Posted on 09/21/2012 6:51:52 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
You’ve no doubt heard what Mitt Romney was captured on video saying to a group of potential donors to his campaign.
Many are pillorying Romney for saying this, a few are defending him. But both his detractors and his defenders are missing what is really wrong with this statement: it ignores the role of ideas–particularly of moral ideas.
Romney implies that people vote their pocketbooks, that people vote based only on their immediate financial interest, as they conceive it. But the majority of people simply do not behave in this way. In presidential elections, the majority vote according to what they think is right.
And Romney’s problem lies with the twisted notion of right that has been successfully promulgated by our opinion-leaders. The whole weight of today’s intellectual Establishment is behind the belief that Romney complains of: that people are morally entitled to be taken care of by the government.
So, why talk about just the non-taxpayers’ ideas on “entitlements”: what do you think 95% of Harvard professors and the editorial board of the New York Times believe? Do Warren Buffett or George Soros–or Bill Gates for that matter–think otherwise?
By focusing on income not ideas, Romney insulted almost half of Americans, implying that they have no integrity–that they place cash above principle. That insult reflects a Marxist view of man: the absurd notion that men’s ideas count for nothing and that their actions are determinstically governed by their economic class. Romney has been criticized for engaging in class-warfare, and that is half-correct. Although he does talk about what people believe, he implies that they believe it only because they want the stream of loot to continue flowing their way.
(Excerpt) Read more at forbes.com ...
Does the author have any sources to back up this assumption?
I submit that Union members will strike for higher paychecks, without regard to the fiscal stability of the factory/industry. I offer the US Textile, US Steel and US Automotive unions - and the subsequent failure of each of these industries in the US as evidence.
I submit that illegal aliens will vote Democratic, because the Democrats will promise them amnesty - despite the recession, unemployment and other issues that are facing the country.
“By focusing on income not ideas, Romney insulted almost half of Americans,...”
What nonsense. Romney’s comment was about dependence, entitlement and buying votes with our tax dollars...ANTI-Marxism.
LLS
This writer is simply wrong
It has been proven time and time again that American voters vote their pocket books. “It’s the economy stupid.”
This writer should talk to Bill Clinton for a while before he writes such an absurd article.
Lib projection ^ (n + 1)
Any “good leftist” would either ignore or deny that Bill Clinton meant that when he said that.
You should hear how good leftist “Christians” twist and deny “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father excpet by Me.”
I don’t think anyone missed this point
One issue about this that continue to trouble me is the fact that we do have a Christian/moral obligation to help those who truly cannot fend for themselves.
What separates the two parties are two things:
1)Where does the help come from? - State dictated and directed, or Christian and other charitable groups.
2) By whom and how the "truly needy' are defined
Not surprising. Its easy to miss "Nothing".
The only thing “wrong” with the statement is that it lumps in the moochers with the retirees, working people with kids, and those who are truly disabled.
But, those who are legitimately in need know who they are.
And at least some of those who are moochers know who they are as well.
“That insult reflects a Marxist view of man: the absurd notion that men’s ideas count for nothing and that their actions are determinstically governed by their economic class.”
Does this Binswanger really think that the average entitlement recipient ponders the worth of the ideas of men, and ponder the plight of nature vs. nurture with regard to their placement in an economic context?
No, it’s “Where’s my check at”.
They couldn’t care less as long as they get their check, as long as their EBT gets refilled at midnight on the first of the month.
There are those who actually give no thought whatsoever towards trite philosophical ramblings and simply are rabid consumers of stuff that they want.
This didn’t used to be in conflict with even the most lofty ideals of America. It wasn’t until Marxists like our President, and this author started rewarding the non-productive with the fruits of the productive that this even became an issue.
When “the pursuit of happiness” becomes entwined with doing so with other peoples money it certainly does become complicated. When laziness and sloth meant you went to bed hungry, the issue becomes much less complex.
I still can’t figure out why anyone on our side is even remotely upset about Romney’s correct comment.
47% of the country will vote for Obama, no matter what.
47% of the country will vote for Romney, no matter what.
The remaining 6% is up for grabs. It’s that simple.
Do you know that “government check” also means just about the most right wing voters in America?
Social Security (the only age group that voted against Obama), military retirees, the military, and many other “government check” collectors, are all among the most dedicated of republican voters.
Obama easily won the $200,000 income and above, by a 52 to 46 margin!
Obama lost the $50,000-$75,000 income group by a single point!
Obama won the $75,000 to $100,000 income group by a solid 51 to 48 margin.
Obama lost hugely from those 65 and older all of them collecting SS, and tons of them not owing taxes. They were the ONLY age group that voted against Obama.
There is no neat little package of 47% of Americans for a President to write off because he is such an ignorant fool that he thinks that they don’t vote for him, but to include much of his known obvious base in the stupid remark, is beyond stupid.
There is no question that we are our brothers keeper, or should be, however, there is no directive in any New Testament scripture that I am aware of that says a nations government should help people.
The whole of Christian doctrine is about the “one”. It is about you, it is about me and our individual relationship to Christ. Our faith is shown by our works. If our country takes care of the poor and helpless it won't do even one thing to help our relationship with Christ. The fact that we pay taxes and help others is not charitable living any more than a man who hires someone is not being christian because he gives someone a job. The only act of Christian love and service is that which we give voluntarily to someone in need.
Our government would take away everyone’s need and thus render Christian charity useless.
From what I have seen lately of Mitt Ronmeys willingness to serve others I realize I have not given near the Christian service I could. If we were all as selfless as him we would all probably have a better relationship with our Savior and our fellow man.
I also doubt that your average entitlement recipient gives much thought as to where the money has to come from.
We saw that with the “0bama’s stash” women interviewed a while back.
When pressed, they didn’t attribute it even to “the government”, but to 0bama himself, as the source of this “0bama money”.
“Do you know that “government check” also means just about the most right wing voters in America?”
So we simply need to give out more government checks and America is saved?
The moral obligation is an invidual one, not a collective one.
You’ll hear leftists try to collectivise it, and they’ll express this belief openly, knowing that many will fall for it, because they desire to feel good about themselves without personally sacrificing.
And JAK - the rendering of Christian charity to uselessness is the GOAL, not a side effect. Satan is building his temporary kingdom here on earth, and that involves replacing the church with the central government under his control.
” - - - the majority vote according to what they think is right.”
Really?
In the past, “It’s the morality, stupid!” has not won many elections.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.