Romney Advocates for Redistribution

In an interview with 60 Minutes earlier this week Mitt Romney really let his true big government colors shine. In a discussion about taxes, Romney made it clear that while he supports lowering income tax rates, he has no intention of actually lowering the actual tax burden for most individuals. By “closing loopholes” and “eliminating deductions” for the wealthy Romney says his plan will more or less be revenue neutral, which means there is no plan to actually reign in the excessive levels of government spending. For those who have not seen through Romney’s limited government rhetoric for what it really is, this interview should be enlightening.
In the video posted here, Peter Schiff exposes Romney’s views for what they really are. Cutting through the rhetoric, Romney’s claim seeks to raise taxes on the rich and cut taxes for the middle class. Haven’t we heard that plan before? This is the same wealth redistribution policies of Obama, just framed in a different way. Add to this the fact that Romney has made preserving Medicare benefits from the “cuts” enacted by Obama as a central tenet of his campaign and his commitment of redistributing money from one demographic to another is confirmed.
The distinction between Romney and Obama on economic issues is much smaller than most Republicans will lead you to believe. As long as these are the economic values of the Republican leadership I don’t see much value to the party at all.


One thought on “Romney Advocates for Redistribution

  1. I think the Republicans are starting to awaken and if they can hold the government’s “revenue-model” constant (based upon Romneys ideas of lowering the tax rates for all and eliminating special deductions to the chosen winners) and hold spending constant then slowly begin to decrease spending, the result will be increasing revenues that will achieve a balanced budjet and eventually begin to pay off the debt. We need to get out of this problem similar to the way we got into the problem … incremental change. Romney’s soft comments to hold the line need to consider that if he stated he will not increase spending, that would be scored as a 10 trillion dollar “CUT” over 10 years. That would be a GREAT ACHIEVEMENT but he could never get elected using that language. There is no other viable alternative on the ballot who has a chance of winning. Romney is not the lesser of two evils he is the alternative to evil … because … in addition to economic issues one must also oppose “Intrinsic evil” at all times and Obama and the Democrat Party’s support of abortion is an “intrinsic evil” that must be opposed. The Libertarian party wants to allow the decision of LIFE to be decided at the State level rather than as a constitutional right.

Leave a Reply

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

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

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )


Connecting to %s