This thought is stolen from Hannity or one of 'em's show last night, but I think it's worth repeating.

Elizabeth Warren was the first to say "there is nobody in this country who got rich on his own," and she is correct.

hOyDR2b71ag

Her premise might be a bit (ha) skewed, but she is correct that nobody, not one single person, ever got rich without some form of assistance or help from someone else, be it customers or financiers or whoever.

Along comes Obama, who thinks that sounds cool and wants to steal it, yet butchers the message in the process:

C-ZO7XOpwa8

I've resisted the urge to jump on the "what a freaking moron" bandwagon. I've always believed that Obama is very intelligent and just wants something different than I do. After his ham-handed goofing up of Warren's message, I now suspect that indeed he is an idiot.

Whatever show I was watching also played a montage of all the sound blips of Obama taking credit for various actions:

"I killed bin Laden"
"I saved General Motors"
"I passed health care reform"
"I ended the war in Iraq"

I I I I I....

Everything on the list was something that he either had nothing to do with personally, such as bin Laden, or had massive help in the form of Congressional votes. Yet not once did he give that credit away to those who rightfully deserve it.

I honestly do not see how anyone can still be on his bandwagon after the crap he's pulled and what an arrogant ass he is.

I honestly do not see how anyone can still be on his bandwagon after the crap he's pulled and what an arrogant ass he is.

I honestly would never vote for Romney except for the fact that I truly do consider him to be the lesser of two evils whereas I see Obama as a President that should not get a 2nd term. Period.

I can just picture Michelle and Barack watching the Olympics..

Everytime one of our athletes medal I can picture Michelle warmly carressing his thigh and saying "Good Job honey.. You earned another medal!!"

She's not wrong in the "nobody does it without using things paid for by taxes". where she is so horribly wrong is that "social contract" thing. By "social contract", she means to take what she thinks is a fair "chunk".

Yet another example of "I know better than you whats good for you, so just stand back while I fix it all up for you". And the scary thing is, she, like the Won, truly believe that, given absolute power, everything would be better. And that scares the crap out of me, not that there are folks out there that think that, but that they can gather enough people who agree that they can get elected.

His latest commercial doesn't clarify it at all - he just denies it.

Because saying that you didn't get where you are without help from someone else is completely innocuous. So my mom and Sister Marietta taught me to read - so maybe I did teach myself to tie my shoes and ride a bike - so my dad taught me how to put in a hard day's work and be responsible - this is true for everyone and every creature on the planet. It's self evident.

So why would anyone bring it up at all? It's "what goes up, must come down". It's kind of like "for you to live, something has to die" kind of argument. So what? I'm supposed to feel guilty?

In a word - yes. THAT is the point liberals like Warren - and Obama - are trying to make. Since you had help, you have a duty to "pay back". They weren't giving a life lesson on charity or communal appreciation - they were making the point that government and taxes are the bedrock of your success. Thus, if you're successful, you're a greedy good for nothing unless you pay your "fair share".

Otherwise - what's the point of bringing it up?

And it is innocuous. I am sure that without help, the New York Giants don't win the Super Bowl. But not that much. The ticket sellers, the concessions, the sales, the advertisement, the stadium staff - it's exactly backwards. They don't help the Giants succeed - they survive parasitically off the Giants.

Just like government. Government doesn't create from its largesse. It takes from those who make money and does stuff with it. Without the wealthy - those bridges and roads don't get made. And government doesn't even typically hire its own - it pays someone else to do it.

A case is easily made that the REST of us poor slobs don't have roads or bridges - without the wealth taken from the rich. Because we don't make near enough money to make it happen. Honestly. If they keep all their money, none of this happens.

A successful businessman ought to turn around to Obama and say "yeah, and *I* PAID for that road too, and half the people in this country I let them drive on it for FREE. Stop the lecture and just do the job we hired you for, ok?"

I can just picture Michelle and Barack watching the Olympics..

Everytime one of our athletes medal I can picture Michelle warmly carressing his thigh and saying "Good Job honey.. You earned another medal!!"


:pete::offtopic::biteme:

His latest commercial doesn't clarify it at all - he just denies it.

A successful businessman ought to turn around to Obama and say "yeah, and *I* PAID for that road too, and half the people in this country I let them drive on it for FREE. Stop the lecture and just do the job we hired you for, ok?"

Exactly right! You said it much better than I could.:buddies:

Her premise might be a bit (ha) skewed, but she is correct that nobody, not one single person, ever got rich without some form of assistance or help from someone else, be it customers or financiers or whoever.



All well and good but, to me, that is not what Warren and Obama are saying. Consider;

Do they, Warren and Obama and folks on the left, consider money to be the people's or the government's? I would think, when they talk about how to 'pay' for tax cuts and 'making investments (government spending) that illustrates a mindset that says 'government first'.

Look at the comments about infrastructure. As Sam has mentioned, those bridges and roads didn't get there by themselves. Government can't build them, or pay for their building without money, without wealth, that came from somewhere else. To Warren and Obama, those roads and bridges were, magically, there first, built by government with government money.

Then, finally, 'hard working folks'. Sure, they 'helped' and they are absolutely indispensable. However, people don't just show up to 'help' make a product or deliver a service. They do it in exchange for something. They bring their own resources, their labor, their brains, to engage in commerce, to get paid for what they do and they are decidedly not being provided by the government.

Lastly, the individual. The entrepreneur. They are the engine that drives the whole thing. They are THE indispensable factor. They are the ones that put everything on the line, work virtually for free to get something started. Lay awake at nights with worry and concerns and solving problems.

Obama and Warren want two things at once; that what they are saying is no big deal and self evident and not meant to be any sort of knock on the individual. Well, then, why are they saying it? Are they saying this to inform us that the sun rises in the East? That water runs downhill? They are making an argument in favor of government, of more and more and more government as though it is some sort of enthusiastic partner in entrepreneurial activities. "What are we going to create today, buddy???"

Government of, by and for the people, is and has to be secondary, at least secondary, to the individual and that is no longer the case in this nation. Government gets paid first and last and, when that's not enough, it makes more ON OUR credit, in OUR name. There are some things only government can do; the military, regulations, big projects. However, Government long ago slipped those restraints and is involved in everything from telling us what to consume to 'paying' us when we don't have a job. Paying us with what? Our OWN money. Then, when government has blessed winners and losers, it takes from everyone else to shore up the chosen ones.

Warren and Obama are setting a construct in place, that government is THE indispensable factor, the benevolent provider that provides the necessary basics from which all things then flow and this is exactly backwards.

We no longer discuss how much government WE can afford. We now simply discuss it in terms of how much more IT needs. We have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that Keynesian economics are not solving our ills. Some argue that is because we simply haven't spent enough. That would be laughable if it wasn't so terrifying.

Government is now our master. Government of, by and for the government. THAT is what Obama and Warren are reminding us all of and, to me, it is a distinction very much worth pointing out.

And arguing against.

The problem is that most of us are OK with that. Most of us have long decided that government, as long as it is providing for us, is just fine. It's the other people who are the problem.

Obama and Warren are not speaking from a position of benevolence, of recognizing the indispensable role of the individual. If they were, they'd slash corporate tax rates and do away with ineffective and harmful regulations and stop spending that is no more than wealth transfer and get out of the way. They'd stop choking the golden geese to death.

Business doesn't just 'increase' revenue when times are tough. It has to find savings, it has to make cuts, it has to justify what it is trying to do and how and why. If we could, we'd certainly say "Hey, I can't afford taxes right now or that regulation that inhibits hiring and growth." We'd wish to see more money in the pockets of the people who REALLY help us;

Customers.


Government sees itself as the Golden Goose.

Rant, rant, rant.... :lmao:

All well and good but, to me, that is not what Warren and Obama are saying. Consider;

Do they, Warren and Obama and folks on the left, consider money to be the people's or the government's? I would think, when they talk about how to 'pay' for tax cuts and 'making investments (government spending) that illustrates a mindset that says 'government first'.

Look at the comments about infrastructure. As Sam has mentioned, those bridges and roads didn't get there by themselves. Government can't build them, or pay for their building without money, without wealth, that came from somewhere else. To Warren and Obama, those roads and bridges were, magically, there first, built by government with government money.

Then, finally, 'hard working folks'. Sure, they 'helped' and they are absolutely indispensable. However, people don't just show up to 'help' make a product or deliver a service. They do it in exchange for something. They bring their own resources, their labor, their brains, to engage in commerce, to get paid for what they do and they are decidedly not being provided by the government.

Lastly, the individual. The entrepreneur. They are the engine that drives the whole thing. They are THE indispensable factor. They are the ones that put everything on the line, work virtually for free to get something started. Lay awake at nights with worry and concerns and solving problems.

Obama and Warren want two things at once; that what they are saying is no big deal and self evident and not meant to be any sort of knock on the individual. Well, then, why are they saying it? Are they saying this to inform us that the sun rises in the East? That water runs downhill? They are making an argument in favor of government, of more and more and more government as though it is some sort of enthusiastic partner in entrepreneurial activities. "What are we going to create today, buddy???"

Government of, by and for the people, is and has to be secondary, at least secondary, to the individual and that is no longer the case in this nation. Government gets paid first and last and, when that's not enough, it makes more ON OUR credit, in OUR name. There are some things only government can do; the military, regulations, big projects. However, Government long ago slipped those restraints and is involved in everything from telling us what to consume to 'paying' us when we don't have a job. Paying us with what? Our OWN money. Then, when government has blessed winners and losers, it takes from everyone else to shore up the chosen ones.

Warren and Obama are setting a construct in place, that government is THE indispensable factor, the benevolent provider that provides the necessary basics from which all things then flow and this is exactly backwards.

We no longer discuss how much government WE can afford. We now simply discuss it in terms of how much more IT needs. We have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that Keynesian economics are not solving our ills. Some argue that is because we simply haven't spent enough. That would be laughable if it wasn't so terrifying.

Government is now our master. Government of, by and for the government. THAT is what Obama and Warren are reminding us all of and, to me, it is a distinction very much worth pointing out.

And arguing against.

The problem is that most of us are OK with that. Most of us have long decided that government, as long as it is providing for us, is just fine. It's the other people who are the problem.

Obama and Warren are not speaking from a position of benevolence, of recognizing the indispensable role of the individual. If they were, they'd slash corporate tax rates and do away with ineffective and harmful regulations and stop spending that is no more than wealth transfer and get out of the way. They'd stop choking the golden geese to death.

Business doesn't just 'increase' revenue when times are tough. It has to find savings, it has to make cuts, it has to justify what it is trying to do and how and why. If we could, we'd certainly say "Hey, I can't afford taxes right now or that regulation that inhibits hiring and growth." We'd wish to see more money in the pockets of the people who REALLY help us;

Customers.


Government sees itself as the Golden Goose.

Rant, rant, rant.... :lmao:

Well stated. Somebody, someone - an individual or group of individuals (not the masses as the current regime would want you to believe) - has an idea for a service or product, and place their own individual worth on the line to build that concept.

Just by placing a stack of cash or a loan check on the ground or on a desk does not get anything built. Hard work, ingenuity, personal sacrifice of brains, physical work, and incalculable hours get it built. That cash has already been earned, and could well represent the total worth of an individual, now put at risk. That check still has to be repaid, now at risk.

Those people build the/their business(es). People that buy the product are not building the business - they are benefiting from it.

As you stated, the roads or paths to that business is already in place, either by roads, telephone, or the I-net - means of transportation already paid for by tax dollars, willingly paid or not.

All well and good but, to me, that is not what Warren and Obama are saying.

I understand that. I am telling you how it will be and has been spun away when criticized. NOBODY got to any level of success on their own - that is indisputable and easily argued against those who want to dispute anyway.

What I found more interesting than that was 1) the way Obama botched Warren's message to make it sound completely stupid and offensive; and 2) the contrast to all of his "I" statements when enumerating "his" accomplishments in office.

I can just picture Michelle and Barack watching the Olympics..

Everytime one of our athletes medal I can picture Michelle warmly carressing his thigh and saying "Good Job honey.. You earned another medal!!"

Check it out:

Rim wins North Korea’s 3rd weightlifting gold medal, credits embrace of ‘dear leader’ - The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/rim-wins-north-koreas-3rd-weightlifting-gold-in-womens-69-kilogram-class/2012/08/01/gJQAvDqPPX_story.html)

Rim Jong Sim extended North Korea’s surprise winning streak in weightlifting Wednesday, clinching gold in the women’s 69-kilogram class after lifting nearly 30 kilograms more than she has done in previous competitions.

Like North Korea’s two previous gold medal-winning weightlifters in London, she said the secret to her success was the “embrace” of the reclusive communist nation’s leader, Kim Jong Un.

“I thought that it was my duty as an athlete of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to give joy to our supreme leader, general Kim Jong Un,” Rim said. “And at that moment that was my motivation. To exert extra power to please the general.”

“The only thing that I can think of right now is to run to our dear leader with my gold medal in hand,” she added.

:lmao:

Check it out:

Rim wins North Korea’s 3rd weightlifting gold medal, credits embrace of ‘dear leader’ - The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/rim-wins-north-koreas-3rd-weightlifting-gold-in-womens-69-kilogram-class/2012/08/01/gJQAvDqPPX_story.html)



Obama says, "That Kim Jong Un - HE knows how to run a country!"

Obama says, "That Kim Jong Un - HE knows how to run a country!"

When all the clues are right in our faces, how can anyone claim Obama isn't Communist?

Her premise might be a bit (ha) skewed, but she is correct that nobody, not one single person, ever got rich without some form of assistance or help from someone else, be it customers or financiers or whoever.



Perspective. I say that no road ever got built without financing from those who had money, whether that be private or through taxes.

Business doesn't just 'increase' revenue when times are tough. It has to find savings, it has to make cuts, it has to justify what it is trying to do and how and why. If we could, we'd certainly say "Hey, I can't afford taxes right now or that regulation that inhibits hiring and growth." We'd wish to see more money in the pockets of the people who REALLY help us;

Customers.


Government sees itself as the Golden Goose.

Rant, rant, rant.... :lmao:




well said

What I found more interesting than that was 1) the way Obama botched Warren's message to make it sound completely stupid and offensive; and 2) the contrast to all of his "I" statements when enumerating "his" accomplishments in office.

You are a genius! THAT is the commercial; It starts with Obama stating 'No one did anything on their own!" and then just start his mouth running, the "I, I, I, I..." and then over lay graphics showing government spending, unemployment numbers, food stamps, skyrocketing grocery and gasoline costs, foreclosures, repeat the 'No one did it on their own" and back to the "I, I, I..."

So, what do we wrap it up with?

"I'm Mitt Romney and I can't beat this guy alone. I Need YOUR help so WE can get things done!"

You are a genius! THAT is the commercial; It starts with Obama stating 'No one did anything on their own!" and then just start his mouth running, the "I, I, I, I..." and then over lay graphics showing government spending, unemployment numbers, food stamps, skyrocketing grocery and gasoline costs, foreclosures, repeat the 'No one did it on their own" and back to the "I, I, I..."

So, what do we wrap it up with?

"I'm Mitt Romney and I can't beat this guy alone. I Need YOUR help so WE can get things done!"
Well Fox already pre-produced it for him - all he has to do is tag it at the end. Unfortunately I don't think anyone on his campaign staff is clever enough to do that.