[PhillyFlyers]

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics...the-very-poor/

[shari91]

"I'm not concerned about the very poor. We have a safety net there. If it needs repair, I'll fix it. I'm not concerned about the very rich. They're doing just fine. I'm concerned about the very heart of America, the 90 to 95 per cent of Americans who are struggling."

[andywend]

The very poor are going to vote democratic no matter what if they vote at all.

I'm sure Mitt Romney cares as much about them as they do about Mitt Romney.

Do you believe Mitt Romney should go out of his way to try and "court" poor/black voters? It would be a complete waste of resources for any republican candidate to do that.

If Romney wants to win this election, he needs to be as friendly as he can possibly be when it comes to Hispanics and should go to the podium and say that Hispanics are hurting and need help and I will help them. He needs to specifically exclude saying anything that black voters want to hear as that will cost him hispanic/white/middle class votes and won't gain him a single, solitary black vote.

You have to pick battles you can win and Romney just isn't going to succeed at picking up any real support when it comes to the welfare collectors or blacks. Because these 2 groups of people vote blindly democratic, they won't be courted by Obama either as he knows he has their votes in his hip pocket.

Therefore, they get EXACTLY what they deserve:
NO REPRESENTATION!!!

[rkelly110]

The new poor, who were working, need help.

The career poor make $50k. That might be the safety net he was talking about.
He should take some of his millions and buy a clue! He's a typical Repub idiot.

[DwightShrute]

"I'm not concerned about the very poor. We have a safety net there. If it needs repair, I'll fix it. I'm not concerned about the very rich. They're doing just fine. I'm concerned about the very heart of America, the 90 to 95 per cent of Americans who are struggling."

when put into context.

Those who like to distort the truth with make it into something different. Geez.

[DwightShrute]

Dwight, the funny part about the statement is that they have been spending 30 years decimating the safety net and want to do away with it altogether.

Remember Reagan's "welfare queens"?

Turd, there was nothing wrong with his statement as far as I am concerned. I know what he means.

[YouMama]

its politics, he doesnt care about the very poor cuz none will vote his way anyways, most of them dont vote at all... and he knows the very rich are not voting for obama, when they know he will actually regulate what they do... its smart, common sense

[andywend]

It is vital for everyone that a safety net exists but there needs to be massive changes to ensure that people don't take advantage and spend their entire lives living off of the hard work of others.

As it stands today, if you know how to work the system, you're better off being on the safety net then you are working full-time at a minimum wage job and that has to change.

A line in the sand needs to be drawn whereby only those that work full-time can be eligible for government assistance (accessing the safety net). There are millions of people living in this country that have spent 20 years or more collecting government assistance and haven't even thought of ever going to work and produce for the good of the country.

All minimum wage laws need to be abolished when the unemployment rate goes above an arbitrary figure - say 5%. While this will lead to many people working full-time and not making a living wage, the state/federal government can step in and offer financial assistance to bridge the gap.

The elimination of minimum wage laws will open up millions of jobs and will make it easier for struggling businesses to stay alive as well as allowing more businesses to be created.

As long as people are willing to work full time, the federal government should do everything within its power to make sure that jobs are available to EVERYONE who wants one. Right now, this doesn't exist and people who want to work are having difficulty finding employment and thats a tragedy.

1. Figure out a way to create jobs so everyone who wants one, can have one.
2. Do away with all minimum wage laws and supplement low paying jobs with government assistance as long as the individual is working full-time or close to it (say 30 hours per week minimum).
3. All full-time workers are entitled to medical coverage. If the business cant afford it, an arrangement needs to be worked out such as tax breaks to smaller businesses to entice them to offer medical coverage to all of their employees.

Unfortunately, the only way to get life-long welfare collectors off of their couches and into the workforce is if they know they are going to get cut off from all government services after a designated period of time with no exceptions.

We need to reward the working poor with better benefits while at the same time, taking away the safety net from those who refuse to work alongside everyone else.

NO MORE FREE RIDES!!!

[andywend]

Turd, there is nothing Romney could possibly say that would ever get you to vote for him and there is nothing Obama could ever say to make you NOT vote for him.

Therefore, why does it matter what you think about Romney?

[d2bets]

It is vital for everyone that a safety net exists but there needs to be massive changes to ensure that people don't take advantage and spend their entire lives living off of the hard work of others.

As it stands today, if you know how to work the system, you're better off being on the safety net then you are working full-time at a minimum wage job and that has to change.

A line in the sand needs to be drawn whereby only those that work full-time can be eligible for government assistance (accessing the safety net). There are millions of people living in this country that have spent 20 years or more collecting government assistance and haven't even thought of ever going to work and produce for the good of the country.

All minimum wage laws need to be abolished when the unemployment rate goes above an arbitrary figure - say 5%. While this will lead to many people working full-time and not making a living wage, the state/federal government can step in and offer financial assistance to bridge the gap.

The elimination of minimum wage laws will open up millions of jobs and will make it easier for struggling businesses to stay alive as well as allowing more businesses to be created.

As long as people are willing to work full time, the federal government should do everything within its power to make sure that jobs are available to EVERYONE who wants one. Right now, this doesn't exist and people who want to work are having difficulty finding employment and thats a tragedy.

1. Figure out a way to create jobs so everyone who wants one, can have one.
2. Do away with all minimum wage laws and supplement low paying jobs with government assistance as long as the individual is working full-time or close to it (say 30 hours per week minimum).
3. All full-time workers are entitled to medical coverage. If the business cant afford it, an arrangement needs to be worked out such as tax breaks to smaller businesses to entice them to offer medical coverage to all of their employees.

Unfortunately, the only way to get life-long welfare collectors off of their couches and into the workforce is if they know they are going to get cut off from all government services after a designated period of time with no exceptions.

We need to reward the working poor with better benefits while at the same time, taking away the safety net from those who refuse to work alongside everyone else.

NO MORE FREE RIDES!!!

Think that through. The worker knows it doesn't matter if his employer pays him $1 or $7 an hour, that the govt will bridge the gap. The employer knows this too. So there is no incentive on either side to demand or negotiate a higher wage. So what you'll end up with is more welfare for businesses, who will make even more profit on the backs of the American people. MCD stock would triple. Instead of paying $7.50 min wage, they'll cut it to $2 and tell their workers it makes no difference because the govt will make up the difference. Maybe they'll make up for it with some other benefits or something. In any case, this approach would be nothing more than massive corporate welfare and would be subject to gross abuse.

The minimum wage is paltry. If a business can't compete while still paying the nominal minimum wage then they are not fit for competition.

Only those that work full time get assistance? What about the millions of people with disabilities who cannot work? Screw em?

[YouMama]

Think that through. The worker knows it doesn't matter if his employer pays him $1 or $7 an hour, that the govt will bridge the gap. The employer knows this too. So there is no incentive on either side to demand or negotiate a higher wage. So what you'll end up with is more welfare for businesses, who will make even more profit on the backs of the American people. MCD stock would triple. Instead of paying $7.50 min wage, they'll cut it to $2 and tell their workers it makes no difference because the govt will make up the difference. Maybe they'll make up for it with some other benefits or something. In any case, this approach would be nothing more than massive corporate welfare and would be subject to gross abuse. The minimum wage is paltry. If a business can't compete while still paying the nominal minimum wage then they are not fit for competition. Only those that work full time get assistance? What about the millions of people with disabilities who cannot work? Screw em?

exactly, the place my friend works at, Congress passed that law where if employers cut your hours back, u could claim unemployment for the time they cut back... guess what happened, they whole warehouse went to 4 9hr shifts a wk

it will be abused, just like how they abuse tips, like how they screw waitresses 2$ a hr plus tips

[itchypickle]

I don't see what is wrong with his statement...matter of fact Philly....you as a Ron Paul guy should applaud it....Paul is for FULL self reliance and not a net. Under Paul...if you don't work you don't eat.

Romney is basically saying he will focus on the mobility of the other 90% of us who are not eating noodles or driving a yacht at the other end. That is where policy decisions can have a real impact.

[PhillyFlyers]

I don't see what is wrong with his statement...matter of fact Philly....you as a Ron Paul guy should applaud it....Paul is for FULL self reliance and not a net. Under Paul...if you don't work you don't eat.

Romney is basically saying he will focus on the mobility of the other 90% of us who are not eating noodles or driving a yacht at the other end. That is where policy decisions can have a real impact.

Find the quote where Ron Paul says he's not concerned about the poor.

[andywend]

Think that through. The worker knows it doesn't matter if his employer pays him $1 or $7 an hour, that the govt will bridge the gap. The employer knows this too. So there is no incentive on either side to demand or negotiate a higher wage. So what you'll end up with is more welfare for businesses, who will make even more profit on the backs of the American people. MCD stock would triple. Instead of paying $7.50 min wage, they'll cut it to $2 and tell their workers it makes no difference because the govt will make up the difference. Maybe they'll make up for it with some other benefits or something. In any case, this approach would be nothing more than massive corporate welfare and would be subject to gross abuse.

So there isn't any gross abuse going on with the current welfare set-up? Did all businesses pay their employees 10c/hour before minimum wage laws took effect? While setting things up along the lines I described would take some tinkering, it would ensure that nobody would receive money for doing nothing. Its this reason why all socialized societies eventually fail.

The minimum wage is paltry. If a business can't compete while still paying the nominal minimum wage then they are not fit for competition.

You know NOTHING about running a business and very little about anything else. There's a reason why Apple outsources the vast majority of their labor to 3rd World China.

Only those that work full time get assistance? What about the millions of people with disabilities who cannot work? Screw em?

What specific disabilities make it unable for people to do any work at all? The vast majority of people currently on disability could work if they wanted too.

Having said that, my take on Romney was dead on and you did nothing to disprove it.

Your "take" on Romney is dead wrong and irrevelant. He has lived quite the "pure" life especially when compared to Obama or Gingrich. You are basing your worthless opinion about Romney solely based on the (R) that follows his name.

Turd, we both know you're never going to amount too much, so I understand why you feel about Romney the way you do.

[itchypickle]

30 years of Reaganomics has made us the LEAST socially mobile nation in the western world. Mr 1% Romney is going around saying "if only rich people and corporations can have everything instead of almost everything, then it will improve everyone else's situation as well". As if this has never been thought of before.

Good luck with that in the general.

A- I'm not a big Ronnie fan...

B- I think Obama has done fairly well in 30 years

Bill gates and other visionary types has progressed a long way

most people other than day laborers or mechanics or those types of fields who are in static compensation type careers have progressed just fine.....if you start at the entry level and EARN you raises and promotions you do just fine....this is who he was referring to.....if you just show up and clock out and don't try and advance...thats on you if you are left behind. .

Go too your high school reunion after 10 or 20 years....you'll see some who just settled for a 9-5 still struggling but those who had bigger plans have a family and disposable income....thats my point.

[itchypickle]

Philly - so Ron Paul is wrong huh? Just saw Paul's campaign guy on MSNBC defending Mitt's comments...also showed Paul himself in Vegas saying this is a non story and people who are talking about it "should instead have an adult conversation" so guess that settles that

[PhillyFlyers]

Philly - so Ron Paul is wrong huh? Just saw Paul's campaign guy on MSNBC defending Mitt's comments...also showed Paul himself in Vegas saying this is a non story and people who are talking about it "should instead have an adult conversation" so guess that settles that

You said: "Paul is for FULL self reliance and not a net. Under Paul...if you don't work you don't eat."

Show the Paul quote where he says he doesn't care abut the poor.

Show where he says if you don't work you don't eat.

Show where he says there should be no safety net.

[Hurls]

You said: "Paul is for FULL self reliance and not a net. Under Paul...if you don't work you don't eat."

Show the Paul quote where he says he doesn't care abut the poor.

Show where he says if you don't work you don't eat.

Show where he says there should be no safety net.

This would be a different story if half of the people that use this "safety net" are using it as a "lazy net" and think that they should be taken care of just because

[Shafted69]

Even conservatives are ripping into Mitt today ! lololololololololololol

OMG must be a blue moon outside! Rush Oxycontin Limpballs ripped into Mitt!

Mitt is the gaff machine is the gift that keeps on giving !

[dante1]

Even conservatives are ripping into Mitt today ! lololololololololololol OMG must be a blue moon outside! Rush Oxycontin Limpballs ripped into Mitt! Mitt is the gaff machine is the gift that keeps on giving !

He really is a rube, can you imagine this guy debating with Obama. It will be embarrassing. He better hope that before the debate he has a 10 point lead because he can very easily lose a ton of points after the debates.

[Waterstpub87]

[itchypickle]

You said: "Paul is for FULL self reliance and not a net. Under Paul...if you don't work you don't eat."

Show the Paul quote where he says he doesn't care abut the poor.

Show where he says if you don't work you don't eat.

Show where he says there should be no safety net.

He and his campaign manager defended Romney today....enough said. Paul today said of those talking about this which you are throwing out "need to have a more adult conversation" meaning you are juvenile and off the charts with non issues.

Read Paul's books and you will see his stance....individualism....entitlements are not rights....welfare at the federal level should be abolished and left to the states thereby giving people a choice of which state to reside in on basis of belief of these handouts....and so on. These are all Libertarian views.

You and your semantics again (of which Newt lost Florida so noone asked THE NOMINEE ROMNEY to drop out...so I'll be expecting payment of the next cycle of the bets pal).

You are saying Paul doesn't agree with Mitt here yet Paul is the only one defending it and not castigating him over it....what does that tell you? Read the recent article also on the weekly meetings between the Romney and Paul campaign staff partnering up so that Paul can give his voters the go ahead to support Mitt in the general. Confirmed his own manager today on the talk show....face it....Paul likes Mitt....7% can't win against 46-50%.....Paul is playing for a seat at the table of the Romney Administration.

[itchypickle]

Philly here you go...in his OWN words....

:55-1:30 is interesting enough but Dr Paul uses the EXACT words safety net and why he challenges its being at the 2:13-2:20 mark




Anything else? I can give you loadds...that took 30 seconds to find by guess what...MY OWN WORK not what the tv or blogs tells me to spout out You should try it sometime...keep your brain working and it makes wonders in the levels of objectivity you can gain.

[DwightShrute]

Good post and video Itchy - Of course someone will spin it to mean something else. Reasonable people know there is nothing wrong with what Romney and Paul said

[itchypickle]

Good post and video Itchy - Of course someone will spin it to mean something else. Reasonable people know there is nothing wrong with what Romney and Paul said

Some are so obsessed with these guys whether it be Obama or Paul that they lose all sense of logic and go into fits of rage at anything that doesn't keep them on a pedestal....it's pretty scary.

Romney was right on in the fact that the extremes of both ends of the financial scale will not be moved by his policy changes....it's the vast majority that he would focus on. But why let facts get in the way oof a good soundbite to keep a narrative going when the race is over for all intents and purposes.

[itchypickle]

Philly - another one...go to 1:22 mark "This idea of having a safety net is WRONG"

You don't really research your candidates well do you.

[DwightShrute]

Some are so obsessed with these guys whether it be Obama or Paul that they lose all sense of logic and go into fits of rage at anything that doesn't keep them on a pedestal....it's pretty scary.

Romney was right on in the fact that the extremes of both ends of the financial scale will not be moved by his policy changes....it's the vast majority that he would focus on. But why let facts get in the way oof a good soundbite to keep a narrative going when the race is over for all intents and purposes.

and these guys will attempt to discredit Romney at any turn but totally omit Obama's record. Maybe they think by doing so we will just forget. Not a chance

[dante1]

Being a reasonable guy I'll agree with you Dwight. Romney doesn't really need to worry about poor people because none of them will be able to vote anyway due to republican disenfranchisement.

Mr. Ferguson please allow me to sound like a R for one second. You're one smart son of a bitch for a truck driver. lol Said with tongue firmly in cheek.