I believe Mitt Romney to be a nice guy, a successful businessman, and decent human being on the whole. He lives his faith, is dedicated to his wife and family, loves his country and honestly I don't think he wishes ill on anyone. I also believe he has made the same mistake a number of individuals in human history have by pursuing wealth for the sake of increasing his wealth and thinking that this somehow makes him great. Don't get me wrong, I applaud Mitt Romney's savvy in investment and tax laws that have allowed him to amass a personal fortune somewhere between 250 million and as much as 1 billion dollars, good work if you can get it. I am working at starting my own business with an eye to financial security and increasing my own wealth and leaving something to my kids and grand-kids. However, I think a primary difference between some of those that have and continue to amass large personal fortunes is demonstrated by how they use it. There does comes a point where both need and even want is met. Homes, cars, et cetera, that at some point you have so much that you begin to lose track of them, and they lose their meaning. The bank accounts so large that they are self-sustaining. There is no question that you, your children, grandchildren and beyond will not suffer from a lack of financial security or advantage of position. Yet still you seek more. To what purpose?
Two statements made by the Romney's are very telling in this respect. Ann Romney appears on morning TV, quite adamant that tithing to their Church is demonstrable proof of what good people they are and that Mitt not taking salary as Governor is evidence of his inherent worthiness for office. Neither of these things was in any way a sacrifice for them. Giving 10% of their income to their church and not taking a few hundred thousand in salary for a few years means nothing to them with regard to their lifestyle, it would be akin to being impressed by a marathoner running to the end of the block without stopping. Mitt Romney, at a fundraiser, spoke about how the people that paid thousands of dollars to attend were doing fine but they should be worried about people like the ones serving them their food and drinks, that they needed intervention by the likes of him to be able to do better, that it was somehow Obama's fault that the people serving those that thought nothing of dropping $50K on a speech invite, may have made a couple hundred dollars for their work that day. If those people are struggling it isn't because of high taxes, it is because the people that hire them to do the work that they do have place a low monetary value of that work. That would be people like you Mr. Romney. It was your fundraiser and you could have paid that staff a $1000 an hour and honestly would have likely made more in interest on any one of your bank accounts to recoup that cost over the period of time the event took place. So instead of paying them more for their work, you would hold them up as targets of pity. This is how you view people who do not have what you have and this is how I know that you believe that because of your success in business, because you have amassed such wealth you seem to think that it was deserved, that there is something exceptional about you that made such a thing possible. You seem to have come to the conclusion that wealth you have determines your value as person and a leader, and that by extension, those without such wealth are somehow lacking in value.
Have the Romney's donated millions over the years to charity? Absolutely. There is no question that they have, though as previously stated while the amounts donated as massive when compared to those of modest means, they do not remotely impact their lifestyle and do not show any pattern of actually wanting to have an impact on anything other than LDS expansion, which is not a knock on the LDS church, Catholics have been at that same game for centuries. It is his money and he is free to donate it and use it as he pleases, but again, this is further evidence of what he thinks of those who are not in his financial league, he has it within his power -derived from his wealth- to significantly impact millions of lives without ever holding another public office, but just like with the wait staff at his fundraiser whose pay he knocked, he takes no responsibility in wielding that power. It is this aspect of the man that I believe disqualifies him to be President. He wanted wealth, greater wealth than his father, he wanted it so much that he went after it with a passion, took full advantage of every opportunity presented to him in his work to increase that wealth and that is not a bad thing in the least. It simply does not mean you are ready to lead a nation, especially a nation populated in the vast majority by people you find worth your pity because of their struggles-which you have never shared and could not begin to understand - but not worth sharing in your success. That it clearly does not occur to you, nor your wife, that being wealthy not only allows you great luxury and security but also brings great responsibility to the society that allowed you the opportunity to amass such wealth, and that failing to live up to that responsibility is of greater damage to our nation than any tax, regulation or social policy.
This has culminated in the context changing edit of the President's remarks that has placed you firmly stating that not only do you-individually-have no responsibility to the nation that set the table for you for at least three generations of your family to make your millions and more, neither does anyone else who finds themselves doing well. You have presented a case that there is no obligation to give back and that taxes for schools, police, firefighters, healthcare, et cetera are a burden that should not be borne by those who can afford to pay out of pocket for such services should they choose. Your idea for leadership would appear to be that people should be left to their own devices to succeed or fail, with your economic and social policies entwined from that position as if some kid born to a single parent on welfare would have the same chance at financial success and stability as one of your children. You point out the struggle of those that do not make very much, fault them for not taking the personal initiative to make more, all while being the one who sets the pay and seeks to limit the options and avenues of success. This is your personal history as packaged and presented by you Mr. Romney, placing your personal success above those around you, even when such success loses all meaning to you.
You've stated that you believe those that have wealth earned it all on their own and those that do not have wealth failed all on their own; and nothing could be further from the truth. The deck is absolutely stacked in favor of some and against others, a few will succeed by overcoming incredible odds and a few will fall despite being given every advantage while some in the middle occasionally make or get a break for themselves. All of us have a debt, however successful we are, because we are part of a nation that allows such success to come about. Our government is not perfect, but as long as we have ridiculously easy access to clean water, safe housing, safe food, medical services, education, transportation, law enforcement, all the basic services that make our daily lives as we know them possible, as well as having a say in who our leaders will be, we are at the pinnacle of society on the planet. Every person in the US is part of the 1% when compared to the rest of the world and the reason we are that way is because for a long period of time the people at the top in this country understood that they must reinvest some of that wealth back to the country they pulled it from in order to keep the machinery running. This is what Mitt Romney would see changed, a philosophy of 'take what you can get' and 'every man for himself' is not an American society it is the beginnings of anarchy. If those that have do not give back to those that have not, the disparity between the two can become so great that those that have not will no longer covet what the haves see as wealth and decide a new way to measure wealth, which renders the old wealth useless. Right now there are 400 individuals in this country that have more financial wealth than the bottom 90% combined. There has not been such disparity since the 1920's The majority of wealthy in this nation now only seek to increase the amount of money they have, and despite having so much they do so little with it to create anything of actual value.
It isn't what you have Mr. Romney; it is how what you have has shaped you. You do not wield the power you have well, why should we give you more?
A person who determines the value of another person by what they have is not worthy of leading people.