Thursday, February 2, 2012

Mitt Romney does not care about poor people

The number of people receiving welfare benefits increased 68% under President Bush, 40% under President Obama.  Often we hear that Republicans cut funding from programs that help disadvantaged people (and they do...I'm just saying, the TRIO programs were depleted under the Bush administration, for example.) That does not mean they are as game for taking people off the government teat as they claim. From testimony to the House Ways and Means Committee given by Robert Rector:
This charge was remarkable given that total annual means-tested spending actually increased by 68 percent under President Bush. Not only did total spending increase, but virtually every category of welfare aid increased dramatically: Cash spending grew by 67 percent, medical spending by 72 percent, food spending by 89 percent, housing by 34 percent, energy by 76 percent, targeted education by 50 percent, child development by 52 percent, and community development by 50 percent.
Is this the face of the poor person that Romney
does not care about? 
The face of the poor is changing.  Although Mitt and Newt would like to paint the face of Welfare with the "urban welfare queen" image that their idol Ronald Reagan did in the 80s, it wasn't true then and it is not true now.

Let's just say the majority of welfare recipients look more like they are related to them, than to...me.

1 in 4 children in the US live in poverty. Joblessness and homelessness are a reality of the electorate.  Though unemployment has been decreasing, and job creation has increased under this administration. As a matter of fact under this Wikipedia job creation chart, the job creation edge (+ percentage change) goes to Democratic administrations overwhelmingly.

Job Creation chart under Democratic and Republican administrations from Wikipedia.org.
So when Mitt Romney spat out his latest gaffe, I wondered what he was thinking.  He spoke to CNN's Soledad O'Brien and during the interview he said he was not concerned with the "very poor".  He tried to clean it up by saying he isn't concerned with the very rich either.  To go more deeply he said that the poor had "safety nets" to help them, and where there are holes in those nets, he would work to fix them.


He went on to say Democrats would speak to the plight of the poor.  I mean...wait...what? Ok, that was a terrible move sir! In my limited foray into the media, I realize that everything you say can be chopped down into soundbites.  Which is good for marketing sometimes, but if you say something stupid in an interview, it will come back to bite you in the bum!

Now all of the Republican heavyweights (Yeah, Rushy boy you're getting chunky again...I see you ;) LOL) are weighing in on Mitt's latest gaffe. They, like many other people, know that Mitt is leading himself to the slaughter.  Politics these days are as cutthroat as they were back in the days of the Alien and Sedition Acts :)

Disable copy

ShareThis

Blog Archive

Black & Missing Foundation Inc