http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/0 ... 47998.html
Of course, everyone is flipping a shit about Romney saying that he's not concerned for the very poor. The fact that he ALSO said he's not concerned for the very rich seems to be lost on everyone. The exact context of the quote was him saying that he was most concerned for the middle class. He specifically stated that his focus was to prevent the middle class from becoming the very poor in the first place.
Of course, he'll be characterized as the great satan because of this.
Weeeell yes and no I dont actually recall him mentioning the middle class in the interview but even in context the statement is off. He mentioned that the very poor have a safety net, well as Jon Stewert pointed out "being in a net is bad" wether or not you repair said holes the very poor and poverty stricken are the ones who need the most help and should be a top priority for a commander in chief along with the middle class. I agree with you that yes its important to prevent the middle class from becoming the very poor but the statement shows a rather disturbing disconnect.
Yes, being in a net is bad...which is why he said he wants to strengthen the middle class, because if people don't become very poor in the first place the net isn't an issue.
This situation reminds me of a quote from Dom Helder Camara about the poor: "When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist."
What he wants to do is prevent people from ever GETTING poor at all; We can upgrade poverty help all we like, but if we're increasing how many people need that help, we're in a downward spiral that is impossible to sustain.
Personally, I'd prefer a president who was concerned with his job rather than any group at all. It's the job of congress to look after the people directly. The president has no legislative powers for a reason; his job is to manage the bureaucracy and deal with diplomacy. Half the damn problem here is that every new president wants to legislate and half the legislators want to be the president, and the supreme court hates both.
Now Im pretty sure that he isnt using the Camara quote in its proper context. I want to say that even after all that the statement is still wrong as it assumes that the very poor and very rich are somehow on equal footing and it shows a disconnect but Im having trouble thinking of a way to properly articulate it perhaps Im missing something else?