El Abuelo

Mittens has criticized President Obama off-and-on for his alleged fondness for wealth redistribution, and lately Romney has been exploiting an out-of-context statement Obama made regarding the concept of wealth redistribution.

Of Romney’s latest dishonest attacks on Mr. Obama, Ezra Klein wrote:

It’s one thing to wildly misrepresent your opponent’s positions. But to wildly misrepresent your own? Mitt Romney, like pretty much every other American politician, believes in redistribution.

Specifically, the ‘issues’ section of his Web site says he believes in a progressive tax code, the Medicare program, the Medicaid program, the food stamp program, the Social Security program and pretty much every other feature of the federal government that’s involved in redistributing income. Romney might believe in slightly less redistribution than President Obama does, but the idea that he doesn’t believe in redistribution is belied by every single thing he has ever said he will do as president.

Speaking of what he will do as president, Romney appeared in a forum sponsored by Spanish-language television Univision. He was asked if he would repeal or change ObamaCare and he replied:

Well, first of all, I would repeal all of ObamaCare and replace it with, I think, the kind of reforms we really need. And I have experience in health care reform. Now and then the president says I’m the grandfather of ObamaCare. I don’t think he meant that as a compliment, but I’ll take it..during my primary we thought it might not be helpful.

There you have a man who admits that he lied in the Republican primary a year ago when he said:

I’d be careful about trusting what President Obama says as to what the source was of his plan, number one. But number two, if you think what we did in Massachusetts and what President Obama did are the same, boy, take a closer look…What the president did was simply wrong. It is the wrong course for America. It is not what we did in Massachusetts.

And we now know that Romney admits to siring redistributive health care reform in Massachusetts and, contrary to what he told Republicans in 2011, admits he is el abuelo of Obama’s version of health care reform for America.

But he also pledges, to the voters he has left, that Grandfather Romney will beat the living hell out of his redistributive grandchild should Americans give him a big enough stick on November 6.

What a dishonest, incoherent, uninspiring, and abusive grandfather he is.

Previous Post


  1. Duane,

    Like most terms political, “redistribution of wealth,” or just “redistribution” by itself, is as ambiguous as it is an expression of contempt. With respect to government, well, redistribution is what government is al about. Without it, government would be superfluous and unnecessary because there would be no funds coming in and no legislative process to decide how and where those funds should go out.

    Redistribution is also what a market economy is all about. It’s what buyers and sellers do. It’s the redistribution of sales revenue to employees’ wages and to stockholders’ dividends. It’s a means of setting value for goods and services. And too often, redistribution is considered a measure of success by those who manage to benefit the most from it.

    The very heart of many religions can be expressed as a form of redistribution. Consider the Golden Rule for example. Christianity in particular requires the faithful to share their “worldly goods” Those who don’t are likely to get their heads stuck in the “eye of a needle.”

    Therefore, those who are opposed to the idea of redistribution are also opposed to government of any kind, averse to a market based economy, and hypocritical toward their own religious beliefs. IMHO, such persons should be transported to a desert island and left to their own devices for survival, without, of course, instituting a system of redistribution.

    This lack of understanding (or the denial of it) seems most acute among Republicans, especially the right wing nuts. I would be interested to hear them explain how civilization could even subsist without a means of redistributing wealth.



  2. Yellow Dog

     /  September 20, 2012


    Well for starters, Money Boo Boo (Romney) could care less about facts. When you factor in that taxes pay for public education, fire protection, police, libraries, water, sewer, etc. it makes it hard not to make a case for redistribution. I wonder sometimes if the Republicans actually HEAR themselves talking or if like a spoiled 5 year old they are just making noise for attention.

    Woof (Signed),
    Yellow Dog


%d bloggers like this: