Even
Bill Clinton in his Democrat Party Speech could only come up with a
tepid response to “If you’ve got a business -- you didn’t build that” embedded in Obama’s Roanoke Virginia speech,“There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me -- because they want to give something back. They know they didn't -- look, if you've been successful, you didn't get there on your own. You didn't get there on your own. I'm always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something -- there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there.If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you've got a business -- you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn't get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.
The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together.” Obama, Roanoke, Va, July 13, 2012 http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/07/13/remarks-president-campaign-event-roanoke-virginia
Clinton
appeared eager to diffuse the Republican response to Obama’s quotation
which undermines the very foundation of our economic system that
individuals based upon intelligence and hard work create wealth.
Clinton’s comments follow,
“Now, folks, in Tampa a few days ago, we heard a lot of talk — (laughter) — all about how the president and the Democrats don’t really believe in free enterprise and individual initiative, how we want everybody to be dependent on the government, how bad we are for the economy.This Republican narrative — this alternative universe — (laughter, applause) — says that every one of us in this room who amounts to anything, we’re all completely self-made. One of the greatest chairmen the Democratic Party ever had, Bob Strauss — (cheers, applause) — used to say that ever politician wants every voter to believe he was born in a log cabin he built himself. (Laughter, applause.) But, as Strauss then admitted, it ain’t so. (Laughter.)We Democrats — we think the country works better with a strong middle class, with real opportunities for poor folks to work their way into it — (cheers, applause) — with a relentless focus on the future, with business and government actually working together to promote growth and broadly share prosperity. You see, we believe that “we’re all in this together” is a far better philosophy than “you’re on your own.” (Cheers, applause.) It is.” http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/09/05/bill_clinton_address_dnc_we_are_better_off_since_obama_took_office.html
But
what Clinton implies but doesn’t say directly is that Government built
that log cabin. His further implication is that only through government
can one cooperate or work together, not outside of government in the
community or in the private sector.
Neither
of these implications are accurate. Government didn’t build that log
cabin. And the American people can and have cooperated through the
existence of this country without the necessity of government
intervention in every endeavor of their lives.
Come on Bill, you can do better than that, or perhaps I should suggest your speech writers can build a better construct!
more proof that Pete the banker isn't as smart as he thinks he is.
ReplyDeleteNow, now Vern. You have to learn how to think like a bankster.
ReplyDeleteHi guys,
ReplyDeletePete's got it all wrong....I'm sure you two can explain how guys like Clinton, Obama, Kerry, and other rich democrats can blather about the rich paying more while they get richer and the middle class is shrinking. I just wish an honest reporter would have asked Elizabeth Warren about who she owed her riches too....and why she wasn't giving it back.
People like them think that the economy is just a big machine that cranks out goodies. And if your the one with your hand on the switch, then you can crank out those goodies for your pals. They have no idea of it's complexities and fundamental rules that are as immitable as tose oh physics. It's completely understandable why they would want to protect people from the excess of capitalism, but not why they seek to suppress it's benefits which are legion. In historical terms, the rise of the middle class has fostered the rise of indiviual freedom and civil societies.
You have that system in Oregon...30 years of "progressive" hands on the switch, yet Oregon is losing ground economically by every metric you care to name. Because even if their theory worked, their screening filter for jobs is so fine, none get through except public sector ones and those who profit from government...Oregon's new middle class.
Of course, Clinton and Obama never put any flesh on the bones, but the phrases are enough to cause many to believe that the government will give them money as a matter of "social justice". All you have to do is have government take from the rich and give to the poor; that is whatever is left after government, public sector unions, non profits, advocacy groups, "infrastructure", education,and others get their cut. The left's version of "trickle down".
I understand the attraction to this message, there are millions of hard working people in this country that don'tmake it big. Problem is too many hard working people are having to pay for those who don't work or think they don't have too, i,e, Nancy Peolsi's guitar player example. It's unfortunate that being a janitor, teacher, CNA, or dozens of other jobs don't make money like Kim Kardashian or that the person that puts the shrink wrap on Barbara Striesand's CDs doen't make 50k with benefits. There's not much government can do about that.
But government shares the blame too with funding low quality education and fostering a number of bad behaviors that cut off a person's abliity to move ahead economically. By insulating public sector workers from the woes of bad economic times, it makes them less interested in ditching the economic fantasies of light rail, solar power, food hubs, climate refugees, or illegal aliens or making regualtion that support the environment and economic growth for us all.
If I were a cynic, I would say they that Clinton and Obama aren't really interested in ecomomic growth except for themselves and those they select to prosper. That flooding the nation with the least educated of the Third World and supporting an education system that fails 2/3s of it's students only furthers their goals.
There is a place for government in the economy; implementing fair regulation that levels the playing field, providing an education that allows people to compete to further their goals, a fair tax system that funds necesary services while leaving capital in the private sector for new products and services, and providing support for those who can't provide for themselves, not those who won't.
If Clinton, Obama, et al really believed what they were saying, their wealth would be shrinking, not growing and others would be moving ahead.
You apparently miss the point...again. While there are wealthy Democrats, they by and large do not oppose restoring the tax rate for income over $250k. They are not selfish bastards. Those would be Republicans, the majority of which would not be affected by the tax restoration and who continue to harp about the deficit.
ReplyDeleteSo, since Clinton is so wrong about this issue, Romney is going to win, Right? Cmon, just write it for all of us to read. It would be nice if any of the people administering the blog would be right for once. Unless, you actually think he is going to lose. And then you are left with the difficult position of writing in the past that you support the candidate that will defeat Obama. So, which is it Conservatives?
ReplyDeleteHi Guys,
ReplyDeleteIago, I didn't miss your point. I'd love to hear your definition of selfish. The President only pays 21% of his income in federal income tax. The Clinton's only 33%, and John Kerry in 2003 paid only 12.5% in federal taxes on his 7.5 millon dollar income...not to mention hidiing his yacht. Think Ted Kennedy paid 50% of his wealth to the estate tax when he died? If Warren Buffet wants to pay more taxes, how come he's putting his estate into the Bill and Melinda Gate's trust where it will be tax exempt?
What's the point of raising the rate from 36% to 39% if even rich left wingers don't pay it? The President had complete control of congress, yet asked them to extend the Bush tax cuts. What gives?
That's my point iago. I don't have a problemn with the tax Bush cuts going away. I have a problem with people that think that is a solution to what is a spending problem. The CBO estimates that raising the rate to 39.5% will bring in an additional $89 billion a year. The current deficit is $1.3 trillion dollars or $1,500 billion. So you tell me how much you have to raise taxes on those "selfish bastasrds" to make up the difference?
You can root for your ideology all you want, but as a practical matter, it's like throwing an ice chip into a blast furnace. Even the "draconian" Ryan budget doesn't balance for decades. There's gonna have to be lots of spending cuts...that will require a facing of facts, not just wishful thinking.
Whether Romney or Obama win, the fundamental laws of economics are just as immutable as those of physics.
Mike,
ReplyDeleteThanks for the excellent recitation above. My only recommendation is you should work a little more on your cynicism. :)
Say why do you suppose Iago brushed over your point on the rich Democrats suggesting that they wouldn't mind paying more taxes?
Hum, doesn't take much to blow that thesis away. Say has John Kerry moved that $7MM yacht to his home state of Mass yet, or it still being worked on in Rhode Island? It's only a $500,000 tax liability. Two years and running. Maybe another swift boating is in order!
And Elizabeth Warren seemed pretty compassionate when she made her fortune by flipping REO homes at a huge profit during the 1990's. And again when she was beating out other candidates for the teaching position at Harvard, proclaiming her "native" American ancestry. So compassionate she aspired to become the country's prime financial regulator, running the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, to prevent others from making profit on foreclosures, REO's and other peoples misery.
And what of the likes of Rangel and Geithner who are such perfect citizens that they promptly paid their taxes with impunity, once discovered. Oh wait has Charlie actually paid yet?
Oh those Democrats, such stellar examples of virtue, such purity???!
Hi Pete,
ReplyDeleteI was hoping Iago would give us his definition beyond slogans. The word hypocrite has become overused, but in this case it cuts to the heart of the matter. I know in the popular vernacular, republicans are "selfish bastards" and democrats care more. But there is something really smelly about being a left wing rich guy wanting others to pay mmore when he doesn't. If you believe in redistributing wealth, seems to me yours should be going down first....called setting an example.
Th examples are rife:
Hollywood/enterainment industry.
Al Shardpon's organization owing about 1.8 million in back taxes.
Jesse Jackson being able to accumulate enough wealth as an advocate of the poor to be ordered to pay $10,000 dollar a month in child support for his out of wedlock child.
Michael Moore promising to pay a large chunk of the "profits" from his 9/11 movie to 9/11 victims and evidently never did.
I can't remember the name, but a well to do democrat during t medicare drug program debate herailing about his mother not being able to afford her meds when someone in the crowd yelled, "Your rich, why don't you pay for them?"
George Soros, the left wing billionaire, convicted of fraud in France, who mnade his money in currency speculation.
On the same note, I would hope the President is paying the living expenses for his illegal alien aunt and uncle rather than the taxpayers.
Chris Dodd, head of the Senate banking committee getting a "VIP" mortgage from Countrywide, just before the housing crash.
Ron Wyden, now essentially the third senator from New York who got rich the old fashined way...marrying it.
Oprah Winfrey, a billionaire, opposed to the estate tax.
There are important discussions to be had about this issue and its a shame that iago, hard cheese, and vote are unable to go beyond slogans and cliches to support thier positions.