Gingrich Goes After Romney: The Founding Fathers Believed In Equal Opportunity For The Poor

[kpete]

Gingrich Goes After Romney: The Founding Fathers Believed In Equal Opportunity For The Poor
By Igor Volsky on Feb 1, 2012 at 5:45 pm

During a town hall event in Reno, Nevada Wednesday afternoon, Newt Gingrich lashed out at Mitt Romney for suggesting that helping the poor is not a priority. Gingrich quoted Romney’s remarks from CNN and explained, “it gives you a perfect distinction of our two approaches”:

GINGRICH: I’m fed up with politicians in either party dividing Americans against each other…the Founding Fathers wrote that we are endowed by our creator with certain unalienable rights, among with are life and the pursuit of happiness. The Founding Fathers meant all of us. Let me shock the Wall Street crowd. The Founding Fathers meant the 1 percent, who they called Americans. The Founding Fathers meant the very poor, who they called Americans. My goal is to find steps for every American to have a job, every American to work, every American to buy a house. I believe America was founded on a dream that we are in fact created equal and we have a chance to go out and have a chance to pursue happiness and that nobody of any background should be denied.

VIDEO & MORE:
http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2012/02/01/416898/gingrich-goes-after-romney-the-founding-fathers-believed-in-equal-opportunity-for-the-poor/

[gopiscrap]

1. I think I'm gonna puke

listening to this coming out of Gringrish's mouth is one of the most disingenious things I have ever heard....where was the Newter during the 90's during all the discussions about poverty in America?

[silverweb]

2. Absolutely!

[font color="navy" face="Verdana"]And it starts with letting poor kids clean the bathrooms for their more upscale classmates. What a great early opportunity that is!

[BeyondGeography]

3. Fans of the Food Stamp President say Howdy, Newt

[HopeHoops]

4. Well, unless the were only 3/5 of a person.

[happyslug]

14. Actually Slaves had rights at the time of the Constituional Convention in every state.

And those rights had been increasing since the 1600s, and this is the norm in any society that permits slavery. Sooner or later the slave owners find out they have to give rights to their slaves so that the slaves have a reason to work for them instead of just going through the motions. Thus by the end of the Roman Empire in the West, 450 AD, the status of Slaves and free peasants were about the same and become known as "Serfs" a from of the the Latin word "Servus", which was the the Latin word for Slave (The Romans then adopted a new word "Slave" derived from the Slavic Word "Slav" which meant the "Glorious people" which is what the Slavs called themselves).

With the adoption of the concept of Serf, which meant a free man for all purposes EXCEPT for duties due his or her "Master" and those duties were clear (including the RIGHT to live in a house on the Master's land AND to grow crops for themselves AND to sell independent of the Master). Thus in the Dark and Middle ages Slaves were rare in Europe, but not unheard of (The Vikings did a booming business in Slaves), but again almost disappeared by the time of the Renaissance (when Africans were imported into Spain and Portgual as slaves as early as the 1400s).

The problem with American Slavery is that it is the only time in the History of Slavery that the rights of Slaves DECLINED over time. Between the invention of the Cotton Gin in 1792 and the final abolition of Slavery in the US by the 13th amendment in 1866, the rights of SLAVES went down hill. While it is common to blame the abolitionists for this change, the real push was the increase profit from owning slaves do to the production of Cotton for export. The right to free slaves was abolished in many states, the right of a freed slave to stay in a state was abolished starting with Missouri in 1820. the right to buy one's own freedom was abolished. In addition the right of any white man to kill any slave increased during this time period, with the cost to the owner of the slave for the value of the slave to be paid by the state NOT the slave killer (Burdened shifted from the killer to show he had just cause to the State showing the killing was unjustified, i.e. the killing was assumed to be "just" unless it was proven otherwise). Whitemen not only had the right to kill any slave (or African American Freedman) but to hit them, kick them and otherwise intimidate them. This level of violence is unheard of in any other Slave society (Through ALL Slave Societies tend to be violent, just to keep the slaves from revolting).

In other Societies Slaves were nothing more then workers, with less rights then other workers, but producing no additional income to the owner of the slaves. In the American South, with the massive adoption of mechanized looms and other machines to produce cloth in England and later in New England, the demand for Cotton increased and with it the profit from owning slaves. It made the slaves in the American South something different from slaves elsewhere. In other societies, even the South prior to the Cotton Gin, Slaves were profitable, but freemen could and did work with them. The profit from the use of Freeman was less, for their had to be paid, but the slaves had to be feed even if they was no work for them. Thus, while slavery was more profitable then hiring Free men, it was only marginally profitable.

In the American South the profit from Cotton was so high, Slaves were in high demand for even at a high price produced high profit. Even at a couple of thousand dollars each (When wages were around a Dollar a Day), the profit such slaves represented was so large, losing a couple of slaves by the slaves being killed was an acceptable cost of doing business (Many Slaves owners did this themselves, just to intimidate the rest of their slaves). Yes other cultures killed slaves, but no where near the number reported in the American South after 1800.

I am sorry about going into the above, but I needed to point out that in 1787 while a slave was counted as only 3/5 of a white man, that Slave still had rights. Those rights were limited but were well known. After 1800 those limited rights disappeared throughout most of the South and by 1860 were clearly long gone.

[HopeHoops]

17. The cotton industry was begind the movement to outlaw hemp, including "Reefer Madness".

The opening of "Reefer Madness" clearly states that it is fictional, but COULD happen. Sound familiar?

All of the sails and ropes on the ships that help us win our freedom were made of hemp, as were those of the war of 1812. You wouldn't want to smoke the stuff anyway - headache weed. But it was a threat to the cotton industry. Cotton won.

[WingDinger]

5. Except for voting.

[sendero]

6. Just what you would expect from Gingrich...

....trying to capitalize on an issue that he has no credibility in, since he's done jack shit for the poor and his idea of helping is the typical Republican "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" bullshit.

There are so many Republicans worthy of being loathed, but none come close to Gingrich. He's a liar, he's probably a textbook sociopath, he's a hypocrite and every sentence out of his mouth is an "up is down", "black is white", "true is false" bit of horseshit spin.

I love watching him think he can lie his way into the presidency, it just isn't going to happen.

Oh, and did anyone hear his "grandiose" speech the other day? Hey Newtie, there is a reason that "grandiose", used in that context, is a PEJORATIVE. There is nothing wrong with big ideas, but there is plenty wrong with someone who is always spouting GRANDIOSE ideas, that is, ideas that he has absolutely no way of making happen and never will. "Grandiose" doesn't just mean "big", it means outsized, like a flyweight challenging a heavyweight to a boxing match. It's laughable Newtie, just like you!

[PurityOfEssence]

7. This man wouldn't know a scruple from a scoffing smear

He's a hypercrite.

He will literally say and do ANYTHING to get his way; he's the epitome of Republicanism: to-the-marrow selfishness, a sense of entitled superiority, meanness and weapons-grade vindictiveness.

Much as it's funny to hear him feign any sympathy for the poor, and much as it's horrendous to hear Mitt Antoinette scoff at the wretched, the sheer chutzpah of Gingrich siding with the little guy is revolting.

[TlalocW]

8. Actually, they didn't

You had to of course be a white male, over 18, and a land owner to vote I think.

TlalocW

[Lasher]

9. You still have to be 18 but up until 1971 (26th Amendment) you had to be 21 in most states.

We have our shortcomings but things have gotten better since then.

[LostinRed]

10. Too bad they both Want to get rid

Of the very socail nets the proclaim help the poor

[Javaman]

11. says the guy who wants to put children to work. nt

[bemildred]

12. Newt is always at his funniest when he tries to look like a populist.

Next he will be quoting Emma Goldman or Bakunin.

[wordpix]

13. translation: "I do not like being poorer than Romney with my mere several millions!"

[FarCenter]

15. The founding fathers believed in equality of those who were white, male, and owned property!

Since he is a "historian", he is lying intentionally, and he can't plead ignorance.

[harun]

18. This was actually one of the selling points they used FOR slavery

That it created equality between men (men of course meaning white, male and owned property).

[Fool Count]

16. Yeah, and for the slaves too.