The 47%

Today, quite by chance, I found myself watching David Corn of CSpan talking about his book and the video of the 47% comment.  I found it very interesting that he thought this was the proverbial nail in Romney’s coffin as far as his political career was concerned.  It caused me to rethink this whole eavesdropping event and what it really meant. It also caused me to wonder why our tax dollars should be paying for him to promote his book and boost Obama.

Lately there have been several comments by Romney regarding it as a misspeak or perhaps a bad choice of words and it wasn’t meant as it was said.  Frankly, I really do not see that he has anything to try and explain.  He indicated the 47% of the people would not be supporting him and there was little he could do about that.  He stated that he had to concentrate on the 7 to 10% that was uncommitted at the moment.  The polls seem to agree with those figures.

But let us say, like the liberals would have us believe’ he was purely referring to a country where 47% of the people are on the take and contribute nothing to this country.  Now, understand me correctly, I do not believe that was the intent of his statement.  However, let us say it was.  Why would anyone, other than people who are in fact the takers, be upset with that statement? Could there be 47% of the people who are guilty of being takers.  If not, then why the out cry?  There is no question there is a certain number of people who are purely takers.  The percentage of those people to the overall population would probably be difficult to compute.  There are some who have no other choice and then there are those who are truly the takers that want something for nothing.

There are those who would not consider themselves takers but pay no income tax.  Shouldn’t everyone have some skin in the game?  How can you have a drink when you don’t help haul the water?  Isn’t that indirectly being a taker.  Do you not get the benefits this government offers to the populace whether you pay taxes or not?  But is that paying your fair fair?  And if you do not pay your fair share, is that being a taker?

Even if we have 25 or 30% of people who could not survive without some unearned support that is still too much.  Shouldn’t we talking about a way for people to climb out of the captivity of poverty?  Wouldn’t it be better to have a thriving economy that required little need for safety nets because of the opportunities that were available to all who desired them?  Wouldn’t it be great if the so called entitlements were a small percentage of the income taxes that were being collected and yet the income rates were low and sustainable?  Look at Canada.  This is exactly what they did.  They bit the entitlement bullet, cut taxes and now is providing an economy where all can profit.  Doesn’t this make more sense than trying to figure a way to save a failing system?  The free market will always survive and the more it thrives the more the people will thrive.  Only those who will not participate will not profit.  Those who cannot, rather than will not, will always have an avenue for help from a thriving economy.

So the polls generally show Obama with about 47% which adds credibility that there is a 47% segment of the people are unapproachable by Romney.  They are those who support a man who promotes government control and redistribution.  Since redistribution is simply taking from one and given to the takers, I see no other alternative than to define them as people who support a man who creates the takers.  So unless you are a party to or are one of the takers, what is the reason for the excitement over that statement?

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: