It didn't as generate much attention as some of his other wealth-related gaffes, probably because it came on a Friday afternoon, but Mitt Romney's latest gem comes with a larger significance.
The presumptive Republican presidential nominee was telling students at Otterbein University in Ohio about the virtues of starting new businesses. Romney added that President Obama has launched an "attack" on "success" -- I still have no idea what that's in reference to -- while he would prefer to "encourage young people."
"Take a shot, go for it, take a risk, get the education, borrow money if you have to from your parents, start a business."
This is important because it offers key context to Romney's approach to public policy. If you're a young person who can't afford rising college tuition rates and/or don't have the resources to launch a business venture, the GOP's would-be president has some advice for you: choose wealthy parents.
No, seriously. Romney has already said young people who can't afford to go to their college of their choice should "shop around" for some other institution, because a Romney administration doesn't intend to help with measures like Pell Grants or student loans. Now he's talking about entrepreneurial opportunities, not through programs like SBA loans, but through parental aid.
If you don't come from a wealthy family with tens of thousands of disposable income, well, that's a shame -- no small business for you.
Romney wants young people to "take a shot," "go for it," "take a risk," "get the education," and "start a business," but only if the federal government has no role in creating those opportunities.
In the 2012 campaign context, the point isn't to mock Romney for being very wealthy or for having very wealthy parents. Rather, what matters here is that he's opposed to using public institutions to help level the playing field for everyone else.
Leave a Comment:
He is so F**king tone deaf I can't even come up with anymore snark or witticisms . He has destroyed satire.
It's a good thing he's a Mormon and doesn't smoke. Because all he needs is a cigar and a bowler hat to be "Rich Uncle Pennybags" (the Monopoly Man).
News flash.
Mitt Romney Killed a Woman in France.
Punch line.
He got a head injury during the car crash.
He isn't flip flopping.
He's brain damaged.
"Killed a women in France"? You do get the Crackhead Award.
"Mr. Romney, the peasants have no bread."
"Let them eat cake!."
The accident photos show the combined speed of both cars was about 100mph. That is why there was a fatality.
Speed limit in most of the US for a blind curve is 25MPH.
A combined vehicle speed of 50MPH is survivable in a car. The accident photos clearly show much more damage.
The driver IS responsible for the speed of the accident.
And so on.
Romney's father sent a team to France after the accident.
Crackhead, I already blew a hole in your utterly distorted story over on Matthews; if you want to double down on it, you'll be the third person I've felted this week because I've got a bit stack of facts, and I'm always willing to go all in.
The accident occurred in France on a two lane road; a priest, probably inebriated but no charges were filed, passed a truck at high speed and hit the car Romney was driving head-on. There was no chance for him to avoid it, and the wife of the LDS French mission president was killed. There were others in the car as well.
And honest, I'm no Romney fan; what I and my circle of "ex-Mormons" know about the faith's "Etch-a-Sketch History" scares the hell out of his camp and there's no need for this silly "Swift Boat Impersonation" and attendant histrionics. You'll only blunt the messages of people with genuine voices of reason.
Witness, for example, the disclosures Rachel made a fews weeks ago about Frank VanderSloot, the wealthy Idaho CEO of Melaleuca who is the Romney campaign co-chairman. I'm not certain I was the one who first sent her this link, but the story ran about four hours after I e-mailed it to her MSNBC addy. And there was no advance "tease."
//www.salon.com/2012/02/17/billionaire_romney_donor_uses_threats_to_silence_critics/
Now here's what I said over on Matthews, and I'll repeat it just once...
Mitt's advisers, both Mormon and non-Mormon, will eat up stuff like yours when it's inaccurate; trust me, I've been debating them for 45 years now, and they play the "persecution" game with gusto, using strawmen, ad hominems, and cherry-picking tactics as well as outright lies when they think they can get away with them.
Any reporting has to be told factually or they'll blow it into something "newsworthy" more quickly than you can say Hillary Rosen...
If there were a dictionary definition of "out of touch," Mitt's picture would be right there with it. "Oh, just go out and pull a hundred grand off your parent's money tree to start a business!" "Shop around for cheap schools if you (or your parents) can't afford the one you want to attend."
He really doesn't have a effing clue how much young people - AND their parents - are struggling.
But, I simply don't understand your reasoning... why would you need to use money from the government when you can just borrow a few hundred thousand from your parents? That's what Jimmy John did and it worked for him!
Ha I love your reply!
Public education, including primary schools and colleges, are declining because the GOP is bleeding them dry to fund the war on drugs. This is why US education is both unaffordable and the main reason why US education lags behind 25 other countries.
Drug sales are escalating because the price is $3,000/pound, so people that lack the education required to make a decent income can do so by breaking the law. A bachelors degree reduces this kind of crime by 95% by increasing income.
The situation being disrespected by Romney is the reason the US has the highest prison population in the world.
Romney is a blithering idiot because he lacks knowledge on complex issues that is required to improve the country.
There are many reasons for public education being pressed for funds, but blaming the "war on drugs" is a stretch. School systems, from elementary to college, depend on funding from federal, state and local sources. State and localaties are constrained by having to balance their budgets. With tax receipts down, cuts must be made. Many states and localities have put caps on how much property taxes can be raised. Income tax receipts are down because of the recession. The easy answer is to raise taxes on corporations, but, states compete for businesses and one factor to either expand or relocate is the state tax rate.
For over 50 years I've heard the answer to better education is more money. Well, we did increase funding with little benefit. We need to look at other answers besides money
Financing the war on drugs is but one of many reasons that the republicans are cutting aid to public education. The one thing that all those reasons have in common including the push for privatizing education is that they direct public money into private pockets of the wealthy.
@fromnytosc,
Where do you think the money is going to come from to fight the war on drugs if Republicans are talking about reducing taxes WHILE talking about doing away with the Department of Education, pell grants, and student loans?
It's not like there is a money fairy that can smack you on the head with a magic wand and make the money magically shoot out of one of your bodily orifices.
Forgot to mention.
No Child Left Behind advocated by Republicans has had the effect of bankrupting inner city schools with high minority populations, which makes it look like the KKK has been heavily involved in GOP policies.
fromnytosc - Conservatives have been cutting funding to state schools for decades; blaming it on the recent economic collapse is denying reality. Cuts in state funding to universities are one of the largest factors in why college tuition has been rising at two and a half times the rate of inflation for many years.
Businesses care about the tax rate, but most care even more about having an educated workforce and well-maintained communities that their workers actually want to live in. If tax rates were such a dominant factor, Alabama would be an economic powerhouse.
When did we do that? This seems to be an article of faith among conservatives, but I've never seen a reference to any source that says when this supposedly happened. Mysteriously, for twenty years or more it's been said with the implication that it happened sometime recently, so we have to do the opposite now.
One time I can tell you about is the post-WWII era. We put huge amounts of money into education through the GI bill (we were *building* colleges because there were so many people who wanted to go and could afford to with the new assistance), and then again in the post-Sputnik era. You know what "good" it did? It helped build the largest and most prosperous middle class the world had ever seen, with steadily rising incomes. Until the Reagan revolution came in and started dismantling it all. But by all means, I welcome your counterexample.
I think conservatives are referring to programs like no child left behind which increased funding to certain school districts. There have also been a few changes (since the claim was w/in the last 50 years) in how federal dollars are allocated (and the fact that federal dollars are now allocated) to schools over this time period. It should be noted that for the majority of that time period we actually were number 1 in education. It isn't until the late 60's/early 70's that we start seeing dramatic drops in our education rate. Remember the 1980's represented one of the lowest points in educational quality (as well as one of the highest points in the total number of crimes) in recorded US history. We have actually been crawling out of a huge hole that was dug for us way before I was even born (that occurred in the 80's). We're actually doing somewhat better than what we were doing 20-30 years ago. But this all depends on how you're accessing the situation. I think fromnytosc is somewhat exaggerating when he/she states that our education levels have increased w/ marginal success. This is assuming a lot about education. Although I will gladly meet conservatives half way and state that I don't think funding is the entirety of the issue.
@The Mouzer,
Agree with one exception.
No Child Left Behind had $zero$ allocated in funding.
The sole intent was to cut existing federal funding for schools that failed to improve.
Federal funds confiscated by NCLB went into the general fund at one end while foreign wars and the war on drugs were siphoning off funds.
School districts that were bankrupted and/or closed were in minority communities, like the ones that Rachel has been showing near Detroit.
So when college graduates are competing for jobs at Strabucks, where does Mitt expect high school grads to get these high paying jobs that will allow them to save for college?
IF they could save $100.00/week, it would only take them 10-15 years to save up enough for college.
This clip can be used as a Obama campaign add.
Good point.
He has destroyed satire..
That is hilarious and nearly true. Remember Big parents = Big loans, Big profits!
Rmoney is a train-wreck and talking about division and divisiveness while being a member of the GOP doesn't earn you any viability nor any double-rewards coupons Mr. Rmoney.
I like to know the doctors that are proscribing the medication that every single GOP'er is on? This isn't just "out of touch/tone deaf/insulting", this is an altered reality that MUST come from doing that really, really good medication from the doctors! And, can WE get those doctors locked up, cause these people have definitely lost it?!
I am so tired of these stupid men yelling about family planning, I would like to have some one investigate how many of these hippocrites have vastectomies, which aleinates all future children. Sooo, it is alright for them to STOP the population and we do not have the right to even think about it. no one talks about the big V.
This guy makes W look smart.
no he doesn't ....
Let's not go that far.
Every good republican knows that the only people who count are those who won the DNA gene pool lottery. If you are poor, it is your fault that you did not select the correct (wealthy) parents.
What an @sshole.
There's a folk belief among Mormons that...actually, context is required.
In Mormon theology there is a doctrine of pre-existence, which is that the souls of all of use were created eons in the past, living in the spirit world for long ages before entering mortality. That existence is something we forget while we are mortal, which seems kind of unfair.
OK, back to the folk belief, which is that souls in pre-existence choose which families to be born into. It's kind of sappy, sentimental idea, and shouldn't be taken too seriously. It's just a sickly-sweet expression of the importance Mormonism places on families.
This belief has an ugly side, because if souls choose their families, does that mean that children of dysfunctional or abusive families are simply getting what they signed up for? It's not a belief that the LDS church as an institution endorses, obviously, because of that ugly side. But since Romney obviously has no empathy, maybe he wholeheartedly believes in that bit of folk doctrine, and thinks that disadvantaged people deserve to get the short end. Stranger things have happened. They must have. Somewhere.
Good stuff, Monk, and there's even more. Mormon leaders are shaking their Etch-a-Sketches on the "pre-existence" as fast as they can. That's because for years in the racist doctrines of the church, it was circulated that "blacks were less valiant in the pre-existence." That's why they had darker skin and were denied the priesthood although they could be members of the faith.
Since the LDS leadership, particularly the President, is seen as a prophet (Brigham Young used the term "mouthpiece of God"), the revisionist historians spin that one with a "he was speaking as a man" bit of dissembling and deny something was ever "doctrinal."
The late LDS president Gordon B. Hinckley said about the pre-existence--and the possible "exhaltation to Godhood" that was also taught--in an interview to Mike Wallace, "I'm not sure we teach that."
I've listened to hundreds say, "Oh yes you do! Or at least you did!" You can take their word for it. They were as faithful as any, and they wound up feeling utterly betrayed.
Yes, the LDS church has been busily smoothing out the rougher edges of their doctrine for decades now. They're in kind of a funny position. One the one hand, they believe in continuing, progressive revelation while at the same time maintaining that their teachings have been consistent over time. The two don't go together. Hypothetically they could say something like, "We just had a chat with God and he's straightened us out on this matter, so here's how it is now..." but they don't and pretend that changes aren't changes at all. Of course, they did cite revelation regarding polygamy and the ban on black men holding the priesthoods, but other than that, never.
The awful thing is that even if you pointed out the monumental stupidity of the solution he is offering he would still offer it......remember "corporations are people"
Completely fact- less & devoid of real solutions & they REALLY couldn't care less...NO... REALLY !!!
Mitt can't do any better than vague platitudes. He shovels BS and thinks everyone outside his social class is a rube. But he is not fooling a lot of the people a lot of the time.
Let me see, we need legal immigration so business can bring in "better educated" foriegners but we should tell Americans to shop around and only go as far down the education highway as they can afford? Mitt, Mitt , Mitt do you ever try to listen to the crap you say?
Starting a business? Looking to further your education? Don't be afraid to ask your parents for a few hundred thousand. I know times are rough, but they won't mind helping you out. That's what Jimmy John did and it worked well for him!
Totally agree with all the comments. I hope people are smart enough not too vote for this man. If you think things are not good now. Put him in office and you will be in for a rude awakening. He is for the rich and the rich only.
After watching the President Saturday at the WHCD all I can say is that I can't wait for the Al Smith Dinner in October, which features both Presidential candidates in humorous speeches. Romney's inhuman ineptitude and inability to contact people will be on full display. Today a bunch of talking heads were trying to insist that "in private, Mitt is very funny." Really? The truth is, in public, he's like an alien. Let's see.
Wow. I'll have some of whatever he's on!
So you should borrow money from the same parents who can't afford to send you to college, which is why you need to take out student loans. Air tight logic.
Say, here's some more Mitt-style wisdom: If you don't want the bank to foreclose on your house, then pay cash instead of getting a mortgage. It's just that easy!
"Catch 22", anyone?
I'm envisioning a level playing field, in which clods like Mitt deservedly come in last rather than first.
"I still have no idea what that's in reference to"
Apparently the "attacking success" line (at least recently) is a reference to Steve Doocy's twisting of Obama's "I wasn't born with a silver spoon" line into an attack on Romney. Just like conservatives define "refusing to pretend that we're a colorblind society" as racism, and saying something true about Romney's wife is "an attack on all stay-at-home-moms," pointing out that Romney is extremely rich and out of touch with anyone who isn't is an "attack on success," because apparently Republicans love the idea of solidarity (an attack on one is an attack on all), as long as it only applies to rich people.
Mitt is everything that is wrong about republicans. Pick anything: no character, lying, bullying, robbing pensions from companies, greed, did I mention lying? hyperbole, no ideas, taking others' ideas, smirking, plastic fake laugh, did I mention greed? misogyny, misanthropy, destroying anything that doesn't contribute to one's own greed, smirking entitlement, did I mention lack of empathy? He will go down in history as a cartoon.
Do you think he has Early Dementia? Really.
Behind every large fortune stands a small fortune.
No, it's "How do you make a small fortune? Start with a large one."
There is absolutely no reason this man should want to be president of the United States. If the nation is faced with a major crisis I am not convinced this guy has any idea what to do about it. What is his foreign policy? Bet they're going to fail?
Surveys have shown that tall, good-looking people tend to be more successful than their shorter, less attractive counterparts. So you should always strive to be tall and good-looking whenever possible. At least stand up straight. If you need money for school, try selling one of your Cadillacs or some stocks from your portfolio. You could save money by firing one of your horse groomers and doing it yourself. These are just a few suggestions, I'm sure you can think of many more. You're welcome. -- Mitt