Mitt Romney is fighting back against a political crisis by attacking President Obama on a fourteen year old video of a then state Senator discussing redistribution of wealth. In the video, President Obama clearly states, “The trick is how to structure government systems that pool resources and hence facilitate some redistribution, because I actually believe in redistributing, at least at a certain level, to make sure that everybody’s got a shot”. So at least in this case we don’t have to hear the President say he approves this message, because it comes from his mouth. Now there are many who will not have a problem with this statement and who actually think it’s a good thing. His supporters surely believe it. His rivals will now have the ammunition they need, to accuse him of being a socialist. The truth is, the President is probably not an all out socialist but he is definitely left of center. The Romney campaign is playing damage control and often the best defense is a good offense. And just like Romney, the President needs to stand by his statement, despite the fact he made it fourteen years ago. Fiscal conservatives are not in favor if this ideology because that is not how you help people. People need to have opportunities, not handouts. But opportunities must be real and available to all those who seek them. It must be more than a catch phrase or political slogan. It is also crucial to recognize there are those in our society who genuinely need help; injured veterans, older Americans and the unemployed. But it must not be the basis for a system. It must be a place of last resort. So President Obama must stand behind his words. Mitt Romney must do the same and let the better man win. One thing is for sure in this election, there are clear differences between the two candidates and America must now decide which man is better equipped to drive the country forward.
Being Canadian, I do agree a lot with the democrats. When we talk about distribution of wealth, when done right, everyone benefits. For example, a few years ago, I was working at Starbucks. The company had record profits. Instead of dividing it among the directors, they shared the profits with everyone in the company. Everyone got a share. This generated lots of loyalty among the Baristas. I do believe that what goes around comes around. If you only take, it only goes so far. I believe that Romney is a taker.
Your point is well taken. More companies should do the same. But Starbucks is a corporation not a government. Corporations should distribute wealth to its employees because without the Baristas for example, there would be no profits. But that’s not re-distribution that’s distribution. Governments don’t produce anything or earn profits. They simply take other peoples’ money and give it out to whatever program it deems necessary. Thank you for your comment. I am in Canada quite often and I love Candaians and the beautiful, vast country in which you live. Regards, Curtis