SleepinJeezus's picture

    The Poor Make Lousy Choices in Our Free Market Democracy


    I listened to NPR this morning as they attempted to give Romney every benefit of the doubt on his "I'm not concerned about the very poor" remark. They played the full comment. They replayed comments from his stump speeches. All of it an attempt to put this into some kind of context that would somehow make it all sound less aristocratic and heartless and cruel.

    It didn't work.

    But then again, ask yourself how many times in the State of the Union Address you heard Obama mention "poverty." Or "homelessness." Or "Hunger." Or "Crime." Or "Minority Imprisonment." Or anything else of relevance to the 4 in 10 CHILDREN in Milwaukee who live in poverty.

    I guess the poor need to step it up and get their own Super Pac and hire some better lobbyists.



    Maybe we could use Stephen Colbert's when he's done with it. We should ask John Stewart.

    Hi Sleepin!

    The President spent a good deal of time speaking of the poor at a Prayer Breakfast this morning. He was speaking of their dire straights and speaking of the responsibility of those better off with regard to poverty in this country.

    He speaks often about our national duty in this respect; to my recollection.

    There is no war on poverty of course and there is no good reason not to release 1/4 or more of our prison population tomorrow--with some strings of course!

    We do need 60 more Bernie Sanders in the Senate however as well as a couple hundred in the House.


    Hey there SJ!

    I guess the poor need to step it up and get their own Super Pac and hire some better lobbyists.

    We are their lobbyists!  When we stand up and speak out in support we have more power than any Super Pac!
    (I love NPR and PBS!  If I was ever within spittin' distance of those PAC contributors financial worth, I would make huge donations to both.)
    Thanks Sleepin'.

    Oddly -- OK, more like CRAZILY -- It was David Frum whom I heard on Diane Rehm: he said that politicians simply cannot speak what everyone knows is true because they would be screwed One example he gave: When Newt called Obama the "Food Stamp President" a courageous person might have responded thusly...

    Well, thank goodness we HAVE food stamps because with the economy as it is, people need help so that they won't go to bed hungry.

    I probably gave his comment more empathy than he expressed, but I did respect his basic point, which is that no republican can ever acknowledge that tax cuts for the richest and unending wars have created the mess we are in and increasing taxes WILL NOT STYMIE JOB GROWTH, nor will declining a war make us weak!

    I know I have gone off topic here, but as most of us realize, it is appalling how out of touch and punitive the republicans are toward the most unfortunate among us. Right, Mittens, the very poor and the wealthy are in the same boat, and so just try to convince the Middle Class that you give a fat Fu*k about anything except showing your father that you can get elected President.

    Seems pretty much on topic, CVille. I wonder if you saw the Diane Sawyer interview (don't know how far in advance it was planned, but the contrast between the contemporaneous interactions with the two women---Brewer, then Sawyer---intrigued me), but he handled the question on foodstamps quite well. First, the President doesn't personally award food stamps. Second (because you might not believe me) the program was last expanded under the Bush Administration.  

    Romney's comment is classic in that there are lots of interpretations and they are all bad. Even from a Republican standpoint he is supporting welfare---not as a temporary measure but as a permanent measure. He also undercuts any messaging about compassionate conservatism because his comments seemed aloof and callous. And his gaffes are making the political story about him instead of his opponents and Obama, which is the last thing he would want to do from a tactical point of view.  


    Latest Comments