimulatorsim.blogspot.com/
langfordFeb 1, 2012
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.
Ouzel7Feb 1, 2012
Here is the actual comment:
““I’m not concerned about the very poor,” he said. “We have a safety net there. If it needs a repair , I’ll fix it. I’m not concerned about the very rich…. I’m concerned about the very heart of America, the 90-95 percent of Americans who right now are struggling.”
In response to a follow-up question, Romney added, “We will hear from the Democrat party, the plight of the poor…. You can focus on the very poor, that’s not my focus…. The middle income Americans, they’re the folks that are really struggling right now and they need someone that can help get this economy going for them.”
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/289832/romney-im-not-concerned-about-very-poor-katrina-trinko
usarugulaFeb 1, 2012
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.
Ouzel7Feb 1, 2012
"If it needs a repair , I’ll fix it..."
I like you how folks CONTINUE to try to ignore the full comment.
usarugulaFeb 1, 2012
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?
Ouzel7Feb 1, 2012
Do you understand that I REALIZE you are trying to change the subject?
The subject is what Romney SAID and how it has been misrepresented and twisted.
NOW you are changing the subject entirely.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
kochevnik2001Feb 2, 2012
"like how you have to dismantle your engine to fix the pistons."
And you're the tool?
dustinthewind2Feb 1, 2012
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.
Ouzel7Feb 1, 2012
But THAT'S exactly what he said.
dustinthewind2Feb 1, 2012
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.
Ouzel7Feb 2, 2012
He specified the "very poor"...who have safety nets. They DO...
dustinthewind2Feb 2, 2012
Safety nets are supposed to be a last resort. If you fall off where you should be, they're there for that worst case scenario. Saying that that's enough for our country, to ignore the problem of the poor because "welfare is there for them," that kind of thinking got us where we are now. Most of these people would love to have a job and hate the fact that they're "getting a free ride," a free ride that rarely covers a family's actual month-to-month needs.
And the fact that more and more people are going from middle class to poor and from poor to poorer, is all the more reason this system needs to be reformed, not given a bandaid like Romney will undoubtedly try to do.
Ouzel7Feb 2, 2012
"The middle income Americans, they’re the folks that are really struggling right now and they need someone that can help get this economy going for them.”Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Schweppesale2Feb 2, 2012
Dustin, no offense but your reading comprehension is sh*t.
By helping the middle class you would prevent them from becoming poor.
That's the point.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Schweppesale2Feb 2, 2012
Dustin, no offense but your reading comprehension is sh*t.
By helping the middle class you would prevent them from becoming poor.
That's the point.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
dustinthewind2Feb 2, 2012
And my point, Schwep, is that the middle class has already shrunk. Many that were once middle class are now lower class. Poor. Should we leave them there, or work on getting them back? If you're not worried about the poor, you're not worried about the middle class.
kingnovaFeb 2, 2012
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.
thegreatone85Feb 2, 2012
When he was CEO of Bain Capitol he put 1000's out of work and made them poor. So he's got lots of experience dealing with the poor. : )
kingnovaFeb 2, 2012
"NOW you are changing the subject entirely."
You gotta laugh hard at someone who picks every little f**king thing Obama says and rides it like KMart quarter pony ride SO upset that context matters. Obama the socialist, most progressive, trying to destroy America? FINE. But don't you DARE take a Republican out of context!!!
Ouzel7Feb 2, 2012
I've read quite a few of your comments. You're a real putz, aren't you?
thegreatone85Feb 2, 2012
Yep, he'll fix it alright, just like Bush Jr, Bush Sr, Reagan, Ford, Nixon, and every Republican president in history fixed it for them. Did Romney just admit to being a socialist?
anomaly100Feb 1, 2012
She pasted that from another thread. What a quirky thing to do.
Ouzel7Feb 1, 2012
"quirky"?
If providing the ACTUAL full comment for people to consider before racing to judgment ... call me quirky.
I've seen several submissions about this supposed "outrage"...
It seems to annoy you that someone would foil the plot of leading the sheep of outrage into the pit of fire by actually...you know ... TELLING THEM WHAT HE SAID.
Haters of truth really piss me off.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
publiclurkerFeb 2, 2012
Busted!
Ouzel7Feb 2, 2012
Busted for what? Providing a full quote?
drich255Feb 1, 2012
It is the Democratic Party, but it is a trivial mistake and not a good reason to oppose the man.
Nevertheless, it is good to correct him and others on it. The more you know...Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
neverstandstillFeb 1, 2012
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.
Schweppesale2Feb 1, 2012
Now you're just talking out your ass.
norman619Feb 1, 2012
Tell that to the Democrats who bend over backwards for their votes.
thegreatone85Feb 2, 2012
Democrats pretend to care about the poor, but they ultimately represent their corporate and banking masters just like the Republicans. They are 2 sides of the same coin.
kingliamFeb 1, 2012
In the same video he rephrases his comment as, "I'm not concerned about the very poor that have a safety net, but if it has holes in it, I will repair them."
miklkitFeb 2, 2012
But what is his idea of "repair"? Vouchers? Huge cuts in services?
The home foreclosure bubble is still bubbling right along, and Romney wants to do nothing about it. That means that there will be a lot more very poor people in the near future and he wants to rip the safety net apart.
TheMightyZordonFeb 2, 2012
Exactly, it's hilarious to see a REPUBLICAN talking about the 'social safety net' being there for 'very poor people', while many other Republican politicians are CONSTANTLY ranting about eliminating said safety net.
mobislinkFeb 1, 2012
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.
Ouzel7Feb 1, 2012
I expect that the left will try to make much of this comment fragment for several days.
mobislinkFeb 1, 2012
I agree and I am left leaning but logic and facts rule my reasoning.
Ouzel7Feb 1, 2012
Witness the burials. And have a look at all the submissions leaving out the full quote.
favuquadFeb 2, 2012
Did you read the section in witch he said Plight of the poor/democrats ? who the f**k does this guy thinks he is?? oh yeh a republican!
I don't care about what he ment by it the statement it clearly indicates where this guys head is!
Come on Plight of the poor? This guy is a f**king idiot!
geejayeFeb 2, 2012
"IF it needs a repair"?????
You know, the guy is running for president. You would think that he would know if there are some major systems broken or not by now.
Bottom line - he just doesn't care about the poor. Otherwise, he would have a much better answer.
favuquadFeb 2, 2012
Plight of the poor the democrats? lol this guy is a f**king idiot!
norman619Feb 1, 2012
"If there was really a safety net for the poor, they would not be poor."
Complete bulls**t. I'm guessing your idea of a safety net for the poor is on in which they are lifted out of poverty w/o their ever having to become self-reliant.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
skagoFeb 1, 2012
A net is something to catch you when you fall not something that someone should decide to live in after falling into it.
norman619Feb 1, 2012
It is supposed to be a temporary thing. Something to get you the BASICS while you get back on your feet. Assuming you are of sound enough mind and body to support yourself. It's not what we have now. If it were I'd be in favor of the programs.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
skagoFeb 1, 2012
Yep
TheMightyZordonFeb 2, 2012
Tell the economy to somehow create jobs to be had, and MAYBE your comment would have an inkling of sense.
As it is, it's just yet another subtle stab at the poor, insinuating that they're only poor because they're 'lazy' or some other 'chosen' deficiency.
AmandaTFeb 2, 2012
What? Exactly how isn't it "temporary"? Exactly how isn't it giving you just the "basics"?
Do you have even a basic understanding of how these programs work??
When most people think of "welfare", they're thinking of TANF, which requires that you work and has a maximum lifetime benefit period of 60 months and is not available to childless individuals. WIC is only offered through the first 5 years of a child's life. And the Food Stamp program's average monthly payout is $133. The cumulative benefit of all these programs amount to less than what someone would make with a minimum wage job. Can you live on that??
The pervasive idea that there is a great host of Americans spending their lives in the lap of luxury while sucking the government's teat is just evidence of widespread ignorance of the nuts and bolts of welfare programs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temporary_Assistance_for_Needy_Families
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WIC
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_Stamp_Program#Impact
favuquadFeb 2, 2012
There is a safetynet for the poor its called prison!
unclefireFeb 1, 2012
What exactly do you expect a safety net to provide? The safety-nets we have are just that-- something to supplement and/or allow one to survive. They're not meant to get people out of poverty by themselves.
norman619Feb 1, 2012
They also don't force people to start supporting themselves which is criminal.
unclefireFeb 1, 2012
Well, that's another issue entirely. My take is if you're able to work (but not working) AND on public aid (welfare)-- you're given a job to do -- clean up the city, clerical, janitorial, whatever needs to be done.
netantFeb 1, 2012
Having to depend on the gov't to get fed and housed is not being part of the middle class. Its the definition of being poor.
Romney is not pretending life is alright for them, or justifying trickle-down economics. He's just saying, if they're not on the street, starving, then they are not a policy priority.
Newsflash: gov't cannot make poverty disappear. If the poor aren't starving and living on the street, then that's about the best you can expect from a Capitalist system. If you don't like that, then push to change the US to a Communist economy.
rjoplingFeb 2, 2012
i love haw he says the safety net is there for them but he is actively trying to get rid of it.
kalvinbFeb 2, 2012
"The poor will always be with you." - Jesus. A safety need provides basic human needs so you have a place to live, food to eat and clothes. The poor have that. You have to be an idiot to think the government should just print money so everyone gets 50K a year. The government provides a free education. That's how you make 50K a year: you educate yourself. All the government can do is help you not die. It's not their job to get you an iphone 4gs and a Bentley.
twoifbyseaFeb 2, 2012
???? Are you that stupid?? Really???
I've read your posts 'Langford'. You have to be the most ignorant human being on the planet. I am ashamed that you even exist.
Was that too harsh?
noupsellFeb 2, 2012
regardless of his political affiliations he just appears to be a total dick
rixar13Feb 1, 2012
Yeah Right, job growth in Mass. was 47th when he was Governor.... Thumbs down...
gt777Feb 2, 2012
corporate raiders don't give two hoots about keeping jobs!! they are more interested in the millions going into their own pockets!!
nconn360Feb 2, 2012
JUST IN: Americans somehow surprised that extremely rich person doesn't care about the poor. In unrelated news, Americans considering electing him to run whole country.
novenatorFeb 2, 2012
Most Republicans aren't. They *blame* the poor for being poor (and lazy), as if wealth is some infinite supply that magically appears. In their eyes, if everyone just worked hard, went to school, and got a good job, eventually the WHOLE COUNTRY could be MILLIONAIRES, and nobody would ever have to work again!
barmatFeb 3, 2012
Reminds me of the slogan over a gate leading into the Nazi death camp Dachau "Arbeit macht frei"(work makes you free).
papasunshineFeb 1, 2012
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.
diggit83Feb 1, 2012
Hi, im the Enter key, have we met?
norman619Feb 1, 2012
Excuse me sir, seems that monkey running down the street cracked open your skull and took your brain while you were finger-painting...
TheMightyZordonFeb 2, 2012
Nah, Enter keys would make too much sense :P
It's sad, an otherwise well-written post - typographically, at least - is turned into a rather difficult to read mess by the failure to utilize paragraphs :/
theghoulFeb 1, 2012
New paragraph indent here, why don't you call me anymore?
salbatrossFeb 1, 2012
I'm not sure how all this supports what Romney said.
MrFrogyFeb 1, 2012
The experiences 'papasunshine' tells us about perfectly illustrate the "safety net", as well as the unique struggle of the middle class. So in terms of how it supports Romney's statement, it applies perfectly.
Whether you agree with Romney or not is another mater entirely, but the above story certainly supports it.
skagoFeb 1, 2012
It would support Romney's statement then since he said he wants to concentrate on the middle class. If the middle class does well, the economy does well and more taxes are paid and the safety net gets more funding.
TheMightyZordonFeb 2, 2012
Unless said safety net is eliminated by the Incompetence Party (that being, the GOP). Which they've continually talked about doing and made efforts to do.
TheMightyZordonFeb 2, 2012
Unless said safety net is eliminated by the Incompetence Party (that being, the GOP). Which they've continually talked about doing and made efforts to do.
jlaughFeb 2, 2012
The Republicans have railed for years about abortion but have never lifted a finger to ban it or make it illegal, despite being in power for a sizable chunk of the last three decades.
You understand the difference between rhetoric and action don't you?
mjm6783Feb 1, 2012
Message from run-on sentence: Outta my way, I'm in charge here, and no one is going to stop me, I'm on a roll, and I have no reason to pause even if I change the topic, like if I started talking about flamethrowers or kittens or using flamethrowers on boxes of kittens.
rbrtwtrsFeb 1, 2012
So your bitch is that the poor have it better than you and your fix is to eliminate the aid they get? How exactly does that improve your situation?
norman619Feb 1, 2012
Reading comprehension isn't your friend I see...
rbrtwtrsFeb 1, 2012
I admit that I don't have a degree in Palaeography and interpreting his meaning in that sea of words is quite a task. The best I can tell he is presenting an argument for single payer universal coverage.
My skills are good enough to comprehend your posts as the scribblings of a complete A hole.
letherialFeb 1, 2012
I wish you would of been more careful with your statement, as in putting in paragraphs. White space goes far to make things readable,
You make good points, since i am on unemployment i got free child healthcare...but i personally have none, and i know many poor people who have none...it comes down to the state you live in.
Middle class is getting the majority of the pain (thats not to undermine the poor, they still live a harder life)taxes are threatened to go up, unions are getting destroyed, healthcare is just ridiculous beyond anything reasonable, and higher education expensive;
Some claim that this only happens because of government involved with, i disagree mostly, except for higher education....The reasoning are complex and i am not here to defend my thoughts.
The question remains, how is Romney going to address this. Lower taxes on the higher end? i dont see the connection...unless you bring up trickle down economics, but we got 30 years of data that shows it doesnt work.
Romney may be smart enough to see the problems (to a minor degree), but he is not competent enough to solve them.
also, lets not talk just about the president, congress has more to do with this then the president.
ultimisFeb 1, 2012
A president is a leader. If he recognizes a problem and sets a focus, then he can work towards solving it. But yes ultimately this goes to congress (Senate and House) and they will be the ones writing the law. The president can hold summits and use the bully pulpit to try and get what his administration's positions into the legislation.
Trickle down economics is about economic growth, and has little to do with education and healthcare costs (big burdens on the middle class). And no we completely disagree on what you're claiming is 30 years of failure is the the fault of lower taxes (which makes absolutely no sense).Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
letherialFeb 1, 2012
Well wages have remained almost stagnant for 30+ years, but the top 1% has seen a increase in 500%. Thats not a healthy way to have a economy. Unless you think that nobility was a good way to run a economy, then i guess we are on a good track. (history shows different)
Lower taxes are not per say the problem, but they are part of the problem. The tax structure should be based on how healthy of a company is, if you are raping your employees and customers but the CEO's are bringing in a massive salary's, then not only do you not need the tax cuts, but your not helping. Tax structure should be to encourage a healthy working environment.
Regulation is what has caused this last collapse, specifically banking and the insanity that it has become (and still is) The fed doesn't help(though it could) and the rich get to buy the laws so hey, great for them(not so great for our democracy).
Trickle down ideology is not just about tax cuts, its the assumption that if the very rich get very richer they will put money back into investments, when in reality they use that money to rip people off and get more money and more importantly, more power. You see this in all parts that are failing in the USA, healthcare, education, banking, energy...they are getting richer yet nothing is getting better.
Trickle down fails in one primary point, it assumes people are good people...but a large majority of people will say they are good, yet justify horrible actions. This is where the elected government can intervene and level the playing field.(since ours is bought, its not going to happen)
ultimisFeb 2, 2012
"Trickle down ideology is not just about tax cuts"
That's exactly what it is. Trickle down economics is the belief that if there is taxes and in some cases less regulation that economic activity will increase. With higher economic activity more jobs are created and people are employed.
Why this equates to "rich getting richer" is they are able to invest their money more freely in growing companies (like facebook/google/etc) which usually results in them making money off those investments (a return). But the beneficial aspect of that investment is the growth of companies that generate jobs and revenue for our country.
"they are getting richer yet nothing is getting better. "
Cause and effect. The richer have not gotten richer, a lot of the data that states that is before the recession hit. During booms the rich gain the most, during the recessions they lose the most.
letherialFeb 2, 2012
I dont know what world you are living in, but the rich are doing and have been doing just fine. even still, you misunderstood me, this great recession is simply a symptom to a industry (country to a degree) that is corrupt, greedy and not at all interested in creating a good middle class. I was referring to the last 30 years, i have no idea what world you live in but things have not gotten better for anyone except the very top
Wages, power, leverage; all these things have shifted to the top, and not these last few years either...this is something that has been brewing for a very long time.
Also, I do believe the less regulation is also apart of the trickle down ideology, less regulation means more money that is supposed to mean more jobs but doesn't.
But hey, if you can prove me wrong, please do so..I don't except to change your mind, but if you provide good reliable evidence then i may reconsider my facts...but i have yet to see anything that disproves my theory.
ultimisFeb 2, 2012
"Trickle down fails in one primary point, it assumes people are good people"
It doesn't need to assume anything. It assumes that people are out for their own good, making money. What it realizes is how *economic growth* occurs is through economic activity. The "rich" do not have swimming pools full of money that they swim in. That money is nearly 99% invested in companies and assets. This also means that they gain a lot when the economy does good and lose a lot when the economy does bad. Those investments == jobs. Now with our current global economy a lot of investing might be going abroad, so we need to make it appealing to invest here.
norman619Feb 1, 2012
The president is just the CEO. The board of directors (congress) really has final say over domestic policy and how the federal government spends the people's money. The president was meant to really only function as a speed bump.
ultimisFeb 2, 2012
Constitutionally speaking I agree. Though the president does have influence (not necessarily power) in congress. The veto pen and bully pulpit allow him/her to dictate to a certain extent.
miklkitFeb 1, 2012
Your tinkle upon economics is a proven failure for Americans. What has it gotten us? Lower income and less jobs.
Except for you Wall Street elites. You have made out exceptionally well, and here are the numbers.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2010/04/09/businessinsider-15-charts-about-wealth-and-inequality-in-america-2010-4.DTL
http://assets.motherjones.com/politics/2011/inequality-p25_averagehouseholdincom.png
ultimisFeb 2, 2012
"Trickle down economics" is a fact of economy. The problems you list are aspects of many other policies and events (such as globalization and regulation).
The more money people are allowed to keep, the more money they can invest, the more the economy grows.
dachipzFeb 1, 2012
That's all very reasonable except that if the republicans (any of them) had their way, there would be no more Medicaid and your friend would have had to call her mother to midwife for her when the time came.
crymtyphonFeb 1, 2012
That was long but worth reading.
netantFeb 1, 2012
Ahhh, look at you digg analysts. Attack how he formats his statement, or make argumentum non sequitor.
Digg Liberals reasoning like Digg Patriots.
crom99Feb 1, 2012
Translation: "My campaign is focused on the largest percentage of voters."
deepskydiverFeb 2, 2012
Luckily for Mitt - the people who vote for him aren't concerned about the poor either.
shark72Feb 1, 2012
There's a bigger issue than the context of his quote. It's that he's out of step with the electorate.
In a nutshell, Romney stated that the very poor are basically OK because there are safety nets in place, and if those safety nets aren't effective, he'll improve them. I won't get into the validity of that statement.
But compare this to the zeitgeist in the right-wing media: the poor are the "bottom 47%." They are freeloaders, living off the backs of the middle class. It's the poor who are the problem with this country. Welfare should be reduced, and taxes should be increased.
Who's right? I happen to think they're both wrong, but the essential thing is that Romney is hugely out of touch with his potential voters. Newt has the opportunity here to push a "the poor are the problem" message to get the hearts and minds of Republican voters and paint Romney as a softie.
ultimisFeb 1, 2012
You will find only a minority of Republicans that would think that "poor are the problem". Even Ron Paul who is borderline libertarian wouldn't take that stance. Not to mention when you got a General election would would lose any support from moderate democrats and independents.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
TheMightyZordonFeb 2, 2012
Heh. Then perhaps the 'majority' of Republicans should exercise their might to, shall we say. . .get certain GOP politicians to shut the f**k up? 'Cause they're DEFINITELY making it look like the GOP are composed of incompetents and complete assh**es who blame the poor for getting shat on by the system.
ultimisFeb 2, 2012
Maybe if you get your news from partisan hackery headlines like this one that take things out of context you might believe that. Any competent person who gets their news from multiple sources and actually investigates these so call "instances" know its full of s**t. It would be political suicide for any politician to make such statements, and you're a tool to think a entire political party that has managed to stay in power for this long would be dumb enough to make those type of mistakes.
gaia242Feb 1, 2012
I'll make a $10,000 bet that the closest Willard has come to the social safety net is when he walks by a member of the staff at one of his houses. This guy is so out of touch with average working Americans that making nearly $400,000 in speaking fees is "not very much". One fourth of that amount would vault me out of debt and pay for a couple years of college.
nmw6Feb 1, 2012
Hmm I'm not convinced his campaign isn't about helping the super-rich...
battmannFeb 1, 2012
The rich can fix their own s**t then, they don't need us middle or lower class!
fertilebastardFeb 1, 2012
That's pretty much what Romney said... He's not concerned with the rich.
barmatFeb 3, 2012
Yea but raise the Rich's tax rate and in Romney's world the world would end.
mjm6783Feb 1, 2012
Romney says he'll patch the holes in the safety nets IF they exist. Hmmm, does anyone else suspect he won't find these holes that he is "looking" for. These politicians love ambiguity.
"In my first term, if it seems appropriate, I may decide that it's best to do something or potentially something else, assuming nothing has changed."
skagoFeb 1, 2012
He wants to target the section of America that will grow the economy which is the middle class. The middle class gets better, the poor get better because more jobs are created and more taxes are paid that support the poor.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
jpurdyFeb 1, 2012
Taking a snippet of a speech and turning it into inflammatory rhetoric doesn't benefit anyone. There are enough real reasons not to like Romney or the other Republican candidates without this.
treehugger87Feb 2, 2012
I agree
crymtyphonFeb 1, 2012
It isn't that we don't know the sentence was in larger context,
and that Romney meant something different.
Just as with his "I like to fire people!" line.
But what a growing number of Americans suspect,
is that Mr. Romney's subconscious is running for office on its own.
We Americans discuss what obligations we have to our unemployed;
and Romney's id slips its Nietzschen declaration into the bland words of the super-ego.
We squabble over whether America can afford a safety net for the growing poor,
- and Romney's id grabs the mike from the meek conscious brain
to interject a real emotion.
Heck, given the GOP primary debate audiences,
Romney's id would crush his conscious mind in an open debate.
Not sure who should moderate, though.
Ouzel7Feb 1, 2012
Crym... don't project your existential angst onto this particular quote.
No ... you are NOT Freud ... you may NOT say, "Despite what he said ... here's what he meant."Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
crymtyphonFeb 1, 2012
Freud?
Das gottverdammten besserwisser? Don't think so!
I am Carl Jung; jungster. And I alone know the true secret
inner workings of the mind and vas der Hölle ist ein gut Cigar!
Granted, you don't have to be a genius to understand
that the GOP is playing a constant dance of subtle class entendres,
- that must on occasion slip out as unsubtle flat declaration.
Ouzel7Feb 1, 2012
"GOP is playing"
I spit on your chessboard...immediately FIX:
"Politicians play"
Have some sincerity syrup with your pendantic pancakes.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
crymtyphonFeb 1, 2012
Well, it wasn't my chessboard, Ouzel7.
I think it belonged to the starbucks people.
But while I didn't follow anything else you just said,
let's not let comprehension stand in the way of appreciation.
May the syrup of sincerity flow across the waffles
of political dialogue!
I think.
Ouzel7Feb 1, 2012
You sure?
crymtyphonFeb 1, 2012
Well, I was.
But now I have doubts about the 'melted butter of objectivity'.
Also I ordered my political waffle with the 'whipped
cream of liberal compassion',
- but I can't get a waiter since you spat on
the chess board.
Really, man that's just nasty and I was about
to take your queen too.
Ouzel7Feb 2, 2012
Too bad. My queen is full of compassion. Her compassion is bipartisan.
I simply find the chess minefield of liberal bs to be unworthy...
I assumed it was your chessboard ... I should have known a liberal would be using someone else's board for his own purposes.
You are just the chicken on my waffle.
crymtyphonFeb 2, 2012
Agreed! Bipartisanship is noble, Ouzel.
Granted, in present times it is banished royalty.
but long live the queen!
- and check, by the way, on your Rook.
Unless Romney is just a pawn.
rocannonFeb 1, 2012
Must be nice to think you're an omniscient mind reader.
crymtyphonFeb 1, 2012
Nice? No; it's terrible.
Do you realize what most of the people on Digg are
thinking about?
The horror! the horror!
Exterminate the brutes!
rocannonFeb 1, 2012
then you know what i'm going to do next... ;-)
crymtyphonFeb 1, 2012
"Rocannon's World" was one of Ursala Le'guin's
first novels. It was good (one of my favorites);
but she later decided it was a mistake
to base sci-fi on old myths
(that one was based on Norse).
Instead, she thought a writer should reach
into the subconcious and find new myths.
Romney is finding his inner Republican;
- or else it is bursting its way out.
Which makes one think of "Alien" but one
settles for the myth at hand.
TheMightyZordonFeb 2, 2012
Oh jeez. . .what have you done!?!?
TGRHvWGAFFeb 1, 2012
To my friends on the right: remember all the times a single statement of Obama's has been taken out of context? Now you know how we feel.
To my friends on the left: Remember how annoying that is? Let's not engage in the same behavior we detest.
From an objective point of view, Romney already has a perception problem. Statements like this tend to be a "let them eat cake" moment.
publikjohn9Feb 1, 2012
Should I be surprised?
nekokittayFeb 1, 2012
You should be surprised that he admitted it, especially while he is trying to get elected. What a moron.
publikjohn9Feb 1, 2012
Not surprised by that, he has the brain of a gerbil. He is another empty suit that will follow his orders, just like the empty suit we have in office now.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
pixelrifficFeb 1, 2012
I agree. I think the real issue here is his poor judgement. A slip up like this can blow his chances.
TheMightyZordonFeb 2, 2012
Now imagine what would happen if he WAS somehow elected, and he had one of these 'slip-ups' during an important international conference, or when he had to make a crucial decision that required sound and logical thinking.
extremephobiaFeb 2, 2012
You know, more than anything he said, I absolutely love when Romney "loses his temper." He usually does that when someone "misquotes" him. And I do think it is the result of not being able to actually speak beyond what he was supposed to say.
I also get a kick out of how he managed to say that he's not concerned with the very rich or very poor, he's concerned with the middle class and then he goes on to talk about all the middle class who are now poor that he wants to help.
Basically, he was trying to tell the 90% in the middle that he's heard all the bad things that's happened and that you should vote for him so that he can... "focus" on them? I appreciate that you've heard of our problems but I am rather underwhelmed by your concern because you've basically shown that you are concerned about votes, and not actually about the problems that people face (most of those problems are shared by the poor and rich as well so why does it not apply to them?)
I love politicians, they are so funny.
aronononoFeb 2, 2012
So the poor will be fine because they have foodstamps, but the richer middle-class is not fine BECAUSE THEY ARE THE LARGEST GROUP OF VOTERS? He is not very good at rhetoric.
tweenieFeb 2, 2012
the rich get richer, the poor get poorer
and the rest of us sheep keep the status quo.
sad but true.
rich, 'religous' dishonest self serving mutherf**kers, should be rounded up and kicked out to sea. the world would be a better place for it.
the only downside is that the collective greaseness from these slimey **** would be worse that the BP oil spin.
treehugger87Feb 2, 2012
If only the rest of us were keeping the status quo! The middle class in this country is dying fast so that the rich can keep getting richer.
kalvinbFeb 2, 2012
The solution to poverty is an education. And that is free so the federal government cant help them out much more. What drives homelessness is the lack of funding for institutions to house and treat people who are mentally ill. Laziness is not a recognized mental deficiency.
The poor don't pay taxes, they get food stamps, they get free medical insurance, etc. They are taken care of. The people who are not taken care of are the middle class who pay taxes, pay for their food, pay for medical insurance, etc and sometimes have to chose which bill they won't pay this month because they don't get any breaks because they aren't poor enough.
So yes, we should be more concerned with helping the middle class keep more of their money.
It's idiotic to pretend that because the poor don't have nice cars and ipods that they need more help. They need to educate themselves so they can earn those things. Their basic human needs are already met, there is nothing left to do for them.
tkellih1Feb 2, 2012
crap. i mean this graph
http://www.deptofnumbers.com/blog/2011/07/median-income-before-and-after-taxes/
slowpitchFeb 2, 2012
F the poor. Support Planned Parenthood to thin the bastards out.
altrblFeb 2, 2012
Full points for honesty...!
mheykFeb 1, 2012
Hes lying you can tell he doesnt believe what they are telling him to say.
jarysmFeb 1, 2012
Let me try to make a metaphor, to show why the context of his statement in no way excused the statement:
"I'm not converned about terminally ill patients. We have a safety net there. If it needs a repair , I’ll fix it. I’m not concerned about the very healthy. I’m concerned about the very heart of our sick, the 90-95 percent of patients who are sick, but don't have a terminal illness, and also are not the very healthy."
Now do you see?
Ouzel7Feb 1, 2012
No. That's a stupid metaphor.
jarysmFeb 2, 2012
That's alright, I have plenty!
Let's say Romney was applying to a teacher and he said:
"I'm not converned about failing students. We have a safety net there. If it needs a repair , I’ll fix it. I’m not concerned about the A students. I’m concerned about the average of the class, the 90-95 percent of students who are are not failing, but not A students"
How's that working for you?
Ouzel7Feb 2, 2012
There is no safety net for failing students ... so no ... that doesn't work.
jarysmFeb 2, 2012
EXACTLY!
And our argument is there is no working safety net for poor people. Which is why Mitt's stance is ignorant and unwise. It is most likely derived from the conservative belief that entitlement programs make little tyrants of the poor, allowing them to get everything they need without work or effort. That anyone can become poor and allow "liberal entitlement" programs to take care of them is an utter fiction.
Ouzel7Feb 2, 2012
There IS a safety net for the "very poor".
jarysmFeb 3, 2012
Re: There Is a safety net for the very poor.
Oh, Ouzel7...if that were true no one would die of hunger, of exposure to the elements as they are homeless, or from diseases they can't afford to have abated. We certainly wouldn't have one open job for every four people looking for one.
If there is a safety net in this country it is full of holes.
madtechnologistFeb 1, 2012
You don't know who 'poor' people are until you visit a 3rd world country. Our 'poor' people are actually part of the "1%" (from a worldwide perspective) all you clowns keep bitching about.
cme884Feb 2, 2012
Have you been to any poor neighborhoods in America? They ARE third world countries.
representdlvFeb 2, 2012
You obviously have never been to a 3rd world country. And I am not convinced you've ever actually been to a poor neighborhood in the US.
treehugger87Feb 1, 2012
Given the context of this quote, I would really like to see an official statement from the Romney campaign on entitlements. His campaign site doesn't have anything except that he wants to repeal the Health Care Act.
In the context of this quote, I would be curious to see if Romney is talking about shutting down Medicare and Social Security like some of his contemporaries...
Ouzel7Feb 1, 2012
How about giving the QUOTE some context?
““I’m not concerned about the very poor,” he said. “We have a safety net there. If it needs a repair , I’ll fix it. I’m not concerned about the very rich…. I’m concerned about the very heart of America, the 90-95 percent of Americans who right now are struggling.”
In response to a follow-up question, Romney added, “We will hear from the Democrat party, the plight of the poor…. You can focus on the very poor, that’s not my focus…. The middle income Americans, they’re the folks that are really struggling right now and they need someone that can help get this economy going for them.”
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/289832/romney-im-not-concerned-about-very-poor-katrina-trinko
diggit83Feb 1, 2012
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.
Ouzel7Feb 1, 2012
Thank you.
Get ready ... it's election season and that means that there's going to be a veritable merry go round of misrepresentation on all fronts.
bookantFeb 1, 2012
You can add mine to that. I also burried the article, too bad we don't still get to click "inaccurate" when we do that . . . .
norman619Feb 1, 2012
It's clear Treehugger didn't bother to read the article or chose to read into it what he/she wanted.
bobbi21Feb 2, 2012
that doesn't seem to make it any better to me.. but I didn't think it was that horrible to begin with. That's the standard republican line. What would be most concerning to me is him actually saying "we have a safety net there. If it needs a repair I'll fix it"
The safety net in the states suck and if we're just going by what he says here, the fact that he doesn't even know if it has any issues shows he's pretty oblivious to what's going on in the country.
I know he's just making talking points by focusing on middle america and all, though, which is fine. But if we're going to dissect his words literally then it makes it more concerning. You can't fix the middle class unless you fix the problems with the upper class and the lower class. The current economic problem that concerns voters is the middle class becoming the lower class by losing their jobs. A system is needed to get those ppl back up. A system is needed to fix the upper class so they don't keep shoving the middle class down to the lower class (and of course prevents the midle class from getting to the upper class but thats not the biggest issue ppl seem to be concerned with now)
But this is all talking points. We can make anyone's quotes sound idiotic if you do what I just did (and what the media of course does as in this article). This is just his focus on the middle class spiel. I dont care about bad sound bites.
treehugger87Feb 2, 2012
The context is that he is not concerned about the poor because there is a safety net in place. I can buy that. Our government spends a lot of money on the poor and there do seem to be plenty of programs out there that guarantee you will be fed, given medical attention and taken care of in other ways.
That said, if Romney's official stance on these entitlements is to end them, then he is trying to have something both ways and, it could be argued, truly doesn't care about the poor.
skagoFeb 1, 2012
He wants to repeal Obamacare because he believes the states are the legal entities to have a global healthcare system and not at the federal level. I agree with him because different states will require different healthcare solutions.
norman619Feb 1, 2012
And he is 100% correct. It isn't the place of the Federal government at all.
publiclurkerFeb 2, 2012
Try reading the constitution for once. you'll humiliate yourself a lot less.
skagoFeb 2, 2012
The constitution gives this ability to the states, you might want to go back and read the constitution.
treehugger87Feb 2, 2012
We can agree to disagree on that one. I feel like the argument for individual states having their own health care programs was lost by the anti-Obama crowd a long time ago so I won't go into it here, but there are overwhelmingly more reasons why a plan like that would fail then ways that they would succeed.
skagoFeb 1, 2012
He wants to repeal Obamacare because he believes the states are the legal entities to have a global healthcare system and not at the federal level. I agree with him because different states will require different healthcare solutions. There is no one size fits all for this diverse country.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
treehugger87Feb 2, 2012
I feel like my original comment is being misunderstood. I agree that the full context of the quote indicates that Romney doesn't really mean that he doesn't care about poor people. He was given a chance to correct himself by the helpful interviewer, and he acquitted himself fine.
My point is this: Romney says that he is not concerned about the poor because there is a safety net for the poor. I tend to agree (with the caveat that we really should be spending more to address the root causes of poverty, not just the symptoms). That said, if Romney is talking about removing that safety net like Paul, Gingrich, Perry, Palin and the rest of the GOP gang are, then it changes the context of what he is saying. If he says one day that the poor are taken care of because of the safety net and then says the next day he wants to remove the safety net, then I have a problem with that.
Bottom line: mine was a sincere question. I visited the Romney campaign site hoping to see an official position on entitlements but I couldn't find one beyond repealing the Health Care Act.
mogwuyFeb 1, 2012
Ferkel that's not what he said either..he said he wasn't concerned about the very poor because his fight is for the middle class....which seems like bull to me
battmannFeb 1, 2012
Good, we're not concerned about the rich or very rich, bitch, sounds like a typical fukin republican
Ouzel7Feb 1, 2012
Neither is he ... check above for the full quote not the "convenient" fragment of it.
publiclurkerFeb 2, 2012
Funny how he always seems to show his real feelings about things and then has to backtrack, knowing that stooges like you will gladly debase yourself for his benefit.
Ouzel7Feb 2, 2012
Don't you have some pubes to lurk in?
treehugger87Feb 2, 2012
To be fair, it's very difficult for Romney to sort through all of those conflicting opinions he has and get to the talking point his campaign people told him to use...
publiclurkerFeb 2, 2012
I don't see why, it's not like he hasn't said it all before. No matter what the position.
rotfoxFeb 1, 2012
"Well they don't do a lot for me, nor do they work at all... jeez what lazy people the poor are. Don't they know that working makes life easier, they should probably get a job. Everything would get better if they did."
-Romney's Thoughts.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
jpurdyFeb 1, 2012
"Work will set you free."
norman619Feb 1, 2012
Self-reliance does wonders for the mind and body.
netantFeb 1, 2012
Or in its historical context: "arbeit macht frei".
mizuhochanFeb 1, 2012
Very poor = Safety net isn't doing its job. So you probably should be concerned.
sleestakslayerFeb 1, 2012
No.
Safety net shouldn't make you too comfortable, just the basics. A lot of the very poor are ok with that too. They get food and four walls. They don't have to get up in the morning or take any crap 'from the man.'
Also, poor is a relative subject - Go to Ethiopia and reevaluate what poor means.
br0ken1128Feb 1, 2012
As much as I don't like Romney ... Only a fraction of his sentence was used as the title of this article and that is just outright deceptive..
He's not concerned about the poor because the poor have a safety net, he even admitted there might be holes in that net that need fixed.. He went on to say he's not concerned about the rich because they are doing fine.
So yeah.. I don't like Romney but the title made it sound like he was being far more crass than he actually was.
RON PAUL!
vyzionsbossladyFeb 1, 2012
its over for him lol
farone3538Feb 2, 2012
please digg that http://digg.com/news/business/soundclick_artist_scorpbeats_untagged_rap_rnb_hiphop_dirty_south_instrumentals_for_19_99 thank you
funfatherhoodFeb 1, 2012
He's just an idiot. Save the argument.
hotzzguyFeb 26, 2012
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.
ryanlee945688Feb 4, 2012
this is a reminder that a person must think before he or she speaks
ryanlee945688Feb 4, 2012
this is a reminder that a person must think be he or she speaks
dan316Feb 4, 2012
I can understand what Romney is referring to. It's relatively easy for someone with very low or no income to obtain assistance from the government. Yet, for one who is considered middle class or lower middle class, it is nearly impossible to obtain assistance. My own daughter and son-in-law both are attending school and currently have low income jobs. They have two sons. Even though there is very low—less than $20K a year each, she was denied food stamps when she applied for them. Yet someone is able to work but doesn't want to work can obtain assistance with little trouble. Of course, I am not referring to someone who can't work. So there are already programs in place for the very poor.
Dan Annweiler
CEO & Editor of http://emergencysurvivalblog.us
go4runmikeFeb 4, 2012
Romney should choose his words a bit better. I got the gist of what he was saying but cringed when he said the wasn't concerned about the very poor because it made him sound like he wasn't caring. But if you thoroughly listened to his message you understood the point he was making even though it was roughly made.
trcapromoFeb 3, 2012
Way out of context!
trcapromoFeb 3, 2012
Way out of context!
mystic2awesomeFeb 3, 2012
I'n not concerned about the very "Romney".
asteelesmith1Feb 3, 2012
You almost can't believe that he could be that unwise......wow!
asteelesmith1Feb 3, 2012
You almost can't believe that he could be that unwise......wow!
Sharonrose411Feb 3, 2012
A reckless statement to make. Soounds like he's not concerned about being the President of ALL the people of the United States, either.
Sharonrose411Feb 3, 2012
A reckless statement to make. Soounds like he's not concerned about being the President of ALL the people of the United States, either.
Sharonrose411Feb 3, 2012
A reckless statement to make. Soounds like he's not concerned about being the President of ALL the people of the United States, either.