Obama vs. Romney: There’s no comparison
To the editor:
Sunday’s Viewpoints commentary, “Obama foolishly forfeits the center,” by Clive Crook, totally misses the point. We have learned that you cannot judge the future performance of a candidate by what he says. You have to look at character, education, record, life experience and accomplishments.
We cannot judge President Obama’s educational background; all of his records are sealed, but he talks about transparency. He promised in 2008 to cut the budget deficit in half, but has doubled it. He promised to deliver immigration reform and never tried. He talks about creating jobs, but he has never created a private-sector job, and he has no idea how to grow the economy to make it happen.
He talks about becoming energy independent, but he has drained the treasury on failed green projects, refused to open public lands to drilling and said no to the Keystone XL pipeline. He talks about keeping America safe, but he does nothing to save an American ambassador who repeatedly asked for help. He bemoans freedom of speech and refuses to admit a problem with radical Islam, deniers of speech and basic human rights, particularly for women.
President Obama’s mentors have all been communists and radicals. How could you expect him to reach across the aisle to get things done? He has spent more time campaigning than leading.
Mitt Romney has created thousands of private-sector jobs. He turned the Salt Lake City Winter Olympics from a financial disaster into a success. He worked across the aisle with Massachusetts lawmakers, an overwhelming Democrat majority, in getting things done.
He has shown himself to be a man of incredible integrity and generosity. An empty chair vs. a lifetime of accomplishments. When you look at the candidates in this context, there is no comparison.
Skip Blough
North Las Vegas
Numbers don’t lie
To the editor:
In his Saturday letter to the editor, Conrad Ryan bemoans the bankruptcy of several of the green energy companies that received loan guarantees and other financial assistance from the federal government.
Anecdotal examples such as those in his letter appear to indicate a failure of government – until you look at the numbers. Of all the green energy companies receiving federal government investment, only 8 percent have gone bankrupt.
Compare this to Mitt Romney’s record at Bain Capital. According to The Wall Street Journal, 22 percent of the companies Romney invested in at Bain were either liquidated or went bankrupt.
Looks to me like the current administration’s record is almost three times better than Mr. Romney’s. So much for his claim that he’s the best man to fix the economy. As we’ve seen, Mr. Romney has trouble with numbers.
Bart Atwell
Las Vegas
Moral standard?
To the editor:
I read with incredulity Joe Pantozzi’s Sunday letter, headlined “Repayment of debt a matter of character,” which posited that making mortgage payments is a matter of character. In the letter, Mr. Pantozzi asserts that if a borrower is working and is not disabled, the borrower has a moral obligation to make the mortgage payment. If you are working but disabled, you are held to a different moral standard.
A note outlines the terms of the loan, such as the amount borrowed, the interest rate on the borrowed amount, the duration of the note and the right of the lender to foreclose and repossess the property should the borrower default (as the property is collateral for the loan). Nowhere in the note (or deed of trust, where legal title is transferred to a trustee until the conditions of the note are satisfied) is there reference to a moral obligation to repay the amount borrowed. The only obligation, legal or otherwise, the borrower has to the lender is to surrender the property if the borrower fails to satisfy the terms. In some states, including Nevada under certain conditions, the lender has the legal right to sue for a deficiency judgment should the proceeds from the sale of the foreclosed property be inadequate to repay the amount due the lender.
Let’s say a military family is transferred to Nellis Air Force base. The family buys a home and faithfully makes their mortgage payment the entire time they are living in the home. The family is transferred to another duty station and forced to move. The house cannot be sold for the amount owed due to the housing collapse in Nevada. Is the family under a moral obligation to continue making the mortgage payment if doing so would mean they could not afford shelter at their next duty station? According to Mr. Pantozzi they are, because they are working and are not disabled.
Let’s say a couple living in Nevada buys a larger home to accommodate their growing family. The kids grow up and go off to college. The couple now live alone in a house that is much too big for their needs and their budget, because they now have college expenses to pay. Again, the house cannot be sold for the amount owed. Should the couple continue to pay the mortgage and tell their children they cannot attend college because there is not enough money in the budget to do both?
Mike Edens
Las Vegas
Pay it back
To the editor:
Just had to say “You get it” to letter writer Joe Pantozzi (“Repayment of debt a matter of character,” Sunday Review-Journal).
If you borrow, you pay back. That’s just the way it should be.
Brenda Dudzis
Las Vegas
