Damn straight, and I executed it perfectly this morning! After sleeping with my contacts in ('cause in a preceeding blonde moment I forgot to that them out, and had no idea I hadn't), I put in a second pair this morning (which, BTW, melded perfectly on top of the older pair). It took me, oh, 3 1/2 hours to figure out why I was incredibly farsighted today.Sue U wrote:Oh, right that's your job. Union rules and all ...
Romney - To Hell With The Poor
Re: Romney - To Hell With The Poor
“I ask no favor for my sex. All I ask of our brethren is that they take their feet off our necks.” ~ Ruth Bader Ginsburg, paraphrasing Sarah Moore Grimké
Re: Romney - To Hell With The Poor
Poor Mitt can't catch a break; first the left attacks him for not caring enough about the poor, and now the right attacks him for caring too much.
What's a poor little rich boy to do?
What's a poor little rich boy to do?
"Hang on while I log in to the James Webb telescope to search the known universe for who the fuck asked you." -- James Fell
Re: Romney - To Hell With The Poor
By the way, that whopping $10K is exactly the amount he was willing to toss away in a bet with Perry. Kind of tells you *exactly* what he values, doesn't it.Sue U wrote:Hahahaha, "bullshit." So, exactly what charitable contributions did Romney make to organizations working to alleviate poverty? More than half of his tax-deductible contributions went to the Mormon Church. Who else got money? The Friends of the George W. Bush Library (really? yes, really. $100,000.). The U.S. Equestrian Team Foundation (polo ponies need charity, too!). The Heritage Foundation, the Becket Fund (for "religious rights" legal aid), and the Federalist Society. Citizens for Limited Taxation (what a guy!). Oh, MS Cure and the Center for Treatment of Pediatric MS. (Incidentally -- or not -- Romney's wife has MS.) The Dana Farber Cancer Institute. Friends of the Belmont Council (apparently Romney's neigborhood association). The Belmont Hill School (where the Romney children attend). Harvard Business School. Home for Our Troops. I'm not suggesting that these are not necessarily worthy or charitable organizations, but they're hardly anti-poverty programs.dgs49 wrote:If he is unconcerned about the poor, why the fuck did he give a couple million dollars to charity last year?
This is bullshit.
The closest I have seen is his contributions to the Boys & Girls Clubs of Boston and Catholic Schools Foundation Inner City Scholarship Fund, which both got a whopping $10k. But "concern for the poor"? Really?
“I ask no favor for my sex. All I ask of our brethren is that they take their feet off our necks.” ~ Ruth Bader Ginsburg, paraphrasing Sarah Moore Grimké
Re: Romney - To Hell With The Poor
It's stories like these that give me hope that I'm doing alright...Guinevere wrote:Damn straight, and I executed it perfectly this morning! After sleeping with my contacts in ('cause in a preceeding blonde moment I forgot to that them out, and had no idea I hadn't), I put in a second pair this morning (which, BTW, melded perfectly on top of the older pair). It took me, oh, 3 1/2 hours to figure out why I was incredibly farsighted today.Sue U wrote:Oh, right that's your job. Union rules and all ...
Sometimes it seems as though one has to cross the line just to figger out where it is
Re: Romney - To Hell With The Poor
Oh I'm fine, but I admit, I can get a little blonder than typical when the Swede is in town. 
“I ask no favor for my sex. All I ask of our brethren is that they take their feet off our necks.” ~ Ruth Bader Ginsburg, paraphrasing Sarah Moore Grimké
Re: Romney - To Hell With The Poor
It seems to me that Romney is guilty of nothing more than a poor choice of words. I took what he said to mean, "The poor have a safety net but the other lot don't so I'm more concerned with getting something in place for them."
Makes sense in many ways...
Of course no journalist would EVER seize on that poor choice of words to make for a more sensational story...
Makes sense in many ways...
Of course no journalist would EVER seize on that poor choice of words to make for a more sensational story...
Why is it that when Miley Cyrus gets naked and licks a hammer it's 'art' and 'edgy' but when I do it I'm 'drunk' and 'banned from the hardware store'?
Re: Romney - To Hell With The Poor
If that was the only gaffe along those lines that he's made I'd might be inclined to agree.
But it's not.
Not by a longshot.
But it's not.
Not by a longshot.
Okay... There's all kinds of things wrong with what you just said.
Re: Romney - To Hell With The Poor
Oh no Sean, don't you know? This is a window into the soul of a cold and callous robber baron...It seems to me that Romney is guilty of nothing more than a poor choice of words. I took what he said to mean, "The poor have a safety net but the other lot don't so I'm more concerned with getting something in place for them."
I swear, in reviewing this thread, we've got some folks here who must be getting the daily talking points emails from the DNC, because it looks like they've been copying and pasting them and then hitting the send button....
Either that, or Wasserman-Shultz is secretly posting here under several handles....
Re: Romney - To Hell With The Poor
Romney is either a total liar or wholly unaware of the basic economic facts. The poverty rate is 15.1% and rising. There is no "95 percent in the middle". Only someone who didn't care would not know the facts or relate them honestly.
Romney is just like Bush. Borrow $290 Billion per year to give to the rich and give the debts to everyone else.
yrs,
rubato
Romney is just like Bush. Borrow $290 Billion per year to give to the rich and give the debts to everyone else.
yrs,
rubato
Re: Romney - To Hell With The Poor
Or, some of us have lived under his imperious reign before, and his other campaigns. We know him reasonably well. Sorry to burst your bubble LJ, but I haven't had time to read the emails from the party (and what I've scanned has still been mostly about Newtie). My comments here are all my own analysis.Lord Jim wrote:Oh no Sean, don't you know? This is a window into the soul of a cold and callous robber baron...It seems to me that Romney is guilty of nothing more than a poor choice of words. I took what he said to mean, "The poor have a safety net but the other lot don't so I'm more concerned with getting something in place for them."
I swear, in reviewing this thread, we've got some folks here who must be getting the daily talking points emails from the DNC, because it looks like they've been copying and pasting them and then hitting the send button....
Either that, or Wasserman-Shultz is secretly posting here under several handles....
“I ask no favor for my sex. All I ask of our brethren is that they take their feet off our necks.” ~ Ruth Bader Ginsburg, paraphrasing Sarah Moore Grimké
Re: Romney - To Hell With The Poor
Let's be honest, folks, there are very few people who ever run for president who are "in touch with" how normal people live, and none of them have any idea what it's like to be "poor" or "working poor." They may have started out that way (e.g. Santorum), but after a couple decades in the rarefied air of politics, their exposure is limited to what they can learn from listening to generally-chronic complainers in "Town Hall" meetings.
None of them seems to understand (and many here don't understand) that the beauty of this country (economically speaking) is that your economic status is NOT NECESSARILY FIXED. And that's it. There is no promise or guarantee of success, no guarantee that life will be better for you in time, or for your children. All that is guaranteed is that THE GOVERNMENT WON'T STAND IN YOUR WAY, if you have the talent, drive, and a bit of good fortune to get ahead. And Government might even help you along by providing you with a subsidized education to start you on your way, or helping you with a small business loan (although I personally would abolish the SBA).
When politicians see The Poor, they think they are looking at a group of people who are in a permanent and immutable unfortunate situation by pure serendipity, through no fault of their own, with no resource other than Gub'Mint to help them better themselves. When they look at The Rich, it's the same thing: it's pure luck that made them Rich, and it's permanent. The idea that people may have become poor or remained poor because they are lazy or made horrible choices or simply lack the talent to do anything that is economically valuable, is simply lost on politicians. And conversely, the idea that someone became Rich because of that individual's hard work, taking intelligent chances, or smart investments, is not even considered.
And because of this lack of basic understanding, they have no problem taking money from The Rich and redistributing it to The Poor. They have no problem punishing success through "progressive" taxation, or subsidizing failure through a cornucopia of costly government interventionist programs. Because if it's all luck or serendipity, that makes perfect sense. Resources SHOULD be redistributed.
But of course in the great majority of cases, people are rich, poor, or somewhere in the middle through their own merit or the lack of it.
I have no doubt that Mitt Romney has as much "compassion" for the poor as any of the other people running for office. As a Republican, however, his preferred method of manifesting that compassion is by promoting economic growth that will create opportunities for people at the bottom of the totem pole, rather than looking for more ways to confiscate wealth from the successful, so that it can be run through the inefficient machinery of Government and distributed to The Poor.
As LJ has stated above, the commentary from the Left about this unfortunate turn of phrase is completely unhinged, and only makes sense or appeals to those who wouldn't vote for Romney for the proverbial post of Dog Catcher.
None of them seems to understand (and many here don't understand) that the beauty of this country (economically speaking) is that your economic status is NOT NECESSARILY FIXED. And that's it. There is no promise or guarantee of success, no guarantee that life will be better for you in time, or for your children. All that is guaranteed is that THE GOVERNMENT WON'T STAND IN YOUR WAY, if you have the talent, drive, and a bit of good fortune to get ahead. And Government might even help you along by providing you with a subsidized education to start you on your way, or helping you with a small business loan (although I personally would abolish the SBA).
When politicians see The Poor, they think they are looking at a group of people who are in a permanent and immutable unfortunate situation by pure serendipity, through no fault of their own, with no resource other than Gub'Mint to help them better themselves. When they look at The Rich, it's the same thing: it's pure luck that made them Rich, and it's permanent. The idea that people may have become poor or remained poor because they are lazy or made horrible choices or simply lack the talent to do anything that is economically valuable, is simply lost on politicians. And conversely, the idea that someone became Rich because of that individual's hard work, taking intelligent chances, or smart investments, is not even considered.
And because of this lack of basic understanding, they have no problem taking money from The Rich and redistributing it to The Poor. They have no problem punishing success through "progressive" taxation, or subsidizing failure through a cornucopia of costly government interventionist programs. Because if it's all luck or serendipity, that makes perfect sense. Resources SHOULD be redistributed.
But of course in the great majority of cases, people are rich, poor, or somewhere in the middle through their own merit or the lack of it.
I have no doubt that Mitt Romney has as much "compassion" for the poor as any of the other people running for office. As a Republican, however, his preferred method of manifesting that compassion is by promoting economic growth that will create opportunities for people at the bottom of the totem pole, rather than looking for more ways to confiscate wealth from the successful, so that it can be run through the inefficient machinery of Government and distributed to The Poor.
As LJ has stated above, the commentary from the Left about this unfortunate turn of phrase is completely unhinged, and only makes sense or appeals to those who wouldn't vote for Romney for the proverbial post of Dog Catcher.