nytimes.com— Mitt Romney has said that his comments about not caring about the very poor were taken out of context. But the more context you give them, the worse it gets.
Feb 3, 2012View in Crawl 4
This is a great example of why money in politics needs heavy regulation. If it wasn't for the fact that Romney has the resources to run thousands more adds and media coverage than the non-wealthy, his campaign would have been destroyed by this statement. All one needs to do to be a front runner is drown out every other voice, and few people can do that. That's not democracy, that's oligarchy.
There have been four times in history where the popular vote has been for someone who didn't actually win, because his Republican opponent just took a shortcut and bought enough electoral college votes to win. All four occasions were Republicans buying the presidency out from under the real President that the people elected.
If not enough GOP voters turn out this election, it only matters if the rich WANT the GOP to win. If they do, then this election will see piles of money into the hands of the electoral college for yet another bought election.
Well, the media declared him the winner before the race even started, the media are doing everything in their power to promote Romney and blackout Ron Paul, they are aiding and abetting fraud in the election in doing these things.
If the GOP makes this race only about jobs, they probably will lose. They need to make the case of which direction the country is heading. Such as, more government spending or less?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
That would be hard too because, if you look at today's employment numbers, only the public sector, and in particular the federal government, has lost jobs. Then there is the fight for the Pentagon budget and the GOP seems to backtrack on last summer's agreement. The GOP is also in favor of Big Government, only their favorite slice of Big Government is different from The Democrat's favorite slice. The economic sitiation remains very fluid, especially with the crisis in Europe. In any case, Obama's big luck is that Romney is no Reagan.
I saw that 243,000 thousands jobs were created, but also that over 1.1 million working aged people dropped out of the labor market, bringing labor force participation rates to their lowest level in 30 years. Then it became obvious the unemployment numbers are utter rubbish.
Romney is dangerous. He is smart, he has rich backers, and there is nothing he would not do to get himself elected. This is going to be one nasty campaign.
Bush wasn't smart, he had rich backers and from what the rumors were, they had to convince Bush to run. Unless you believe the story that god told him to run.
Romney would carry on all the policies Obama is following, which are all the same policies Bush was following, which were the same policies as Clinton was following which were the same policies Bush 1 was following. Definitely NOT a step up from Obama, rather a clone of Obama/Bush/Clinton/Bush.
There is some truth to that, and there is a good reason for it. Once you get past the political appointees at the heads of federal agencies, there are career professionals who actually recommend and implement the specific policies. Most of these policies are unchanged between administrations, because most of them actually work. Making policy changes is a very slow process, and it should be. Rash changes are almost guaranteed to have negative unintended consequences. At most, an administration will make incremental changes that may not be fully implemented for years. All rhetoric aside, there is not much policy difference between the adults in the major parties; most of the differences are at the fringes.
No sane president is going to make drastic changes without a huge amount of study and input (both internal and external). Anyone who promises otherwise is either lying or is too reckless to be considered a serious candidate. When a knucklehead like Perry starts talking about completely eliminating major agencies, you know he is not going to be a serious contender. For similar reasons, Paul is not going to be a significant factor in this election.
Wrong, there is ONE candidate who WILL fix the federal safety nets (which actually do more harm than good -- we have a higher percentage of poor since welfare programs were established and more retirees living on SS than on their own savings and investments, what is subsidized increases, so subsidizing the poor creates more poor, subsidizing retirement makes for more retirees living on government funds). He will fix them only long enough for them to be replaced by better policies that actually do more good than harm, which will reduce the numbers of poor and the numbers of retirees existing on minimal government paychecks instead of living more comfortably on their own retirement savings and investments. That man is Ron Paul, he has a plan to save our economy, solve our debt problem in three years, and reduce the need for welfare and SS; and that plan is available online to anyone who wants to read it.
Assuming that he was somehow elected (which is clearly impossible at this point), he would never be able to implement any of his plan. He would get little or no support from either political party, and both houses of congress would simply ignore his recommendations. In other words, he would be completely impotent.
It is NOT "clearly impossible" for Ron Paul to win, that's just hopeful thinking from those who, clearly, do not want a Constitutional government for whatever twisted reasons.
Dr. Paul is listed on all 50 State ballots/caucuses, neither Gingrich, the newt, nor Santorum, the theocrat, are. His campaign is very efficiently organized across the country, neither the newt nor the theocrat have that level of organization (which is why they are not on all ballots). He has a campaign fund large enough to take him to the convention without going into debt and he is still getting donations from individuals all over the country and ONLY individuals, average donation $35, he takes no money from corporations (just imagine how many people donating that average amount it takes to gain him as large a campaign war chest as he has, and those donors will all vote for him, too) and more than double the donations from active military of ALL the other candidates combined, neither the newt nor the theocrat have that (both those two are in debt as of the end of the last quarterly report). What counts in getting the nomination is having the most delegates, since many States are granting delegates proportionally, and Ron Paul is gaining them with each primary/caucus. The newt and the theocrat are going to have to drop out, sooner rather than later, neither of them yet have enough delegates to make a difference, but the upcoming caucuses and primaries between Paul and Romney is where the greatest number of delegates will be available and Ron Paul is more popular in the States that have not yet had their say. Nope, it's VERY possible he can win.
Also, there is a lot he CAN do without the cooperation of congress, and he would have the bully pulpit to goad Americans into getting their "representatives" in government to keep their oath of office, by obeying the Constitution and stop introducing and voting for unconstitutional legislation.
"I'll fix it." What hubris there is in this statement, as if with a snap of his fingers he could fix a complex problem like this. No sweat, "I'll fix it." I felt sick when I heard that part.
Except fixing it goes against everything he's said about the "safety net" in other statements. If you RTFA you might see where he endorses Paul Ryan's plan to implement harsh budget cuts, most of which come from programs that help the poor like Medicaid which would receive a 40 percent cut. Yeah, he's gonna fix the safety net, by working towards it's complete elimination.
No, he is not concerned but still dividing us, if you hear him talk he would want you to believe it is the president doing that. A man who will say and do anything to win the base and then thinking he will do the same to win the WH, a vote for Mitt is a vote for a man with no conviction and no ideas about what we need. Did you see his job growth plan several months ago? It tells all you need to know about this "bishop.".
when he handed those thousands of layoffs out, some of those people fell from working to poverty. Yeah, you can tell it wasn't 'his job' to be concerned.
Romney is unelectable. Our next President needs to be a job creator not tear down jobs as Romney has. Our goal should be to get unemployment down to 5% and underemployment(people needing jobs but not getting benefits) down from 18.7% to 5%. We've got to return some manufacturing jobs to the U.S.
This is such a distortion of what he said. Imagine having two sons, one who is great and the other who is a screw up. And the parent says that he's not concerned about the one who is great. Does that mean he doesn't care? No, just that he has confidence in the future. Romney is just saying that the rich can take care of themselves, the poor have a mechanism to get support and if it's broken he would fix it, but that he is concerned about the middle class, who have neither the riches or the safety net.
Republicans have no interest in fixing the safety net. Rand Paul's solution for Medicare is a great example. Replace Medicare with a voucher system.
He certainly has proposed a solution to the end of life expenses that are by far the greatest cost to Medicare. Just let old people die when their vouchers run out, unless of course, they're wealthy enough to pay their own expenses.
I guess the very poor should be dancing with joy hearing about the support mechanism that puts them in such a good circumstance that they no longer deserve the attention of our government. The sad irony is that the GOP is focusing its fire precisely on this support mechanism that is supposed to do these wonders to the very poor. Mitt `I'm running for President for Pete's sake' Romney conveniently forgot to include in his boneheaded statement his endorsement of Paul Ryan's budget proposal which will destroy once and for all these welfare barrons.
People are entitled to believe in many things, such as, on a bright and clear day one can see pigs fly. This does not mean they will, but Mr. Romney and his wealthy backers are banking on the fact that people like Mr. Bildcat believe in unidentified flying pork chops.
Yes, that is exactly what he was trying to say. Unfortunately, this guy cannot communicate a simple concept without creating a negative sound bite for his opponents. He will get nominated, because he is the last one standing; then he will be crushed in the general election debates because he cannot generate a coherent sentence.
Thank you Mr Krugman. I am glad that at last people are taking what politicians say to task. Where were you guys when George Bush went to war with little to no evidence, and I am sorry we never did find the weapons of mass destruction. The reason Mr. Romney does not actually care is simple. He has never been poor. He had a daddy who paid his way to college. Then he soars at great levels of destruction. At Bain he took over companies, disassembled them, gave great payoffs to share holders, fired employees took their pension plans, and then sent the jobs overseas and personally receive giant bonuses. Who says we never learned from the 1980s. Mr Romney learned very well. The trouble is do we want him to do this to the country?
FalalisFeb 3, 2012
This is a great example of why money in politics needs heavy regulation. If it wasn't for the fact that Romney has the resources to run thousands more adds and media coverage than the non-wealthy, his campaign would have been destroyed by this statement. All one needs to do to be a front runner is drown out every other voice, and few people can do that. That's not democracy, that's oligarchy.
dauntless1Feb 3, 2012
Yep. But look at all the idiotic toolbags defending the GOP on digg. They honestly think that they matter to the party.
dauntless1Feb 3, 2012
Maybe I should add an addendum to that.
There have been four times in history where the popular vote has been for someone who didn't actually win, because his Republican opponent just took a shortcut and bought enough electoral college votes to win. All four occasions were Republicans buying the presidency out from under the real President that the people elected.
If not enough GOP voters turn out this election, it only matters if the rich WANT the GOP to win. If they do, then this election will see piles of money into the hands of the electoral college for yet another bought election.
moonriderFeb 5, 2012
Well, the media declared him the winner before the race even started, the media are doing everything in their power to promote Romney and blackout Ron Paul, they are aiding and abetting fraud in the election in doing these things.
felixkleinFeb 3, 2012
Have you seen the new employment figures? The GOP must be having a heart attack.
drich255Feb 3, 2012
If the GOP makes this race only about jobs, they probably will lose. They need to make the case of which direction the country is heading. Such as, more government spending or less?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
felixkleinFeb 3, 2012
That would be hard too because, if you look at today's employment numbers, only the public sector, and in particular the federal government, has lost jobs. Then there is the fight for the Pentagon budget and the GOP seems to backtrack on last summer's agreement. The GOP is also in favor of Big Government, only their favorite slice of Big Government is different from The Democrat's favorite slice. The economic sitiation remains very fluid, especially with the crisis in Europe. In any case, Obama's big luck is that Romney is no Reagan.
barackalypseFeb 3, 2012
I saw that 243,000 thousands jobs were created, but also that over 1.1 million working aged people dropped out of the labor market, bringing labor force participation rates to their lowest level in 30 years. Then it became obvious the unemployment numbers are utter rubbish.
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/CIVPART
http://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/cpseea03.htmComment is buried, click here to see the rest.
nygenxerFeb 3, 2012
Good luck getting this jackoff elected president, GOP. See you in 2016.
felixkleinFeb 3, 2012
Romney is dangerous. He is smart, he has rich backers, and there is nothing he would not do to get himself elected. This is going to be one nasty campaign.
norman619Feb 3, 2012
You just described anyone who runs for president. your stupidity is what's truly dangerous. You make being a partisan zombie look easy.
inajeepFeb 3, 2012
Bush wasn't smart, he had rich backers and from what the rumors were, they had to convince Bush to run. Unless you believe the story that god told him to run.
arpadFeb 3, 2012
He was smarter then either Al Gore or John Kerry in at least one regard.
felixkleinFeb 3, 2012
No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public
H L Menken
barmatFeb 3, 2012
What, he was smarter at snorting coke?
BluntzworthFeb 3, 2012
Being better connected because of familial ties is not being smarter.
jpurdyFeb 4, 2012
Rick Perry's wife convinced him to run after her "burning bush" experience. That didn't turn out too well.
felixkleinFeb 3, 2012
norman619, I know that calling me stupid made your day. On the other hand, you seem short of arguments proving me wrong.
spatula7Feb 3, 2012
his comment isnt't partisan at all, yours however, very much so
norman619Feb 3, 2012
Yeah right. Obsama is a disaster. Romney would be a trade up.
moonriderFeb 5, 2012
Romney would carry on all the policies Obama is following, which are all the same policies Bush was following, which were the same policies as Clinton was following which were the same policies Bush 1 was following. Definitely NOT a step up from Obama, rather a clone of Obama/Bush/Clinton/Bush.
craig1958Feb 5, 2012
There is some truth to that, and there is a good reason for it. Once you get past the political appointees at the heads of federal agencies, there are career professionals who actually recommend and implement the specific policies. Most of these policies are unchanged between administrations, because most of them actually work. Making policy changes is a very slow process, and it should be. Rash changes are almost guaranteed to have negative unintended consequences. At most, an administration will make incremental changes that may not be fully implemented for years. All rhetoric aside, there is not much policy difference between the adults in the major parties; most of the differences are at the fringes.
No sane president is going to make drastic changes without a huge amount of study and input (both internal and external). Anyone who promises otherwise is either lying or is too reckless to be considered a serious candidate. When a knucklehead like Perry starts talking about completely eliminating major agencies, you know he is not going to be a serious contender. For similar reasons, Paul is not going to be a significant factor in this election.
theghoulFeb 3, 2012
What a jackass.
"The poor have a safety net"
"The safety net is broken"
"I'm not concerned about the poor"
His Jesus did not smile at those comments.
norman619Feb 3, 2012
You left out where he said if the net is broken he will FIX it.
Your dishonesty is sad.
anomaly100Feb 3, 2012
But did he say how he'd fix it, considering his Conservative compatriots want them all eliminated.
dauntless1Feb 3, 2012
Exactly. There isn't any member of the GOP who has actually put forth a plan that will fix the safety nets, just destroy them.
moonriderFeb 5, 2012
Wrong, there is ONE candidate who WILL fix the federal safety nets (which actually do more harm than good -- we have a higher percentage of poor since welfare programs were established and more retirees living on SS than on their own savings and investments, what is subsidized increases, so subsidizing the poor creates more poor, subsidizing retirement makes for more retirees living on government funds). He will fix them only long enough for them to be replaced by better policies that actually do more good than harm, which will reduce the numbers of poor and the numbers of retirees existing on minimal government paychecks instead of living more comfortably on their own retirement savings and investments. That man is Ron Paul, he has a plan to save our economy, solve our debt problem in three years, and reduce the need for welfare and SS; and that plan is available online to anyone who wants to read it.
craig1958Feb 5, 2012
Assuming that he was somehow elected (which is clearly impossible at this point), he would never be able to implement any of his plan. He would get little or no support from either political party, and both houses of congress would simply ignore his recommendations. In other words, he would be completely impotent.
moonriderFeb 5, 2012
It is NOT "clearly impossible" for Ron Paul to win, that's just hopeful thinking from those who, clearly, do not want a Constitutional government for whatever twisted reasons.
Dr. Paul is listed on all 50 State ballots/caucuses, neither Gingrich, the newt, nor Santorum, the theocrat, are. His campaign is very efficiently organized across the country, neither the newt nor the theocrat have that level of organization (which is why they are not on all ballots). He has a campaign fund large enough to take him to the convention without going into debt and he is still getting donations from individuals all over the country and ONLY individuals, average donation $35, he takes no money from corporations (just imagine how many people donating that average amount it takes to gain him as large a campaign war chest as he has, and those donors will all vote for him, too) and more than double the donations from active military of ALL the other candidates combined, neither the newt nor the theocrat have that (both those two are in debt as of the end of the last quarterly report). What counts in getting the nomination is having the most delegates, since many States are granting delegates proportionally, and Ron Paul is gaining them with each primary/caucus. The newt and the theocrat are going to have to drop out, sooner rather than later, neither of them yet have enough delegates to make a difference, but the upcoming caucuses and primaries between Paul and Romney is where the greatest number of delegates will be available and Ron Paul is more popular in the States that have not yet had their say. Nope, it's VERY possible he can win.
moonriderFeb 6, 2012
Also, there is a lot he CAN do without the cooperation of congress, and he would have the bully pulpit to goad Americans into getting their "representatives" in government to keep their oath of office, by obeying the Constitution and stop introducing and voting for unconstitutional legislation.
beverlystilesFeb 3, 2012
"I'll fix it." What hubris there is in this statement, as if with a snap of his fingers he could fix a complex problem like this. No sweat, "I'll fix it." I felt sick when I heard that part.
r0g3rFeb 3, 2012
Except fixing it goes against everything he's said about the "safety net" in other statements. If you RTFA you might see where he endorses Paul Ryan's plan to implement harsh budget cuts, most of which come from programs that help the poor like Medicaid which would receive a 40 percent cut. Yeah, he's gonna fix the safety net, by working towards it's complete elimination.
miklkitFeb 3, 2012
There it is. Let his own words show what he really is. A sociopath.
ObaAdeleFeb 3, 2012
No, he is not concerned but still dividing us, if you hear him talk he would want you to believe it is the president doing that. A man who will say and do anything to win the base and then thinking he will do the same to win the WH, a vote for Mitt is a vote for a man with no conviction and no ideas about what we need. Did you see his job growth plan several months ago? It tells all you need to know about this "bishop.".
laurahoustonFeb 3, 2012
Mitt had a lot of practice ignoring poverty.
when he handed those thousands of layoffs out, some of those people fell from working to poverty. Yeah, you can tell it wasn't 'his job' to be concerned.
miklkitFeb 3, 2012
That was how he made 900% profits on those hostile takeovers.
ren1999Feb 3, 2012
Romney is unelectable. Our next President needs to be a job creator not tear down jobs as Romney has. Our goal should be to get unemployment down to 5% and underemployment(people needing jobs but not getting benefits) down from 18.7% to 5%. We've got to return some manufacturing jobs to the U.S.
sleestakslayerFeb 3, 2012
Of course Fozzy Bear would jump on this one.
billdcatFeb 3, 2012
This is such a distortion of what he said. Imagine having two sons, one who is great and the other who is a screw up. And the parent says that he's not concerned about the one who is great. Does that mean he doesn't care? No, just that he has confidence in the future. Romney is just saying that the rich can take care of themselves, the poor have a mechanism to get support and if it's broken he would fix it, but that he is concerned about the middle class, who have neither the riches or the safety net.
kasha34Feb 4, 2012
Perfect explanation.
jpurdyFeb 4, 2012
Republicans have no interest in fixing the safety net. Rand Paul's solution for Medicare is a great example. Replace Medicare with a voucher system.
He certainly has proposed a solution to the end of life expenses that are by far the greatest cost to Medicare. Just let old people die when their vouchers run out, unless of course, they're wealthy enough to pay their own expenses.
felixkleinFeb 4, 2012
I guess the very poor should be dancing with joy hearing about the support mechanism that puts them in such a good circumstance that they no longer deserve the attention of our government. The sad irony is that the GOP is focusing its fire precisely on this support mechanism that is supposed to do these wonders to the very poor. Mitt `I'm running for President for Pete's sake' Romney conveniently forgot to include in his boneheaded statement his endorsement of Paul Ryan's budget proposal which will destroy once and for all these welfare barrons.
People are entitled to believe in many things, such as, on a bright and clear day one can see pigs fly. This does not mean they will, but Mr. Romney and his wealthy backers are banking on the fact that people like Mr. Bildcat believe in unidentified flying pork chops.
craig1958Feb 5, 2012
Yes, that is exactly what he was trying to say. Unfortunately, this guy cannot communicate a simple concept without creating a negative sound bite for his opponents. He will get nominated, because he is the last one standing; then he will be crushed in the general election debates because he cannot generate a coherent sentence.
quebecoishistoryFeb 4, 2012
Thank you Mr Krugman. I am glad that at last people are taking what politicians say to task. Where were you guys when George Bush went to war with little to no evidence, and I am sorry we never did find the weapons of mass destruction. The reason Mr. Romney does not actually care is simple. He has never been poor. He had a daddy who paid his way to college. Then he soars at great levels of destruction. At Bain he took over companies, disassembled them, gave great payoffs to share holders, fired employees took their pension plans, and then sent the jobs overseas and personally receive giant bonuses. Who says we never learned from the 1980s. Mr Romney learned very well. The trouble is do we want him to do this to the country?
kasha34Feb 3, 2012
It's cute how hurt the libs pretend to be.
They want a president who says he "cares."
A daddy who's "concerned."
davidnivenFeb 3, 2012
Democrats love to keep the masses on the plantation in need of the most basic necessities, dependent on big government to just survive.
nygenxerFeb 4, 2012
....and conservatives want a daddy to tell them what to do like little children (or submissives).
geneturnbowFeb 3, 2012
And the fact that Mitt Romney isn't concerned having made the news pretty much says it all right there.
KapsiotFeb 3, 2012
I'm not concerned either.
kasha34Feb 3, 2012
I'm already supporting them. Why be concerned?
davidnivenFeb 3, 2012
Auto buried for Krugman and NY Slimes.
bdbrFeb 3, 2012
Auto buried for auto-burying.
publiclurkerFeb 3, 2012
dug for auto-burying auto-burying.