He’s Doing it Again

The one trick pony president, “Vote for me and I will give you stuff”, so tedious but so predictable.

Here is his latest alliteration:

Maybe because it is a rerun, but the genius president seems to have lost his mojo. Last go around even I was taken by his linguistic jujitsu, his verbal alacrity, his ability to turn a phrase and drill down an emotion to common verbiage. He connected with folks, sure, it was superfluous flummery designed more for emotive effect , not real solutions, but it did have the sheeple fainting in the aisles. Now he looks tired, lacks any inspiration to speak of, and spins his wheels trying to catch that perfect wave.

When you are not feeling it, got no act 2 to fall back on, the old tried and true of pandering to the pursuit of gain without working for it never loses it’s luster, so now we have the pursuit of shared prosperity.

Pie for everyone, and each getting equal size slices, now there is Obama’s vision, what he describes as moving forward. Here is epiphany Obama needs to experience, prosperity is not shared, it is earned. You don’t get to share in someone else’s prosperity, you don’t get to take prosperity out of my pocket and put it in yours, you don’t get prosperity handed to you gratis.

It gets closer to the truth where he says ,”You can make it if you try”, must of read that off the teleprompter, but at least this requires some effort, some accomplishments of your own and is not taken off the backs of others. Obama missed a golden opportunity here where he could have provided a blue print of success. Here, pies are infinite, and your slice is determined only on what you do with your self. Just because that rich guy has a big slice does not translate that you will be relegated to a smaller slice or no slice, make your own pie and you can have it all. Immigrants from all over the world come here for their slice of the pie, nowhere do you hear ,”Gee, all those rich people in America having all that pie, I guess there will be nothing left for me, might as well stay put”.

Here’s another question, remember the old union tactic of busing paid picketers in, paying people to walk picket lines? I can’t help but think the DNC grabs squeegy bums off the streets and offers them a couple bucks to attend these gatherings so when Obama poses the question of either forward or backward, they all yell in unison ,”forward”, like he’s still got it.

Comments are closed.

  1. salinger

    Here is his latest alliteration:

    You mean iteration – the act of repeating a process.

    Alliteration is a poetic device using the same consonant in succession i.e. several slithering snakes sneak slyly by.

    Pretty easy to mix up – I recently wrote my editor that I was amendable to some changes she wanted to make and I really should have written amenable.

    Thumb up 1

  2. CM

    When you are not feeling it, got no act 2 to fall back on, the old tried and true of pandering to the pursuit of gain without working for it never loses it’s luster, so now we have the pursuit of shared prosperity.

    Pie for everyone, and each getting equal size slices, now there is Obama’s vision, what he describes as moving forward. Here is epiphany Obama needs to experience, prosperity is not shared, it is earned. You don’t get to share in someone else’s prosperity, you don’t get to take prosperity out of my pocket and put it in yours, you don’t get prosperity handed to you gratis.

    Like with the Roanoke speech (where he mentioned the importance of hard work over and over again), I hear something quite different to you.
    What he says makes sense to me, but it’s quite different to how you describe it. Basically where you hear “equal outcomes” I hear “equal opportunity”.
    I don’t intend for us to go on with the same old dance, but thought I’d mention it.

    I do agree that he sounds tired though. There’s still a long way to go too.

    Thumb up 0

  3. richtaylor365 *

    What he says makes sense to me, but it’s quite different to how you describe it. Basically where you hear “equal outcomes” I hear “equal opportunity”.

    Except that prosperity is the end game, the finish line, so yes, equal outcomes is exactly what he meant. But thanks for sharing what the Obama apologists would tell us he really meant :)

    Thumb up 6

  4. CM

    Except that prosperity is end game, the finish line, so yes, equal outcomes is exactly what he meant. But thanks for sharing what the Obama apologists would tell us he really meant :)

    Wow, ok. I’ll bow out then. I was going to respond to your first sentence but your second reminds me that there is no point, and no discussion.

    Thumb up 0

  5. Poosh

    “prosperity is shared”

    Is code word for socialism and maybe even marxism. It’s sinister coming out of his mouth. This is identical to “share the wealth”. He does a lot of dog-whistling.

    You should pay attention to the seemingly pathetic pandering in the second half. It’s actually very divisive – he is actively suggesting that those who don’t agree with him do not want those of difference races and skin-colour to succeed in America. That is the implication. That is what he’s saying. Listen to him, “that is what’s at stake in November”. I can only hope that Democrats are looking at this person and realising he’s not the man they thought he was: he’s actually a monster.

    Class warfare. Race warfare. Well, it’s definitely change. And it’s hope for every gray-haired socialist and racist out there.

    Thumb up 1

  6. Seattle Outcast

    What he says makes sense to me, but it’s quite different to how you describe it. Basically where you hear “equal outcomes” I hear “equal opportunity”.

    1) That’s because you aren’t really listening

    2) They are one and the same to you

    When Obama talks about “hard work”, he quite obviously means “the hard work of other people, not you in particular. You know, the suckers….”

    Thumb up 5

  7. richtaylor365 *

    Wow, ok. I’ll bow out then. I was going to respond to your first sentence but your second reminds me that there is no point, and no discussion.

    Come on, I did put a smiley face in there. And I did give him props for including “hard work” into the mix, but Poosh is right that shared prosperity is part and parcel to wealth redistribution, it is the promise of a pay out (unearned) that keeps his minions sated.

    Exempting trust fund babies and lottery winners, the bottom line is that those that have “earned” prosperity worked damned hard to get it. No, not all hard workers make it, but those that did make it can list an indomitable work ethic as a main ingredient for their success.

    Oh, and what Obama always forgets is that the quickest way to quash that work ethic and guarantee equal outcome is to take that prosperity away from the earners in the form of onerous taxation, take the incentive away, now we really are on an even playing field.

    Thumb up 3

  8. Poosh

    Yeah, willfully gloss over the part where Obama says hard work doesn’t get you rich because omgz lots of people work hard and omgz lots of people are smart!

    That speech really showed Obama’s marxist understanding of the world. It’s not hard work that gets you where you are, if you’re rich, it’s the collective efforts of everyone – thus you should spread the wealth!

    No mention of risk. No mention of capital allocation (savings). No mention of entrepreneurship or reasoning. No mention of withholding of consumption.

    Thumb up 3

  9. Poosh

    Exempting trust fund babies and lottery winners

    But even that isn’t quite true. It’s one thing to “come into money” one year, but maintaining it is quite something else. Though I suppose one can pay one to maintain your money these days. None-the-less, inheriting money is not the same as maintaining your wealth (sadly!).

    I think most of us realise mind you that “hard work” – if we are being serious – is not what makes one “rich” or succeed. It’s the value of the type of work and skills that you have to offer. All the hard work in the world won’t make you rich if the honest best thing you can do with your life is, say, stack shelves. If you are lucky enough to have a talent for something that people are willing to pay a lot for (wink wink, nudge nudge) then not working very hard at all will still bring large wads of cash in. That’s life. And it’s right and proper.

    Thumb up 3

  10. CM

    Come on, I did put a smiley face in there. And I did give him props for including “hard work” into the mix,

    Which is what makes what I quoted so confusing. You’re running a narrative (and that’s what it is, because other people can come away with an entirely different message to you, and one that still makes perfect sense) but at the same time you’re also acknowledging out the flaws in the narrative. Elsewhere I went through some of the rest of the Roanoke speech and pointed out all the references to ‘hard work’ (there’s far far far more in there about hard work than there is about businesses not paying enough tax) but I was told I was delusional. Even though I bolded the parts. Apparently we’re speaking and reading and hearing an entirely different language now.

    but Poosh is right that shared prosperity is part and parcel to wealth redistribution, it is the promise of a pay out (unearned) that keeps his minions sated.

    The Republican ticket is about shared prosperity and wealth redistribution too. Just to a different degree.

    Exempting trust fund babies and lottery winners, the bottom line is that those that have “earned” prosperity worked damned hard to get it.

    Many people work just as hard their whole lives and aren’t prosperous. Reward has a relationship to effort, but it’s not even close to proportionate. Acknowledging and attempting to address an increasing lack of proportion appeals to many people, and not just because they’re parasites or minions, or whatever the offensive term de jour is. That’s the ‘fairness’ argument, which I’ve said previously doesn’t really work for me. I much prefer the argument about having a system which provides opportunities. Like assistance when a parent dies, and you want to go to out-of-state college to give yourself the best chance of a great career, whether in business or government.

    No, not all hard workers make it, but those that did make it can list an indomitable work ethic as a main ingredient for their success.

    No doubt, and they’d be right, and Obama has said as much. But to me, and others, that’s just far too simplistic. You guys cherry pick though, as part of this whole narrative. Which is why you’re only able to discuss this amongst yourselves. Us racists* can let you get on with.

    (*You didn’t say this, but I’m willing to bet nobody will post anything which indicates they have an issue with it)

    Thumb up 0

  11. CM

    Yeah, willfully gloss over the part where Obama says hard work doesn’t get you rich because omgz lots of people work hard and omgz lots of people are smart!

    That’s inarguable isn’t it?

    That speech really showed Obama’s marxist understanding of the world. It’s not hard work that gets you where you are, if you’re rich, it’s the collective efforts of everyone – thus you should spread the wealth!

    That’s essentially how all western countries operate and have done for decades and decades. To different degrees. Spreading the wealth isn’t even controversial, only the degree to which its spread is.

    No mention of risk. No mention of capital allocation (savings). No mention of entrepreneurship or reasoning. No mention of withholding of consumption.

    You were honestly expecting that in 1.02 of a stump speech?
    Of course not.

    I think most of us realise mind you that “hard work” – if we are being serious – is not what makes one “rich” or succeed. It’s the value of the type of work and skills that you have to offer. All the hard work in the world won’t make you rich if the honest best thing you can do with your life is, say, stack shelves. If you are lucky enough to have a talent for something that people are willing to pay a lot for (wink wink, nudge nudge) then not working very hard at all will still bring large wads of cash in. That’s life. And it’s right and proper.

    Exactly. But how is it moral to have a system where, unassisted by the Government, people doing those kinds of jobs would live miserable existences and/or rely on going to the local church or captain of industry to essentially beg? I get the idea of having over-arching principles, but surely at some point reality of what that results in needs to come into play. Which is why all main political parties in western countries incorporate a degree of “sharing the wealth”. They’re all attempting a balance. If they didn’t they’d be unelectable and dissolve.
    Pretending they don’t incorporate a balance is just silly.
    “Pie for everyone, and each getting equal size slices” – just ridiculous. It bears no relationship to reality. Equal sized slices is communism, which is about as close to dead and buried as a concept can be.

    Thumb up 0

  12. Poosh

    Sharing the wealth is not the same as free individuals engaging in exchange. That’s exchanging wealth, where both parties gain. Sharing wealth results in one woman gaining less.

    The richest largest corporations get to where they are by proving the cheapest goods that the majority desire. Walmart. McDonalds. They only get rich because they provide the cheapest common-denominator goods that the poorest want. That is the only way to become incredibly rich, if you’re a corporation. These greedy corporations do far more for the poor and “miserable” than any welfare state or self-righteous liberal.

    Thumb up 2

  13. CM

    Again, why not engage in discussion without the “self-righteous liberal” nonsense? Just sayin….

    Sharing the wealth is not the same as free individuals engaging in exchange. That’s exchanging wealth, where both parties gain. Sharing wealth results in one woman gaining less.

    Both sides also support “free individuals engaging in exchange”. They both seek to tax that exchange (both people involved in the exchange gain less under all major western country’s main parties). They just differ in how much and what to use it for. Pretending this is not the case is starting with a false premise.

    The richest largest corporations get to where they are by proving the cheapest goods that the majority desire. Walmart. McDonalds.

    Pretty much yeah.

    They only get rich because they provide the cheapest common-denominator goods that the poorest want. That is the only way to become incredibly rich, if you’re a corporation.

    Not really. There are plenty of large successful corporations doing other things.

    These greedy corporations do far more for the poor and “miserable” than any welfare state or self-righteous liberal.

    Straw man argument. Argumentum ad hominem.
    Notwistanding that…..those with little or no disrectionary income (low and lowish income earners) rely on some sort of Govt support for that discretionary income (be it earned tax credit or whatever). Reduce that, or remove it, and they’ll have less. That’s less money to spend at McDonalds and Walmart. So even if that reduction in Govt spending was offest by McDonalds and Walmart paying less tax, it wouldn’t really help McDonalds and Walmart all that much because demand for their goods will only reduce, which will mean fewer employees needed. How does everyone not lose?

    Thumb up 0

  14. richtaylor365 *

    You’re running a narrative

    Of course, but wealth redistribution, asking the rich to pay more, shared prosperity, these are all recurring themes of the president, a predilection can certainly be inferred from this.

    The Republican ticket is about shared prosperity and wealth redistribution too. Just to a different degree.

    If by this you mean that they understand the need for a safety net, for welfare and public assistance to help those in need, then sure. Are you referring to something else?

    Many people work just as hard their whole lives and aren’t prosperous.

    And there is no way around that, is there? You say you do not subscribe to the fairness mime, many do, and many want government to alleviate the unfairness of life.

    Acknowledging and attempting to address an increasing lack of proportion appeals to many people,

    To what end, and by what means? Do you take the risk out of the risk/reward ratio that is the main building block of the free market system? Do you legislate fairness? Do you tax prosperity to the point that outcomes are more evenly determined? Beyond all that stuff that we agree on, giving everyone a clear shot at prosperity by educating them the best we can, life is not fair, outcomes can not be determined, and whether you like it or not, Johnny is always going to be smarter then Tom, Fred is more willing to put in the time and effort then Jack is, and Sally will always be more willing to learn from her mistakes and persevere then Suzy, when both fail in whatever business they started.

    . You guys cherry pick though, as part of this whole narrative. Which is why you’re only able to discuss this amongst yourselves. Us racists* can let you get on with.

    I haven’t a clue what you mean by that, aren’t we discussing it even now? And what is simplistic is the notion that rich people or even those in the middle class begrudge paying taxes, begrudge having that tax money go towards helping those in need, talk about offensive. A civilized society has an obligation to kick in for those that can’t kick in for themselves, that idea is universal and I doubt anyone here has a beef with that. But where Obama considers it a badge on honor to have 100 million people on public assistance, to have the poverty rate the highest in 50 years being taken care of, I see it as a disgrace, a clear sign of failed leadership and a pressing need to try something different.

    Thumb up 6

  15. CM

    Of course, but wealth redistribution, asking the rich to pay more, shared prosperity, these are all recurring themes of the president, a predilection can certainly be inferred from this.

    Sure, that’s what a narrative is. You’re telling story by piecing your evidence together.
    My point is that I look at what he says and it makes sense to me, but it doesn’t match up with the story you tell. I’m suggesting that it is possible for what he says to make perfect sense without it having to be as stark as your narrative is.

    Pie for everyone, and each getting equal size slices, now there is Obama’s vision, what he describes as moving forward.

    It’s very possible to have a ‘vision’ which is expressed in exactly the same way, but doesn’t mean “each getting equal size slices. What he says makes sense to me in a way which doesn’t even remotely result in each getting equal size slices.
    I am in no way doubting the existence of those ‘minions’ on the left that buy your narrative (i.e. hear what you hear). They also don’t hear any discussion or reference to working hard.
    Apparently Obama is looking to reduce the corporate tax from 35% to 28% to increase competitiveness, and “help level the playing field”. Isn’t that a case of seeking to provide more opportunity, as opposed to seeking same outcomes? Where does that figure into the narrative which says he wants to make things harder for small business?

    If by this you mean that they understand the need for a safety net, for welfare and public assistance to help those in need, then sure. Are you referring to something else?

    No, that was it. Just pointing out that it’s a matter of degree, not a case of either “sharing the wealth” or “not sharing the wealth”.

    And there is no way around that, is there?

    Not at all. And clearly we need a certain number of people working in shitty jobs earning low wages. But how low those wages are is important. Because that ultimately affects everything else. If those wages are below certain point, it effects the ability to keep businesses going, and it has non-economic effects such as alienation. It chips away at the legitimacy of the capitalist system (if fewer and fewer people trust the system, it’s legitimacy reduces).

    You say you do not subscribe to the fairness mime, many do, and many want government to alleviate the unfairness of life.

    I’m not saying I don’t agree with it, I’m saying I find the basic economics of keeping a capitalist economy going much more persuasive. If the low and lowish earners are able to live in non-miserable conditions, and without Govt assistance, that would seem to be a good situation for everyone in society.

    To what end, and by what means? Do you take the risk out of the risk/reward ratio that is the main building block of the free market system?

    No, it’s matter of balance, to ensure the system stays upright. Taking away the risk would be the opposite of trying to get balance. But if the rewards continue to get more and more disproportionate to the risk, that balance is upset, both economically, and in terms of the legitimacy of the system. I could be wrong on this, and I certainly allow for that, and I’m constantly searching the information or argument which shows me I’m wrong.

    Do you legislate fairness? Do you tax prosperity to the point that outcomes are more evenly determined?

    I really think that’s an excellent question. This usually always comes back to tax, because it always seems the only possible way of tipping the equation one way or the other. My answer would probably depend on how we define outcomes. People are by far and away the single most important factor in determining their outcomes, no doubt about that. But people have almost no way of determining opportunity. They can certainly position themselves to increase their opportunities, but ultimately it’s the factors outside their control that provides the opportunity.

    Beyond all that stuff that we agree on, giving everyone a clear shot at prosperity by educating them the best we can, life is not fair, outcomes can not be determined, and whether you like it or not, Johnny is always going to be smarter then Tom, Fred is more willing to put in the time and effort then Jack is, and Sally will always be more willing to learn from her mistakes and persevere then Suzy, when both fail in whatever business they started.

    All that is true. I’m much more concerned about the low and lowish income workers (the one that aren’t doing anything wrong, that don’t have their hands out, that have the ‘right’ attitude) than the bludgers who are taking advantage wherever they can. Those people should be provided with the very basic safety net, no question. They should be continually forced to look for work (and prove it), should not turn anything reasonable down, and should be required to meet other relevant tests (drug testing etc). But those on low and lowish incomes shouldn’t have to struggle so hard. I honestly don’t know how to fix it because when you see that half the population is exempt from federal tax, they’re already being assisted. Which suggests that the system is fucked. Wages are hopelessly out of balance.

    I haven’t a clue what you mean by that, aren’t we discussing it even now?

    But everytime we do, we need to bring the discussion back from the brink of ridiculousness (Poosh’s ongoing nonsense, “Pie for everyone, and each getting equal size slices”, pretending Obama places no emphasis on working hard etc etc). Why oh why??!

    And what is simplistic is the notion that rich people or even those in the middle class begrudge paying taxes, begrudge having that tax money go towards helping those in need, talk about offensive.

    Fair enough. I’m middle class (came from a working class background, studied and worked hard). I certainly don’t begrudge it. I also have no reason to believe that others wish to help those in need, including those with right wing political views. I understand that they just believe it can only happen by removing restrictions and taxes. I just don’t understand how it works in reality from that point on. I know, I know, I’m not the brightest light on the tree etc etc…. (again, not you).

    A civilized society has an obligation to kick in for those that can’t kick in for themselves, that idea is universal and I doubt anyone here has a beef with that. But where Obama considers it a badge on honor to have 100 million people on public assistance, to have the poverty rate the highest in 50 years being taken care of, I see it as a disgrace, a clear sign of failed leadership and a pressing need to try something different.

    Again, I read and listen and I don’t reach the same conclusion. What he says makes sense to me and it’s not even remotely close to ‘badge of honor’. Again, it’s like we’re listening/reading entirely different things, or speaking an entirely different language.

    Thumb up 0

  16. Iconoclast

    The biggest problem I have with this snippet is that Obama presupposes that we have to “go forward” (under his leadership, of course) in order to get to a place where anyone, regardless of race or gender, “cam make it if [they] try.”. Well no, we are already there, whether Obama cares to acknowledge that or not, and we certainly don’t need more government to get us there. Hell, Obama is Solid evidence of that claim; he’s black and he’s the f-ing POTUS, for crying out loud. Is he truly this blind to the irony?

    And if he hadn’t won the White House, we would in all likelihood have a female POTUS right now.

    Now I’m not saying we have achieved perfection, nor that there isn’t always room for improvement, but for a sitting President to campaign for reelection by implying that the USA isn’t what it is, well, I find that to be chilling.

    Thumb up 2

  17. Iconoclast

    Oh, and nearly four years into his first term, Obama is still playing the blame game:

    …or do we go backward to the same policies that got us into this mess in the first place?

    This is priceless, given his admission in the very first sentence that the results of his own policies haven’t necessarily been all that spectacular:

    Too many folks still don’t have a sense that tomorrow will be better than today.

    In spite of Obama running things his way for the past 3 1/2 years, he makes this admission, but still blames his predecessors. As I’ve stated elsewhere, 3 1/2 years of his policies have led to the worst “recovery” we have ever experienced, even worse than the recovery from the Great Depression.

    The Worst Recover Ever
    Obama Wins The Gold For Worst Economic Recovery Ever
    Stanford’s John Taylor: Blame Obama Policies for ‘Worst Recovery’ Ever
    Worst Recovery Ever
    Worst recovery EVER
    8 Reasons Why This So-Called Recovery Is Worse Than Any In History
    CBS News: ‘This is the worst economic recovery America has ever had’

    Yet he still blames people other than himself for people’s bleak outlook.

    Of course, thanks to the Shellacking of 2010, he can now blame those evil, “do-nothing” Republicans, the “Party of ‘No'”.

    Too many folks still don’t have a sense that tomorrow will be better than today.

    Of course, what that may really means is, “Too many folks…aren’t gonna vote for ME…”

    Thumb up 6

  18. richtaylor365 *

    I’m suggesting that it is possible for what he says to make perfect sense without it having to be as stark as your narrative is.

    We all have a three and a half year history of seeing exactly what he believes and what his vision involves, he has a record, connecting these dots really is child’s play.

    Apparently Obama is looking to reduce the corporate tax from 35% to 28% to increase competitiveness, and “help level the playing field”. Isn’t that a case of seeking to provide more opportunity, as opposed to seeking same outcomes? Where does that figure into the narrative which says he wants to make things harder for small business?

    The “narrative” has already been spelled out in his actions so far, the new burdensome regulations foisted on the backs of small businesses (43 new regulations put in effect his first year, costing them more than $28 billion a year), his attempts at Cap and Trade and unshackling the limits on FICA taxes, Dodd/Frank, Obamacare and the thousands of new rules and regulations small businesses must now adhere to, new taxes on Sub Chapter S Corporations, the very demonization of any successful person with ,”They need to pay their fair share, they need to do more”.

    You also assume that Obama is coming to this table willingly. Much like Clinton and welfare reform, he was dragged to the table and was compelled to acquiesce, We know Obama was reluctant in extending the Bush tax cuts, same here, he has a history of love affairs involving tax increases, anytime he lowers one (and it’s still not a done deal) the evidence suggests it was done by derision.

    Not at all. And clearly we need a certain number of people working in shitty jobs earning low wages. But how low those wages are is important. Because that ultimately affects everything else. If those wages are below certain point, it effects the ability to keep businesses going, and it has non-economic effects such as alienation. It chips away at the legitimacy of the capitalist system (if fewer and fewer people trust the system, it’s legitimacy reduces).

    You do realize, don’t you, that minimum wage jobs are designed to apprentice those into the work force, to give folks a starting point, it was never designed to sustain a career or support a family? I have heard compelling arguments put forth that for a certain segment of society (like teenagers) the minimum wage law should be scraped entirely, more people entering the work force and more experience obtained.

    Yes, people need to think they can better their station in life, get a better job and make more money and yes, it is not good for a large majority of folks making peanuts a and unable to support themselves. But here is where that work ethic kicks in, in tandem with the feeling that the individual can better himself if he wants to. I suspect that every one of our readers can regale you with personal histories involving them starting out at minimum wage, this position is not supposed to be comfortable or satisfying.

    If the low and lowish earners are able to live in non-miserable conditions, and without Govt assistance, that would seem to be a good situation for everyone in society.

    Totally agree, but they need to have a sense of opportunity where they are not satisfied at this station but want something better.

    But if the rewards continue to get more and more disproportionate to the risk, that balance is upset, both economically, and in terms of the legitimacy of the system.

    I would submit that it is just the opposite. It is not an old wives tale that the majority of rich folks in business suffered failure early in life. Falling on your face teaches certain life lessons, that is why I’m not real keen on certain bankruptcy laws and how they are practiced. Taking the risk out of the equation only encourages reckless behavior. We want examples of success, people that did risk and persevered/made it, for the rest of us. When Obama asked ,”How much money is enough”, I would tell him that it’s not up to him nor is it any of his business, the individual determines his own limits, not government.

    But people have almost no way of determining opportunity. They can certainly position themselves to increase their opportunities, but ultimately it’s the factors outside their control that provides the opportunity

    .

    Such is life. Not to be cavalier, but this goes right back to the argument of fairness, life is not fair, and the resilient, the determined and ambitious learn this lesson early in life.

    But everytime we do, we need to bring the discussion back from the brink of ridiculousness (Poosh’s ongoing nonsense, “Pie for everyone, and each getting equal size slices”, pretending Obama places no emphasis on working hard etc etc). Why oh why??!

    The pie analogy was mine, not Poosh’s and I don’t think it is ridiculous at all. What Obama does with his class warfare is that he demonizes those that have the most pie, he denigrates their contributions by saying they are not paying enough in taxes, not doing their fair share, like they are somehow scamming the system, now that is ridiculous. If he would start praising the achievers ,”What a great country we live in, where people from all backgrounds can make it big, they did it, you can too. Don’t settle for mediocrity, put yourself out there and go for it, you too can be a poster child for the American dream”, this is the American exceptionalism speech the country has been waiting for. You want to be a conciliator and not a divider, start preaching that sermon.

    Thumb up 3

  19. CM

    We all have a three and a half year history of seeing exactly what he believes and what his vision involves, he has a record, connecting these dots really is child’s play.

    Kinda. But in your next section you acknowledge that some of what happens isn’t up to him. He didn’t get the healthcare package he wanted (he didn’t campaign on what was passed), he didn’t get the stimulus he wanted. Etc Etc. (I.e. you can’t have it both ways). And hindsight is also a beautiful thing. The recession was far deeper and broader than anyone realised. Much easier to consider how to properly tackle it in hindsight, or what policies might have worked better.
    Ultimately it’s probably the current ‘trend’ that matters. If jobs keep being added, and GDP keeps rising, and discretionary income starts to rise, he might be re-elected.

    The “narrative” has already been spelled out in his actions so far, the new burdensome regulations foisted on the backs of small businesses (43 new regulations put in effect his first year, costing them more than $28 billion a year), his attempts at Cap and Trade and unshackling the limits on FICA taxes, Dodd/Frank, Obamacare and the thousands of new rules and regulations small businesses must now adhere to, new taxes on Sub Chapter S Corporations, the very demonization of any successful person with ,”They need to pay their fair share, they need to do more”.

    Yes, that’s the narrative – everything deemed to harm business was Obama getting what he wanted, and everything that assists business was passed against his wishes.

    You do realize, don’t you, that minimum wage jobs are designed to apprentice those into the work force, to give folks a starting point, it was never designed to sustain a career or support a family? I have heard compelling arguments put forth that for a certain segment of society (like teenagers) the minimum wage law should be scraped entirely, more people entering the work force and more experience obtained.

    Yes, people need to think they can better their station in life, get a better job and make more money and yes, it is not good for a large majority of folks making peanuts a and unable to support themselves. But here is where that work ethic kicks in, in tandem with the feeling that the individual can better himself if he wants to. I suspect that every one of our readers can regale you with personal histories involving them starting out at minimum wage, this position is not supposed to be comfortable or satisfying.

    Couldn’t agree more about minimum wage jobs- they’re meant to be a stepping stone. But what about the vast amount of people who aren’t in minimum wage jobs, who are in regular jobs, who now rely on paying virtually no tax in order to have enough to live on? Something seriously wrong there surely?

    Totally agree, but they need to have a sense of opportunity where they are not satisfied at this station but want something better.

    Again, many of the jobs I’m talking about aren’t “low station” jobs. When half the population is exempt from federal income tax, because otherwise they’d be living close to poverty level, what does that say about the uselessness of the market to properly price wages? There would seem to be a hell of a lot of jobs that aren’t stepping stone jobs, but pay as if they are.

    Taking the risk out of the equation only encourages reckless behavior. We want examples of success, people that did risk and persevered/made it, for the rest of us. When Obama asked ,”How much money is enough”, I would tell him that it’s not up to him nor is it any of his business, the individual determines his own limits, not government.

    To be honest I’m not sure why you keep suggesting the alternative is to take risk out of the equation. That’s not what I’m saying at all. Proportionate reward still provides examples of success and motivation. What I’m talking about is disproportionate reward (where the positive effects you talk about are somewhat negated by negative effects).
    I would say the system determines the limits. This is all an artificial system we’ve created. We all work within it. Yes, we try to design it and keep it running to work with human nature, by rewarding hard work and intelligence, but ultimately the structures are all designed.

    Such is life. Not to be cavalier, but this goes right back to the argument of fairness, life is not fair, and the resilient, the determined and ambitious learn this lesson early in life.

    And I can happily set aside the ‘fairness’ argument and concentrate on the economics and sustainability arguments, because I think they are far more compelling.

    The pie analogy was mine, not Poosh’s and I don’t think it is ridiculous at all. What Obama does with his class warfare is that he demonizes those that have the most pie, he denigrates their contributions by saying they are not paying enough in taxes, not doing their fair share, like they are somehow scamming the system, now that is ridiculous. If he would start praising the achievers ,”What a great country we live in, where people from all backgrounds can make it big, they did it, you can too. Don’t settle for mediocrity, put yourself out there and go for it, you too can be a poster child for the American dream”, this is the American exceptionalism speech the country has been waiting for. You want to be a conciliator and not a divider, start preaching that sermon.

    First off I gave three examples in brackets (separated by commas), and didn’t suggest the pie analogy was Poosh’s.
    Again, I do hear him praising the achievers, but it’s in context. As you acknowledge, even in that 1.03 soundbite you in your opening post, he says “if you try”. In the Roanoke speech he mentioned the importance of hard work over and over again. He essentially says exactly what you’ve requested. But not only was it ignored, I was told I was being delusional for pointing it out.

    I totally acknowledge that Obama does as much dog-whistling as anyone else. All politicians at this level are dog-whistling to the people they know they need for votes. Absolutely. It would take a rigid partisan hack not to acknowledge that.
    What I’m saying is that despite the dog-whistling, what he says does make sense to me, and it’s not at all how you describe.

    Thumb up 0

  20. Xetrov

    This is awesome.

    Ross Murty likes business, but he doesn’t like President Obama.

    And so the co-owner of the Village Corner Deli here agreed to cater Obama’s visit Wednesday — but not before donning a T-shirt blaring the message: “Government didn’t build my business. I did.”

    Thumb up 0