The 47%
There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That that's an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what…These are people who pay no income tax. Romney went on: "[M]y job is is not to worry about those people. I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives."
Now that the election is over, and I saw the Obama victory coming--it is like a board game--we can look back and see where Mitt Romney went wrong. This video and audio was a big blow. If Romney can't explain to the American electorate (especially this 47%) why free markets are better than government redistribution, then he can't be president. He didn't worry about them. He deserved to lose. His free enterprise arguments, if true, should have had a persuasive posture. Instead, he preordains nearly 50% of the voting public into the victimhood class who prefer hand-outs rather than hand-ups.
There is a big difference. In the developing world, there is a saying of "trade, not aid." Or, trade is the best aid. As long as the economic and political systems value hard work, individual initiative, and private property, trade among nations is a good thing. It keeps us from destroying each other because if the trade is mutually beneficial, why disrupt it. China is a different matter though as they use political suppression to decrease labor costs as well as currency manipulation and the like.
As it is, we really don't have free markets. Case in point, the inner city kid who has a hard time making a dime unless he sells drugs or does something else illegal. The entrance costs to markets favors the already favored. It takes money to make money. Undercapitalized people have no way out, except by extreme diligence and that takes an extraordinary person who bucks the odds.
Paul states in his letter in 2nd Thess 3:10:
For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: "If a man will not work, he shall not eat."
This does not sound particularly Christian, but how could it not be? It is from the great apostle himself, one who had live discussions with Jesus. Providing the opportunity to work is charity, if a person can work. It puts money in the bank, coin in the pocket, and a sense of accomplishment into the soul. Working out of victimhood into exercising one's gifts for self-betterment and society.
Now that the election is over, and I saw the Obama victory coming--it is like a board game--we can look back and see where Mitt Romney went wrong. This video and audio was a big blow. If Romney can't explain to the American electorate (especially this 47%) why free markets are better than government redistribution, then he can't be president. He didn't worry about them. He deserved to lose. His free enterprise arguments, if true, should have had a persuasive posture. Instead, he preordains nearly 50% of the voting public into the victimhood class who prefer hand-outs rather than hand-ups.
There is a big difference. In the developing world, there is a saying of "trade, not aid." Or, trade is the best aid. As long as the economic and political systems value hard work, individual initiative, and private property, trade among nations is a good thing. It keeps us from destroying each other because if the trade is mutually beneficial, why disrupt it. China is a different matter though as they use political suppression to decrease labor costs as well as currency manipulation and the like.
As it is, we really don't have free markets. Case in point, the inner city kid who has a hard time making a dime unless he sells drugs or does something else illegal. The entrance costs to markets favors the already favored. It takes money to make money. Undercapitalized people have no way out, except by extreme diligence and that takes an extraordinary person who bucks the odds.
Paul states in his letter in 2nd Thess 3:10:
For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: "If a man will not work, he shall not eat."
This does not sound particularly Christian, but how could it not be? It is from the great apostle himself, one who had live discussions with Jesus. Providing the opportunity to work is charity, if a person can work. It puts money in the bank, coin in the pocket, and a sense of accomplishment into the soul. Working out of victimhood into exercising one's gifts for self-betterment and society.
Comments