There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me — because they want to give something back. They know they didn’t — look, if you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own. You didn’t get there on your own. I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something — there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there. (Applause.)
If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/07/15/ob...#ixzz20mweXV8p
Galen - you mean those bogus polls you posted
on Scout where OBY got a bump? :laugh:
As 12th said:
Rasmussen does not even put NM in play - Obama comfortably. Some convenient states you left out:
FL: Romney +1
OH: Romney +2
IA: Romney +1
CO: toss-up at 45-45
A state that went Obama in 2008 has already been ceded back to the Repubs - IN.
12th forgot to mention that OH and Fla are the
biggest battleground states with 47 points
He also forgot to say Mitt is getting NC which went to the hamster.
Rasmussen, the most accurate poll as 12th said on scout and I've been saying here for years has Mitt up today.
So much for the bump.
"Too many folks still don't have a sense that tomorrow will be better than today. And so, the question in this election is which way do we go?" President Obama asked at a fundraiser in Chicago on Sunday.
"Do we go forward towards a new vision of an America in which prosperity is shared?" Obama asked. "Or do we go backward to the same policies that got us in the mess in the first place?"
"I believe we have to go forward," Obama said. "I believe we have to keep working to create an America where no matter who you are, no matter what you look like, no matter where you come from, no matter what your last name is, no matter who you love, you can make it here if you try. That's what's at stake in November. That's what is why I am running for a second term as president of the United States of America."
OBYs been speaking in socialistic/commie tones since day 1 and the country still voted him in and even the SC with our own guys in charge upheld O BUMMER CARE.
He's gonna win again. The liberals don't care if this is communism or not, so long as the liberal wins.
KRUCHEVE SAID WE'D WIN AMERICA OVER. IT WILL TAKE TIME BUT THEY WILL COME OVER.
IT ONLY TOOK HALF A CENTURY.
Obama's (and Warren's from whom he stole it) argument is weak and telling. And obviously he is not merely arguing we need to raise taxes (he has made that argument forever), this is something new and much more troubling.
He implies that his opponents are not only for small-government but rather no-government, which is obviously absurd and false.
He implies that any country with roads and a military and schools would produce the same level of success, when we can find examples (the Soviet Union, e.g.) that disprove this simplification.
He ignores every and all reasons (in the argument) why people are successful other than "because of the federal government" (see his creepy Life of Julia propaganda).
And most importantly, he implies that the wealthy are not already paying their fair share, as they are obviously already paying for the things he mentions. His argument could (and probably would) be given even if the top 10% of taxpayers paid 95% of the federal income taxes instead of the 70% that they pay now. If not, why not?
It is one thing to want to raise taxes on the nebulously defined "wealthy" and spend, spend, spend more on your constituents (this is the established, standard liberal dogma), but it is entirely another thing to try to diminish the accomplishments of the hard-working innovators and entrepreneurs who have made the country what it is. And to do it by insinuating that they selfishly believe that they had no help along the way, when nothing could be further from the truth (every major accomplishment almost always results in the accomplisher selflessly thanking a long list of people who helped them get to where they are), is poor form.
This is just part of a class warfare strategy that Obama is forced to employ due to having a dismal record of 'accomplishments' in his first term. He does not want to (cannot) talk about Stimulus disaster or Obamacare or job creation because in all areas the public has viewed them failures. He is left with limited options. And divide and conquer class/racial/ethnic/gender warfare is one. And sleazily smearing your opponent is another. This is textbook Alinsky "by any means necessary" politics. And it is working fairly well, all things considered.
He knows he won.
I don't understand how the President of a (or what is supposed to be) capitalistic economy wants to see prosperity "shared" amongst everyone?
Hahaha...doesn't that kind of defeat the purpose of capitalism?
There have been a MASSIVE amount of folks doing the anti-Obama campaign/movement here in Arlington, VA the past couple of weeks. Every day I walk home from work and there are at least 2 or 3 groups on my walk home with picket signs saying "NO-Bama" and I can't tell you how many fliers I get posted on my car and the front door of my town house.
People - around here at least - are really gearing up to influence the fence-splitters. The funny thing is I talked to one of them and they can't stand Mitt Romney either, but they adamantly dislike Obama more. They'd probably vote for Ralph Nader over Obama if those were the only choices.
Claims of socialism, just think:
FDR gave Russia all of Eastern Europe w/o firing a shot.
OBY just gave Russia all of USA w/o
firing a shot.
Kruchev was right.