Who would you rather call if your child was in danger – Barack Obama or Mitt Romney? [Reader Post]

Loading

Dinesh D’Souza recently penned a piece called “How I became George Obama’s ‘brother”. It talks about George Obama calling him (D’Souza) from Kenya seeking $1,000 for badly needed medical care for his hospitalized son. D’Souza, who had met George years ago when he was doing research for “The Roots of Obama’s Rage” was happy to send the money, but wondered “Why are you coming to me?” George, the brother of the multi-millionaire President of the United States replied: “I have no one else to ask.”

Now of course, George not feeling like he could call his brother is different from his actually calling his brother and giving him the opportunity to help. That might be a strong argument on the President’s side if he was somehow unaware of George or if his circumstances were unknown. Neither is the case however. Barack Obama actually met his half brother in 1987 when his sibling was 5 years old and then again in 2006 when Barack Obama was a US Senator from Illinois. In addition to that, George Obama’s life situation in a country where the average person lives on less than $3 a day has been chronicled in the American media since Obama announced his run for the presidency in 2008.

D’Souza grants that George Obama is no angel, calling him a “drinker and a skirt chaser”. Nonetheless, George’s brother is the most powerful man on the planet yet when the health of his son was in the balance George didn’t feel as if he could reach out to him.

One might wonder why George felt the need to reach out to D’Souza rather than his big brother, particularly if he had heard President Obama’s speech earlier this year when he compared his values to those of others, saying “I am my brother’s keeper. I am my sister’s keeper. That’s a value.”

Well, it turns out that President Obama didn’t mean that he was literally his brother’s keeper, but rather he was using the biblical reference to suggest that the rich “do a little more”, i.e. pay more taxes.

That one speech gets to the core of the vision of America that voters are faced with in November. Barack Obama wants to take care of everyone, but he wants the government to do it with your money. Contrast that approach with Mitt Romney’s.

In 1996 a Bain Capital employee, Robert Gay, came to Romney and told him that Melissa, Gay’s 14 year old daughter, had snuck out of the house to attend a concert in New York and had been missing for three days. Romney immediately closed down the multibillion dollar Boston operation, set up a temporary headquarters in New York City and mobilized dozens of volunteers to search for the girl. He had Bain’s printing company print 300,000 flyers and had clerks at the firm’s drugstore unit stuff them into bags at checkout. The girl was found a week later recovering from a drug overdose, and, according to doctors, would likely not have survived another day.

To get another perspective on this contrast, one need only compare the tax returns of Romney and Obama. To compare apples to apples, one would compare Mitt Romney’s 2010 and 2011 tax returns to Barack Obama’s 2006 & 2007 returns – the two years before the presidential election.

The numbers are stark. In both 2006 and 2007 Barack Obama donated 6% of his income to charity. Mitt Romney during 2010 and 2011 donated 14% and 19% (respectively) of his income to charity. The goal of this piece is not to suggest that 6% is too low or that 15% is ideal. On the contrary. Everyone gives what they believe is appropriate.

The difference, however, is clear. Barack Obama claims that he is his brother’s keeper but believes it’s your job to actually pay for that upkeep, and he uses his position as President of the United States to compel such. Mitt Romney on the other hand suggests that it’s not the government’s job to take care of everyone, but rather individuals, communities, churches etc. and he puts his money behind those words.

Interestingly, this is not necessarily about greed or keeping money in his own pocket. If you combine Obama’s taxes and his charitable giving, he paid 39% in 2006 and 42% in 2007 while Romney paid 32% in 2010 and 42% in 2011. It’s about a fundamental understanding of the role of government. Barack Obama believes in the almighty government and their ability and responsibility to take care of the poor and the unfortunate and practically everything else in society. Mitt Romney on the other hand believes that while government can play a role in society, including providing a safety net for those in need, the primary responsibility for taking care of citizens lays with individuals, their families and their communities.

On November 6th, voters should not only think about how great a job the nanny state government has done with everything from food stamps to Social Security to Solyndra to Fast and Furious, they should also look to the plights of George Obama and Robert Gay. When citizens subcontract the support and well being of their families, communities or country to a nameless, faceless government bureaucracy there is a disconnect between the warm and fuzzy feeling they get for being caring people with good intentions and the actual results in the lives of the people in need. This holds true for feeding the poor, educating the children or creating jobs and prosperity. If there was an emergency with your child, who would you rather call for help? Barack Obama or Mitt Romney? This election may not involve a child in danger, but it certainly involves a nation in distress. The question is, who will the voters call upon?

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
25 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

The Bible has examples of each man.

For Romney is it Isaiah, the prophet when his God wondered who would go and talk to His people.
Isaiah immediately spoke up, saying, “Here I am, send me.”

For Obama it is a Pharisee who, when reminded that God commands he honor his father and his mother, said, Whatever I have from which you [his father and mother] might get benefit from me is a gift dedicated to God.” In that way the Pharisee keeps his own assets and does not honor mother or father at all.

BHO has no honor, no ethics, no respect, no decorum…he says what will benefit him politically…he ‘uses’ the Holy Bible of God, twists the intent of the meaning of its verses and uses them as a weapon for his own [ideological ] and [political ] advantage….King Obama wants to “dictate” the meaning behind the verses of the Bible…to, of all things, create class warfare…

He does this much the same way he twists the intent of our Constitution or better yet – just ignores it completely…

BHO and Lefty extremists do not hesitate to trample on the Constitutional rights of Individuals in his/their attempt [at a proven failed ideology] to create a certain ‘social justice’ in America….this is the exact opposite of the intent of the Declaration of Independence and our Constitution…

It’s Life, Liberty, and the “pursuit” of happiness [Not guaranteed Happiness], Freedom, as in
“Personal “Freedom” [and not as in Freebies for all].

On average, Liberal/Progressive and Left extremists, give far less to Charity and believe in the Ideology of taking other peoples money…. and well, just pissing it away…which is why they can never give an answer to the tax question….”when is enough…enough??”

Conservatives, because they don’t piss other peoples [or their own] money away in the manner that Liberal/Prog extremists do…they are usually much, much more generous with ‘their own’ money when it comes to Charity [giving] to worthy causes and the poor….

Looking back on the last four years of incompetence…I’d go for Mitt…

Romney, like most Christians, is require to pay a certain amount to the church to save his place in heaven. The difference is 10% of about $20 million a year

@Liberal1 (objectivity): Seriously?
Obama’s a Christian too. Where’s his 10%?

Oh, perhaps because no, Christians are not “required” to give 10% of their earnings.

Perhaps Christians are not a homogenous group you can spill your hate on.

Perhaps giving $2 mil, then $4 mil can’t be waved away as a gesture made by a compliant, stupid Christian and is instead the gesture of charitable man, a gesture that does tell us about his character and should be used against a petty political adversary who has called his taxes into question.

Perhaps you are another white, former-Christian who is finding meaning in the liberal fallacies of blaming the countries problems on those conservative, hillbilly, backward folk.

Perhaps people like you the reason independents like me have left the “left,” finding more open-mindedness and common sense on the right side of things.

Perhaps hating Christians is just as hateful as hating any other group?

Hmmmm…..

@Liberal1 (objectivity):

And what does that have to do with anything, Lib1?

Are you advocating that it should be illegal for anyone to give any group, other than any group approved by liberal/progressive sensibilities, such as the government, any money?

What you are suggesting is that Romney shouldn’t have protection under the 1st Amendment, because of who he sends money to.

Why do you hate the Constitution?

“Who would you rather call if your child was in danger – Barack Obama or Mitt Romney?”

Neither… I’d call Curt. :0)

Especially since I’m not a partner at Bain, and wouldn’t likely get the same personal interaction were I just a Staples cashier. Undeniably, it’s a wonderful gesture of friendship that Romney extended to his partner. But I’m not under any delusion this is something Romney would do for every employee at every company.

@Liberal1 (objectivity): Your ignorance is showing, Lib.
These are MANY Christian churches that look upon tithing as an example from how the 12 tribes supported 1/10 of their population and the Temple so that their ”priestly tribe”, the Levites wouldn’t have to work OUTSIDE of taking care of spiritual things for all their nation.
11 tribes give 10% each.
That comes to 110%.
With that 110% the Levites lived AND took care of the nation’s temple and its arrangements of sacrifices and offerings for the people.
No one got rich.
No one was impoverished by it, either.
Mormons, Catholics and a few other Christian churches (notably ones on TV) still push a tithe.
But many, most Christians do not pay tithes today as their original purpose, the Jewish Temple/sacrifice arrangement, has passed away.

@MataHarley:
So, you’re saying that Mitt Romney knew the folks on the boat that capsized?
Maybe he ran a background check?
Or did he personally know the man whose yard needed clean-up and stump removal after a storm?

Obama is ”given” 10 highly screened letters from supporters to read every once in a while.
And some of them must be real sob stories.
Because sometimes Obama actually sends the writer a check.

Nan G, the point is Romney isn’t going to be going around as the personal savior of every individual on the planet, as they are trying to portray him. It’s an absurd direction to go. But then, absurd is the order of the day lately.

This article is full of innacuracies. Mitt Romney has not yet released his Tax Returms. So I don’t know where that chart comes from but its just false. Also George Obama has been quoted as saying he was not abandoned by his brother and that he does not live off of one dollar a month, but rather he lives well off and that he’s not ashamed of himself. So there’s alot in this article that is just plain false. You can look it up. I’m sorry Vince but there are so many “facts” in here that just aren’t true. And this is coming from someone who’s a republican and voting for Mitt Romney. I don’t support lies though.

Mata says “Neither, I’d call Curt” Love it!
I’d like to have a dime for every time J.G. writes liberal/progressive.lol
NanG RE #1 Nonsense

@Richard Wheeler:

I’d like to have a dime for every time J.G. writes liberal/progressive.lol

Don’t hold me responsible for you not understanding a simple concept, Rich. Your intellectual dishonesty over what the Democratic party has become is not my fault.

Romney and Ryan represent policies, a budget, and a tax scheme that will strongly encourage the upward redistribution of income and wealth–a situation that any objective observer can see hardly needs any more encouragement. Their entire world view revolves around the idea that all good things are a result of the creativity and efforts of the wealthy. But it’s not the wealthiest class that’s in serious danger these days. In general they’ve been doing very well indeed, in spite of the recession. It’s the American middle class that’s in danger–regular people who work for a living, who have far more modest ideas of success and of what constitutes the American dream.

Post #13, immediately above, somehow landed in the wrong thread. It wasn’t intended to be here, but instead in “CBO: Deep recession on the way if Congress fails to stop the fiscal cliff,” in response to johngalt’s #3 comment.

Sorry about that. I’m really not sure what I did.

@Nan G: So, you’re saying that Mitt Romney knew the folks on the boat that capsized?
Maybe he ran a background check?
Or did he personally know the man whose yard needed clean-up and stump removal after a storm?

Nan G, I have no doubt that the Romney family, steeped in some very respectable Mormon traits of helping others, are good people. But maybe you need to bring the heroics into perspective and ask yourself if most people you know would not do exactly the same.

Since you mentioned the above events, let’s look beyond the media hype and put yourself in the moment. Romney and his sons were among other boaters and lake residents who plucked six adults and a dog out of the water back in 2003. Romney took the two younger girls on his jetski, while his sons got the mother.

Don’t you find it odd that no one mentions the others who got the other three adults or the dog? That’s because other unnamed lakeside residents and/or boaters who were there rescued them. In fact, those in the water were never afraid of drowning since they all had their life vests on, and there were plenty of boats in the water around them. They were just afraid that some of the boats whizzing by wouldn’t see them in the water and run ’em down since it was starting to get dark. You can read read the full story here, altho they never bother to mention the names of the others who picked up the other three adults, or the dog, either. That’s because they weren’t the Governor.

You’ll also learn it’s not the only time that the Romney sons, followed by their father, helped those in trouble on the water at their lakeside vacation home, as they helped some kayakers in trouble. That’s what good humans do when they seem someone in immediate distress.. they go to their aid. And the Romney sons and dad weren’t the only ones.

Robert Gay was not a mere “employee” at Bain, as this OP says. He was a partner and managing director. An executive. Prior to his time at Bain, he was an executive VP at the GE Credit Corporation Capital Markets Group, a VP Merchant Banking Group at Kidder Peabody, and an engagement manager at the international consulting firm McKinsey & Company. After Bain, Mr. Gay – a Mormon, like Romney – started his own venture capital firm (Huntsman Gay Global Capital) with yet another fellow Mormon you may have heard of, Jon Huntsman. As I said, this isn’t as if the child who ran away from home on a drug/concert binge was the offspring of the Bain Capital receptionist, janitor or common staff in the accounting office.

As for the stump story, Mr. Reed Fisher is also a fellow Mormon, and his son was friends with Matt Romney – perhaps thru the ward. It was not a storm. It was following a San Diego wildfire in 2007. While many of the neighbors’ homes were totally demolished, Mr. Fisher’s home only suffered a burn hole thru his fence and caught a corner of his home. He was lucky.

Matt called the his friend’s house to see if they could help after the fire. Since his damage was minimal compared to the rest of the neighborhood, it was pretty much all done. But Mr. Fisher didn’t know if the insurance would cover stump removal (they had to cut down the torched tree next to the house, leaving the stump). That’s a cosmetic deal… I mean they weren’t rebuilding his house, as the neighbors needed, fer heavens sake. No pictures of the Romney family helping the rest of the neighbors.

So Matt said he would bring help and tools to come take it out. In that sense, yes, the Romney’s knew the Fishers because of their sons’ relationships … even if they did not socialize together. You can read that story here.

None of this is to dismiss Romney, who I’m absolutely sure has a good heart. I have many Mormon friends and their sense of aid and community is always inspiring. But no one here can say that if Obama were in the same position (i.e. with the lake/capsized boat, or if the parents of one of Malia’s friends needed help), the Obama’s wouldn’t come to their aid as well. (perhaps not with the SS in tow as POTUS, but in his past or even in his future). Just because I think he’s a deplorable POTUS doesn’t mean I think he’s heartless and uncaring as a human.

Building these events in Romney’s past as larger than life, or leaving out the interrelationships and involvement of his sons, is absurd. He’s a good hearted man. Not a bloody saint. And there’s no indication that Obama would not come to the aid of his friends and/or acquaintances under the same circumstances.

Thus the reason I mock the concept of “who would you call if your child is in danger… Obama or Romney”. My answer still remains Curt, and/or those like him…. right after I was armed and on the spot myself. I sincerely doubt that I could enlist the aid of Romney upon request unless I had family/friends ties, or was floating around in the lake that was in front of his vacation house, without a boat.

@Nathan,: Actually, Romney did release them. Both years are linked in the piece. The piece specifically states that in Kenya the average person lives on approximately $3 per day. It doesn’t claim George lives on $1 per day at all.

Just to be detailed, Vince, Romney has only released 2010 complete tax returns (altho some argue that the lack of disclosure of the offshore accounts doesn’t make it complete). He will not be releasing 2011 returns until October. Other than that, it’s just various and not consecutive years of financial disclosures.

There is no question that Romney is under no obligation to release his returns, as that’s not a prerequesite to run for leader of the free world. However it’s been known that Romney would always be under assault for his wealth as part of the Obama campaign since it is a Dem selling point that the tax codes, as they exist now, favor the wealthy. It is for that reason they loved a run against Romney. The perfect foil for their middle class under assault strategy. Even the Republican candidates in the primary knew this, and also pressured Romney to release his tax returns.

While Romney was always going to be damned if he did, or did not, release a substantial amount of returns, what he could have done was turn this into his advantage by voluntarily (and proudly) being open and transparent about his success, like his father, and removing any Dem advantage that they have forced a secretive Romney into being forthcoming. There’s no doubt that they will pour over his returns and look for talking points, but it’s better to get it out early in the campaign season. This way he doesn’t give the Dems the potential to use it as an October surprise, making it the focus of the last weeks of the election.

It would have also served Romney to do so as it would show him as a transparent politician who is willing to open his finances and tout his success to the American voters.

Some astute observations INRE the political wisdom of this came from Chris Cillizza at Wapo.

A Democratic National Committee web video echoes that secrecy message, featuring a series of Republicans urging Romney to release his tax returns before noting that the one person who did have access to a Romney’s financial past — McCain during the 2008 VP vetting process — decided to go in another direction. (That last claim is a bit of a stretch; Romney was never seriously regarded as a potential veep pick for McCain — not because of his financial past but rather because the two men simply didn’t get along.)

For the moment, the Romney team — and his orbit of advisers — seem to have decided to pursue the same course of action they did when the release of his tax returns bubbled up as an issue in the primary.

…snip…

Henry Barbour, a Republican National Committeeman from Mississippi and a Romney supporter, added that giving in on the tax returns would amount to Republicans allowing Democrats to define the terms of the debate.

“Romney will never satisfy the Obama campaign,” said Barbour. “No matter what he does, it won’t be enough and their demands won’t stop until after November 6.” Added Barbour: “Why doesn’t Obama release all the ‘Fast and Furious’ documents?”

(Worth noting: Barbour’s uncle, former Mississippi governor Haley Barbour, said that if he was in Romney’s place he would release more years of tax returns.)

They’re right. Tax returns — particularly for someone as wealthy as Romney — are an opposition researcher’s dream come true. For someone with as diversified (and large) a financial portfolio as Romney, there are always nuggets to be mined that could make him look bad. The Obama campaign knows this. It’s why they are trying to force Romney’s hand.

Those risks and arguments notwithstanding, however, Romney would be making a mistake if he continued to refuse to release any more tax returns.

…snip…

And what that daily hammering will do (and is doing) is reinforce a troubling caricature of Romney — that he is extremely wealthy and is not only doing everything he can to take advantages of loopholes (Swiss bank account etc.) to protect his wealth but also using his affluence to hide unsavory things.

Obama wins this election by turning it from a referendum on the economy into a choice between himself and Romney. By not releasing more of his tax returns — and, therefore, allowing the issue to remain in the political conversation — Romney is allowing the race to be focused far too much on him (and his money).

No matter what’s in the tax returns — and our guess is that Romney likely paid very little taxes for several years due to the fact he was not drawing a salary — it can’t be worse than slowly dying a political death of 1,000 cuts as the media (and the Obama campaign) speculate about just why Romney won’t release his returns.

The truth — in politics and in life — is almost always less damaging than what the imagination can conjure. While the tax return debate is a no-win for Romney, he’d be better to lance this political boil once and for all. It’s not going away and if he doesn’t it’s only likely to grow.

Don McNay, author of “What to Do When You Win the Lottery’ & ‘Wealth Without Wall Street”, wrote a similar article, Why Mitt Romney Should Proudly Release His Tax Return. McNay, a Dem who voted for Obama in ’08, knows Romney’s political dilemma, but also notes that Romney had the opportunity to make this a positive.

If he releases his returns, people are going to see deductions, loopholes and tax shelters that average Americans are not in a position to take advantage of.

If he doesn’t release the returns, people are going to assume he did something crooked.

One of the advantages that Romney has is that people seem to think he is an honest, family-oriented man.

Goofy, ill at ease, and clueless about how average Americans live their lives, but many people trust Romney.

That trust starts eroding each day the tax returns don’t get released.

Romney has a chance to spin the issue his way. Courtesy of Romney’s former arch nemesis, Mike Huckabee.

Huckabee ran for President in 2008 on a consumption tax, called the FAIR tax, which also allowed credits for people with lower income. It eliminated almost all deductions and Huckabee claimed it would eliminate the IRS.

Embracing the FAIR plan could make Romney president.

It would help Romney with Tea Party members who don’t trust him and give Romney an issue that would force Obama to explain why he has not closed the loopholes.

It allows Romney to take a negative and make it a positive. It also keeps him on the offensive.

Duck and run is not what people want to see in a President.

Romney had an opportunity to turn the tables on the attack by making it an issue of needed IRS reform. It seems he prefers to waste that opportunity. And that may hurt him.

@Liberal1 (objectivity): Obviously you are NOT a Christian so to act like one is ridiculous.

@Greg: Greg Greg Greg, your ignorance and stupidity continue to amaze me!! What has 0lama’s policies done for the middle class?? Unemployment above 8%, more on welfare than ever, and a national debt the highest in history. You “think” you know so much about the Romney-Ryan plan but as expected you have NO proof to back up your statements. Tell me how 0blama has helped the middle class, please prove your position with factual truths.

Common Sense I blame Obama and the Repubs. for their stubborness and inability to sit down and hammer out compromise as did Reagan and Clinton. The egos on both sides are unacceptable.

@Richard Wheeler:

Your inability to understand what Obama is, is obviously the only reason you would suggest such a thing.

Compromise can only happen when the two sides wish for the same end goals, but have different ideas about how to get there. Did you miss the part where Obama said he wanted to fundamentally change America?

Just one of the many examples; Our Constitution expressly states that Congress shall write the laws, and that the Executive branch shall administer them faithfully. Obama, however, enacted the “Dream Act” without congressional approval of it. What is that, if not tyranny?

And you wish to see anyone compromise with someone willing to trample our Constitution so?

It wouldn’t surprise me in the least if you call on conservatives to just stand aside completely and let Obama do what he wants.

@Richard Wheeler: I believe in compromise when principles are at play it makes it more difficult. My view is that to increase taxes on ANYONE at this time is bad for our economy. If it where just politics the Republicans would share some of the blame. If you look at our failed economy, job creation, and debt this belongs to 0blama. He got elected on the promise that unemployment would be at 6% at this time, the debt would be cut in half, and the economy would be stimulated with the $780 billion TARP investment. He has failed. This does not mean the Republicans should abandon their economic principles based on the Democrats failed economic principals. In fact politically the Republicans are taking a risk by sticking to their principals vs politics. This time I can not agree with compromise for compromise sake. I say let this play out and the ball is in the Democrats court. If they want to take our economy over the edge then they will do so. If they care about America and our economy they will do so.

J.G and Common Sense You guys are spouting Repub. talking points. If you want to stand on your perceived principles you will lose the election. Mata is O.K. with that. Maybe you guys are as well.

If you can accept that more than 50% of the voters don’t buy what you’re selling THEN you’ve got a good chance of beating Obama–thru moderation.If Romney goes too far right on issues like immigration and woman’s rights he will lose. Are you O.K. with that? Rubio 2016. Many Dems like myself are undecided. Looking forward to the debates

@Richard Wheeler:

You guys are spouting Repub. talking points.

“Talking point” or not, it is absolutely true that Obama has engaged in extra-constitutional action by enacting the “Dream Act” by executive fiat. Do you deny this?

This is a fight for the very soul of the country, Rich. Compromise cannot be attained by dealing with someone as poisonous as Obama is. The only result will be death.

The very fact that you discount what has been noted, concerning how Obama has run the country, shows that you have little to nothing in the way of objectivity. Denial is denial, Rich, no matter how it’s practiced.

@MataHarley: I stand corrected. Of course if we were to implement the Fair Tax this would be moot…