My case in point: in 2012 the Koch brothers made 11 billion in profit yet still laid off over 25% of their workers in Green Bay, many middle aged. Now they need to find retraining, find a job, and still support their families. Most ended up losing their homes or at the very least downsizing. What CEO has every lost their home, needed to be retrained, or lost their life savings trying to make ends meet after a business went under or they got fired?
What I heard from Obama is that one man cannot make a successful business without good workers and good workers should be recognized for their contribution to the organization. Currently the climate is that only the CEO is of any importance and should take advantage of their workers any way they can.
It's not taken out of context. I read the statement, the ENTIRE statement over and over and still came to the same conclusion - Our president, having never made anything, never built anything, not once contributed a tangible thing, has no clue.
It's not like this is a revelation. He's marxist, taught, marixist befriended, marxist steeped. It's inevitable that's his 'take' on America.
You've taken it right from Alinsky - ridicule what you can't or won't answer.
Same old crap with you folks.
Educated people learn by actually reading history not watching Glenn Beck's chalkboard.
Government produces "Nothing?" So drove to work on a private road then? Went to only private schools? If your house catches on fire is a private company gonna come put it out? The space shuttle and mars robots are "nothing?" The internet you're typing all this Glenn Beck nonsense on is "nothing?" Public parks are "nothing?" I go to a very nice one all the time and it's awesome! Look around. You take way too much for granted.
The "conservatives" writing here clearly show no clue of understanding what Marxism really is. To them, it is just a hate word that masks the anger and resentment they feel as they react to what they view as a challenge to the supremacy of the white social paradigm. Non-whites must stay in their place; those that do not are lazy parasites or they are socialists, Marxists, American-haters, etc., etc.
You may not realize that the USSR was an aristocracy controlled by a privileged nomenklatura of less than a million people. They believed that they deserved their position of privilege and that everyone else should be grateful for what they had.
This is exactly what the GOP is preaching: the wealthy and influential deserve what they have; the rest of us must earn our way by playing by corporatist rules.
Few "conservatives" really want a few hundred wealthy families calling the shots in our government.
So I ask: it is REALLY worth the dizzying, intoxicating glee of gloating over an Obama defeat when you know from the lips of the GOP candidates themselves that the consequence is a victory for a policy of privatization of Social Security, an end to Medicare, more tax cuts for the likes of Romney and the Koch brothers, and more tax breaks and subsidies for corporations that outsource American jobs?
The following is from The New Yorker (http://www.newyorker.com /reporting/2010/08/30/ 100830fa_fact_ mayer#ixzz24Ccg4BeH--I have to break up the link because SodaHead truncates links, it seems):
"The Kochs are longtime libertarians who believe in drastically lower personal and corporate taxes, minimal social services for the needy, and much less oversight of industry—especially environmental regulation... In a study released this spring, the University of Massachusetts at Amherst’s Political Economy Research Institute named Koch Industries one of the top ten air polluters in the United States...the Kochs vastly outdid ExxonMobil in giving money to organizations fighting legislation related to climate change, underwriting a huge network of foundations, think tanks, and political front groups. Indeed, the brothers have funded opposition campaigns against so many Obama Administration policies—from health-care reform to the economic-stimulus program—that, in political circles, their ideological network is known as the KOCHTOPUS.
...Charles Lewis, the founder of the Center for Public Integrity, a nonpartisan watchdo...
The following is from The New Yorker (http://www.newyorker.com /reporting/2010/08/30/ 100830fa_fact_ mayer#ixzz24Ccg4BeH--I have to break up the link because SodaHead truncates links, it seems):
"The Kochs are longtime libertarians who believe in drastically lower personal and corporate taxes, minimal social services for the needy, and much less oversight of industry—especially environmental regulation... In a study released this spring, the University of Massachusetts at Amherst’s Political Economy Research Institute named Koch Industries one of the top ten air polluters in the United States...the Kochs vastly outdid ExxonMobil in giving money to organizations fighting legislation related to climate change, underwriting a huge network of foundations, think tanks, and political front groups. Indeed, the brothers have funded opposition campaigns against so many Obama Administration policies—from health-care reform to the economic-stimulus program—that, in political circles, their ideological network is known as the KOCHTOPUS.
...Charles Lewis, the founder of the Center for Public Integrity, a nonpartisan watchdog group, said, 'The Kochs are on a whole different level...They have a pattern of lawbreaking, political manipulation, and obfuscation. I’ve been in Washington since Watergate, and I’ve never seen anything like it. They are the Standard Oil of our times.'
Peggy Venable [who organizes events for the Kochs]...warned that Administration officials 'have a socialist vision for this country.'
Five hundred people attended the [event], which served, in part, as a training session for Tea Party activists in Texas. An advertisement cast the event as a populist uprising against vested corporate power. 'Today, the voices of average Americans are being drowned out by lobbyists and special interests,' it said...The pitch made no mention of its corporate funders. David Axelrod...said, 'What they don’t say is that, in part, this is a grassroots citizens’ movement brought to you by a bunch of oil billionaires.' "
He likens his tactics to Lucifer. As if that gives him some kind of biblical edge.
Obama's hero.
Rules For Radicals - published in 1971 - had the dedication to Lucifer. It was subsequently removed from later editions.
http://www.americanthinker.co...
http://www.hudson.org/index.c...
http://www.nationalreview.com...
http://www.crossroad.to/Quote...
'Rules for Radicals by Saul Alinsky - pub 1971 - A Summary & Overview of Progressive Far Left's Tac...
http://online.worldmag.com/ta...
They pretty much left the Christian and Jewish pages alone.
I found the scan of the 1971 dedication page but alas, I'm not paying 49.95 for you or anyone.
Lefties ... ie Obama supporters have done a brilliant job of scouring the first edition of Alinaky's book from the internet -
Here's some scrubbing -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?...
http://pubsub.com/Saul-Alinsk... Those are just a sampling.
Rules For Radicals - published in 1971 - had the dedication to Lucifer. It was subsequently removed from later editions.
http://www.americanthinker.co...
http://www.hudson.org/index.c...
http://www.nationalreview.com...
http://www.crossroad.to/Quote...
'Rules for Radicals by Saul Alinsky - pub 1971 - A Summary & Overview of Progressive Far Left's Tac...
http://online.worldmag.com/ta...
They pretty much left the Christian and Jewish pages alone.
I found the scan of the 1971 dedication page but alas, I'm not paying 49.95 for you or anyone.
Lefties ... ie Obama supporters have done a brilliant job of scouring the first edition of Alinaky's book from the internet -
Here's some scrubbing -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?...
http://pubsub.com/Saul-Alinsk... Those are just a sampling.
And no, not propaganda. If you would have read them, you would have seen a book review prior to the dedication being removed in a subsequent printing. You would have further noticed that I said there is a copy available, but it takes MONEY and I'm not paying because you like to cry 'propaganda'.
You can save the KOCH nonsense. Not unless you want to start chatting about SOROS.
You cannot help but find that the overwhelming comments of this nature, however, issue from angry "conservatives".
The Koch information is simply a summary of who they are and what they do. You correctly do not question the source. I must ask, then, do you reject the facts? If so, why?
And I know of no similar bio of Soros. He is reasonable and he adheres to scholarly discipline. However, he is not sympathetic to the corporatocracy, which--of course--targets him for telling the truth (especially any former "conservative", like David Brock).
Anyway, if you know of verifiable facts and data that show him to be anywhere as dishonest and self-serving as are the Koch brothers, please enlighten me.
He inspired me, too. And I am a true conservative, one who believes in keeping true to the best of our traditions, who believes that mom 'n pop businesses are superior in service and qulity to the mega-corporations that take taxpayer subsidies and run everything through a blender.
That's a terrible message.
Here's the full quote.
"Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business. you didn’t build
that. Somebody else made that happen."
When he said, "you didn't build that," he was talking about roads and bridges.
So all these businesses owe their success to roads and bridges? If that is the case, why are there poor? They pay nothing for those roads and bridges and use them.
If roads and bridges cause success why are folks struggling?
The concept isn't hard to grasp. It's a logical progression of your argument (and coincidentally, Obama's), that success hinges on roads and bridges that other folks built. Or some teacher or some other fictional character. Nothing like demonizing hard work dedication. Oh no. Obama would never disdain the successful would he?
Steeped in collectivism, the little dorm-rat never held a real job. His momma was a communist, his father.. His grandparents too. And you expect THINKING Americans to discount his past? It's obvious what he thinks.
But hey, delude yourself. I hope the end of his term doesn't shock your sensibilities too much - all that withdrawal from hopium...
Donald Trump inherited 34 mil and a hotel in Manhattan. He got to benifit from the Brooklyn Bridge and the NYPD more than I did even thought he didn't make those things happen --just like Obama says.
It's not an "all or nothing" thing. If there was better infrastructure, better education available, better "roads and bridges" etc there would be fewer poor people, because more people would have the opportunity to succeed.
Who exactly pays the lions' share of taxes? Thereby providing the money FOR the roads and infrastructure?
It's a stupid argument. Collectivism is NOT what makes businesses successful. Nor government largess. Nor a particular teacher. Business succeeds because of the drive of the business owner and whether he provides a product or service that is necessary by demand.
Businesses succeed DESPITE the government, not because of it.
If you own a busineess you "built" with all your "drive" who educated your employees? Who enforces your contracts? If it catches on fire who's gonna put it out? Who built the roads you ship your products on and regulates and maintains them? Who did a hydrological study of your watershed and made sure that no one upstream of you can cause flooding on your property? Who created the internet protocols your business website is run on? Who's military and police protect your property, patents, and copyrights? the only reason you "own" your business is because there's a government building somewhere with a piece of paper in it that says you do and government courts and police to enforce that ownership.Go somewhere without all that and try to start your business. Not to mention lots of businesses get their money from government contracts. Clearly they're not doing business "in spite of" the government!
And your earlier question "why are there still poor people" is asanine. It's like if I said "Doctors and hospitals help sick people" and you asked "Then why are there still any sick people?" I didn't say "roads and bridges automatically gaurantee everyone will be successful." but Amazon would have a hard time giving you a free shipping deal if there were none.
NONE. It doesn't hold water. Somolia? Really?
As for poor folks, those programs for poor folks were to end poverty. That's how the government touted 'em.
Instead, those programs have resulted in what? over 75 percent of households in the black community being headed by single women? Why? Want to take a stab at that?
Poor in this country has typically been younger folks and old folks. Now there's a whole new dynamic of staying on welfare generationally. Why? Used to be folks worked, then worked at a different job or the same job and their paychecks would rise. More experience, better jobs. Now? No work and Obama wants to end work requirements for entitlements. Why work? Free cable, free phones, free food. Section 8 housing. Folks at 17 can get more benefits that any job they can get. Why work? Why get experience? Why pay dues by working to get a higher salary? Ah.. why not? It's a whole voting block for Democrats.
Your stupid argument regarding DOCTOR's is laughable.
Doctors help sick people, That's not the same argument. Ridiculous in fact. Doctor's aren't incentivizing folks to STAY sick. Doc's don't give freebies out.
But boy howdy, medicaid sure does. And exactly how do the POOR use medicaid? Massive fraud and abuse. 6...
NONE. It doesn't hold water. Somolia? Really?
As for poor folks, those programs for poor folks were to end poverty. That's how the government touted 'em.
Instead, those programs have resulted in what? over 75 percent of households in the black community being headed by single women? Why? Want to take a stab at that?
Poor in this country has typically been younger folks and old folks. Now there's a whole new dynamic of staying on welfare generationally. Why? Used to be folks worked, then worked at a different job or the same job and their paychecks would rise. More experience, better jobs. Now? No work and Obama wants to end work requirements for entitlements. Why work? Free cable, free phones, free food. Section 8 housing. Folks at 17 can get more benefits that any job they can get. Why work? Why get experience? Why pay dues by working to get a higher salary? Ah.. why not? It's a whole voting block for Democrats.
Your stupid argument regarding DOCTOR's is laughable.
Doctors help sick people, That's not the same argument. Ridiculous in fact. Doctor's aren't incentivizing folks to STAY sick. Doc's don't give freebies out.
But boy howdy, medicaid sure does. And exactly how do the POOR use medicaid? Massive fraud and abuse. 65 percent use emergency rooms instead of doctors' office visits for minor illnesses. That's not counting the clog of illegal aliens in the ER.
So keep flapping. You don't understand, you refuse to learn and you keep spouting progressive cant.
YOU didn't bother addressing the huge amount of money business folks put into the infrastructure. You also don't address the amount of money people put into the educational system.
I sent my children to private school. But my taxes EVERY YEAR were on top of tuition. My taxes for school? over 9K a year. That's not my property tax burden, that's pure school tax. Think of all the folks that are childless. Think of all the folks that pay that are in their 60s and 70s and 80s? They've paid and paid and paid. That's only property owners. Not the renters, not the section 8 housing folks. So who exactly pays for education? It's not the poor. It's property owners. Outside of NYC - 61% of property taxes are used to fund schools. You know - the property owners that are 98 percent more likely to own their own business.
Who exactly has the burden?
You folks are incredible. The silly notion of 'it takes a village' to raise a child sounds so warm and fuzzy until you look at the economic reality.