Romney: 'I'm not concerned about the very poor'

[Joe Republic]

"The only thing that could have made that Romney quote worse is if he ended it by laughing manically and lighting a cigar with a $100 bill."

http://www.redstate.com/jeff_emanuel/2012/02/01/mitt-romneys-very-poor-choice-of-words/

[Sam Spade]

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I'm not concerned about the very poor, and neither are most Americans.  They give money to charities, in the hope that it helps the few who have encountered tragedy in their lives.  The rest?  Largely responsible for their own situation.

Americans are for lifting up the deserving and helping those who face difficulties.  People who suck at life?  They can drown.

There's a word for people like you. First syllable of 'country', in case you'd not guessed. I think in your case we can extend it somewhat; perhaps by adding 'obnoxious' in front of it. Perhaps things could be done with words like 'scum' and 'reprobate', and I suppose a case exists for the use of 'depraved'.

[Lief 🗽]

I'd use a word like "sociopath" as well.

[Oakvale]

I'd use a word like "sociopath" as well.

^ This. Jesus, that post was downright disturbing.

[Joe Republic]

It's funny, whenever a politician accidentally lets their true motivations slip, there are some who try and spin it into something not as bad as it was, and then there are others who justify the original comment by saying something even worse.  TheGlobalizer is in the latter category.

[Vazdul (Formerly Chairman of the Communist Party of Ontario)]

I'm not concerned about the very poor, and neither are most Americans.  They give money to charities, in the hope that it helps the few who have encountered tragedy in their lives.  The rest?  Largely responsible for their own situation.

Americans are for lifting up the deserving and helping those who face difficulties.  People who suck at life?  They can drown.

There's a word for people like you. First syllable of 'country', in case you'd not guessed. I think in your case we can extend it somewhat; perhaps by adding 'obnoxious' in front of it. Perhaps things could be done with words like 'scum' and 'reprobate', and I suppose a case exists for the use of 'depraved'.

I was going to suggest the first syllable of 'arson,' combined with the first syllable of 'holy."

[pbrower2a]

I don't think this has much traction.  To be frank, most of the middle-class people I speak to don't care about the very poor (at least as far as government programs are concerned), and feel like they're getting the shaft from both ends, rich and poor.

I think this will turn a few soccer moms off, but I doubt this changes the game much at all.  Good that it happened in the primaries.

The middle class doesn't care much about the poor  -- unless it has them as clients (contractors and some government employees who earn or profit from the welfare system) or if they are afraid of joining the poor (a legitimate concern for the last ten years or so). It lost much faith in tycoons and executives, so it can no longer be expected to vote with the rationale that "what my boss wants is good for me". 

[greenforest32]

I'm not concerned about the very poor, and neither are most Americans.  They give money to charities, in the hope that it helps the few who have encountered tragedy in their lives.  The rest?  Largely responsible for their own situation.

Americans are for lifting up the deserving and helping those who face difficulties.  People who suck at life?  They can drown.

Compassionate libertarianism.

[Politico]

Note to GOP Establishment:  Romney sucks as a candidate.

I thought the jmfcsts loved bashing the poor?

[The Mikado]

I'm not concerned about the very poor, and neither are most Americans.  They give money to charities, in the hope that it helps the few who have encountered tragedy in their lives.  The rest?  Largely responsible for their own situation.

Americans are for lifting up the deserving and helping those who face difficulties.  People who suck at life?  They can drown.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[memphis]

It is refreshing to see such a thoroughly cynical political speak from the heart. He'll probably flip-flop on it tomorrow though.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I'm not concerned about the very poor, and neither are most Americans.  They give money to charities, in the hope that it helps the few who have encountered tragedy in their lives.  The rest?  Largely responsible for their own situation.

Americans are for lifting up the deserving and helping those who face difficulties.  People who suck at life?  They can drown.

You just switched in my view from the category "average poster I disagree with on issues" to "disgusting individual".

[King]

Well, I'm not concerned about the plight of furries either.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

Trying to argue that Gingrich is better than Romney is like trying to argue that Mondale is better than Dukakis. Truth is, they both suck.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Note to GOP Establishment:  Romney sucks as a candidate.

I thought the jmfcsts loved bashing the poor?

Yeah, but only in quiet rooms.

[King]

Note to GOP Establishment:  Romney sucks as a candidate.

I thought the jmfcsts loved bashing the poor?

Yeah, but only in quiet rooms.

The jmfcsts do not respect the poor, but they certainly care about them.

[Landslide Lyndon]

The jmfcsts do not respect the poor, but they certainly care about them.

You mean they care enough for them to prevent them from having abortions, force them to learn at school about intelligent design and allow them to keep their guns.

[TheGlobalizer]

I don't think this has much traction.  To be frank, most of the middle-class people I speak to don't care about the very poor (at least as far as government programs are concerned), and feel like they're getting the shaft from both ends, rich and poor.

I think this will turn a few soccer moms off, but I doubt this changes the game much at all.  Good that it happened in the primaries.

The middle class doesn't care much about the poor  -- unless it has them as clients (contractors and some government employees who earn or profit from the welfare system) or if they are afraid of joining the poor (a legitimate concern for the last ten years or so). It lost much faith in tycoons and executives, so it can no longer be expected to vote with the rationale that "what my boss wants is good for me". 

Agree.  What I hear most is that the middle class is tired of subsidizing both the rich and the poor.  And they're right to feel that way.

[TheGlobalizer]

That's all you guys have, a half-dozen ad hominems?

Kudos.  You all have won the internet, it's up to you to divide it and claim your share.

FWIW, there's a lot more nuance to my position than a forum post will allow, but at the end of the day, people who are responsible for their own lot in life should be afforded no privileges not available to the population at large.  It encourages precisely the sort of charity-seeking behavior that undermines all forms of personal responsibility, and exponentially proportional to the rewards that accrue therefrom.

If you want to live comfortably, work for it.  If you want to succeed, earn it.  If you want to chill and live a humble live, don't ask for someone else to bring your standard of living up above the labor you're willing to expend.  If you want to spend half your day in a drug den and your teeth are falling out, recognize that you are the cause of your problems, and either fix it or f*** off.

I quite like people who are poor but happy.  Not everyone can be a highly-paid skilled worker.  That's not my issue.

My issue are people who *live* poor.  Who destroy themselves and those around them.  Who fail to take responsibility and are the first to extend their hands for free stuff.  Those people are parasites and deserve the consequences of their own behavior.  If that makes me heartless, fine, whatevs, but most people I know (working/middle class) subscribe to similar views, though generally couched in less aggressive phrasing.  I don't dance around the point in how I say things.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

You're not helping your case.

[pbrower2a]

I don't think this has much traction.  To be frank, most of the middle-class people I speak to don't care about the very poor (at least as far as government programs are concerned), and feel like they're getting the shaft from both ends, rich and poor.

I think this will turn a few soccer moms off, but I doubt this changes the game much at all.  Good that it happened in the primaries.

The middle class doesn't care much about the poor  -- unless it has them as clients (contractors and some government employees who earn or profit from the welfare system) or if they are afraid of joining the poor (a legitimate concern for the last ten years or so). It lost much faith in tycoons and executives, so it can no longer be expected to vote with the rationale that "what my boss wants is good for me". 

Agree.  What I hear most is that the middle class is tired of subsidizing both the rich and the poor.  And they're right to feel that way.

Of course.  The middle class used to be more scared of street crime than by the unrestrained power of the economic elites. That could be over. I am beginning to believe that the middle class may be recognizing that more economic security for the working poor is good for the middle class.

[TheGlobalizer]

You're not helping your case.

I'm explaining my position further, in response to ad hominem attacks.  F*** my "case", it's my point of view.  You have yours, I don't go around calling you a "commie thief who supports the denigration of American culture" or somesuch, or treating your views as illegitimate, or disrespecting you personally.

I know my expectations are too high here, but I get really tired of the douchebag peanut gallery who exists on this board for no other reason than to engage in lame personal attacks of people they philosophically disagree with.

[TheGlobalizer]

I don't think this has much traction.  To be frank, most of the middle-class people I speak to don't care about the very poor (at least as far as government programs are concerned), and feel like they're getting the shaft from both ends, rich and poor.

I think this will turn a few soccer moms off, but I doubt this changes the game much at all.  Good that it happened in the primaries.

The middle class doesn't care much about the poor  -- unless it has them as clients (contractors and some government employees who earn or profit from the welfare system) or if they are afraid of joining the poor (a legitimate concern for the last ten years or so). It lost much faith in tycoons and executives, so it can no longer be expected to vote with the rationale that "what my boss wants is good for me". 

Agree.  What I hear most is that the middle class is tired of subsidizing both the rich and the poor.  And they're right to feel that way.

Of course.  The middle class used to be more scared of street crime than by the unrestrained power of the economic elites. That could be over. I am beginning to believe that the middle class may be recognizing that more economic security for the working poor is good for the middle class.

These days, the middle class *is* the working poor - in part because of personal behavior, in part because of misguided policy, in part because of global economic inertia.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

You really do have an amusing level of self regard for someone who's never shown any sign of intellectual depth or even basic critical faculties. You're what Gramsci would have called an organic intellectual. That's not really a complement, by the way.