The hullabaloo around Mitt Romney's “47 percent” remarks focuses on how dismissive he is of people who receive public assistance (“Romney stands by dependency remarks; Candidate says view helps define issues,” Sept. 19).
This discussion misses a greater point: Mr. Romney’s remarks reveal how dismissive he is of human rights. He is derisive of 47 percent of people who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing — that that’s an entitlement.
No, Mr. Romney, these are human rights. Those rights were codified in the United Nations' Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Article 25.1) in 1948.
I am horrified that one of our candidates for president is ignorant of these rights and our nation's proud history of defending them.
A look at a man, 98, in the 47%
My 98-year-old father lives in a nursing home. His monthly costs are paid for by a combination of Social Security and dwindling investments made during his working days.
Without Social Security income, he would have exhausted his resources long ago.
He pays no income tax because his medical expenses exceed his investment income.
A registered Republican, he is in Mitt Romney's 47 percent. What does Mr. Romney suggest we do with freeloaders like my father?
Romney remark recalls Antoinette
Mr. Romney reminds me of a royal who was just as much out of touch with the common man's feelings — Marie Antionette. “Let them eat cake,” she said, when an angry mob protested a shortage of bread.
Romney’s right on entitlement
I am not running for President, so I don’t have to be as sensitive as Mitt Romney.
With welfare roles high, unemployment extensions the norm, mortgage forgiveness a given for everyone except those who pay their bills, and 42 percent of the population paying no taxes and receiving an earned income credit, is Mr. Romney wrong in saying we have created an entitlement society?