
Obama flies his true color: red
Temlakos~POTL~PWCM~JLA~☆
2012/07/17 00:05:50
What else can you make of this speech by Obama:
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. There
are some things, just like fighting fires, we don’t do on our own. I
mean, imagine if everybody had their own fire service. That would be a
hard way to organize fighting fires.
Why Obama is wrong
Obama forgets, if he ever knew, that successful people do what they do with the voluntary consent of every person with whom they deal. That includes the voluntary consent of those who hire him when he starts, the voluntary consent of those who work for him today, and the voluntary consent of any people who buy his product or service.
The examples that Obama gave, in the only world that he knows, are
government services. (And some of them are not always government
services at that.) He cites teachers, road builders, bridge builders,
and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency that gave us what
became the Internet.
But not all school are public schools even today. (Nor need any public school exist.) Streets and roads were not always public even in America.
As to the Internet: the Department of Defense needed to have its
computers keep talking to one another even after a devastating attack
from the air or from space. They developed a new networking method that
civilians could use just as easily. The Internet is a by-product of one
of the three proper functions of government, and grew out of the
government’s basic mission. That mission is to manage force and to apply it to protect people’s rights.
Furthermore, when a person sets out to start a business, he, or someone close to him, has already paid
the teacher, the road and bridge builder, and the technicians at DARPA
who built the Internet. And anything else that the government “gave” the
people, whether as a proper function of government or not.
Obama’s treatment of fire fighting has two basic flaws. First, Obama
would have people believe that everything the government now does, the
private economy could never do. Second, he ignores this fundamental fact
about fire fighting. Every person already does keep his own fire service,
if he owns, controls, or manages a large enough piece of property that
could catch fire. Even an ordinary householder follows a few elementary
fire safety rules. (Or he should.) If every householder had a fire
extinguisher, and knew how to use it, that might stop a lot of fires
from even starting. Any building of any size, definitely has a way to
fight fires. True, fire fighting does not rely completely on one
person’s effort to stop a fire before it starts, or put it out before it
spreads. But neither do most people in a community do nothing
to stop fires from starting, or to bring fires under control when they
start. Otherwise, a city might burn in the ultimate Cloward-Piven disaster. Call it “The Heat of the Tinderboxes: Toward a Total Managed Community.”
Which is what Obama wants.
Read More: http://www.conservativenewsandviews.com/2012/07/16...
Top Opinion
-
Chi~Cat 2012/07/17 00:50:49Agree





















"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."
The Hitler reference is typically ignorant. It's remarkable how much hate the Right Wing generates with nonsensical remarks like that. But then, division and class warfare is what the Right Wing is all about, isn't it.
He's also very arrogant. He believes that equity and labor cannot function without government's "help," which of course is just the hindrance of taxes and regulations. He shows his own rank incompetence by "investing" in companies too weak to obtain conventional debt or equity financing just because he ideologically favors green energy companies. What happens in reality is that the taxpayers cosign poor quality loans, Obama gets a kickback in the form of campaign contributions, his crony buddies who get the loans skim some off the top, and then the taxpayer has to pay the bank when the business fails. This kind of financial rape is what always occurs when someone is investing without any "skin in the game." The ultimate funder, in this case the taxpayer, gets reamed. Everyone else just skims gravy from the patsy who really put up the cash.
...
He's also very arrogant. He believes that equity and labor cannot function without government's "help," which of course is just the hindrance of taxes and regulations. He shows his own rank incompetence by "investing" in companies too weak to obtain conventional debt or equity financing just because he ideologically favors green energy companies. What happens in reality is that the taxpayers cosign poor quality loans, Obama gets a kickback in the form of campaign contributions, his crony buddies who get the loans skim some off the top, and then the taxpayer has to pay the bank when the business fails. This kind of financial rape is what always occurs when someone is investing without any "skin in the game." The ultimate funder, in this case the taxpayer, gets reamed. Everyone else just skims gravy from the patsy who really put up the cash.
So, no Obama, we can get along fine without your socialist "global village." The best thing federal government can do, as always, is NOTHING. The economy in capitalism is properly a free auction market for equity, debt, and labor. It is not a social experiment. We don't need any social experimentation. We need to flip the current model on its head to go back to Founder intent - free markets, but constraints against social perversion. Our Founders called that "ordered liberty." Obama gave us disorganized tyranny. All but Amendments (2) and (3) of the Bill of Rights have been smashed under Obama. The Second Amendment is under imminent attack (the ATT). All we may have left of natural citizen rights is the Third Amendment (this concerns when a US soldier can quarter himself in your home). That's not freedom, that's slavery.
And the President is hardly arrogant. You are more informed that most of the Right Wingers who post on this site, so you know very well that the President does not personally oversee every spending decision that the Federal government makes. The loan program to incentivize alternative energy sources has been largely successful. Solyndra didn't make it, but not because of any corruption, and the fact that the Bush Administration pushed for that very loan at the very least suggests that on paper it seemed like a reasonable investment. Not every investment succeeds, but that doesn't mean you condemn the person who invested every time.
I have to compliment you for your creativity, though. You seem to be about the first person I've seen from the Right who (a) actually knows what the Third Amendment says and (b) ...
And the President is hardly arrogant. You are more informed that most of the Right Wingers who post on this site, so you know very well that the President does not personally oversee every spending decision that the Federal government makes. The loan program to incentivize alternative energy sources has been largely successful. Solyndra didn't make it, but not because of any corruption, and the fact that the Bush Administration pushed for that very loan at the very least suggests that on paper it seemed like a reasonable investment. Not every investment succeeds, but that doesn't mean you condemn the person who invested every time.
I have to compliment you for your creativity, though. You seem to be about the first person I've seen from the Right who (a) actually knows what the Third Amendment says and (b) has constructed a brand new vast conspiracy theory about it. You seem to ignore the fact that the President has spent the last four years defending the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh and Eighth Amendments, but I'll give you a pass on that one.
The President is extremely anti-capitalist. He tries to pick winners and losers in the market via government interference. Take the combination of the drilling moratorium, and extending taxpayer backed loan guarantees to very weak green energy companies that inevitably fail and leave the taxpayers on the hook to the bank.
There is no right wing conspiracy theory. The tax system is highly progressive. The poor pay almost nothing, and the wealthy pay far in excess of their fair share. Use of government services does not vary by income, so a significantly flatter tax structure would be much more equitable (such as a flat VAT or na...
The President is extremely anti-capitalist. He tries to pick winners and losers in the market via government interference. Take the combination of the drilling moratorium, and extending taxpayer backed loan guarantees to very weak green energy companies that inevitably fail and leave the taxpayers on the hook to the bank.
There is no right wing conspiracy theory. The tax system is highly progressive. The poor pay almost nothing, and the wealthy pay far in excess of their fair share. Use of government services does not vary by income, so a significantly flatter tax structure would be much more equitable (such as a flat VAT or national sales tax to replace the FIT). Regarding gross income, we vary greatly in skills and work effort, so great disparity in wealth is to be expected. Further, tens of millions of American jobs are offshored because of longstanding federal policy not to impose retaliatory tariffs against low wage countries that impose import tariffs on our exports (low wage nations like China demand export protection as a condition for allowing the offshoring). Congress is afraid to change the status quo because it would cost them so much in corporate contributions. The corporations are not to blame, as they have a fiduciary obligation to maximize profits for their owners. Congress is to blame for accepting Corporate America's bribes.
The federal government has no enumerated power to invest taxpayer dollars in private businesses. Most of these fail anyway, because the investments are poorly underwritten, since the federal government is investing taxpayer money, not its own. It's really a form of fraud. The federal government extends taxpayer backed loan guarantees to companies too shaky to obtain financing on ordinary terms, the crony business owner skims some off the top for himself, and skims some more for campaign contributions to those in government who arranged for the guarantee, and then when the company collapses, the taxpayers must pay the bank back.
The First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh and Eighth Amendments are all under severe pressure under Obama. The First Amendment is already under attack from the Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011, which assails peaceful redress of grievances. Another looming attack is the possible passage of the Disclose Act, which as you may know is under attempted resurrection right now, and would attack free political speech by non-candidates during campaign seasons. Amendments (4)-(8), (due process of law), have been torn to shreds by the US Patriot Act, the 2001 AUMF, and the 2012/2013 NDAA's.
Lets look back shall we
Lets look back shall we
in this day of affirmative action, gov't entitlements , all of which are obomma 's favorites , it is hard for the entitled one to believe real Americans can find sucess out side of the nanny state.
B. The President has never said anything that even remotely resembles anything that Hitler ever said. Dick Cheney, on the other hand ......