Thread: Cons are right: Romney's words aren't insensitive--they are lies

Last week, when Mitt Romney strung together the words "I don't care about the very poor" and "I don't care about the rich," many conservatives here and across the country howled that those words were taken out of context. But even if we listen carefully to everything he said in that interview--that he approves of a social safety net and would 'fix it' if he found it inadequate, and that the very wealthy don't need help--his words don't make sense compared with his actual proposals:

Where to begin?

First, a report from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities last month pointed out that Romney’s budget proposals would take a chainsaw to that safety net. The report points out that cuts proposed by Romney would be even more draconian than a plan from Representative Paul Ryan: “Governor Romney’s budget proposals would require far deeper cuts in nondefense programs than the House-passed budget resolution authored by Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan: $94 billion to $219 billion deeper in 2016 and $303 billion to $819 billion deeper in 2021.”

What does this mean for specific programs? Let’s take the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, since “food stamps” have been such a talking point in the Republican debates. The report says the Romney plan “would throw 10 million low-income people off the benefit rolls, cut benefits by thousands of dollars a year, or some combination of the two. These cuts would primarily affect very-low-income families with children, seniors and people with disabilities.”

Does that sound like a man trying to “fix” our social safety nets? Absolutely not. Romney is so far up the beanstalk that he can no longer see the ground.

Then let’s take the fact that a report last month by the Tax Policy Center found that his tax plan would increase after-tax income for millionaires by 14.5 percent while increasing the after-tax income of those making less than $20,000 by less than 1 percent and of those making between $30,000 and $40,000 by less than 3 percent.

For a man who’s not worried about the rich, he sure seems to want them to rake in more cash.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/04/op...e-rest.html?hp

So even if we don't fault him for being incredibly insensitive and out of touch, he's actually making claims that are false. He doesn't want a safety net as robust as the one we already have, and he wants to cut taxes for millionaires far more than for the "90-95% who are struggling" (which is also a false statistic).

Originally Posted by Telecaster

He certainly is contradicting himself within the two speaking and policy examples you cite. And if one views him with distrust then he can certainly be said to be lying. But when has a politician not been found to contradict his own statements? At many and various points we all find ourselves dismissing the "lies" voiced by our most favored politicians. And as such, my trust and support for Romney remains. I am encouraged by the NY Times article. The details of the proposed Romney policies and their actual implementation and affect are vast with many unknowns only time can uncover. But I highly suspect the poor won't be suffering any more than they are now, and they will actually find more opportunity to improve their lives over time.

If you say 'we have a social safety net, and if there's a problem, I'll fix it' at the same time your working to dismantle the social safety net, how can that be anything other than a lie? He didn't say 'the social safety net is a bad thing and what poor people really need is an unregulated market for their labor and more fire at their backs from fear of poverty, which will both create more opportunity and force them to take it'. That would have been accurate.

Originally Posted by Rasselas

If you say 'we have a social safety net, and if there's a problem, I'll fix it' at the same time your working to dismantle the social safety net, how can that be anything other than a lie? .

Not if you feel the problem is that it's far too large, too easy to access, and too easy to remain lounging upon.

Originally Posted by Mordent

Not if you feel the problem is that it's far too large, too easy to access, and too easy to remain lounging upon.

If you believe that, then you should say so, rather than suggesting you'd fix a hole. Why not go the Mordent route? "I'm not worried about the very rich, they're doing just fine. I'm not worried about the very poor, they're just lounging about on their too-generous benefits." By your own assertion, you suggest Romney is a liar.

Originally Posted by Rasselas

If you say 'we have a social safety net, and if there's a problem, I'll fix it' at the same time your working to dismantle the social safety net, how can that be anything other than a lie? He didn't say 'the social safety net is a bad thing and what poor people really need is an unregulated market for their labor and more fire at their backs from fear of poverty, which will both create more opportunity and force them to take it'. That would have been accurate.

Sure, that's fair. But I question your use of the word 'dismantle', and how it may or may not be a real element of Romney policy. Personally, I don't think the safety net will be outright dismantled by the strict definition of the word. But it better see a big revising.

You can call Romney a liar if you don't like anything about him. I say the same thing about Obama from time to time for the very same reasons.

Originally Posted by Telecaster

Sure, that's fair. But I question your use of the word 'dismantle', and how it may or may not be a real element of Romney policy. Personally, I don't think the safety net will be outright dismantled by the strict definition of the word. But it better see a big revising.

To dismantle something means to take it apart down to pieces so it no longer has its original integrity. That's exactly what the Ryan proposal for Medicare does, for example.

You can call Romney a liar if you don't like anything about him. I say the same thing about Obama from time to time for the very same reasons.

It's interesting that cons get mad when his words are taken out of context. They are much more damning when placed IN context.

Originally Posted by Telecaster

Are you sure the "cons get mad"? I know I'm not mad. I just disagree with you.

No, it's common for partisans on both sides to take umbrage when their candidate is (in their view) taken out of context. It's more than just disagreement--it's about righteous indignation for some.

"Dismantle"? Yeeeaaah, I think the Republicans are all talk on that. They will just try to cut base line spending, reducing only the proposed increases, but sill spending more than previous years.

Sorry, I take GOP candidates at their word. When they have the opportunity, they often go well beyond what they say they'll do (a la Mr. Walker in Wisconsin).