To the editor:
I have to take issue with my good friend Warren Salinger’s letter to the editor (the Times, Wednesday, Oct. 31.)
Obama is revered by foreign countries, of that there is no doubt. However, Obama is open about the purpose of his policies — to redistribute the wealth of this country to the rest of the world. The president’s actions over the last four years support his belief that the United States owes the rest of the world, because our country has so much. He is embarrassed by all this largesse, of which he is a huge beneficiary.
Why does America have so much? The answer is simple, free enterprise and resources. But Obama feels guilty about this success and doesn’t believe we deserve it, despite having earned it. Instead, Obama believes government should redistribute this wealth. As a result, and in lieu of a rising tide lifting all boats, I believe Obama intends to lower the water level until we are all equal, at the bottom.
Obama bailed out the automobile industry (GM and Chrysler, not Ford) with your money. Obama risked nothing. You did.
Romney, on the other hand, promoted a managed bankruptcy in which the government would have guaranteed the final resolution. There are standard legal procedures spelled out for this, under which everyone would have taken a hit.
Obama bypassed standard bankruptcy law resulting in both winners and losers. The winners of the bailout were the unions. The losers, as you might have guessed, were the stockholders, bondholders, and creditors. Ultimately, Obama won the financial backing of the union. Fair? No, not really.
Let’s look at Obama as president and not as a community organizer, which hardly qualifies anyone for the Senate, let alone president. Since taking office, there has not been a budget, as required by the Constitution. The national debt has gone from $10 trillion to more than $16 trillion in less than four years. The greater our debt, the weaker we become in the international world. The same holds true for our citizens.