Is there some hard truth in what Mitt Romney had to say about 47% of Americans? If so, then why is the truth so unpopular?

At a recent closed door function, US presidential candidate Mitt Romney said:

“They will vote for the President (Obama) no matter what. All right, there are 47 per cent who are with him, who are dependent upon Government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to healthcare, to food, to housing, to you name it. That that’s an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what … These people who pay no income tax…

“(My) job is not to worry about those people. I’ll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives.”

Now I’ve always been an Obama fan (except his economic track record) and had little to go on whether I like Mitt Romney or not.

But these comments instil a much higher level of respect for Mr Romney and his bold honesty even if they were politically incorrect.

The critics (largely leftist journalists) in the US and Australia harshly target him for speaking the truth. Nevertheless, isn’t it true that people should be responsible and care for their lives?

If people stopped expecting benefits without hard work, wouldn’t that make a better society?

Wouldn’t we all be better off if everyone were to become more productive and successful?

If you listen to the left, it appears as though they support the ideology that you should get more for less , not take responsibility for your life; the Government should take care of everyone whether they are bludgers or not.

So why is such a comment by Mitt Romney likely to lose him the election?

It suggests that people don’t like to hear the truth.

When Gina Rinehart recently suggested that Australians whingeing about not having enough should consider drinking and smoking less and perhaps work a bit harder, the left attacked her for telling it how it is.

I can’t see anything wrong with that comment either.

Are the critics arguing that people should ignore her advice and keep behaving like victims whilst wasting their time buying excess alcohol and tobacco instead of working harder? Such an attitude cannot be healthy for the development of any country.

I wonder what some left wing commentators are trying to achieve when they blatantly attempt to persuade people to feel like victims and not take responsibility for their lives.

People complain that politicians are not truthful. Yet when politicians do state the truth, people don’t want to accept it.

For some it is easier to blame others for their place in life because they are influenced by the rubbish put out by some commentators who clearly have no idea about what it takes to succeed in the real world. Some commentators try to brainwash their audience by theorising something they are clueless about based on theoretical text books they read at University. The theory gives them a false illusion of intelligence even though they are deluded from the real world.

They argue that society has a social contract to look after people. Now it’s true, society does have a social contract, a contract that should be taught at school. I believe we need a social contract that states:

As you grow up it is your responsibility to develop your education, skills, motivation, drive and talent to discover ways to add value to society you live in.

Generally the more value you add, the more you will make which is good for society – unless you work for certain Government departments. (This needs to change so that people are rewarded for their performance and the value they add to society, thus motivating them to become more accomplished.)

A responsible individual will contribute more to taxes and more to their employer. Some will create a business of their own and add perhaps the highest level of value by employing others. A few responsible individuals will invest into companies so they can grow and employ others and/or invest in housing so that fellow citizens have shelter.

There is no limit to how much you can earn. You can have a simple life and earn little or you can strive to earn more. Ideally, people should be encouraged to strive for financial independence as long as they maintain a healthy work life balance.

It isn’t easy, but the more skills you develop and the more effort and passion you put in the better off you will be.

There is no monopoly on who becomes a millionaire or billionaire in Australia or even America.

A healthy society is one consisting of passionate and driven people. Those wanting to bludge off the system and not contribute are breaking the social contract because they expect others to pay their way, leaving others to work even harder to carry their slack.

In return, the taxes paid will be carefully used to provide roads, houses hospitals and other government services so everyone has at least a minimal standard of living. If the taxes are not directed to the right purpose, it indicates that the government is breaking the social contract.

Most importantly, for those who can’t help themselves due to disabilities etc., the social contract in a compassionate society takes care of them from the taxes paid.

The social contract also requires the wealthier to contribute to charities etc., and pay higher taxes (as a whole, not necessarily as a percentage). Ideally, the affluent will have a social conscience and be a compassionate capitalist.

Taxing the wealthy or highest producers excessively is in breach of the social contract; the key is to keep the top performers performing at their optimum and encourage more people to admire them. For instance sporting teams don’t encourage their best players to perform poorly just to give the weaker ones an ego boost. Instead they increase training and education for weaker performers whilst ensuring that their top players keep delivering excellent results thus treading the path of constant progress.

Such a social contract will definitely be successful and beneficial.

This brings about the question, why do certain politicians, certain sections of the media and certain individuals break this social contract?

Some politicians do it to bribe voters, for instance, Wayne Swan.

The treasurer creates his politics of envy by attacking our top producers and creating a belief that the rich are responsible for their predicament of those less fortunate. Swan victimises these people and promises to extract excessive wealth from the affluent to help them.

I am sure Mr Swan is aware that this ideology is wrong; however, his desperation for power seems to have resulted in the flagrant breach of social contracts tempting the treasurer to prioritise self-interest even though it damages the society.

Wayne Swan and his cohorts should spiritually evolve to a point where they gain power by telling the truth instead of deceiving the public.

Certain sections of the media play the dangerous game of creating politics of envy and twisting the words of those who state the truth to prevent the public from hearing what they really need to hear as controversy sells.

Some individuals in society choose to bludge and not contribute or turn to crime thus breaking the social contract. And yes some of the rich also break the social contract by not focusing on the greater good.

It can’t be refuted that there are some wealthy individuals who don’t focus on the greater good of society thus risking the entire financial system. An ideal example would be sections of Wall Street and investment banks who profit from excess risk and take the upside. However, when they lose, they expect the government to bail them out-just as we saw during the Global Financial Crisis.

I aspire for a society that clearly understands the social contract and recognises those who are abiding by it and shaming those who aren’t – whether they are politicians, dole collectors, agenda driven journalists/media proprietors, sections of Wall Street or a small percent of the super wealthy who are not focused on the greater good.

The society is better off hearing the brutal honest truth than a misleading or sugar-coated version.

Those with agendas who are not focused on the greater good are not upholding this social contract and thus should be highlighted as charlatans.

Am I asking too much of a modern day 21st Century society? I would hope not.

It is time we evolved to a modern 21st Century society by growing on a spiritual and intellectual level.

Jamie McIntyre is the founder of the 21st Century Group of companies and CEO of 21st Century Education. He is also bestselling author, successful entrepreneur, investor, sought after success coach, internationally renowned speaker and world-leading educator. www.jamiemcintyre.com

Jamie McIntyre is the founder of the 21st Century Group of companies and CEO of 21st Century Education. He is also bestselling author, successful entrepreneur, investor, sought after success coach, internationally renowned speaker and world-leading educator. http://www.jamiemcintyre.com

Author Bio: Jamie McIntyre is the founder of the 21st Century Group of companies and CEO of 21st Century Education. He is also bestselling author, successful entrepreneur, investor, sought after success coach, internationally renowned speaker and world-leading educator. www.jamiemcintyre.com

Category: Opinions
Keywords: 21st Century Education,gina rinehart,jamie mcintyre,mitt romney,obama,america,republican,success,tax