Some are calling this election the most important in our lifetime. I agree to an extent, although I strongly disagree with those who think that we have, in one of these two candidates, the solution to our economic problems. Voters get so easily distracted that they forget what the problems are, that we are trying to solve.
The truth is that most republicans are not willing to do what it takes to fix what is broken. This is why Mitt Romney is the nominee. There’s been so much talk about whether we should lower or raise taxes, that we forget that we have a one trillion-dollar deficit, and are sixteen trillion dollars in debt. These numbers get thrown around a lot, but most Americans cannot even imagine how much money this is.
Republicans and democrats alike operate under the assumption that we can actually balance our budget without having to make significant cuts. The only thing Mitt Romney felt he could be specific about was PBS, which makes up about 0.014% of the budget, and he even got attacked for it by Obama and liberals who don’t understand that you don’t need the government to keep Big Bird on the air, and that this shouldn’t be the role of the federal government.
The fundamental problem with our economy is that we have a federal reserve that manipulates prices. Yes, not only are interest rates prices, but they are the most important price in the economy. This is the reason why it is inaccurate to say that we have a free market. Mitt Romney doesn’t get this. Obama gets this even less.
On foreign policy? We saw the debate. Bill Maher actually said it best, on Twitter: “I’ve seen wider ideological differences between Jehovah’s Witnesses.”
We are in trouble. We are unwilling to do what is necessary to prevent the collapse of our economy. Neither candidate is willing to talk about anything real.
So I asked myself, what is this election really about? Despite the fact that neither candidate is willing to get serious about what is needed, I believe there are some important differences between Romney and Obama. The following quote from an Obama speech, is very telling as to what the biggest difference between them is.
If you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own. I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something – there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there.
I think this quote tells us a lot about Obama’s world-view and it is a dangerous one. It suggests he believes not in equal opportunity, but in equal results, meaning he thinks everyone should be as successful as everyone else because “we are all smart.” Yes, Mr. president, there are a lot of smart people out there, but not all of them risk it all to start their own business. Not all of them have an idea, a well-thought-out plan, and the determination to carry out that plan. Being smart and working hard is not the only thing that makes businessmen successful. It also isn’t the government’s job to redistribute wealth to try to make everyone equal.
With this, the president is belittling the accomplishments of all the businessmen who not only remain in business because they provide something useful to consumers, but who are also the source of jobs for many Americans. The government now spends twice as much money as it did twelve years ago, and Obama wants to pretend that all we need is to have the rich give the government a little more, as if they wouldn’t find a way to spend it all and again, ask for more.
It is despicable for the president to try to take advantage of the envy many people have for those more successful than themselves, particularly when the rich already pay plenty in taxes, and many of those who are angry at the rich pay no income taxes at all.
There are many people watching this election. It would be nice if it is shown that it is not OK for the president of the United States to pit the poor and middle class against the rich, to win an election. Many of those rich got to be rich because they pursued the American dream, and they now deserve to live it. For this president to try to ignite hatred for those who have achieved that dream, while occupying the highest office…it’s an embarrassment. For someone who branded himself four years ago as some great uniter, he sure has been dangerously divisive.
Unfortunately, this election is not about doing what is needed to balance the budget and pay down the debt, but it is about making sure that the leader of this great nation at least understands that those successful are to be applauded, not attacked.
This is the only real difference between Romney and Obama. Is it enough for me to vote for Mitt Romney instead of Gary Johnson? I honestly don’t know yet. I believe we are about to go off an economic cliff regardless of who is president. It scares me to death to think about what Obama’s solutions would entail, in that scenario. On the other hand, having Romney in office when this occurs would result in those ignorant of economics blaming Capitalism and free markets, for the crash, not realizing that we actually have not had a truly free market for quite some time.
It is a lose-lose situation, but it would be nice if the results of this election would make it clear that you do not get to attack the American dream, and then get rewarded with another four years.
- The Most Dangerous Answer of the Debate Goes to….Romney
- Who Needs Congress when we have Obama?
- Rand Paul Proves He is Serious About Liberty by Endorsing Romney
- Be Thankful for Income Inequality
- When Selfishness Masquerades as Liberal Compassion