Romney had better be concerned about the poor
Barb ShellyMitt Romney is right to implore that his “I’m not concerned about the poor” remark be taken in context.
What he actually said in a CNN interview yesterday was, “I’m not concerned about the very poor. 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 to 95 percent of Americans who right now are struggling.”
In my view, the whole slice isn’t a whole lot better than the sound bite.
The leading GOP presidential contender seems to think that because we have things like Medicaid, housing vouchers and food stamps, everything is hunky-dory down at the bottom of the heap.
But if he becomes president, as indeed he might, Romney is going to have to become concerned about the poor. He’s going to have to worry about the failing schools their kids attend and the lack of job opportunities in their crumbling neighborhoods and the fact that they fall prey so easily to payday lenders and for-profit “colleges” and other predatory elements of the great American economy.
The Obama administration doesn’t deserve any trophies for the way it has treated the very poor either, by the way.
As for repairing the safety net, easier said than done. Has Romney not witnessed the resistance that accompanies any kind of federal aid for the poor?
It’s hard to feel much sympathy for Romney’s contextual problem. A few months ago, his campaign released an ad that has Barack Obama saying, “If we keep talking about the economy, we’re going to lose.”
Obama did say that during his first campaign, but he was quoting an aide to Sen. John McCain, his Republican opponent. Now that’s taking a remark out of context. Romney and his campaign have never apologized for that ad. But, in light of the GOP candidate’s current problems, they might be feeling just a tad sorry.
Google+
Share
Tweet
Kent Mueller
3 months, 2 weeks agoBarb, the best thing any president can do for any member of any class is to advance an environment that fosters opportunity. That involves ensuring we have a tax code that makes sense, which we don’t. That involves keeping the federal government from meddling and unnecessarily impeding the private sector, which it does.
Not any of the situations you listed is, or should be, a federal responsibility. Those are local issues that should be tended to by local governments.
To wit, failing schools. Only a very stretch of an interpretation of the Commerce Clause and an ignoring of the tenth amendment even allows the Dept. of Education to exist. I would think you, of all people, would want the feds to stay away. As recently as this week you continue to damn any attempt for state involvement in the KCSD. You are adamant that local control remain. But you want the federal government to be involved in the KCPS? Why? You said “failing schools”. How could you not be talking about the KCPS? The federal government has no business being involved in schools. The state constitution ensures state involvement, and school districts are rightly local institutions.
Crumbling neighborhoods? What on earth can be done from Washington? Time and time again federal money goes into neighborhoods and is wasted. Just look at the money wasted on Cleaver’s so called green zone. There is no question that has been mishandled, even if it should have ever been undertaken. And if so, it needed to be a local effort.
Pay day lenders and for profit colleges? Those are local issues, Barb.
The issues you mentioned are legitimate issues….for local officials. We don’t need the President of the United State to wake up in the morning in order to go and work on local school districts.
George Harris
Kansas City
3 months, 2 weeks agoWhether the poor are a federal responsibility or not is a matter of interpretation. Romney, apparently, believes it is a federal responsibility, otherwise he would not have talked about fixing the safety net. Assuring that everyone has an opportunity sounds great, but the reality is that many of our population are impaired in some way, physically or mentally, and cannot act on opportunity. It’s difficult to determine exactly in every case who does and who does not have the ability to take care of themselves, but there’s no question that many can’t. Romney hasn’t seen them in his world and doesn’t understand why everyone can’t be a venture capitalist. He regularly confirms the accuracy of the perception that he is out of touch with a large section of America.
George Hunsucker
Northland
3 months, 2 weeks agoMaybe Romney can get some pointers from our food stamp president, jimmy ii????
Kent Mueller
3 months, 2 weeks agoGeorge…the fact is that the feds are involved in the safety net, however that is to be defined. The question is to what extent should the involvement be, and in what areas.
I understand there are people who cannot help themselves. And Romney knows that,too. I’m not sure on what basis you say he has not “seen” people in need. I’m not sure how one even qualifies as have “seen” them. Let’s be honest, even Obama’s time in a soup kitchen has been limited to photo ops and the earning of his “bona fides”. While it is true that I want our elected officials to understand the problems,I don’t want to eliminate successful people from contention simply because they haven’t spent half their life in East LA, or even east of Troost.
Regardless, back to my original point. The issues Barb listed shouldn’t even be on the president’s agenda. They should be on the agendas of various combinations of state, county and city governments along with local school districts.
George Hunsucker
Northland
3 months, 1 week agoI agree Kent…
Did u think I wouldn’t? :)
Chuck Close
3 months, 1 week agoI hate to be as brutally and bluntly candid as I am here, Barb, but Romney is spot on.
If he does not tend to the perilous needs of the 70% in the middle with job opportunities, the treasury revenue stream will dry up and we as a nation will have almost no choice but to ignore the poorest of the poor.
The democrats have committed to test Thatcher’s famed proclamation that socialism is great until you run out of other peoples money. Onama has run out of money on his march to the rose colored mountain top.
Our current faux president has no clue how business really works. He has “community activist” perceptions of what constitutes fair profit and extra constitutional hubris in his outrageous assault on the rule of law and rights of the private sector (individual).
In a nutshell, he has proven himself to be incapable of leading our private economy out of the rut we are in. Romney has exhibited…..proven…..that he can do that.
Still, he proved it in a different time. In a different economic climate.
We have hope if Romney wins. We are toast if Obama wins. That simple…..and please Barb……spare us the sanctimonius poppycock about contextual comparisons…..it’s politics…. and no one in American political history ever invested more time and more money on negative “out of context” 30 second distorting ads than Obama did in ‘08.
Mark Hastert
3 months, 1 week agoLike the saying goes.. if things keep going like this pretty soon the only thing the poor will have to eat…..is the rich.
Kent Mueller
3 months, 1 week agoGeorge….I was addressing the earlier George….