What's Mitt done for poor?

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Also for anonymous
    Dec. 11, 2007 10:48 a.m.

    As Queen Mum pointed out... there have been minority Republican candidates for President in the past.

    A question for you... How many Women and other Minorities were represented in the most recent Democrat President's cabinet? If you reasearch it you'll find President Bush's administration includes more than double the minorities in cabinet positions. So if number of minorities in political positions is the basis for your "Democrats are for minorities" statement, the cabinet appointments of Democrat Presidents doesn't support that position.

  • EL TAB
    Dec. 10, 2007 7:24 p.m.

    Anon:...speaking "unauthorized" for Rush Limbaugh...And "I thought today would be the day that you would not blame me for everything...silly me"!

  • Anonymous
    Dec. 10, 2007 5:42 p.m.

    Democrats will always be on the side of minorities, the down-trodden and social justice.
    The imploding GOP better take its bogus compassionate conservative business more seriously if it ever wants to regain political power.
    We the people means We the People and won't settle for anything less. It's the American Way.

  • Sorry?
    Dec. 10, 2007 5:11 p.m.

    This letter to the editor does not really say anything. The writer's dad made up a cute rhyme, but that doesn't mean it's reality. But I do happen to know from personal experience that Mitt Romney does serve others. He's the genuine article. He's a good guy. He does a lot of anonymous service as any good Christian would. I also know that we need both the Democrat and Republican parties in this great nation. I know the Republican party isn't perfect, but neither is the Democrat party. I lean towards the Republican party because for the time being, they represent similar values to mine (Pro-life, family values groups, Veterans, etc).

  • Qween mum of 7
    Dec. 10, 2007 3:51 p.m.

    Enter commentAlan Keyes, Elizabeth Dole.

    But I doubt Anonymous will recall these names, as it won't fit his/her adgenda.

  • In Answer to Annon
    Dec. 10, 2007 3:24 p.m.

    We've had Black GOP's running for president. We've also had women. I guess your recent history won't include those little tidbits, as it won't support your argument that no GOP blacks or womean happen to be running THIS election. Oh, and did you know that Sen. Obama's Mom is White? Incovinent truth.

  • Anonymous
    Dec. 10, 2007 3:16 p.m.

    Stil waiting for an explanation as to why there are no women or black people running for president in the GOP?

  • 2-bits
    Dec. 10, 2007 1:21 p.m.

    More Demo rhetoric... "Republicans have always been about power trips", "Democrats have always been for the down-trodden (now there's an oldy but a goody)".

    You've never seen a Democrat on a "Power-Trip" (think about today's Congress or the Clinton clan)? I think that's what politics is all about for most Democrats. I think if you could hear their thoughts (especially in election season) you would hear a constant babling stream of... "We have to get the power from Repubilcans, We're going to loose our jobs, We have to get the power from Republicans".

    I think there is enough power-tripping politicians to go around (both parties). To think only one has this problem shows you are blind to your own bias, because both parties have the same problem.

  • RangerGordon
    Dec. 10, 2007 1:21 p.m.

    The "wealth producers" aren't the problem--those are the people who work for a living. The ones who are the problem are the superrich fatcats who sit on their rears and rake in the wealth being produced by working people.

    They've used the government to protect their privileged way of life for so long now they think they deserve their unearned riches--when the workers try to level the playing field slightly, those who sympathize for the superrich cry that they're being robbed.

  • Anonymous
    Dec. 10, 2007 1:04 p.m.

    Democrats have always had compassion for the down-trodden. Minorities included.
    Republicans have always been about power-trips.
    Why do you think there are no Republican women or black people running for the highest office in the country, "2-bits?"

  • 2-bits
    Dec. 10, 2007 12:38 p.m.

    Sounds like your psychiatrist father was trying to brain-wash you. Neither party has a high-horse to ride on in this one. They both are, "The party of misinformation and guile from across the aisle". Democrats are no better than Repuclicans. You need to look beyond party affiliation on this one.

    Your title question was... What's Mitt done for poor? My first thought was...
    - What the poor need, is "JOBS", not more government hand-outs. How many JOBS do you think Romney and the companies he has headed in his career have created? How many jobs here in SLC during the olympics and even after (many turist related jobs are still hear years after the Olympics).

    - How many people do you think are employed at Bain? and how many companies (which is another word for JOBS) have benefited from their corporate guidance and re-structuring?

    - He did a lot for the poor when he was Governor of Massachusetts? I think you will get differing opinions but most will say that he did a lot for the poor.

    I don't plan to vote for him, but not because he is an opressor of the poor. That's bunk Demo Rhetoric.

  • In reply
    Dec. 10, 2007 12:14 p.m.

    Mark's last name says it all Faux - fake. The poor. The average 'poor' in our blessed United States owns 2 TV's, a car, a modest home. They have a microwave, fridge, 2 bathrooms and 3 bedrooms. They have either cable or sat TV, and video games system. That's the AVERAGE. Go to a 3rd world country, and see real poor. My husband is from a samll village south of the Americas. He had a dirt floor, no glass in windows and often did not have enough food. A carpet to help keep the home warm was a luxary. Our poor is not 'poor' by the worlds standards, but poor by our own excessive standards. I pay tithing and fast offerings. and know that some of that goes to the poor. This is neighter a democrate nor republican problem, but a problem that we as a whole, need to address. Mr. Fake - er Faux, needs to be proactive, instead of inactive.

  • Anonymous
    Dec. 10, 2007 12:06 p.m.

    Democrats have always been for the little guy. (With the disappearance of the middle-class, who isn't one of the little guys today?) Their platforms always include a social conscience prompting today's far-right wacko's to decry them as "do-gooder liberals," (a term of their hero, Rush Limbaugh). I love being a do-gooder liberal and always will.

  • Instead
    Dec. 10, 2007 11:06 a.m.

    Instead of helping the poor, the conservatives would rather decry government methods of doing it.

    Greed, nothing but greed, hiding behind philosophical principles and fuzzy numbers.

  • Cody,
    Dec. 10, 2007 10:46 a.m.

    Anonomous, The average GOP donation is $25, Democrats wont release theirs, But they seen to get alot of LARGE, and illegal, donations, I would say the democrats are teh party of the rich, not republicans.

  • Chad
    Dec. 10, 2007 10:29 a.m.

    RBJ, the "the rich get all the breaks and the poor pay all the taxes" argument is a straw man. Of course the majority of total tax dollars collected comes from the majority of the tax payers. How could we expect the top 2% of earners to pay more than 2% of the total tax dollars collected in the country. That is absurd. But that is exactly what happens.

    What you are claiming is that the tax burden is dis-proportionately heavy on the middle class. Again, that is patently false. The top 1% of all earners in america actually pay 24% of the total fed income tax collected. That has changed virtually not at all since Bush was elected. In fact, the percentage paid by the richest has actually increased 3% while middle class taxes remained roughly the same. The top 20% of households in America pay over 70% of the total fed income tax collected each year. The bottom 40% pay 2% of the taxes. The middle class pays the rest, about 28% from 40% of the population.

    Dont just spout rhetoric, check out the facts. Google is just a click away.

  • AJVT
    Dec. 10, 2007 10:15 a.m.

    The job of taking care of the poor is the family, Churches, private charities, and not the job of Govt., which by the way is why we have a multi trillion dollar deficit on a federal level. It is not military spending, but social spending which has broken the budget.

  • Anonymous
    Dec. 10, 2007 10:12 a.m.

    When I was a child my father taught me that in general, Republicans worshipped the "entitled" rich and Democrats favored the common man.
    Nothing has changed.
    The numbers of the common man are exploding.
    Bye-bye GOP.

  • Mahershalalhashbaz
    Dec. 10, 2007 10:03 a.m.

    TO the author: Self righteous letter. You make yourself sound like you have done SOOOO much for the poor. So why don't you tell us what you have done instead of rip down someone else (or are you saving that part for your campaign?) And, why are you so concerned about what Mitt has done, why aren't you worried about what Hillary or Obama or Giuliani, or Huckabee has done? Your Bigotry and hatred are obvious.

  • Sensible
    Dec. 10, 2007 8:53 a.m.

    By building up successful businesses that employ regular people, Romney has done REAL good for the "poor" in America. That's bottom-line, real results, not talk, and not slave-making handouts.

  • grundle
    Dec. 10, 2007 8:39 a.m.

    Working poor has become the new victim class in our dialog. The last I looked education was still available, jobs still need to be filled, and our country still provides opportunity for the ambititious. Things are not perfect but I believe that those who decry inequality and injustice in our system simply fail to recognise the amazing country, time, and system we live in.

  • RBJ
    Dec. 10, 2007 8:29 a.m.

    Chad: Bush's tax plan puts the burden of paying taxes SQUARELY on the middle class while giving the wealthy all the breaks....not sure where you get your info, but if you're getting the breaks, then you have more money than the middle class.
    Dave: You're sarcasm is just sad.

  • Dave
    Dec. 10, 2007 8:20 a.m.

    What has the working poor done for me or anyone else for that matter.

  • Anonymous
    Dec. 10, 2007 8:09 a.m.

    There is no charity in forced distribution. I'm sure they helped many poor people but it has to be done willingly. Thou shalt not steal or covet are commandments too.

  • Chad
    Dec. 10, 2007 7:10 a.m.

    Solidly middle class here, thank you very much. VERY MUCH appreciated the tax cuts, child tax credits, and job creation of the Bush presidency. Agreed with everything he did? Of course not. Feel better off personally due to this administration? YES.

    By the way, Clinton and his administration started the slide we are on now. He did nothing to stave off the economic slide that was inevitable after the colapse of the internet bubble. Rather he blissfully faded into the sunset, leaving the legacy of a colapsing economy and an empowered Al Qaida for the next poor sap to deal with.

    And then the dems turn around and blame all of our woes on the current administration. The economy and our society does not change that fast. Clinton reaped the benefits of "Reagonomics", then sowed his own seeds of decline, and then blamed them on Bush.

    I think this letter is right on, just talking about the wrong party.

  • Mike
    Dec. 10, 2007 7:07 a.m.

    Perhaps the more important question would be, "What have YOU done for the poor?" You have complete control of your time and your money. Have you personally spent your life lifting other's burdens by giving of your own assets, or, do you spend your time demanding that others do what you only talk about?

  • BRT
    Dec. 10, 2007 6:36 a.m.

    I take it you guys would prefer someone who used the government to act as your agent to take money from those you envy. It would be against the law for you to use force, or the threat of it, but its perfectly legal if you can have the government do it for you. A French philosopher used the phrase "theft by government" to describe what many, if not most, of the anti-wealth producers desire.

  • Anonymous
    Dec. 10, 2007 6:06 a.m.

    The GOP has become the party of wealth-seekers with richie-rich wanabes supporting it.