Striper Talk Striped Bass Fishing, Surfcasting, Boating - Obama is simply clueless about the economy

Striper Talk Striped Bass Fishing, Surfcasting, Boating (http://www.striped-bass.com/Stripertalk/index.php)

- Political Threads (http://www.striped-bass.com/Stripertalk/forumdisplay.php?f=66)

- - Obama is simply clueless about the economy (http://www.striped-bass.com/Stripertalk/showthread.php?t=74826)

Obama is simply clueless about the economy

Today's op-ed by Dr Charles Krauthammer, a Harvard-educated doctor.

Obama Blames Rich: Obama blames the rich for the country's ills - Courant.com

I'd like someone to read this and tell me where Krauthammer, exactly, is wrong. Some of the highlights...

"Obama lamented that millions 'are now forced to take their children to food banks.' "

Obama is correct that the number of folks on food stamps is at an all-time high. But since Obama has been in power for the last 3 years (and that for the first 2 years the Dems had complete control of the legislature, meaning the GOP could not stop them from doing anything), when does anything becomes Obama's fault?

"This obsession with a sock-it-to-the-rich tax hike that, at most, would have reduced this year's deficit from $1.3 trillion to $1.22 trillion is the classic reflex of reactionary liberalism — anything to avoid addressing the underlying structural problems, which would require modernizing the totemic programs of the New Deal and Great Society."

I've said this before. Obama, and many liberals, are obsessed with tweaking tax rates on the rich. DO THE MATH. At most, that gets us $90 billion a year. Our current debt is $15 trillion, and that excludes shortfalls to social security and medicare, which adds tens of trillions more. If we could fix our problems simply by tweaking tax rates on the billionaires, NO ONE WOULD OPPOSE THAT. The fact is. the impact of these tax hikes is absolutely menaingless. Obama continues to beat that drum to stir up an "us versus them" mentality. And he accused the Republicans of using fear tactics?

Go ahead liberals, please show me the math that suggests we can put a menaingful dent in our problems with tax hikes.

We need to discuss massive cuts, which is, unfortunately, the only viable solution. Republicans do not like this, but we are rational enough to accept it. Liberals ignore the reality and demonize those who are trying to actually solve the problem in the fairest way. If liberals had a shred of intellectual honesty on this issue (and they do not), they'd help conservatives come up with the fairest way to make the necessary cuts. But they won't. So when conservatives are forced to talk about cuts, liberals can shriek "SEE, THEY HATE POOR PEOPLE!!!" That's as dishonest as it gets, and it sure as hell isn't the "change" we were promised when Obama descended from the heavens.

I don't have a Harvard education, although I'd note that Obama does.

Here are my excerpts from that exact same speech. I know your time is short, so I've put in BOLD the parts you should really read.

Quote:

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you, everybody. Please, please have a seat. Thank you so much. Thank you. Good afternoon, everybody.

AUDIENCE: Good afternoon.

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I want to start by thanking a few folks who’ve joined us today. We’ve got the mayor of Osawatomie, Phil Dudley is here. (Applause.) We have your superintendent Gary French in the house. (Applause.) And we have the principal of Osawatomie High, Doug Chisam. (Applause.) And I have brought your former governor, who is doing now an outstanding job as Secretary of Health and Human Services -- Kathleen Sebelius is in the house. (Applause.) We love Kathleen.

Well, it is great to be back in the state of Tex -- (laughter) -- state of Kansas. I was giving Bill Self a hard time, he was here a while back. As many of you know, I have roots here. (Applause.) I’m sure you’re all familiar with the Obamas of Osawatomie. (Laughter.) Actually, I like to say that I got my name from my father, but I got my accent -- and my values -- from my mother. (Applause.) She was born in Wichita. (Applause.) Her mother grew up in Augusta. Her father was from El Dorado. So my Kansas roots run deep.

My grandparents served during World War II. He was a soldier in Patton’s Army; she was a worker on a bomber assembly line. And together, they shared the optimism of a nation that triumphed over the Great Depression and over fascism. They believed in an America where hard work paid off, and responsibility was rewarded, and anyone could make it if they tried -- no matter who you were, no matter where you came from, no matter how you started out. (Applause.)

And these values gave rise to the largest middle class and the strongest economy that the world has ever known. It was here in America that the most productive workers, the most innovative companies turned out the best products on Earth. And you know what? Every American shared in that pride and in that success -- from those in the executive suites to those in middle management to those on the factory floor. (Applause.) So you could have some confidence that if you gave it your all, you’d take enough home to raise your family and send your kids to school and have your health care covered, put a little away for retirement.

Today, we’re still home to the world’s most productive workers. We’re still home to the world’s most innovative companies. But for most Americans, the basic bargain that made this country great has eroded. Long before the recession hit, hard work stopped paying off for too many people. Fewer and fewer of the folks who contributed to the success of our economy actually benefited from that success. Those at the very top grew wealthier from their incomes and their investments -- wealthier than ever before. But everybody else struggled with costs that were growing and paychecks that weren’t -- and too many families found themselves racking up more and more debt just to keep up.

Now, for many years, credit cards and home equity loans papered over this harsh reality. But in 2008, the house of cards collapsed. We all know the story by now: Mortgages sold to people who couldn’t afford them, or even sometimes understand them. Banks and investors allowed to keep packaging the risk and selling it off. Huge bets -- and huge bonuses -- made with other people’s money on the line. Regulators who were supposed to warn us about the dangers of all this, but looked the other way or didn’t have the authority to look at all.

It was wrong. It combined the breathtaking greed of a few with irresponsibility all across the system. And it plunged our economy and the world into a crisis from which we’re still fighting to recover. It claimed the jobs and the homes and the basic security of millions of people -- innocent, hardworking Americans who had met their responsibilities but were still left holding the bag.

And ever since, there’s been a raging debate over the best way to restore growth and prosperity, restore balance, restore fairness. Throughout the country, it’s sparked protests and political movements -- from the tea party to the people who’ve been occupying the streets of New York and other cities. It’s left Washington in a near-constant state of gridlock. It’s been the topic of heated and sometimes colorful discussion among the men and women running for president. (Laughter.)

But, Osawatomie, this is not just another political debate. This is the defining issue of our time. This is a make-or-break moment for the middle class, and for all those who are fighting to get into the middle class. Because what’s at stake is whether this will be a country where working people can earn enough to raise a family, build a modest savings, own a home, secure their retirement.

Now, in the midst of this debate, there are some who seem to be suffering from a kind of collective amnesia. After all that’s happened, after the worst economic crisis, the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression, they want to return to the same practices that got us into this mess. In fact, they want to go back to the same policies that stacked the deck against middle-class Americans for way too many years. And their philosophy is simple: We are better off when everybody is left to fend for themselves and play by their own rules.

I am here to say they are wrong. (Applause.) I’m here in Kansas to reaffirm my deep conviction that we’re greater together than we are on our own. I believe that this country succeeds when everyone gets a fair shot, when everyone does their fair share, when everyone plays by the same rules. (Applause.) These aren’t Democratic values or Republican values. These aren’t 1 percent values or 99 percent values. They’re American values. And we have to reclaim them. (Applause.)

You see, this isn’t the first time America has faced this choice. At the turn of the last century, when a nation of farmers was transitioning to become the world’s industrial giant, we had to decide: Would we settle for a country where most of the new railroads and factories were being controlled by a few giant monopolies that kept prices high and wages low? Would we allow our citizens and even our children to work ungodly hours in conditions that were unsafe and unsanitary? Would we restrict education to the privileged few? Because there were people who thought massive inequality and exploitation of people was just the price you pay for progress.

Theodore Roosevelt disagreed. He was the Republican son of a wealthy family. He praised what the titans of industry had done to create jobs and grow the economy. He believed then what we know is true today, that the free market is the greatest force for economic progress in human history. It’s led to a prosperity and a standard of living unmatched by the rest of the world.

But Roosevelt also knew that the free market has never been a free license to take whatever you can from whomever you can. (Applause.) He understood the free market only works when there are rules of the road that ensure competition is fair and open and honest. And so he busted up monopolies, forcing those companies to compete for consumers with better services and better prices. And today, they still must. He fought to make sure businesses couldn’t profit by exploiting children or selling food or medicine that wasn’t safe. And today, they still can’t.

And in 1910, Teddy Roosevelt came here to Osawatomie and he laid out his vision for what he called a New Nationalism. “Our country,” he said, “…means nothing unless it means the triumph of a real democracy…of an economic system under which each man shall be guaranteed the opportunity to show the best that there is in him.” (Applause.)

Now, for this, Roosevelt was called a radical. He was called a socialist -- (laughter) -- even a communist. But today, we are a richer nation and a stronger democracy because of what he fought for in his last campaign: an eight-hour work day and a minimum wage for women -- (applause) -- insurance for the unemployed and for the elderly, and those with disabilities; political reform and a progressive income tax. (Applause.)

Today, over 100 years later, our economy has gone through another transformation. Over the last few decades, huge advances in technology have allowed businesses to do more with less, and it’s made it easier for them to set up shop and hire workers anywhere they want in the world. And many of you know firsthand the painful disruptions this has caused for a lot of Americans.

Factories where people thought they would retire suddenly picked up and went overseas, where workers were cheaper. Steel mills that needed 100 -- or 1,000 employees are now able to do the same work with 100 employees, so layoffs too often became permanent, not just a temporary part of the business cycle. And these changes didn’t just affect blue-collar workers. If you were a bank teller or a phone operator or a travel agent, you saw many in your profession replaced by ATMs and the Internet.

Today, even higher-skilled jobs, like accountants and middle management can be outsourced to countries like China or India. And if you’re somebody whose job can be done cheaper by a computer or someone in another country, you don’t have a lot of leverage with your employer when it comes to asking for better wages or better benefits, especially since fewer Americans today are part of a union.

More...

Quote:

Now, just as there was in Teddy Roosevelt’s time, there is a certain crowd in Washington who, for the last few decades, have said, let’s respond to this economic challenge with the same old tune. “The market will take care of everything,” they tell us. If we just cut more regulations and cut more taxes -- especially for the wealthy -- our economy will grow stronger. Sure, they say, there will be winners and losers. But if the winners do really well, then jobs and prosperity will eventually trickle down to everybody else. And, they argue, even if prosperity doesn’t trickle down, well, that’s the price of liberty.

Now, it’s a simple theory. And we have to admit, it’s one that speaks to our rugged individualism and our healthy skepticism of too much government. That’s in America’s DNA. And that theory fits well on a bumper sticker. (Laughter.) But here’s the problem: It doesn’t work. It has never worked. (Applause.) It didn’t work when it was tried in the decade before the Great Depression. It’s not what led to the incredible postwar booms of the ‘50s and ‘60s. And it didn’t work when we tried it during the last decade. (Applause.) I mean, understand, it’s not as if we haven’t tried this theory.

Remember in those years, in 2001 and 2003, Congress passed two of the most expensive tax cuts for the wealthy in history. And what did it get us? The slowest job growth in half a century. Massive deficits that have made it much harder to pay for the investments that built this country and provided the basic security that helped millions of Americans reach and stay in the middle class -- things like education and infrastructure, science and technology, Medicare and Social Security.

Remember that in those same years, thanks to some of the same folks who are now running Congress, we had weak regulation, we had little oversight, and what did it get us? Insurance companies that jacked up people’s premiums with impunity and denied care to patients who were sick, mortgage lenders that tricked families into buying homes they couldn’t afford, a financial sector where irresponsibility and lack of basic oversight nearly destroyed our entire economy.

We simply cannot return to this brand of “you’re on your own” economics if we’re serious about rebuilding the middle class in this country. (Applause.) We know that it doesn’t result in a strong economy. It results in an economy that invests too little in its people and in its future. We know it doesn’t result in a prosperity that trickles down. It results in a prosperity that’s enjoyed by fewer and fewer of our citizens.

Look at the statistics. In the last few decades, the average income of the top 1 percent has gone up by more than 250 percent to $1.2 million per year. I’m not talking about millionaires, people who have a million dollars. I’m saying people who make a million dollars every single year. For the top one hundredth of 1 percent, the average income is now $27 million per year. The typical CEO who used to earn about 30 times more than his or her worker now earns 110 times more. And yet, over the last decade the incomes of most Americans have actually fallen by about 6 percent.

Now, this kind of inequality -- a level that we haven’t seen since the Great Depression -- hurts us all. When middle-class families can no longer afford to buy the goods and services that businesses are selling, when people are slipping out of the middle class, it drags down the entire economy from top to bottom. America was built on the idea of broad-based prosperity, of strong consumers all across the country. That’s why a CEO like Henry Ford made it his mission to pay his workers enough so that they could buy the cars he made. It’s also why a recent study showed that countries with less inequality tend to have stronger and steadier economic growth over the long run.

Inequality also distorts our democracy. It gives an outsized voice to the few who can afford high-priced lobbyists and unlimited campaign contributions, and it runs the risk of selling out our democracy to the highest bidder. (Applause.) It leaves everyone else rightly suspicious that the system in Washington is rigged against them, that our elected representatives aren’t looking out for the interests of most Americans.

But there’s an even more fundamental issue at stake. This kind of gaping inequality gives lie to the promise that’s at the very heart of America: that this is a place where you can make it if you try. We tell people -- we tell our kids -- that in this country, even if you’re born with nothing, work hard and you can get into the middle class. We tell them that your children will have a chance to do even better than you do. That’s why immigrants from around the world historically have flocked to our shores.

And yet, over the last few decades, the rungs on the ladder of opportunity have grown farther and farther apart, and the middle class has shrunk. You know, a few years after World War II, a child who was born into poverty had a slightly better than 50-50 chance of becoming middle class as an adult. By 1980, that chance had fallen to around 40 percent. And if the trend of rising inequality over the last few decades continues, it’s estimated that a child born today will only have a one-in-three chance of making it to the middle class -- 33 percent.

It’s heartbreaking enough that there are millions of working families in this country who are now forced to take their children to food banks for a decent meal. But the idea that those children might not have a chance to climb out of that situation and back into the middle class, no matter how hard they work? That’s inexcusable. It is wrong. (Applause.) It flies in the face of everything that we stand for. (Applause.)

Now, fortunately, that’s not a future that we have to accept, because there’s another view about how we build a strong middle class in this country -- a view that’s truer to our history, a vision that’s been embraced in the past by people of both parties for more than 200 years.

It’s not a view that we should somehow turn back technology or put up walls around America. It’s not a view that says we should punish profit or success or pretend that government knows how to fix all of society’s problems. It is a view that says in America we are greater together -- when everyone engages in fair play and everybody gets a fair shot and everybody does their fair share. (Applause.)

So what does that mean for restoring middle-class security in today’s economy? Well, it starts by making sure that everyone in America gets a fair shot at success. The truth is we’ll never be able to compete with other countries when it comes to who’s best at letting their businesses pay the lowest wages, who’s best at busting unions, who’s best at letting companies pollute as much as they want. That’s a race to the bottom that we can’t win, and we shouldn’t want to win that race. (Applause.) Those countries don’t have a strong middle class. They don’t have our standard of living.

The race we want to win, the race we can win is a race to the top -- the race for good jobs that pay well and offer middle-class security. Businesses will create those jobs in countries with the highest-skilled, highest-educated workers, the most advanced transportation and communication, the strongest commitment to research and technology.

The world is shifting to an innovation economy and nobody does innovation better than America. Nobody does it better. (Applause.) No one has better colleges. Nobody has better universities. Nobody has a greater diversity of talent and ingenuity. No one’s workers or entrepreneurs are more driven or more daring. The things that have always been our strengths match up perfectly with the demands of the moment.

And more...

Quote:

But we need to meet the moment. We’ve got to up our game. We need to remember that we can only do that together. It starts by making education a national mission -- a national mission. (Applause.) Government and businesses, parents and citizens. In this economy, a higher education is the surest route to the middle class. The unemployment rate for Americans with a college degree or more is about half the national average. And their incomes are twice as high as those who don’t have a high school diploma. Which means we shouldn’t be laying off good teachers right now -- we should be hiring them. (Applause.) We shouldn’t be expecting less of our schools –- we should be demanding more. (Applause.) We shouldn’t be making it harder to afford college -- we should be a country where everyone has a chance to go and doesn’t rack up $100,000 of debt just because they went. (Applause.)

In today’s innovation economy, we also need a world-class commitment to science and research, the next generation of high-tech manufacturing. Our factories and our workers shouldn’t be idle. We should be giving people the chance to get new skills and training at community colleges so they can learn how to make wind turbines and semiconductors and high-powered batteries. And by the way, if we don’t have an economy that’s built on bubbles and financial speculation, our best and brightest won’t all gravitate towards careers in banking and finance. (Applause.) Because if we want an economy that’s built to last, we need more of those young people in science and engineering. (Applause.) This country should not be known for bad debt and phony profits. We should be known for creating and selling products all around the world that are stamped with three proud words: Made in America. (Applause.)

Today, manufacturers and other companies are setting up shop in the places with the best infrastructure to ship their products, move their workers, communicate with the rest of the world. And that’s why the over 1 million construction workers who lost their jobs when the housing market collapsed, they shouldn’t be sitting at home with nothing to do. They should be rebuilding our roads and our bridges, laying down faster railroads and broadband, modernizing our schools -- (applause) -- all the things other countries are already doing to attract good jobs and businesses to their shores.

Yes, business, and not government, will always be the primary generator of good jobs with incomes that lift people into the middle class and keep them there. But as a nation, we’ve always come together, through our government, to help create the conditions where both workers and businesses can succeed. (Applause.) And historically, that hasn’t been a partisan idea. Franklin Roosevelt worked with Democrats and Republicans to give veterans of World War II -- including my grandfather, Stanley Dunham -- the chance to go to college on the G.I. Bill. It was a Republican President, Dwight Eisenhower, a proud son of Kansas -- (applause) -- who started the Interstate Highway System, and doubled down on science and research to stay ahead of the Soviets.

Of course, those productive investments cost money. They’re not free. And so we’ve also paid for these investments by asking everybody to do their fair share. Look, if we had unlimited resources, no one would ever have to pay any taxes and we would never have to cut any spending. But we don’t have unlimited resources. And so we have to set priorities. If we want a strong middle class, then our tax code must reflect our values. We have to make choices.

Today that choice is very clear. To reduce our deficit, I’ve already signed nearly $1 trillion of spending cuts into law and I’ve proposed trillions more, including reforms that would lower the cost of Medicare and Medicaid. (Applause.)

But in order to structurally close the deficit, get our fiscal house in order, we have to decide what our priorities are. Now, most immediately, short term, we need to extend a payroll tax cut that’s set to expire at the end of this month. (Applause.) If we don’t do that, 160 million Americans, including most of the people here, will see their taxes go up by an average of $1,000 starting in January and it would badly weaken our recovery. That’s the short term.

In the long term, we have to rethink our tax system more fundamentally. We have to ask ourselves: Do we want to make the investments we need in things like education and research and high-tech manufacturing -- all those things that helped make us an economic superpower? Or do we want to keep in place the tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans in our country? Because we can’t afford to do both. That is not politics. That’s just math. (Laughter and applause.)

Now, so far, most of my Republican friends in Washington have refused under any circumstance to ask the wealthiest Americans to go to the same tax rate they were paying when Bill Clinton was president. So let’s just do a trip down memory lane here.

Keep in mind, when President Clinton first proposed these tax increases, folks in Congress predicted they would kill jobs and lead to another recession. Instead, our economy created nearly 23 million jobs and we eliminated the deficit. (Applause.) Today, the wealthiest Americans are paying the lowest taxes in over half a century. This isn’t like in the early ‘50s, when the top tax rate was over 90 percent. This isn’t even like the early ‘80s, when the top tax rate was about 70 percent. Under President Clinton, the top rate was only about 39 percent. Today, thanks to loopholes and shelters, a quarter of all millionaires now pay lower tax rates than millions of you, millions of middle-class families. Some billionaires have a tax rate as low as 1 percent. One percent.

That is the height of unfairness. It is wrong. (Applause.) It’s wrong that in the United States of America, a teacher or a nurse or a construction worker, maybe earns $50,000 a year, should pay a higher tax rate than somebody raking in $50 million. (Applause.) It’s wrong for Warren Buffett’s secretary to pay a higher tax rate than Warren Buffett. (Applause.) And by the way, Warren Buffett agrees with me. (Laughter.) So do most Americans -- Democrats, independents and Republicans. And I know that many of our wealthiest citizens would agree to contribute a little more if it meant reducing the deficit and strengthening the economy that made their success possible.

This isn’t about class warfare. This is about the nation’s welfare. It’s about making choices that benefit not just the people who’ve done fantastically well over the last few decades, but that benefits the middle class, and those fighting to get into the middle class, and the economy as a whole.

Finally, a strong middle class can only exist in an economy where everyone plays by the same rules, from Wall Street to Main Street. (Applause.) As infuriating as it was for all of us, we rescued our major banks from collapse, not only because a full-blown financial meltdown would have sent us into a second Depression, but because we need a strong, healthy financial sector in this country.

But part of the deal was that we wouldn’t go back to business as usual. And that’s why last year we put in place new rules of the road that refocus the financial sector on what should be their core purpose: getting capital to the entrepreneurs with the best ideas, and financing millions of families who want to buy a home or send their kids to college.

Now, we’re not all the way there yet, and the banks are fighting us every inch of the way. But already, some of these reforms are being implemented.

If you’re a big bank or risky financial institution, you now have to write out a “living will” that details exactly how you’ll pay the bills if you fail, so that taxpayers are never again on the hook for Wall Street’s mistakes. (Applause.) There are also limits on the size of banks and new abilities for regulators to dismantle a firm that is going under. The new law bans banks from making risky bets with their customers’ deposits, and it takes away big bonuses and paydays from failed CEOs, while giving shareholders a say on executive salaries.

This is the law that we passed. We are in the process of implementing it now. All of this is being put in place as we speak. Now, unless you’re a financial institution whose business model is built on breaking the law, cheating consumers and making risky bets that could damage the entire economy, you should have nothing to fear from these new rules.

Some of you may know, my grandmother worked as a banker for most of her life -- worked her way up, started as a secretary, ended up being a vice president of a bank. And I know from her, and I know from all the people that I’ve come in contact with, that the vast majority of bankers and financial service professionals, they want to do right by their customers. They want to have rules in place that don’t put them at a disadvantage for doing the right thing. And yet, Republicans in Congress are fighting as hard as they can to make sure that these rules aren’t enforced.

I’ll give you a specific example. For the first time in history, the reforms that we passed put in place a consumer watchdog who is charged with protecting everyday Americans from being taken advantage of by mortgage lenders or payday lenders or debt collectors. And the man we nominated for the post, Richard Cordray, is a former attorney general of Ohio who has the support of most attorney generals, both Democrat and Republican, throughout the country. Nobody claims he’s not qualified.

But the Republicans in the Senate refuse to confirm him for the job; they refuse to let him do his job. Why? Does anybody here think that the problem that led to our financial crisis was too much oversight of mortgage lenders or debt collectors?

AUDIENCE: No!

THE PRESIDENT: Of course not. Every day we go without a consumer watchdog is another day when a student, or a senior citizen, or a member of our Armed Forces -- because they are very vulnerable to some of this stuff -- could be tricked into a loan that they can’t afford -- something that happens all the time. And the fact is that financial institutions have plenty of lobbyists looking out for their interests. Consumers deserve to have someone whose job it is to look out for them. (Applause.) And I intend to make sure they do. (Applause.) And I want you to hear me, Kansas: I will veto any effort to delay or defund or dismantle the new rules that we put in place. (Applause.)

We shouldn’t be weakening oversight and accountability. We should be strengthening oversight and accountability. I’ll give you another example. Too often, we’ve seen Wall Street firms violating major anti-fraud laws because the penalties are too weak and there’s no price for being a repeat offender. No more. I’ll be calling for legislation that makes those penalties count so that firms don’t see punishment for breaking the law as just the price of doing business. (Applause.)

The fact is this crisis has left a huge deficit of trust between Main Street and Wall Street. And major banks that were rescued by the taxpayers have an obligation to go the extra mile in helping to close that deficit of trust. At minimum, they should be remedying past mortgage abuses that led to the financial crisis. They should be working to keep responsible homeowners in their home. We’re going to keep pushing them to provide more time for unemployed homeowners to look for work without having to worry about immediately losing their house.

The big banks should increase access to refinancing opportunities to borrowers who haven’t yet benefited from historically low interest rates. And the big banks should recognize that precisely because these steps are in the interest of middle-class families and the broader economy, it will also be in the banks’ own long-term financial interest. What will be good for consumers over the long term will be good for the banks. (Applause.)

Investing in things like education that give everybody a chance to succeed. A tax code that makes sure everybody pays their fair share. And laws that make sure everybody follows the rules. That’s what will transform our economy. That’s what will grow our middle class again. In the end, rebuilding this economy based on fair play, a fair shot, and a fair share will require all of us to see that we have a stake in each other’s success. And it will require all of us to take some responsibility.

It will require parents to get more involved in their children’s education. It will require students to study harder. (Applause.) It will require some workers to start studying all over again. It will require greater responsibility from homeowners not to take out mortgages they can’t afford. They need to remember that if something seems too good to be true, it probably is.

It will require those of us in public service to make government more efficient and more effective, more consumer-friendly, more responsive to people’s needs. That’s why we’re cutting programs that we don’t need to pay for those we do. (Applause.) That’s why we’ve made hundreds of regulatory reforms that will save businesses billions of dollars. That’s why we’re not just throwing money at education, we’re challenging schools to come up with the most innovative reforms and the best results.

And it will require American business leaders to understand that their obligations don’t just end with their shareholders. Andy Grove, the legendary former CEO of Intel, put it best. He said, “There is another obligation I feel personally, given that everything I’ve achieved in my career, and a lot of what Intel has achieved…were made possible by a climate of democracy, an economic climate and investment climate provided by the United States.”

This broader obligation can take many forms. At a time when the cost of hiring workers in China is rising rapidly, it should mean more CEOs deciding that it’s time to bring jobs back to the United States -- (applause) -- not just because it’s good for business, but because it’s good for the country that made their business and their personal success possible. (Applause.)

I think about the Big Three auto companies who, during recent negotiations, agreed to create more jobs and cars here in America, and then decided to give bonuses not just to their executives, but to all their employees, so that everyone was invested in the company’s success. (Applause.)

I think about a company based in Warroad, Minnesota. It’s called Marvin Windows and Doors. During the recession, Marvin’s competitors closed dozens of plants, let hundreds of workers go. But Marvin’s did not lay off a single one of their 4,000 or so employees -- not one. In fact, they’ve only laid off workers once in over a hundred years. Mr. Marvin’s grandfather even kept his eight employees during the Great Depression.

Now, at Marvin’s when times get tough, the workers agree to give up some perks and some pay, and so do the owners. As one owner said, “You can’t grow if you’re cutting your lifeblood -- and that’s the skills and experience your workforce delivers.” (Applause.) For the CEO of Marvin’s, it’s about the community. He said, “These are people we went to school with. We go to church with them. We see them in the same restaurants. Indeed, a lot of us have married local girls and boys. We could be anywhere, but we are in Warroad.”

That’s how America was built. That’s why we’re the greatest nation on Earth. That’s what our greatest companies understand. Our success has never just been about survival of the fittest. It’s about building a nation where we’re all better off. We pull together. We pitch in. We do our part. We believe that hard work will pay off, that responsibility will be rewarded, and that our children will inherit a nation where those values live on. (Applause.)

And it is that belief that rallied thousands of Americans to Osawatomie -- (applause) -- maybe even some of your ancestors -- on a rain-soaked day more than a century ago. By train, by wagon, on buggy, bicycle, on foot, they came to hear the vision of a man who loved this country and was determined to perfect it.

“We are all Americans,” Teddy Roosevelt told them that day. “Our common interests are as broad as the continent.” In the final years of his life, Roosevelt took that same message all across this country, from tiny Osawatomie to the heart of New York City, believing that no matter where he went, no matter who he was talking to, everybody would benefit from a country in which everyone gets a fair chance. (Applause.)

And well into our third century as a nation, we have grown and we’ve changed in many ways since Roosevelt’s time. The world is faster and the playing field is larger and the challenges are more complex. But what hasn’t changed -- what can never change -- are the values that got us this far. We still have a stake in each other’s success. We still believe that this should be a place where you can make it if you try. And we still believe, in the words of the man who called for a New Nationalism all those years ago, “The fundamental rule of our national life,” he said, “the rule which underlies all others -- is that, on the whole, and in the long run, we shall go up or down together.” And I believe America is on the way up. (Applause.)

Thank you. God bless you. God bless the United States of America. (Applause.)

Please, where is he wrong?

-spence

Quote:

Originally Posted by spence (Post 906427)

I don't have a Harvard education, although I'd note that Obama does.

[/B]

as does Ted Kaczynski :uhuh:

Quote:

Originally Posted by scottw (Post 906453)

as does Ted Kaczynski :uhuh:

Always quick to patronize your mentors aren't you.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Quote:

Originally Posted by spence (Post 906455)

Always quick to patronize your mentors aren't you.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

no, just pointing out that Obama wouldn't be the first dangerous lunatic boasting a Harvard education...the speech is just shameful and an American embarassment...but perfectly in line with what we've come to expect from your mentor...btw-WashPo(no conservative rag) gave the speech "Three Pinnochios"

"But such is the way of this White House. Facts are dependent variables, history the president’s Pool of Narcissus, reflecting his own glory. Hence, Obama cherry-picks TR’s “new nationalism” as a justification for his own agenda and proof that today’s Republicans are extreme.

After all, was not TR a “Republican son of a wealthy family,” as Obama put it?

Well, yes, he was. And then, he wasn’t. TR left the Republican party to promote his “new nationalism” philosophy and run as a Progressive — a “super socialist,” in the words of the New York Times in 1913.

As a Republican president, Roosevelt had been a “trust buster.” As Progressive gadfly, Roosevelt believed in making the trusts bigger, stronger, and more entwined with the federal government, orchestrated by an all-powerful “Federal Bureau of Corporations.”

“Concentration, cooperation, and control,” he explained in his acceptance speech at the 1912 Progressive convention, “are the key words for a scientific solution of the mighty industrial problem which now confronts this nation.”

It’s no surprise Obama would find the Progressive Teddy so reasonable. Nor is it shocking that Obama would fail to explain to today’s generation the true intentions of that “Republican son of a wealthy family.”

you aren't all that well informed Spence...maybe 1/2 "well informed"

the money quote from Krauthammer was this...

" the classic reflex of reactionary liberalism — anything to avoid addressing the underlying structural problems, which would require modernizing the totemic programs of the New Deal and Great Society."

JUST MAKE SURE HE PAYS FOR MY SOLAR SYSTEM AND ATTIC INSULATION BEFORE HE STARTS MAKING CUTS

:hee:

Quote:

Originally Posted by #^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^& (Post 906472)

JUST MAKE SURE HE PAYS FOR MY SOLAR SYSTEM AND ATTIC INSULATION BEFORE HE STARTS MAKING CUTS

:hee:

That doesn't make you, whats the word... a hypocrite, does it?
Mr President. You suck. The country is broke!
Now, give me money!

just a snippet....

You know, a few years after World War II, a child who was born into poverty had a slightly better than 50-50 chance of becoming middle class as an adult. By 1980, that chance had fallen to around 40 percent. And if the trend of rising inequality over the last few decades continues, it’s estimated that a child born today will only have a one-in-three chance of making it to the middle class -- 33 percent (in cities like Providence currently, seventy percent of children in Providence schools perform below grade-level in math and more than half are below grade-level in reading despite spending $15,305 per pupil. Is this a failure of rich people to pay their taxes or a failure of goverment and which of the two has a greater effect in keeping these children out of the middle class???
It’s heartbreaking enough that there are millions of working families in this country who are now forced to take their children to food banks for a decent meal. actually Obama, spend a little time in a grocery store, my family is very selective about what we buy and don't buy but if you want to see who is not...note who is using your EBT cards at the grocery store and what they are buying and wearing and driving ..."46.3 million Americans receiving food stamps in September," :uhuh: But the idea that those children might not have a chance to climb out of that situation and back into the middle class, no matter how hard they work? That’s inexcusable. It is wrong. (Applause.) It flies in the face of everything that we stand for.ummmm, aren't you from Chicago?...what is the drop out rate in Chicago???...poverty rate in Chicago???....
"In Chicago alone, 37% of adults have low or limited literacy skills. That’s more than 1 in 3 people in this city who are functioning without the basic skill set that many of us take for granted." Is that a failure of the rich not paying their fair share or massive corrupt government and a trend where individuals are happy to rely on governemnt rather than themselves because they are encouraged to do so????? (Applause.)

Here's an interesting take on how clueless Obama really is on the economy.

Under Obama taxes are at an all time low, corporate profits are at record highs, the market has grown under his presidency faster than ever in history, international investors recently polled showed that the US had the best investment climate etc...

What does big money say about ‘Obama is socialist’ meme? | Jay Bookman

-spence

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim in CT (Post 906315)

when does anything becomes Obama's fault?

I've been asking the same thing.So much of what has gone wrong in the past few years is squarely on his shoulders and yet he takes little to no responsibility for his actions or in some cases inaction.

And to his supporters he's the second coming and can no wrong.Oh they'll admit to some petty mistakes that have no bearing in the real world.I assume these admittances make Obama look "human" in the eyes of those who voted for him...but that's just my opinion.

In the end Obama's made so many mistakes they can't even be counted.He really is one the worst presidents in US history.

Quote:

Originally Posted by basswipe (Post 906495)

In the end Obama's made so many mistakes they can't even be counted.He really is one the worst presidents in US history.

Name three.

-spence

Quote:

Originally Posted by scottw (Post 906453)

as does Ted Kaczynski :uhuh:

As does George Bush.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spence (Post 906492)

(1) corporate profits are at an all time high. Spence, first of all, I thought liberals would think that's a BAD thing? Second of all, look at the chart in the link you provided. If corporate profits had been droppping for 20 years before Obama got in, and then he turned things around, that's one thing. But Spence, look at the chart. The upward trend in corporate profits has been steady for 50 years. TELL ME WHAT OBAMA DID, SPECIFICALLY, to help increase profits, or admit that it just happened on his watch.

(2) the market has grown gaster than ever in hostory
Again, I could have sworn that liberals would think that's bad, as it only increases the wealth gap between rich and poor, it keeps poor people down, or some other such Bolshevik nonsense. Second, the sharp increase is largely due to the horrible crash that happened right before he got sworn in (and guess which party controlled the legislature for 2 years leading up to that crash?). Third, again, what has Obama done to help Wall Street? All he does is demonize Wall Street!

Spence, annswer my questions, or please go outside and play so the adults can talk.

According to Spence, every single good thing that happens on Obama's watch, he gets credit for. Every single bad thing that happens on Obama's watch, is someone else's fault. That's all you ever say. We get it. Obama takes the same approach. It works on non-thinking simpletons.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spence (Post 906499)

Name three.

-spence

This man spends money he doesn't have and has no real plan on how to recoup this money other than trying sell to the American public that taxing the rich will pay for it all with no real definition of who and what the rich are.

A good analagy is putting a bandage on a cut that won't heal.If the bandage doesn't heal the cut we need find out why the cut won't heal,you just can't keep putting bandages on it.

1.The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.Its putting a small amount of people to work for a small amount of time and then puts those same folks back in the proverbial unemployment line.And in some cases actually is costing more money than projected because of unmet deadlines and other cost overuns.We got a couple of nice roads yay.Again the bandage analagy works well here,no real solutions to fix our crumbling infrastructure.The Jobs Act is just another bandage,we'll add that to the list of future mistakes.

2.Obama Care.For the average American who has a healthcare plan through their employer the price of going to the doctor has climbed and not always necessarily through higher rates but higher copays...since Obama Care passed my copays have tripled.The forcing businesses(specifically small/medium)
to provide healthcare or else approach gives businesses two choices:spend money they don't have or close up shop.The obvious choice is close up shop.Never mind the tanning salon tax will take care of that.

3.The Housing Market.His inaction in doing anything real to help the housing market recover other than to throw money at it(again a bandaid) without any real effort to fix the underlying problems in the market.Lets not forget that as senators Obama and Barney were the two most responsible for this mess.Foreclosures are still at very high numbers.
Lets taIk house building/renovation.I know the "numbers" say its getting better but as someone who's worked residential construction all my life I can tell you for a fact it isn't better,its worse!People are not building new houses and they are not fixing their old ones.I work for one of the largest construction companies in RI and we just had a wholsale layoff of people.We've submitted little to no bids because there is nothing to bid on.Unless things get better after our current projects are finished I'll more than likely be in the unemployment line.

So when the dust settles and this country is in even more debt than it already is taxing the rich will pay for nothing and the burden will fall on small/medium business and the American worker through raising taxes on them.

I believe that's three.

Quote:

Originally Posted by #^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^& (Post 906472)

JUST MAKE SURE HE PAYS FOR MY SOLAR SYSTEM AND ATTIC INSULATION BEFORE HE STARTS MAKING CUTS

:hee:

And your healthcare :)
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim in CT (Post 906502)

Quote:

(2) the market has grown gaster than ever in hostory
Again, I could have sworn that liberals would think that's bad, as it only increases the wealth gap between rich and poor, it keeps poor people down, or some other such Bolshevik nonsense. Second, the sharp increase is largely due to the horrible crash that happened right before he got sworn in (and guess which party controlled the legislature for 2 years leading up to that crash?). Third, again, what has Obama done to help Wall Street? All he does is demonize Wall Street!

You're missing the point. The dramatic increase in corporate profits is matched by the widening wealth gap. As much as wealth is being created at the top it's also being sucked from the middle.

What we've witnessed is that this isn't sustainable and has resulted in increased debt and financial instability.

As a lover of facts I'd think you would have appreciated those. I put them in BOLD so you'd notice.

Quote:

Spence, annswer my questions, or please go outside and play so the adults can talk.

Okkkkay :rotf2::uhuh:

-spence

Quote:

Originally Posted by basswipe (Post 906514)

I'm not sure you can call any of those "mistakes", rather they're legislative actions that you just don't agree with.

As for housing, Obama certainly has worked to help reduce foreclosures. You'd probably consider it socialism though, or government enabling less personal responsibility.

-spence

Quote:

Originally Posted by spence (Post 906527)

As much as wealth is being created at the top it's also being sucked from the middle.

-spence

yes, the top continues to create wealth, it's what they do and Obama is fortunate to have them to deamonize as he creates more debt

the s#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&g sound that you hear is from the growing permanent dependent class and according to USA Today last June " That brings to a record $61.6 trillion the total of financial promises not paid for." (Federally) or $535,000 per household

U.S. funding for future promises lags by trillions - USATODAY.com

plus 5.2 Trillion for State and Local unfunded obligations

Obamanomics will continue to shrink the middle, deamonize the top and massively expand the permanent dependent "s#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&g" class as it expands the scope and role of government which is the ultimate objective.....

it won't be "greedy corporations" that cause the downfall of American Society, it will be government unable to control itself or pay it's way....corporations are just a convenient target for those who see private business as nothing more than a source of greater funding for their lunacy :uhuh:

Sounds again like Roman history

Quote:

Originally Posted by striperman36 (Post 906555)

Sounds again like Roman history

there's an awful lot of history being repeated currently :uhuh: and, well....you know the quote...

Quote:

Originally Posted by scottw (Post 906559)

there's an awful lot of history being repeated currently :uhuh: and, well....you know the quote...

yes we all do. Several quotes

Quote:

Originally Posted by striperman36 (Post 906560)

yes we all do. Several quotes

and odd coincidences too :uhuh:

Quote:

Originally Posted by spence (Post 906527)

Many economists believe the Stimulus package saved the economy from sliding into a depression. If that had happened corporate profits would not have recovered like they have.

As part of this Obama has kept taxes on the middle class down to encourage demand.

You're missing the point. The dramatic increase in corporate profits is matched by the widening wealth gap. As much as wealth is being created at the top it's also being sucked from the middle.

What we've witnessed is that this isn't sustainable and has resulted in increased debt and financial instability.

As a lover of facts I'd think you would have appreciated those. I put them in BOLD so you'd notice.

Okkkkay :rotf2::uhuh:

-spence

"]Many economists believe the Stimulus package saved the economy from sliding into a depression"

And just as many economists say it was a waste. We cannot know what would have happened if things were different, which is why Obama likes to take this approach. Here's what we know for a fact. The stimulus was $750 billion that, according to Obama, would keep unemployment below 8%. He was spectacularly wrong on that. Off by millions of jobs.

"As part of this Obama has kept taxes on the middle class down to encourage demand. "

He KEPT them low. Do you know why they were low in the first place? They are low in the first place because of Bush, and I bet you never gave Bush credit for that. If Obama didn't add trillions to the debt, he could have lowered taxes on the middle class by much more.

"As much as wealth is being created at the top it's also being sucked from the middle."

WRONG, WRONG, WRONG, and this comment highlights your total ignorance on this issue. WEALTH IS NOT FINITE, IT'S NOT LIKE A PIZZA. If Bill Gates earns another million today, and he will, that does not mean there's a million less for the rest of us. I keep posting that, it's irrefutably true, but you keep your fingers in your stupid ears because it makes Obama look like the liar he is. God, you're ignorant. And I don't mean run-of-the-mill ignorant. I mean once-in-a-generation ignorant.

Spence, when cavemen were around, GDP was zero. Now it's a lot more than zero. Wealth is not a zero-sum game. Wealthy people are not hurting the rest of us, in fact, they are a godsend. They pay tons of taxes, they give tons to charity, and they create lots of jobs. Those facts may not serve your dishonest, stupid, hateful, warped, insipid, kool aid-drinking, hippie, moronic, Maoist, Bolshevik, misinformed, blame-everyone-else, gimme-gimme-gimme, juvenile, commie, lazy, pathetic, jealous, Occupy Wall Street, unrealistic, lefty narrative. But they are still the facts. Get the hell out of the way so the adults can talk, please!

In every economic system, there are unfortunately folks who fall through the cracks. There are bad wealthy people, just like there are bad poor people and bad middle class people. But the fact that some are wealthy is NOT THE REASON that others are poor. That would only be true, it COULD ONLY BE TRUE, if wealth were finite. It is not.

The class warfare argument has no validity whatsoever. It is a desperate ploy by a desperate, inept Obama who himself admitted that, despite the fact that his party controlled the entore government from 2008-2010, that the country is worse off now than the day he took office. Obama himself admitted this. Yet he takes zero responsibility for it, even though the Democrats controlled the legislature from 2006-2010. It's all someone else's fault. If only we could increase tax rates on billionaires by 5 cents a year, we'd all be driving Bentleys, according to Obama. If those mean conservatives would only allow it to happen!

If it is obtained honestly, wealth is good. And more is better than less.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spence (Post 906527)

. As much as wealth is being created at the top it's also being sucked from the middle.

-spence

Read your own quote, Spence. You said wealth is "created" at the top. If new wealth is being created, that means it wasn't necessarily stolen from somkeone else.

Spence, I will give you a chance at growth here. Real, adult, growth. Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, and Oprah Winfrey all made tons of money today. In my opinion, they didn't "steal" anything from the middle class. In my opinion, they made money because they make middle class customers want to buy their products VOLUNTARILY. These wealthy people are not confiscating anyone else's money. These wealthy people only get wealthier by making people want to freely choose to buy their products.

You tell me why I'm wrong, Spence. You tell all of us why every nickel those folks make, necessarily hurts someone else.

Either support that ridiculous statement, or admit that it's pure liberal bullsh*t.

Are there crooks out there that need to be watched? Obviously. But that's not what you said, nor is it what Obama is saying. You're saying that the wealth gap is "caused" by those at the top, and that is demonstrably false. You have been duped by a snake oil salesman, and if I was that gullable, I'd be upset about it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by scottw (Post 906546)

yes, the top continues to create wealth, it's what they do and Obama is fortunate to have them to deamonize as he creates more debt

Seems like they like it :hihi:

Quote:

WASHINGTON, Oct. 19 (UPI) -- Democratic President Barack Obama is blowing away his Republican challengers when it comes to soliciting donations on Wall Street, fundraising figures show.

The Washington Post reported Wednesday its analysis of contribution data reveals Obama has raised more from the financial and banking sector this year than all of the GOP presidential hopefuls combined.

Perhaps it like battered wife syndrome?

Read more: Obama pulling in Wall Street donations - UPI.com

Quote:

the s#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&g sound that you hear is from the growing permanent dependent class and according to USA Today last June " That brings to a record $61.6 trillion the total of financial promises not paid for." (Federally) or $535,000 per household

U.S. funding for future promises lags by trillions - USATODAY.com

plus 5.2 Trillion for State and Local unfunded obligations

Obamanomics will continue to shrink the middle, deamonize the top and massively expand the permanent dependent "s#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&g" class as it expands the scope and role of government which is the ultimate objective.....
If you read Jim's post you'll see that the shrinking of the middle is much bigger than Obama...as is the debt and dependence.

Perhaps that's Obama's point, that we have "underlying structural problems". Not sure where I've heard that before though...

Quote:

it won't be "greedy corporations" that cause the downfall of American Society, it will be government unable to control itself or pay it's way....corporations are just a convenient target for those who see private business as nothing more than a source of greater funding for their lunacy :uhuh:

The problem with your assertion is that both democratic and republican politicians resemble your remark.

One might then intuit that ideology has little to do with the problem, and that you're entire premise is fundamentally invalid. You should read his speech again.

-spence

Quote:

Originally Posted by spence (Post 906592)

Seems like they like it :hihi:

Perhaps it like battered wife syndrome?

Read more: Obama pulling in Wall Street donations - UPI.com

Perhaps that's Obama's point, that we have "underlying structural problems". Not sure where I've heard that before though...

The problem with your assertion is that both democratic and republican politicians resemble your remark.

One might then intuit that ideology has little to do with the problem, and that you're entire premise is fundamentally invalid. You should read his speech again.

-spence

Spence, what about that USA Today article that says we have unfunded liabilities of $62 trillion? Spence, HOW WOULD YOU go about fixing that? Obama says all we need to do is get another $90n billion a year from the billionaires. Do the math. If we get that $90billion a year (a big if) and even if we didn't have to pay interest on the $62 trillion (and we do) it will take 667 years to pay down that debt.

Spence, please please please tell me how we solve this, without huge cuts to those programs? Yet when Paul Ryan offers a way to do this, YOUR SIDE makes a commercial of Ryan pushing old ladies off a cliff. Is that honest debate? Is that honestly trying to solve the problems at hand? No. All that is, is deminizing the opposition because conservatives are the ones being courageous and honest. All you can do, ALL YOU CAN DO, is shriek that we hate poor people. Pathetic.

Let's hear it Spence. How do we get $62 trillion just from the wealthy. Because even if we took every penny from them, even if we taxed them at 100%, it wouldn't add up to anywhere near that number. But I'm sure you must have a valid plan, right??????? Let's hear it. Either offer up a plan that addresses that problem, or keep quiet and learn something. I'm all ears...

Quote:

Originally Posted by spence (Post 906592)

you're entire premise is fundamentally invalid. -spence

Our premise is that $62 trillion debt can never be paid off in our lifetime. Do you disagree?

And if we can't pay it off in our lifetime, that means we have 2 choices. We either (1) make cuts to reduce that hole, or (2) we do nothing and leaved it ti future generations to worry about.

Irrefutably, conservatives want to make the difficult, but necessary, cuts. Liberals want to punt. Go ahead Spence, you tell me where I'm wrong please.

I hate the idea of having to cut these programs. If we could raise $62 trillion without destroying everything, I'd be all for it. But we can't raise that much $$, and it's not fair to leave this problem for our grandkids. But that's precisely, exactly what this coward Obama wants to do. He's been voting "present" his whole life, and he's doing it again.

Spence, I'm almost done making my pile, I have most of my nest egg free and clear. When the house of cards collapses, I'll have a nice nest-egg with taxes already paid. I'll be out of the IRS' reach. When the IRS comes to you and tells you "sorry, you're now in the 85% income tax bracket", you remember Obama, and remember to thank him.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim in CT (Post 906571)

And just as many economists say it was a waste. We cannot know what would have happened if things were different, which is why Obama likes to take this approach. Here's what we know for a fact. The stimulus was $750 billion that, according to Obama, would keep unemployment below 8%. He was spectacularly wrong on that. Off by millions of jobs.

Your assertion that "just as many" is made up.

As for the 8%, I think the Admin was showing some reasonable candor when they said the recession was MUCH deeper than anticipated when that statement was made. The CBO figures back that up as well.

Quote:

He KEPT them low. Do you know why they were low in the first place? They are low in the first place because of Bush, and I bet you never gave Bush credit for that. If Obama didn't add trillions to the debt, he could have lowered taxes on the middle class by much more.

Not totally true. The tax cuts in the Stimulus Bill were weighted towards the middle which was in addition to the existing tax structure.

Quote:

WRONG, WRONG, WRONG, and this comment highlights your total ignorance on this issue. WEALTH IS NOT FINITE, IT'S NOT LIKE A PIZZA. If Bill Gates earns another million today, and he will, that does not mean there's a million less for the rest of us. I keep posting that, it's irrefutably true, but you keep your fingers in your stupid ears because it makes Obama look like the liar he is. God, you're ignorant. And I don't mean run-of-the-mill ignorant. I mean once-in-a-generation ignorant.

Spence, when cavemen were around, GDP was zero. Now it's a lot more than zero. Wealth is not a zero-sum game. Wealthy people are not hurting the rest of us, in fact, they are a godsend. They pay tons of taxes, they give tons to charity, and they create lots of jobs. Those facts may not serve your dishonest, stupid, hateful, warped, insipid, kool aid-drinking, hippie, moronic, Maoist, Bolshevik, misinformed, blame-everyone-else, gimme-gimme-gimme, juvenile, commie, lazy, pathetic, jealous, Occupy Wall Street, unrealistic, lefty narrative. But they are still the facts. Get the hell out of the way so the adults can talk, please!

In every economic system, there are unfortunately folks who fall through the cracks. There are bad wealthy people, just like there are bad poor people and bad middle class people. But the fact that some are wealthy is NOT THE REASON that others are poor. That would only be true, it COULD ONLY BE TRUE, if wealth were finite. It is not.

The class warfare argument has no validity whatsoever. It is a desperate ploy by a desperate, inept Obama who himself admitted that, despite the fact that his party controlled the entore government from 2008-2010, that the country is worse off now than the day he took office. Obama himself admitted this. Yet he takes zero responsibility for it, even though the Democrats controlled the legislature from 2006-2010. It's all someone else's fault. If only we could increase tax rates on billionaires by 5 cents a year, we'd all be driving Bentleys, according to Obama. If those mean conservatives would only allow it to happen!

If it is obtained honestly, wealth is good. And more is better than less.

This is a funny little rant, and seriously, I do appreciate the effort you invested in writing it.

But you completely misread my statement.

Read it again.

-spence