news-record.com

BLOGS

Thinking Out Loud

Romney on the poor

If you ask me, Mitt Romney got a bum deal on his comment about poor people.

I think he could have chosen his words more carefully (especially since he's been pegged as a rich guy who's out of touch with regular people).

But he did speak of fixing holes in "the safety net" for the poor. I'm happy to see a Republican at least acknowledge the need for a safety net.

Yet I hope that wouldn't be all. Job-training programs, day care assistance and other self-help boosts provided by, yes, the government actually can help.

Yet, to be fair to Romney, none of the candidates in recent years (aside from the now-disgraced John Edwards) have even paid lip service to the poor, including President Obama.

It's all about the middle class, who are an endangered demographic. But the poor seem largely forgotten. Or when they're mentioned, they're disparaged for being poor.

Finally, a shout-out to Newt "Food Stamp" Gingrich for immediately pouncing on Romney.

Permalink

Posted by Allen Johnson on Thursday, February 2, 2012 at 9:18 am

This article has been closed to new comments. Comments are generally closed after 14 days. However, comments may be closed earlier at the discretion of the News & Record.

Inappropriate content? Please report abuse.

Advertisement | Advertise with Us

rooster8786

February 2, 2012 - 10:10 am EST

I checked the weather and it didn't say anything about Hades freezing over...

bbzeus14

February 2, 2012 - 12:40 pm EST

It seems to me that Mitt is saying, "Give me your tired, your poor..... but not your very tired and your very poor.!" And btw, remove the "R" in "Romney" and unscramble the letters. Yes, you'll get "money" -- somehing he has much of, and he quite understands those who don't! Maybe?

BillWright

February 2, 2012 - 2:02 pm EST

and if you rearrange Barak Obama, you get Am a bark boa- so what's your point?

terrier2003

February 2, 2012 - 2:29 pm EST

It seems to me that Mitt is saying that there are certain demographics of people (the uber poor and the uber rich) that he isn't concerned about in the immediate term as the rich can handle themselves and the poor do have safety nets in the form of entitlements. He acknowledged the need to fix the holes and make the safety nets more economical. But I see this as him focusing on the demographic of people that would have the largest impact on our domestic economy. You can't fix it all at once so i'm happy to see a man won't pander to everybody and says he wants to fix the middle class first before it is non-existant.

Allen Johnson

February 2, 2012 - 4:56 pm EST

Obama is doing likewise. And I agree, the middle class is in trouble.

Sawdust

February 2, 2012 - 7:05 pm EST

Obama is doing likewise? Surely you don't mean to say that Obama is doing something to help the middle class. What do you mean?

rooster8786

February 3, 2012 - 9:30 am EST

Obama has said he's doing something, therefore he is doing something, and the kool-aid drinkers keep lapping it up. You know, hope & change...

Sawdust

February 4, 2012 - 10:09 pm EST

Oh, that's right, he's making a hard pivot to job creation. But wasn't that last year? Or maybe the year before? He's made jobs his number 1 priority so many times it's impossible to keep track. The fool talks a good game, but when it comes to doing something to actually help the situation he misfires every time.

Doug Johnson

February 2, 2012 - 12:39 pm EST

Roster, yes it did, I agree with Mr. Johnson.
However, the conservatives and liberals, are on his case.
I think the point he was trying to make, that it's the working folks, that is getting hammered, right now.

Allen Johnson

February 3, 2012 - 2:23 pm EST

But you seem to suggest that very poor people don't work. Many do. Hence the term "the working poor."

nemo0037

February 2, 2012 - 2:25 pm EST

Sure, he said he'd be willing to fix anything that might be broken in the "safety net" for the poor, which tells ME that he has no clue about the current state of that net. Which the Republicans have been diligently shooting holes into for decades. Then again, there's this to consider:

http://www.cnn.com/2012/02/02/opinion/dolan-romney-poor/index.html?hpt=h...

If you take Romney's plans for the federal budget at face value, you might just as well incinerate that net. How's THAT for "fixing it"?

brian444

February 2, 2012 - 2:48 pm EST

With the exponential expansion in government-provided "self-help boosts" in the past half century, has self-help been boosted or has it deteriorated? As an empirical matter, are Americans better able to help themselves, or are they more dependent on external sources?

Until we are ready to answer that question honestly--and to recognize the multiply oxymoric and utterly counterfactual nature of "government-provided self-help boosts"--we will have less self-help, not more.

Allen Johnson

February 2, 2012 - 4:39 pm EST

That's easy for you to say.

Allen Johnson

February 2, 2012 - 4:45 pm EST

I'm sure your students who are in danger of losing Pell Grants wouldn't agree.

Sawdust

February 2, 2012 - 7:17 pm EST

It's kinda hard to have much sympathy for the "poor" when an overwhelming majority of them have TVs, a/c, cars, cell phones, microwaves, and the list goes on and on. Things that were considered luxuries or only owned by the wealthy just a couple of generations ago.

Allen Johnson

February 2, 2012 - 7:25 pm EST

Why? Would giving up a TV pay a hospital bill or rescue a foreclosed house?

Sawdust

February 4, 2012 - 10:01 pm EST

I'm just saying that a lot of so-called poor people don't have their priorities in order. Going around with the latest cell phone and wearing $100 sneakers while asking the taxpayers to foot any part of your bills doesn't generate much sympathy from the taxpayers.

Allen Johnson

February 6, 2012 - 10:23 am EST

Are you stating a fact or repeating a stereotype?

Panacea

February 3, 2012 - 5:28 pm EST

Many people who have fallen into the ranks of the poor used to be middle class. Even if they wanted to give up their "luxuries", they're probably not worth much.

TVs and microwaves can be gotten very cheaply at Wal Mart, or used. Don't assume all poor people have a/c. Many don't, or it doesn't work. Cell phones are dirt cheap and can be bought at Wal Mart.

I've been in the homes of a lot of poor people working for hospice; they don't live in a rose garden but they live as well as their means will let them. Heck, some people don't even have running water . . . still, in this day and age.

And the work fare requirements from the welfare reform act of 1996 are still in place. You still are limited to 5 years of benefits over your lifetime.

brian444

February 3, 2012 - 3:01 am EST

If we're talking about Pell Grants, it is easy for me to say because I paid my way through college by working and through scholarships (my parents paid my tuition bill for two semesters--around $1000 total).

I don't know what my students would say. If they said that Pell Grants taught them to help themselves, though, they'd be wrong. Because . . . someone else is paying for something they are getting. And with Pell Grants, they don't have to pay it back, unlike loans, which do teach self-help because they involve taking on a personal obligation to pay for the service being received.

There is an argument for a social safety net--at some level, a compelling one. That it teaches self-reliance is something only a liberal could believe.

overtaxed

February 3, 2012 - 4:43 am EST

The best thing the poor and middle class can do is educate themselves and quit believing that ANY politician gives a crap about them.

Watch and learn;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-PkWf9M3rUw&feature=related

Allen Johnson

February 3, 2012 - 9:07 am EST

Even when it comes to financial aid that allows students who might not otherwise go to college to attend?

Panacea

February 3, 2012 - 5:36 pm EST

I don't think my students would say their Pell Grants taught them to help themselves. I do think they would say it made their educations possible. And most of my students work at least 20 hours per week, even though we advise them not to (nursing education is so demanding that students who work more than 20 hours/week often fail academically) because they cannot afford not to work while in school.

And I understand that because I was in the same boat at one point in my life. My parents paid for my LPN education. After that, I was not eligible for Pell Grants. So when I went back for my RN, I had to either pay out of pocket (I did for my ADN) or get subsidized loans (which I did for my BSN) because I no longer qualified for a Pell Grant. I worked full time while getting both degrees, and it was tough, tough, tough.

Then, 4 months before I graduated with my BSN, my employer started cutting my hours due to low census. I had a car payment (was not an expensive car either), rent, needed food and gas. I lived on Ramen noodles and PBJ sandwiches for that two months (literally, I ate nothing else unless a friend invited me over for dinner) before I graduated and got another job in another state . . . and I had to get a salary advance from my new employer just to be able to rent a U Haul trailer and pay for gas, food, and a place to sleep while I made the four day drive.

I'm glad I only had to struggle with that situation for a few months. It's why I have sympathy for those who have to struggle with it for years.