• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Romney's Father was on Welfare

Taylor said:
His father did run. It didn't go nearly as well for George as it's going for Mitt.
Click to expand...

Oh I know he ran. Too bad he didn't win. I think he had more character than his son and so does his mother. But of course it was a different generation that could be why.
 
MaggieD said:
And just how many ways does it take to prove Romney made an idiotic statement?
Click to expand...

Let's face it, at this point in the election campaign either side is going to go for any perceived weakness and use it to bleed their opponent for all it's worth. Supposedly the battle now is focused on those still undecided voters who have apparently been residing in a cave for at least the last year. I highly doubt subtlety has much effect on them.
 
Just another example of conservative hypocrisy. The reason this is a big deal and matters is because it strikes at one of the largest complaints against conservatism. We see this continually, their "morals" are not consistent. Their morals are determined by what is best for them at the moment. Whatever benefits them is what is right.

They use the society everyone else built to rise up, once there they claim they owe nothing, everything is mine, I did all this by myself, to hell with society I got mine.

Just like with Paul Ryan being on welfare, it was ok for him but to hell with everyone else.

Romney's dad was on welfare, helped start their family, now that we got ours, to hell with everyone else.

Romney uses the system to dodge taxes but complains about others not paying taxes in the same system. He won't even release his taxes for people to see.


This is why intelligent people do not take conservatives seriously, its all just bs with the goal of getting more for yourself and less for everyone else without any regard whatsoever of what is fair or right because they are the party of no real morals.
 
Romney's 47% comments aren't going to hurt him in the polls. The most damaging thing on the tape was the Palestinian comment, and even that won't really erode his support.

The video didn't lose Romney the election, it lost him the debates. When it comes down to it, the election is going to be about handouts vs handups. Obama has pretty skillfully pushed Romney into expressing a lot of positions in order to pacify his base. Unfortunately for Romney, his base is pretty adamant on taking irrational self contradictory positions.

In the first debate, Romney's going to go on stage and call Obama the food stamp president, claiming that government handouts discourage work. All Obama has to do is ask about Romney's father. He was on welfare, did he get a handout or a handup? When they talk about foreign policy, Romney will accuse the President of mismanaging the middle east... And Obama will just bring up that Romney doesn't even believe there's a solution and can't manage so much as a press conference without upsetting our closest allies.

So these videos aren't going to be game changers as much as a solidifying event. If Romney was ahead, he'd probably remain ahead... Unfortunately he's behind.
 
MaggieD said:
And just how many ways does it take to prove Romney made an idiotic statement?
Click to expand...


I don't know, why don't you ask the right when they drum on to death about the "You didn't build it" speech taken out of context.
 
Romney owes his success at least in part to his father, and apparently his father owes at least some of his success to the public, who no doubt owe at least some to corporate job-creators (who do exist, even if Romney was not one). It all comes around full circle eventually. Which is why class warfare (from EITHER side) is just society shooting itself in the foot. Just like our government, a system of economic checks and balances is needed for our country to function. We need both capitalism and welfare.
 
Jeeze my God, really?

Ok, I'm a successful guy but I was once on welfare for a short time in my early life post college. For about 5 months I collected a check (In Canada) while I was looking for work. That's what Welfare is for, and Romney has NEVER said that he opposes welfare or safety nets at all. Like most republicans and UNLIKE democrats, especially Obama, what we oppose is the ease at which one can receive it, and how easy it is to defraud it and continue to stay on it. Welfare, like unemployment and food stamps are there to help you out while you're in transition to self reliance. It has never been a means of stable income, and sadly for many in this country it is their only income, and they're just fine living off what they get.

Because welfare has become institutionalized, it has created an entire generation of a class of people that are forever bound to it. The concept of welfare, only works in theory, and only when certain specific and enforcable measures are taken to restrain the natural tendancies of man. It, like it has in many western societies, can only work at all, in practice, when the nations are wealthy enough to support the exponetial growth that naturally occurs. It becomes increasingly dangerous when those societies are democratic, as we are beginning to realize with crystal clear clarity now in 2012.


Tim-
 
Quag said:
I dont think Mitt`s father being on welfare makes it worse except in the eyes of people looking for something, anything to try and make Romney look worse. Again I can`t see how this will change anyones mind about Romney. Romney`s remarks may change their minds but his father being on welfare? I don`t think so.
Click to expand...
you assume the OP was posted with the intent of changing anyone's mind
if that is what you are expecting, you have found the wrong forum
 
Hicup said:
Jeeze my God, really?

Ok, I'm a successful guy but I was once on welfare for a short time in my early life post college. For about 5 months I collected a check (In Canada) while I was looking for work. That's what Welfare is for, and Romney has NEVER said that he opposes welfare or safety nets at all. Like most republicans and UNLIKE democrats, especially Obama, what we oppose is the ease at which one can receive it, and how easy it is to defraud it and continue to stay on it. Welfare, like unemployment and food stamps are there to help you out while you're in transition to self reliance. It has never been a means of stable income, and sadly for many in this country it is their only income, and they're just fine living off what they get.

Because welfare has become institutionalized, it has created an entire generation of a class of people that are forever bound to it. The concept of welfare, only works in theory, and only when certain specific and enforcable measures are taken to restrain the natural tendancies of man. It, like it has in many western societies, can only work at all, in practice, when the nations are wealthy enough to support the exponetial growth that naturally occurs. It becomes increasingly dangerous when those societies are democratic, as we are beginning to realize with crystal clear clarity now in 2012.


Tim-
Click to expand...

Isn't still required for the head of household to be employed within two years of receiving cash benefits and a family is limited to five years total coverage? While that may have seemed a long time when the standards were enacted we have seen people who held long term, well paying jobs who have had no success finding new employment despite years of trying. Sorry, but your rationalization sounds the same as Mitt's. It was OK when it was of benefit to me or my family but now it is an unacceptable burden. Not everyone has the option of moving back in with mom and dad as you could have presumably done if your job search failed and your benefits were terminated.
 
Loki97 said:
Sounds like someone is upset a Republican got caught in another example of hypocrisy. Do you think Mitt was unaware that his father ever received welfare or is this another example of the double standard where it was justified in this one case and never any other?
Click to expand...

Mitt Romney is a hypocrite because his father's family had some unknown but extremely short lived temporary assistance when when he (Mitt's father) was two years old?

I think it sounds a lot more like you and the media are just desperately trying to fling mud in all directions.
 
Most people who obtain welfare don't stay on it for long. The vast majority (even accounting for the fact that more than half of welfare recipients are children) do not receive assistance for more than a year. The image of welfare queens simply isn't true. There are very very few people who live like that. The image that Romney and his cohorts want to put forth of a parasitic underclass is a fiction. The mystical 47% who don't pay income tax (many of whom are retired seniors, and I'm not including them in the following assertion) probably did pay it two years ago, and will pay it again two years from now. As Hicup said in his post, one year he was part of that group. The next, he wasn't. There is not some homogeneous body of people mooching off of the government. Many who are in that position are only there temporarily. But while many who are there today won't be tomorrow, some else will be down on their luck tomorrow. It is a fluid status.

Romney's dad was once part of that status. Okay. That's nothing to be ashamed of. Except that Romney and his ilk and trying to paint a picture of an America where it IS something to be ashamed of, and where it is an act of selfish duplicity to obtain financial assistance from welfare programs. And a picture where people do not enter and leave that position, but where it is a lifelong choice. The truth is a far cry from this image.
 
Donahue said:
Mitt Romney is a hypocrite because his father's family had some unknown but extremely short lived temporary assistance when when he (Mitt's father) was two years old?

I think it sounds a lot more like you and the media are just desperately trying to fling mud in all directions.
Click to expand...

Obviously Mitt's mother knew about it since she was the one who mentioned it in the filmed interview. It's called people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. Mitt wants to look down his nose at those receiving public aid when it turns out (and was no great mystery) that the man who set him up financially was a welfare beneficiary. Conservatives get so bitter when their own hypocrisy and incompetence at running a campaign turns around to bite them.
 
Loki97 said:
Obviously Mitt's mother knew about it since she was the one who mentioned it in the filmed interview. It's called people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. Mitt wants to look down his nose at those receiving public aid when it turns out (and was no great mystery) that the man who set him up financially was a welfare beneficiary. Conservatives get so bitter when their own hypocrisy and incompetence at running a campaign turns around to bite them.
Click to expand...

I'm not really sure what any of that has to do with anything said.

More to the point, I'm not really sure where Mitt has looked down on anyone. He merely said those people will not vote for him; which, for the most part, is true.
 
Donahue said:
I'm not really sure what any of that has to do with anything said.

More to the point, I'm not really sure where Mitt has looked down on anyone. He merely said those people will not vote for him; which, for the most part, is true.
Click to expand...
i disagree. let's look at what he said and whether he actually expressed disdain for the 47%
... There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That that's an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. ...
Click to expand...
 
justabubba said:
i disagree. let's look at what he said and whether he actually expressed disdain for the 47%
Click to expand...

Which part is looking down on them?

That they are going to vote for the POTUS?

That they feel they're entitled to food?

That they feel they government should give it to them?

I suppose I do tend to look down on people who believe that sort of stuff but he's merely stating what they believe in and pretty correctly too, IMO. It's not like he delved into the realm of lunacy and said anything too controversial.
 
I think Romney's statement was valid in its overall context. Anybody who didn't pay taxes in 2011, even if that is a temporary condition, is far less likely to vote for Romney because it will be hard to identify with a guy who paid $3millon in taxes and wants to change the laws so he won't even have to pay that.

That doesn't mean that 47% will vote for Obusha. Many won't vote at all. What Romney said to a group of millionaires who are lusting for less taxes was an appropriate statement. If it hadn't been recorded it would have been the right thing to say to this group in order to get donations and energize his base.
 
Donahue said:
Which part is looking down on them?

That they are going to vote for the POTUS?

That they feel they're entitled to food?

That they feel they government should give it to them?

I suppose I do tend to look down on people who believe that sort of stuff but he's merely stating what they believe in and pretty correctly too, IMO. It's not like he delved into the realm of lunacy and said anything too controversial.
Click to expand...

If you really believe the tone and context of that statement weren't condescending and intended to portray 47% of America as a burden on the magnificent affluent then you are truly naive. luckily I don't think that naiveté encompasses anywhere near the number of voters Romney would need to dig himself out of this hole.
 
Quag said:
Ahh so political hackery, seriously looking for a gotcha moment, like Obama saying you didn`t build that.
I meant what difference does it make, not what difference can people spin this into to pretending it`s important.
Click to expand...
I don't think anyone is looking for a gotcha moment with Romney anymore. They pretty much have a ton of them. this is just an amusing point.
 
tererun said:
I don't think anyone is looking for a gotcha moment with Romney anymore. They pretty much have a ton of them. this is just an amusing point.
Click to expand...

Same thing with Palin, every time she embarrassed herself with her ignorance they spun it as some kind of unfair attack conjured out of nowhere.

Its all bs, look at all the apologists in this thread. Romney could say black people are criminals and they'd find excuses for him. "He didn't say ALL black people are criminals"... etc.
 
Gosh, makes me wonder what Mitten's going to say tomorrow.
 
areafiftyone said:
BuzzFeed finds an amazing 1962 video in which Lenore Romney talks about why her husband George would be a good governor of Michigan in part because he was once "on relief -- welfare relief -- for the first years of his life."


POLITICAL WIRE

Here's the video:

Click to expand...



Mexican welfare???

Is this story accurate?
 
johnny_rebson said:
Mexican welfare???

Is this story accurate?
Click to expand...

Yes. George Romney's parents were Mormon dissenters who fled to Mexico in resistance to the Federal ban on polygamy. The family was on the relief rolls for awhile after returning to the States.

I don't think it's as bad as it's being made out to be; I'd probably have done the same if I were in such dire straits. It does make Romney look a bit hypocritical, but then I think we're used to that.
 
justabubba said:
you assume the OP was posted with the intent of changing anyone's mind
if that is what you are expecting, you have found the wrong forum
Click to expand...

I just don`t think this is even newsorthy let alone relevant. that is my point.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom