Browse By

Poor Ann Romney

“I don’t even consider myself wealthy, which is an interesting thing,” said Ann Romney, wife of Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney, in a televised interview yesterday.

Yes, Mrs. Romney, I agree. That is an interesting thing. The Romney couple has an estimated financial worth of $250 million dollars. If having hundreds of millions of dollars doesn’t make a person wealthy, what does?

Ann Romney went on to explain that financial wealth isn’t really important to her, saying, “How I measure riches is by the friends I have and the loved ones I have and the people that I care about in my life, and that’s where my values are and that’s where my riches are.”

debt ceiling propagandaIf money isn’t really important to the Romneys, why have they collected so much of it? Why are they hoarding their wealth, instead of giving it away to people who need it?

For that matter, if money doesn’t matter to the Romneys, why are they fighting so hard to make sure that wealthy people like themselves can keep even more of it, without paying their fair share in taxes?

How many of those friends that Mitt and Ann Romney now enjoy the company of would remain friends if the Romneys lost their possessions and lived on an annual income of just $30,000 per year? How much time would Ann Romney have left to socialize with her remaining friends if she had to work two minimum wage jobs to make ends meet?

For those of us who have to work for the money we spend, money matters a great deal. It matters, because we don’t spend our money on multiple houses, and two Cadillacs, and servants, and rooms full of little luxuries. We simply dream of being able to stay in one home, and pay for the education of our children. We simply hope that, when old age and illness comes, we will not be able to get basic medical care. Increasingly, we don’t have enough money even for the basics in life.

Perhaps Ann Romney ought to spend some time living in our world, before she declares that she isn’t wealthy, and that money doesn’t matter.

9 thoughts on “Poor Ann Romney”

  1. peace&liberty says:

    I agree that she’s a puppet …. who clearly knows her status, but taxing the rich isn’t going to solve any problems. Its just going to give the government more money to spend on war and continuing to build our empire. If you think that our politicians are magically going to wake up and say “yes, we’re rich and we should make sure poor people have OUR money….” then you’re just as much as a fool. Plus, welfare keeps people poor, unemployment keeps people unemployed, and its a all redistribution of wealth anyway, which is clearly serving our country well HA

    1. Peregrin Wood says:

      If welfare keeps people poor, then how come we didn’t all become much, much richer after welfare was radically reduced in the 1990s? Since that time, income inequality has INCREASED, not decreased. Your hypothesis, peace&liberty, is not supported by the data.

      1. peace&liberty says:

        Its very hard to adress a system where people have already become dependent… but there are actually numbers that clearly support my argument. No one on welfare enjoys it, just like no one living in a decrepit public home likes it… ALL Americans want to be self sufficient in some way or another. Its not simply as easy as saying “welfare keeps people poor….” I’m aware. If you really want to break it down, we need to reform our education and monetary system. The costs of living is high based on inflation from virtually “printing” our way to temporary economic solutions. This does NOT hurt the rich, its hurts the poor and the middle class with rising prices and devalued currency. Add on top of that the sheer failure of the majority of inner city, lower income school districts, which are clearly affecting minorities at a higher rate.

        Then,politicians come in like Santa Claus and say ,” I’m going to take care of you and give you free money!!” People cheer, they get scraps…. but they don’t ever seem to escape poverty. Welfare creates a state of mind that creates dependency is my point…. if you really want to help these people, get them a better education, end the drug war which disproportionately arrests minorities, locking them into a cycle which is hard to break, and have STATES deal with integration programs that would work from welfare to paycheck. Its no job of the federal government, plus, we cannot afford it

        1. flipped54 says:

          Yes, folks in poverty should have better access to education as you state, which is what the current administration is promoting. Our current president is fully aware of the plight of welfare recipients and the need to create better opportunities to lift them out of reliance on social programs. But it is more complex than even that because a lot of these folks ARE in that hard to break cycle like you mentioned. Which can lead to abuse of these social programs also (e.g. selling food stamps for cash). Poverty is a tough issue and must be dealt with not only from the private sector through jobs, but also for immediate and longer term needs (e.g. education) through social programs. At the least we cannot ignore poverty….ideally the states should fund these programs but they are strapped for cash too. With these programs in place it just boils down to ones’ desire to break free of the cycle….it takes alot of perseverance and hard work. The “safety net” should not be the permanent solution but a helping hand to improvement. The impression I got from Romney’s statement about the poor having a safety net was that it is ok for the safety net to be permanent and we’ll just throw a little money into it and the poor will be happy….and he will keep making more millions and he will be “happier”. I like your post, there are just a lot of complex economic, moral and social issues associated with poverty and I don’t begin to claim to know all the answers. Also I am pretty sure that Rosen made an attempt to point out that Ann Romney does not fully understand or can relate to poverty or for that matter the middle class.

    2. Donna says:

      Why don’t the rich offer to pay their fair share? The money collected could go toward the national debt ONLY.

      I mean, who actually needs 250 million?? I’m happy to make my house/car payment!

  2. Charles Manning (manning120) says:

    Good comment, Mr. Wood. Mrs. Romney has graphically shown how out of touch both partners in the Romney marrige are. Her words fit very well with Mitt’s about not caring about the poor because they have a safety net.

  3. Stephen Kent Gray says:

    Not to give credence to Marxism, but Karl Marx was right in the assertion that the vast majority of people were/are class blind.

    1. Stephen Kent Gray says:

      Ernest Van Den Haag has argued:
      “ One way is to say that “objectively” people have common class interests and should act according to the class struggle pattern- but that they are not always “class conscious”. They suffer from “false consciousness”. But this is (a) not true; nor would it (b) help much if it were. a) There often are conflicts among objective economic interests within a Marxian class- e.g. among workers. Conflicts occur over migration, international trade, religion or race. And workers often have objective interests in common with capitalists and in conflict with the interests of other groups of workers. Class membership is no more and possibly less decisive than say race membership in determining one’s political views. If you insist on the importance of race, you may persuade people to act according to their “racial interests” for a while- as the Nazis did. If you convince people that they should act according to what you tell them are your class interests, they might. The prophecy becomes self-fulfilling. But the action comes from race or class propaganda- not from race or class as objective facts. b) Further if we assume that classes are as important as Marx thought but that people do not act accordingly, because not having read Marx, they are not class conscious- if “class consciousness” becomes independent of class membership- and if class membership is neither sufficient nor necessary to bring the expected class behaviour, then social classes become one of many groups that influence man’s action on some occasions. This would be a correct theory. But the distinctive point of Marxian theory is that class membership is decisive in determining most and particularly political actions. This is patently wrong.[6] ”

      An interesting crtique of the concept1

  4. flipped54 says:

    “How I measure riches is by the friends I have and the loved ones I have and the people that I care about in my life, and that’s where my values are and that’s where my riches are.”

    Even the poorest people say the same thing. The only thing the poor and the middle class don’t have is the time to spend with friends and loved ones…..and equal access to education….and equal access to healthcare. The two basic things that can provide a step up. Why is it so difficult for some to see this basic need. Minimum and low wage jobs are a start but cannot provide a step up, education and healthcare have to be added to the mix. Neither is the safety net a solution….

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Psst... what kind of person doesn't support pacifism?

Fight the Republican beast!