You didn't build that?
Temlakos~POTL~PWCM~JLA~☆
2012/07/18 21:49:39
|
|
|||||
|
84 votes
|
|
71% | ||
|
16 votes
|
|
14% | ||
|
18 votes
|
|
15% | ||
In his quest to demonize America’s success stories, Mr. Obama has made
very revealing statements that defy the political ideologies of
President Reagan. Obama’s recent quote: “You didn’t build that…” is
indicative of his point of view. It is not as clear to many as it should
be that Obama’s campaign message to fundamentally change this nation
was not a promise filled with hope for better days. It was a dire
warning. The “You didn’t build that” statement has a flip side that has
gone unnoticed. “You didn’t build that” means that American success
stories are not to be credited to those who attained success but to the
government. As he promotes that point of view, he can easily justify
taking from those who have. After all, if success is not theirs and it
belongs to the government, then the government is entitled to the fruits
of this success. If you didn’t build that, you don’t own that. And so
any American is entitled to anything the government owns. Understanding
this sheds new light on Obama telling us that the wealthy should give
their fair share. His point of view is that they are not solely entitled
to the fruits of their labor because it is not the fruits of their
labor. Therefore it becomes only “fair” that government take what
government rightfully owns.
So what do you say? Did you build that? Or did the government build that, and therefore owns you?
very revealing statements that defy the political ideologies of
President Reagan. Obama’s recent quote: “You didn’t build that…” is
indicative of his point of view. It is not as clear to many as it should
be that Obama’s campaign message to fundamentally change this nation
was not a promise filled with hope for better days. It was a dire
warning. The “You didn’t build that” statement has a flip side that has
gone unnoticed. “You didn’t build that” means that American success
stories are not to be credited to those who attained success but to the
government. As he promotes that point of view, he can easily justify
taking from those who have. After all, if success is not theirs and it
belongs to the government, then the government is entitled to the fruits
of this success. If you didn’t build that, you don’t own that. And so
any American is entitled to anything the government owns. Understanding
this sheds new light on Obama telling us that the wealthy should give
their fair share. His point of view is that they are not solely entitled
to the fruits of their labor because it is not the fruits of their
labor. Therefore it becomes only “fair” that government take what
government rightfully owns.
So what do you say? Did you build that? Or did the government build that, and therefore owns you?
Read More: http://www.conservativenewsandviews.com/2012/07/18...
Top Opinion
-
Undecided
+11Obama totally anti-American, anti-capitalism, anti-business, anti-wealth and anti-freedom. He is purely the death of America. We have been rolling downhill toward socialism for decades and along comes the top Communist gunslinger to blast holes in the Constitution and all else American. Now he is picking up his hammer-gun and is about to nail the coffin shut on anything American. The scariest part is that the majority and liberal don't care.
Sorry Url didn't post. You SH guys have to fix this video problem you have had lately. Getting rather annoying!
Sorry people but go to PJTV Trifecta ""Keep Cool With Coolidge, Not Obama: Obama Reveals His True Hatred of Business (Jul. 17, 2012) Great video
- Citizens and corporations are taxed.
- The government takes some of that tax revenue to pay for projects, including roadway infrastructure and water/sewage infrastructure.
- The working infrastructure, including airports and roadways, allow for companies to transport people and goods to necessary locations. These companies are then taxed...
I will "give" Obama that the government plays a key role in support of American infrastructure and that most companies rely on the infrastructure to some extent. However, since the infrastructure is already reliant on tax revenue, this doesn't justify giving government carte blanche for additional credit. We don't "owe" the government for the role it plays in building infrastructure, as the infrastructure only exists because tax payer dollars made it so.
I understand Obama's message as: no business owner creates wealth entirely on their own, we (collectively) should invest in our infrastructure that our citizens and businesses rely on.
Some people here seem to have really taken their own ideas on what "that" refers to and run with it...
Besides: since when were most of the services he named federal issues, anyway?
And the Internet? A spinoff of an effort that the military made, for reasons good and sufficient for the military itself.
I know that relying on the government for infrastructure is not perfect, but the alternatives are ghastly.
As for "a toll booth at every other turn": not if the merchants form an association to keep those roads clear, smooth, and orderly. The merchants would want access by would-be customers. Their storefronts would be the advertising that would pay for the road.
You need to think outside the box--or the fish tank, as I gather from your avatar. :-)
On your point about the roads, you are suggesting that retailers would police the roadway companies to keep roads clear and tolls low? Even if we assume this would work, what about neighborhood roadways or the interstate system? Who polices the private road companies there?
I'm not saying it's impossible, but given the two options, I'm content to leave water and roadways in the government's hands.
Neighborhood streets would be a common extension of the houses that front them. In short, a "common element" of the neighborhood.
This proves he has a mental disorder!
Mr Obama and congress seem ot think that the money they get from our taxes is theirs to spend as they please. Hopefully in November we will reverse that idea.
Good read on the subject:
http://spectator.org/archives...
The Government did not give me the innate ability to do what I do. It is just plain ridiculous to think that I should have to give up what I have worked for, so that someone else that has not worked as hard as I have, can get a handout.
Obama's statement shows exactly where he stands, he is a Socialist at best, if not a committed Communist. In his world there is no personal responsibility, the Government will take care of everyone, all you have to do is give up the last of your freedom.
The government FORBIDS any entity save only ITSELF to build roads and bridges.
And then demands an EVERLASTING TRIBUTE for these things, though they are already BOUGHT AND PAID FOR?
You got your freebie..
Do you deny it?
You and every 3rd grader in the nation knows as well as I do, that this nation was built upon the backs of many.
Speaking of freebies... I wonder where this nation would be, if it wasn't for all that FREE black labor back in da day!
See can't have it BOTH ways.. can we Temlako...
Your case for government everything is fatally flawed.
See Freebie...
What's my case for government? Are you about to make an A$$umption?
Meaning it's irrelevant. Why should it even register as an issue?