Video: Mitt Romney Says "I’m Not Concerned With The Very Poor"
GOP frontrunner Mitt Romney appeared on CNN this morning to say that he was not concerned with the very rich or the very poor, claiming the latter had ample social safety nets (video below).
But he failed to mention his proposed tax cuts favor wealthy investors, while the number of impoverished Americans grows.
Romney said: "I’m not concerned with 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 the America."
"The challenge right now, we will hear from the Democrat party the plight of the poor. And there’s no question it’s not good being poor. And we have a safety net to help those that are very poor, but campaign is focused is on middle-income Americans. My campaign, you can choose where to focus. You can focus on the rich, that’s not my focus. You can focus on the very poor, that’s not my focus."
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
Sign-Up Now for the Opposing Views Daily Newsletter
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
It doesnt matter. Obama will destroy the economy, and the republicans are big business pawns. Both sides suck and have for decades.
Im voting for the jerk who doesnt have any interest in taking my guns away so when whichever side has their idiot savant in the WH when the economy finally goes south I can defend my family from the rioting mobs.
Sounds reasonable until we realize that the "safety net" is not really all it's cracked up to be. It has holes that he will not fix anymore than any other Republican has, or even attempted to fix. His party is known for trying to eliminate the "safety net", or place so many restrictions on it that it becomes useless.
The United States is a country,not a business, and you cannot run a country like a business. The goals of each are too different, as are the means to achieve those goals.
"It has holes that he will not fix anymore than any other Republican has" Are you kidding me? The Republicans intentionally put those holes in. They're not going to fix it because they want it broken.
Did you even READ the rationale I gave?!
You mean where you said "The problem is people just will not GET OFF the "safety net" unless they are FORCED off. They're just too LAZY."?
Yes, I read it and it's crap. Sure, there are some people who are just lazy and want to live off the government but they are a relatively tiny percentage. With the current recession most people living on food stamps work 1-3 jobs but still don't make enough to feed themselves. Most people on government subsidized insurance work 1-3 jobs that don't offer insurance and don't make enough to afford it on the open market. The number of people in these situations are rising dramatically as more companies stop providing insurance and continue to lower wages as fast as they can.
That's just the people who have work but there are currently 5 people looking for work for every available job. Even if they filled every available job we'd still have millions of people who want to work but can't. These people aren't lazy. They're doing everything they can to support themselves and their families. To cut off the assistance that allows them to feed their family would be heartless and while heartlessness may be a key foundation of the Republican platform I believe we live in a better country than that.
We're not heartless-we just don't think charity is the government's business-rather, it's for the PRIVATE sector.
But the Constitution says "promote the general welfare...".
WHERE did I say "GENERAL WELFARE"?! I said CHARITY.
You didn't say general welfare. The constitution says that the governments responsibility is to provide for the general welfare of American citizens.
Also, it's nice to say that the private sector and private citizens will provide for the poor through charity but we already tried that. The government got involved in taking care of the indigent because American citizens were tired of seeing the poor starve to death on the streets.
So, as you ADMIT, YOU TRIED TO DERAIL the conversation. Also, any PROOF the charities weren't taking care of the poor, or are you just throwing out an assertion without EVIDENCE?!