Why don't you tell us what you really think, wannabe president Romney?
Response from the Obama Campaign:
CHICAGO – “It’s shocking that a candidate for President of the United States would go behind closed doors and declare to a group of wealthy donors that half the American people view themselves as ‘victims,’ entitled to handouts, and are unwilling to take ‘personal responsibility’ for their lives. It’s hard to serve as president for all Americans when you’ve disdainfully written off half the nation.” – Jim Messina, Obama for America Campaign Manager
22 comments:
I'm in the 5% he's looking for in this election. I REFUSE to cast my vote for Romney and Ryan.
I agree with him. Although his percentage might be 10% high...
Truth hurts?
I agree with him. Salutations from the Entitlement Nation!
Huey Long is alive and well and living in the White House.
Sure you agree with him Vonster. He was speaking to his base.
Are you relieved to now find out that your candidate Romney does in fact feel as strongly about "entitlements" as you do?
The base was beginning to doubt that he was the guy. The base was loosing momentum. How timely that this "secret" video would come out now. AND it's really surprising that he stands by these statements.NOT
Is this the part where we are all supposed to run out and be indignant and call him racist? Is this the part where he truly begins to stoke the fires of a race and culture war in America?
Red meat for base - where before there had been none.
I am not in favor of welfare either because I feel it is not good for people to become dependent on government, etc. HOWEVER, Romney and Republicans just saying they are against welfare doesn't tell us what they plan to do to end it. If extreme poverty is the result they intend, then they should state that. If they wish to put all these people to work, they should make clear where all these jobs are--the jobs for a more than likely unskilled labor force--people who once could have been employed through the factory system that has now mostly disappeared.
Am I being naive? or could all people currently on welfare be employed immediately if government financial help was no longer available?
Republicans should make clear who, if anyone, is actually worthy or in need of financial help--the old, the disabled, who--make it clear and show us that you do have compassion for those who simply can't provide for themselves.
Yes, I am all for the able bodied being part of the work force--where are the jobs?
... And there you have it. Well said Sharon.
Jobs require skills, responsibities, and commitment - things not required to pick up a gov't check. Today's paper has all kind of jobs listed - but they might require a drug test. Why work for close to minimum wage and "live in poverty" when you can rely on Fed and state support, DO NOTHING, and receive pretty much the same lifestyle? Clinton did more to help (push) up the disadvantaged by REDUCING availability to aid and setting expectations than any recent Prez, current included. Our nation won't survive if we think 51% should be providing for 49%. Some simple set of "civic expectations" should come with all gov't aid. Not civic? No aid.
yes sharon thet is right on. I could never vote for Romney. He has no understanding of in his own words nearly half our population. I am one of the 5% he is looking for and I am afraid he will be dissappointed. Obama is a good person and that is what I look for in a President. Romney straps his dog on the top of his car and travels 200 miles stopping only to clean the dog puke off his back window and he beat up gay kids in his high school. Not my idea of a stellar human being. My vote will go for the idealistic but human guy.
David Brooks in today's NY Times has some interesting
input on the Romney comments
I was also surprised to see Bill Kristol refer to the Romney comments as "arrogant and stupid."
Sharon, please read the Brooks article and note the "assistance" is far from merely "welfare."
Perhaps more concerning to me is the Romney assertion in the same meeting concerning foreign policy wherein he says "...the Palestinians have no interest whatsoever in establishing peace, and that the pathway to peace is almost unthinkable to accomplish..." He later followed with "I got a call from a former secretary of state. I won't mention which one it was, but this individual said to me, you know, I think there's a prospect for a settlement between the Palestinians and the Israelis after the Palestinian elections. I said, 'Really?' And, you know, his answer was, 'Yes, I think there's some prospect.' And I didn't delve into it."
He's running for POTUS and hears from a former Secy. of State about some prospect of Mid-East resolution and he doesn't "delve into it".
Hardly what I like to hear about an attitude from a Presidential candidate concerning one of the greatest powderkegs in the world
(Lest I be accused of selective editing the full excerpt of his comments on that issue:
I'm torn by two perspectives in this regard. One is the one which I've had for some time, which is that the Palestinians have no interest whatsoever in establishing peace, and that the pathway to peace is almost unthinkable to accomplish. Now why do I say that? Some might say, well, let's let the Palestinians have the West Bank, and have security, and set up a separate nation for the Palestinians. And then come a couple of thorny questions. And I don't have a map here to look at the geography, but the border between Israel and the West Bank is obviously right there, right next to Tel Aviv, which is the financial capital, the industrial capital of Israel, the center of Israel. It's—what the border would be? Maybe seven miles from Tel Aviv to what would be the West Bank…The other side of the West Bank, the other side of what would be this new Palestinian state would either be Syria at one point, or Jordan. And of course the Iranians would want to do through the West Bank exactly what they did through Lebanon, what they did near Gaza. Which is that the Iranians would want to bring missiles and armament into the West Bank and potentially threaten Israel. So Israel of course would have to say, "That can't happen. We've got to keep the Iranians from bringing weaponry into the West Bank." Well, that means that—who? The Israelis are going to patrol the border between Jordan, Syria, and this new Palestinian nation? Well, the Palestinians would say, "Uh, no way! We're an independent country. You can't, you know, guard our border with other Arab nations." And now how about the airport? How about flying into this Palestinian nation? Are we gonna allow military aircraft to come in and weaponry to come in? And if not, who's going to keep it from coming in? Well, the Israelis. Well, the Palestinians are gonna say, "We're not an independent nation if Israel is able to come in and tell us what can land in our airport." These are problems—these are very hard to solve, all right? And I look at the Palestinians not wanting to see peace anyway, for political purposes, committed to the destruction and elimination of Israel, and these thorny issues, and I say, "There's just no way." And so what you do is you say, "You move things along the best way you can." You hope for some degree of stability, but you recognize that this is going to remain an unsolved problem. We live with that in China and Taiwan. All right, we have a potentially volatile situation but we sort of live with it, and we kick the ball down the field and hope that ultimately, somehow, something will happen and resolve it. We don't go to war to try and resolve it imminently. On the other hand, I got a call from a former secretary of state. I won't mention which one it was, but this individual said to me, you know, I think there's a prospect for a settlement between the Palestinians and the Israelis after the Palestinian elections. I said, "Really?" And, you know, his answer was, "Yes, I think there's some prospect." And I didn't delve into it.)
I am for welfare as people can walk a fine line from paycheck to needing help. Career welfare is not as big a problem as reprieved though. I can see why a person say with 2 kids on welfare would want the most for his/her family and working a min wage job may mean less for them so welfare is where they stay. Skills needed for good jobs are out there to be had but many people lack transportation and the childcare they need to head off to get those skills. It is done and more now than ever thanks to CLINTON who did the most to reform welfare than any President since. With the help of a GOP Congress welfare wasn't the cream it was before as people had to work or at least get training or lose the benefits. Yes there are cheats out there but then if you want to weigh the cheats, consider the corporations and rich people who cheat the system too. Don't forget the farm handouts and gov't handouts to the oil industry. This is free money from the government too!
This whole welfare issue doesn't seem to have a magic button to fix and the stereotyping of people on welfare is going to be hard to beat. The GOP has no plan but to cut benefits and let the chips fall where they may. If they get in power and do this, then you can count on a whole new sub culture that will do anything to survive. Crime will jump 10 fold as people will get desperate. So when I consider welfare, I don't think it is what is driving this country in debt. More like the corporate greed, the defense machine, and politicians with their hands in pockets. If they caught every single welfare cheat and took them off the dole, it wouldn't put a dent in the debt. No, welfare, police, fire, and teachers have not driven this country to bankruptcy. The policies of the GOP and Bush era did.
If they shifted 10% of the defense budget to the care of the people, we easily could pay for welfare and healthcare.
A vote for the GOP from a middle income to poor person is like a chicken hugging Col Sanders.
He didn't "delve into it." Really, what kind of foreign policy is that?
Didn't we just hear him and his boy Ryan complaining about President Obama kicking the can down the road on foreign policy? Here we have him on video saying that is actually all one can do in these types of situations:
"...and these thorny issues, and I say, "There's just no way." And so what you do is you say, "You move things along the best way you can." You hope for some degree of stability, but you recognize that this is going to remain an unsolved problem."
Spikeless, I don't have time this minute to read the article, but I will. However, I almost spoke to the issue that you brought up. Yes, I know there are many programs--not just the welfare system itself--that offer aid to people. I do believe that there is an "opportunity" for people to double dip, so to speak, in the system and get more help than needed while others go without. I don't begin to know what kind of clearinghouse would have to be put in place to check out if the system is being abused. I agree with much of what Randall has said.
our council candidate states "not as big a problem as repreived...." Guess those catholic educations fail NCLB also... :)
Randall pretty much said it all for me as well. With the current state of the economy, if skilled laid-off workers and educated college graduates are having trouble finding a decent job...how can conservatives expect poor folks who may have little education and/or no job skills, to get a job? Used to be fast-food places and such was where teens could get their 1st job experience. Nowadays, middle-age folks are having to work there because they were downsized.
Romney is stoking the fires of a race and culture war?? LOL
I'm fine with helping out people who are least trying to help themselves. Career welfare, as has been mentioned, and the mindset that thinks it's OWED to them, is what gripes me.
What I said was; welfare cheats are not as big as a problem as we perceive meaning while there are cheats not everyone on welfare is cheating. Don't go all GOP over my words.
And it is completely disingenuous to suggest the GOP thinks all welfare recipients are cheats.
But that's what the MSM would tell you...
I recently had a friend tell me that her daughter (welfare recipient) needed $50 to pay her cable bill. She said her daughter would trade her cash for groceries from her LINK card. I told my friend that I hoped she wouldn't do that because that is FRAUD. My friend stated that EVERYONE with a LINK card does this....Hmmmmmm! Remember, that LINK card is MY TAX money....
Everyone? Every single one? Yes some people do but not everyone. Although Fox News will tell you that
No, they don't.
Post a Comment