We Believe in Free People and Free Enterprise

YouTube Preview Image

Mitt Romney being interviewed in regard to the 47% remark by Neil Cavuto yesterday.  (Go here to read Darwin’s brilliant post on the 47% controversy.)  I have never been a fan of Mitt Romney, who I have nicknamed the Weathervane.  I have always planned to vote for him, but almost entirely in order to get Obama out;  Mitt Romney becoming President being merely a necessary by-product of ending the Age of Obama.  However, I found this interview impressive.  Romney ably presented his view that ever-increasing dependence on government is a terrible thing and is a result of the miserable failure of Obama’s economic policies.  Romney is taking what is widely assumed by the Obama press agents the Mainstream Media and turning it around by standing his ground.  People tend to admire politicians who have convictions they are willing to fight for, even if they do not entirely share the convictions themselves.  The rap against Romney has always been that he has no such convictions, nothing that he is willing to do battle for.  This is Romney’s opportunity to demonstrate that he does have core beliefs that he will defend, no matter what the chattering heads on television say.  Not bad Mitt.

8 Responses to We Believe in Free People and Free Enterprise

  • jack heart says:

    Someone should have explained This before to the 54% of stupid caatholics who voted for This clown in Wash. D C. Also the 70% of catholics that voted for Clinton in past! I still don’t know, is abortion alright? Is men doing men alright? People=catholics in my parish vote for these guys,

  • bill bannon says:

    Redistribution is a buzzword. It has a bad version and a good version.

    Bad version. I did one year of welfare casework in Manhattan and Brownville after university while waiting for something else. I threw a prostitute off welfare and her pimp came after me briefly in the intake area. I was warned by the FBI on one visit to a Times Square hotel that my client was receiving multiple welfare checks at different addresses and selling heroin but I was to act as though things were normal and ps…he is a huge body builder. Thanks I said…and I’m getting paid how much to go into these situations unarmed? Those are bad redistributions.

    Good version? The young mother of three children whose husband is killed in an auto accident at 24 years old receives social security as a widow monthly for the three children for years in amounts
    that she and her young husband never paid in at their age to social security. Romney didn’t rule
    that out…”government helps those in need”. Neither does Christ want you checking the hungry as to what they paid in before you feed them. Another person pays their whole life into social
    security and dies at 63 years old…never having collected a dime. He in effect paid for the three children of the widow. Social security has math graduates working on the likelihood of all these
    scenarios in the aggregate.
    Redistribution can be bad or good

  • T. Shaw says:

    To be fair, the commies would have had to air the entire Romkney tape, not just the MSM-defined “gaffes.”.

    c matt,

    To which bail-out recipients do you refer? The UAW, 17,000,000 bureaucrats and politicians, Warren Buffett, George Soros?

    Obama’s bailout of GM stole from bondholders (generally, widows and orphans who were heavily invested in investment-grade, fixed-income securities) and enriched his union thug allies. GM is going to cost the few people that pay taxes $$$ tens of billions.

    The governmnet is turning profits on AIG, and 99% of the TARP monies it invested.

  • T. Shaw says:

    Agreed.

    Government expenditures and programs that benefit all the people are “public goods.”

    Expenditures and programs that benefit select people or entities, or recompense political allies/benefactors are “public not-so-goods.”

    I didn’t agree with TARP and bail-outs because they tend to result in asset/resource misallocations. I understand the fear and uncertainty that motivated the rash acts.

    Now, the central planners need to NOT lead us into such a huge trap.

    Fat chance . . .

    FNMA/FHLMC conservatorship (but still dominate mortgage markets), Federal guarantees of $$$ hundreds of milions of BAC/Citigroup mortgages, FDIC coverage to $250,000, QE1/QE2/QEternity, zero percent interest rates, $5 trillion added national debt, HAMP/HARP . . .

    Drink heavily!

Follow TAC by Clicking on the Buttons Below
Bookmark and Share
Subscribe by eMail

Enter your email:

Recent Comments
Archives
Our Visitors. . .
Our Subscribers. . .