-
The Politicization Crusade
May 8, 2013 | 56 comments
-
Deceiver in Chief
March 20, 2013 | 204 comments
-
Chronicle of Liberal Disasters
February 25, 2013 | 70 comments
-
President Obama’s Minimum Wage Delusion
February 14, 2013 | 203 comments
-
The Democrats’ Rough Re-entry Into Reality
October 19, 2012 | 148 comments
The Obama Watch
Infuriator in Chief
But will his Roanoke confession cost him votes?
President Obama’s greatest talent seems to be his ability to infuriate his opponents. The latest example is the campaign speech he gave in Roanoke, Virginia last weekend. In that speech he declared, “If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.” The Wall Street Journal opines that, “This burst of ideological candor is already resonating like nothing else Mr. Obama’s said in years.”
Of course, Obama’s explanation of how success happens is absurd, but that’s only part of the story. Also interesting are the motivations and consequences of his remarks. His view is much more than wrong, it is insulting, infuriating, and demeaning to a large portion of the populace.
Obama’s supporters may agree with the views he is expressing. His words may make them more enthusiastic in their support for him, make it more likely they will donate to his campaign, and show up to vote in November.
On the other hand, do those words cost him any votes? Those who are incensed by what he says probably weren’t going to vote for him anyway. When the people who are already angry enough to vote against him get even angrier, are there any consequences? Is he increasing the population of voters who are livid, or is the impact simply redundant?
Coaches tell their professional sports teams to measure their words when talking to sports reporters. They tell them not to say disrespectful things about their upcoming opponents, and not to say something that will end up on their opponents’ locker room bulletin boards. Providing extra motivation for your opponents is never a good idea.
There is a vast difference between Barak Obama’s public persona and his true nature. In other words, his public persona is a fraud. An inherent problem with a fraud is that it is not easy to sustain in the long run. There is a constant tension between the reality and the fraudulent image. An old adage says, “The truth is easy to remember.” The corollary of that is lies are hard to remember. Like bubbles, the truth tends to rise to the surface. What we saw in Roanoke is the real deal Obama. Now and again Obama actually delivers on his promise of transparency.
There is a degree of internal logic to Obama’s world view. In his Roanoke speech he said, “There are a lot of smart people out there — there are a whole bunch of smart people out there.” In other words, there’s no real difference among individuals, therefore, incomes and wealth ought to be equal.
Getting our arms around Barak Obama’s worldview is extremely difficult for those of us who don’t share it. We ask ourselves, how can anyone believe such things? But believe it he does, and the rest of us need to recognize that fact.
Obama is well known for his frequent use of argumentum strawmanium. He makes up grotesque caricatures of his opponents’ policy positions. Included in his Roanoke speech was, “There are some things, like fighting fires, we don’t do on our own. I mean, imagine if everybody had their [sic] own fire service. That would be a hard way to organize fighting fires.” Does he not recognize how insulting and condescending that sounds? Who in the world advocates having his own free-standing fire department? No one is that stupid. It speaks volumes about his opinion of his audience’s intelligence. Being talked down to that way is not a way to win friends and influence people. Obama is incapable of dealing with his opponents’ real arguments, so he describes them in absurd, cartoonish ways. It’s pathetic.
Barak Obama is unquestionably the most divisive U.S. president in modern history. People I never would have suspected have expressed to me an intense resentment and anger about what he has done to the country they love. Two wonderful ladies I know, both age 85, have for the first times in their lives become politically energized. I’m pretty sure neither one of these fine ladies have had this much political anger in all of their lives. I don’t think they are isolated examples. In November we will learn just how many voters share their feelings.
About the Author
Ron Ross Ph.D. is an economist who lives in Arcata, California. He is the author of The Unbeatable Market. Reach him at rossecon@gmail.com.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (117) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Ron Ross
More Articles From The Obama Watch
http://spectator.org/archives/2012/07/19/infuriator-in-chief
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
LoisLane| 7.19.12 @ 6:35AM
I'd vote for a pink ceramic soap dish before I'd vote for Obama. Same goes for everyone...and I mean EVERYONE I know!
Brookschwarzenegro | 7.19.12 @ 4:07PM
But you are secretly glad Obama is a foil, as Clinton was.
No one can say you are free of guile, it looks as if you will squeeze Romney in the WH-- Romney leads by a point or two. Then four- eight years of Rove-Cheney the Sequel Coming To Your Theater In January.
Robert| 7.19.12 @ 4:35PM
Rove and Cheney? They are church choirboys compared to the thugocracy we are enduring now.
PsychoDad| 7.19.12 @ 4:39PM
Meth is a helluva drug, folks.
Brookschwarzenegro | 7.19.12 @ 7:16PM
What is Romney going to do for you that your candidates and POTUSes have not done since Jan. 1989?
I honestly do not get it. Are expecting a miracle? Will Jesus return if Romney is elected?
Brookschwarzenegro | 7.19.12 @ 7:17PM
Are you expecting a miracle? Will Jesus return if Romney is elected?
Appleby| 7.19.12 @ 6:45AM
The only thing this infuriating Back-To-The-Sixties persona is doing is inspiring people who might not have voted -- or might not have voted for Romney -- to turn out. I think Obama knows he's doomed, and he's behaving like those Japanese soldiers who were in the woods years after the war was over, just planning to take as many of Us with him when he goes as he can.
Gary B| 7.19.12 @ 9:58AM
What frightens me is what he'll do between the election and the inauguration of Romney. It's a lame duck span of time. I suspect he'll attempt to burn the whole place down. A rejected and humiliated narcissist with power is dangerous. Scorched earth will be his order of the day. He has experience with that.
TLP| 7.19.12 @ 10:01AM
Whatever he does, can be UNDONE, on Day One.
JD| 7.19.12 @ 11:50AM
No it can't. Social entitlements are impossible to repeal once the populace becomes acclimated to them. Look at Social Security. If you pulled the plug today, you'd have tons of old people unable to survive, who could rightly say that they were unable to save more for retirement because government took their potential retirement savings in the form of taxes, but now it's canceled the payout, so they're screwed!
Conservatives moves are easily undone; liberal moves are very hard. That's why they win over time.
Brookschwarzenegro | 7.19.12 @ 4:09PM
"Whatever he does, can be UNDONE, on Day One."
How old are you TLP, 21? You ingenue.
Robert| 7.19.12 @ 4:37PM
I'm 66. They WILL be undone!
TLP| 7.19.12 @ 5:39PM
Of they are put in place by Executive Order?
They can be REMOVED, by the same process.
Gary B| 7.19.12 @ 9:49PM
We can only hope. Republicans have a terrible record with undoing stuff.
JohnLeo| 7.19.12 @ 2:59PM
This is a thing that scares me too and should scare everyone. Why is there such a large gap of time between election day and inauguration day? The president and the new congress should be sworn in on Janusry 1st, some two to four weeks after the election. We shortened this gap once from March 4th to January 20th; it should be done again.
spike59| 7.19.12 @ 6:52AM
i'm still utterly STUNNED that a sitting US President would say something so 'over-the-top' stupid and have the gall to ask to be re-elected; however, i'm not surprised in the least that the MSM has been working furiously to downplay, deny, ignore, and spin it to make it seem 'normal and reasonable'
TLP| 7.19.12 @ 10:00AM
He knows what he's doing. He knows that he's only got one chance, and that's to galvanize the Least Common Denominator. He's built an Army of the Dead ala Hugo Chavez, by tearing down the Economic Infrastructure of this Country, hoping that he could Addict as many people on the fringes, as possible, to a life of Government Handouts.
It's Marxist Communism 101.
And, it might have even worked, had he not been so Thorough in his DECIMATION of this Country's Way of Life, and there were a lot more Blacks.
I look FOREWARD to the day he's not here, anymore.
As a reader of Revelation, I have July in the pool.
But, any day before November works for me, as well.
I even have a Bottle of Crystal, for the occasion.
Don't you?
Purp| 7.19.12 @ 6:58AM
Of course, you take a line out of context - that's what you do. What the president said just prior to that statement was "you don't build roads and bridges by yourself" . Then came the line "If you've got a business -- you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen."
But, since you are a propagandist, you choose to highlight what Fixed News and Drudge and Rush repeat endlessly.
Romney's already in trouble with his refusal to release his taxes and his lying about his time at Bain when he "retired retroactively" - how do you do that, btw? That's another ploy "Slick Mitt" is trying to sell to the American people - and it isn't working.
So, when your campaign is a pack of lies, misinformation, and misdirection - that may work against an unknown opponent - you aren't going to beat an incumbent that everyone already knows and already has pretty much decided whether they are voting for him. But the undecideds are turned off by liars, tax cheats, and CEO types that fire people - so buh-bye Richie, you won't be winning this one either. Go back and ride your car elevator.
MelvinNC| 7.19.12 @ 7:41AM
I could give a rats ass about Romney's taxes, he probably thinks the same way of mine. Romney can't be any more oilier than Bawny Frank, Chris Dodd, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, former Senator John Corzine who can't seem to remember were a few billion dollars went. I bet his investors would like him to release his tax records to.
Point Being is Romney cannot make the economy even worse than it is. Bain Capitol love it or hate it, was successfull, that cannot be argued against, it was successfull. Obama on the other had hasn't even ran a lemonade stand and he hasn't be economically successful, much of this is through his own design. He doesn't want the economy to be successful, and that cannot be argued. This is in direct line of his political philosophy.
Romney's taxes don't be dog squeeze to the many out of work Americans, but the economy sure as hell meant allot to. Romney's taxes are a lame subject and you know it, that is why Liberals harpies harp on it.
Albertus Magnus| 7.19.12 @ 8:12AM
Purp is a tiresome, dim-witted fool. What he writes here is just talking points from pedantic socialists and left-wing lunatics. Nothing he says need be taken seriously and no response will ever shut him up. He "debates" like a divorced woman on PMS. Purp is a waste of time.
Purp| 7.19.12 @ 8:22AM
Funny how I'm such a waste, but you take the time to point it out - curious at best, isn't it? The dunce you are.
Albertus Magnus| 7.19.12 @ 9:13AM
Yawwwwn.
Gary B| 7.19.12 @ 9:59AM
Yawwwn.
PsychoDad| 7.19.12 @ 4:40PM
Isn't it sad when cousins marry?
CJW| 7.19.12 @ 9:52AM
When Obama says that if you had sucess it was because of others, he is explaining how he was accepted at college, law school. law review, how Michelle got her $317,000 per year no show job thanks to his earmarks, and so on. He is not familiar with the concept og merit.
TNcracker | 7.19.12 @ 4:43PM
I've learned. I just scroll past Purp, because he never has a decent point about anything. If you posters would just ignore him and not respond to his nonsense, it would help.
Americanpatriot| 7.26.12 @ 3:19PM
I have read that Obama and Axelrods campaign are paying people to post good comments about Obama all over the web. So, don't argue with them. If they choose to sell their souls for thirty pieces of silver there is nothing you can do. The people that still have the Lord or that still have any morals and character will not vote for Obama. That is a given.
Purp| 7.19.12 @ 8:23AM
Melvin - Bill Kristol, National Review, Haley Barbour and many other prominent REPUBLICANS called for him to release his taxes. He looks like a fool, inept and incompetent the way he's handled this . Some president he'll make...
Louis Jenkins| 7.19.12 @ 8:40AM
Yes, and Obama is the most transparent of all the presidents? Correct? Fifty six states, or was it 57? With so much transparency it's hard to tell. Fast and Furious? I'd have to say that's transparent too, that is after Issa has investigated. Solendra? Why that's so visibly clear I'm going blind. The Muslum's man of the hour? So clear I could put my hand through him. Shucks yeah. No to the pipeline? Can't get much more crystal clear than that. His birth certificate? All smoke and clear mirrors. His college transcripts? It's so clear you can't even see them. Smoking dope and consuming blow? Now that really clears your head. Immigration? Yes sir that is perfectly clear...my way or the highway. More Democratic votes. And the Democrats are complaining about Mitt's tax records? Purp, you and your's are so full of it that it would stop a bullet.
jothepro| 7.19.12 @ 9:26AM
Karl Marx was an asshole and he loved to have sex with barn animals..
Gary B| 7.19.12 @ 10:04AM
Purp,
You're mistaken if you think most of the people here hold establishment Republicans in high regard. Most of us would run these DC sellout creeps out of town on a rail. Shall we take a vote to see how many here think Boehner is doing his job? Apparently, you've been missing this point.
JD| 7.19.12 @ 1:08PM
The straw man is essential to liberal dialogue. He does not cling to it out of ignorance. He clings to it out of necessity.
Warrior| 7.19.12 @ 8:26PM
I must disagree. He clings to it out of the necessity caused by his complete ignorance.
Kwan| 7.19.12 @ 10:24AM
Poor ole Purp desperately pounding away on his keyboard trying to convince just one TAS commenter to see the light and to idolize the Great Leader Obama as he does. But alas I cannot detect that even one TAS commenter has had such a moment of enlightenment. But still we must give Purp an A+ for persistence and unfortunately an F- for commonsense.
mike 3/505| 7.19.12 @ 4:11PM
OK Purp. You've convinced me. I've been a bad person thinking that I was responsible for my own success or failure in life. From now on I will cleave unto everything the great President Obama says.
Aaaaack! I can't do it anymore! Gaaaag!
Kwan| 7.19.12 @ 5:03PM
Wow Mike you snapped out of it just in time. Purp could already taste that cheese burger he was going to buy with that $2.50 bounty Soros was going to pay him for converting a conservative to the dark side.
PsychoDad| 7.19.12 @ 4:41PM
How bout Mitt releases one tax return for every school transcript Sock Puppet shows us?
CJW| 7.19.12 @ 9:44AM
Obamaboy purpie
1. Will Obaman release the records to explain how Michelle got a raise from $100,000 per year to $317,00 per year as "community relations lawyer" for a Chicago hospital after the hospital got a million dollar earmark from Senator Obama?
2. Will Obama release the records of his land deal with Chicago crook Tony Rezko where Tony paid for Obma's land?
JD| 7.19.12 @ 12:03PM
How about explaining all the literature from 20+ years ago that identified him as Kenya-born, and how many academic "opportunities" (read: scholarships) he obtained by claiming foreign birth?
Elizabeth Warren isn't the only one.
CJW| 7.19.12 @ 12:46PM
I am still waiting for Hillary to explain how she made $100,000 from a $1,000 investment in cattle futures simply by reading the Wall Street Journal!!!
TrueBlue | 7.19.12 @ 4:45PM
Don't forget the money she made off Enron that ended with Martha Stewart in jail.
Norman Conquest| 7.19.12 @ 12:23PM
Purp, the erstwhile Purpleguy, but always liberal buffon is at it again with yet another of his trite tu quoque broadsides and puerile name-calling. He is amusing though, in the same way that watching the stupidity of The Three Stooges is.
Drunken Sailor| 7.19.12 @ 1:01PM
Give him a break Norman. It has to be hard to see that all the race baiting/Bain bashing is going nowhere. And to see it on such a liberal rag as the NTY has to hurt.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07.....l?_r=1&hp;
Liberals just can't figure out that people are more worried about the economy that Romney's tax records.
And then to see a CBS/NYT times poll showing the race a dead heat after a week and more of Romeny bashing has to demoralize someone like him.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-50.....tial-race/
Poor, Poor, Troll
sotto voce| 7.19.12 @ 5:06PM
Out of context, Purp? If that's true why hasn't Obama sent a surrogate out to clarify? Instead, he's got Elizabeth Warren doubling down on the "you didn't do it yourself" theme (which he stole from her in the first place). And many conservative commentators actually DID point out that his remark could be interpreted two ways, but the fact that he hasn't forcefully disputed the negative interpretation seems to indicate that he stands by it.
The polls today reflect how sick voters are of the Bain attacks and the tax red herring. Obama can't hide from his dismal record no matter how hard he tries to obfuscate and distract with his Romney attacks. It's pretty funny that you say people will vote for the incumbent they know when we're witnessing the exact opposite: the more Obama reveals himself the more voters are horrified.
David| 7.19.12 @ 6:29PM
Purp, you are a f_cking idiot!!!
Oldefarte| 7.19.12 @ 9:15PM
STUPIDS like you and ya boy apparently THINK that Americans are dumb enough to make the same mistake twice. As to the socialist-boy's comments regarding government's necessity, it's pure domestic terrorist BS. Why? Which came first, the chicken or the egg, you say. Not really. Government was/is a creation of the wealthy, income earners, taxpayers, or whatever else you wish to call them. Originally they had names of Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, Hamilton, etc and these settlers worked, acquired assets, made money etc and thereafter CREATED THE GOVERNMENT [and funded same through taxiation of their wealth]. The government did not exist first and thereafter create the taxpayers, dumbars. Government would not exist except for the economic efforts and tax payments of income earners. Government has no product or service sales, and its revenue obtained is due solely to the tax payements of income earners. So these income earners do not OWE anything to the government for the existence of their income producing vehicles; but the government does OWE ITS EXISTENCE to the efforts of these income earners. Got it now freakazoid [if so go SPLAIN IT to yo big earred POTUS, okay]?????????????
JmsA| 7.20.12 @ 10:39AM
Then why did he try to walk it back? He said it and he meant it. Get used to it. He will do it again, no doubt. And you know it. It will make for a great ad. Only dems care about Bain and the tax returns. He can't talk about his successes because there aren't any.
Virtue| 7.19.12 @ 7:00AM
He's a communist. Always been a communist. His parents were communists. Why can't we just call the guy what he is?
Denver Todd| 7.19.12 @ 9:15AM
I don't think the words communist, marxist, or fascist mean much to today's voters, who think freedom is found in an iPhone, not through our constitution.
TLP| 7.19.12 @ 9:45AM
There's a new Book out, by Paul Kengor, called "The Communist".
I thought you'd like to know.
TNcracker | 7.19.12 @ 4:45PM
Amen!
R Martin| 7.19.12 @ 8:20AM
"There is a vast difference between Barak Obama's public persona and his true nature."
The real Barack Obama was always there to see. He wasn’t wearing a mask, but the observers were certainly wearing blinders.
Any beginning poker player could recognize these obvious tells: his comment about typical white people, a wife who was never proud of her country until her husband hustled his way to national attention, close associations with leftist radicals like Ayers, Dunn and Jones, his venomous racist pastor Wright, communist upbringing by a wacky mother and early mentoring by avowed communist Frank Marshall Davis, fealty to the odious Saul Alinsky and his only real “job” with the corrupt organization ACORN.
No person has ever been more unsuited to be president of The United States.
Cobalt| 7.19.12 @ 9:06AM
Unsuited to be president, but more suited to be dictator?
ncatty| 7.19.12 @ 10:02AM
I agree, R Martin. He also had the most liberal voting record in his brief senate career. But he was not honest in his presidential campaign when he talked like a moderate, and people were fooled.
TNcracker | 7.19.12 @ 4:49PM
But how stupid is that? All anyone needed to know was that ONE fact: that he had the most liberal voting record. It's crazy that more people didn't even go that far to find out the truth about him.
Americanpatriot| 7.26.12 @ 3:35PM
He has done one good thing for our country. He will help put the dems so far back into existence it will literally take decades for them to recover. 2010 was a schellacking, 2012 will be a tusnami!
Frank Natoli| 7.19.12 @ 8:26AM
"Obama's explanation of how success happens is absurd"
Only, Mr. Ross, if that explanation is presented in the capitalist theater. If, on the other hand, it is presented in the Marxist theater, it makes perfect sense.
The entire "infrastructure" argument is a subterfuge to implement the Marxist premise that everybody owns everything a/k/a nobody owns nothing [the bad English a habit from my NYC youth].
If the Marxist-in-Chief were to actually quote his mentors, some "independents" would be "offended". But by using the "infrastructure" argument, there is offense only in TAS and other like minded venues, and a regrettable plurality thinks "yeah, infrastructure, pay up".
He's not stupid. He's a Marxist, which will accomplish its objective of total equality, miserable yes, but equal.
R Martin| 7.19.12 @ 8:52AM
Spot-on. This "equality" train Obama has set in motion must be derailed. It is antithetical to capitalism.
Mimi | 7.19.12 @ 9:50AM
The "EQUALITY" train of the past 31/2 years is just a preview of coming ATTRACTIONS. If he ever wins he will be eating the whole pie...4 more years to put the devilish plan in place!!
Americanpatriot| 7.26.12 @ 3:39PM
Obama is an enemy of capitalism. Albeit, he does like to put his hand in the till for all of the taxpayers money that they have earned thru their hard work. And, the millions he and his wife have spent on luxury vacations for themselves speaks decibelsabout how they care for middle class and his black brethren which right now have 14%+ unemployment. Idon't think this time he will get the same percentage of the black vote as he did in 2008.
merlin| 7.19.12 @ 8:27AM
We have already paid for teacher, school, roads, bridges, etc. etc. So after paying taxes, someone who is successful owes more just because he has succeeded? Is a failure entitled to a refund from his teachers, a return of his gas tax? All that stuff belongs to us, not the government anyway. We have hired the government to build and maintain. We do not have access to roads and schools due to the largess of the Feds. It is bought and paid for. It is ours.
Louis Jenkins| 7.19.12 @ 8:43AM
Dropped my teeth when I heard that one. Obama, you're getting so ridiculous that you're a joke. If you weren't president you might make a poor comic.
SusyQue| 7.19.12 @ 9:15AM
Obama is by far the most racist President
I would say Obama is the most racist president because he started making racial comments from the very beginning of the primary and into his first term. He attacked B. Clinton with a racial comment. He lied about his reason for going to a black church. He commented on his white mother or grandmother being fearful of black men. He defends Eric Holder on issues that are indefensible like allowing Holder to dismiss the charges at a voting precinct where whites were intimidated with a weapon that could inflict injury on a person. He allowed Holder to say that blacks will not be charged when they violate the law. He blatantly called the police “stupid” when they were arresting a black congressman who seems to be
breaking into a house…even though ooo didn’t know the facts.
He caused race to become a serious problem when he said Travon Martin was like his son….when he didn’t know the facts of the situation. Most of his mentors were activist black men who worshiped Alinsky tactics and marxists ways.
Denver Todd| 7.19.12 @ 9:17AM
The "you didn't do it" argument that Obama and Warren make is not true. Even business owners pay for the roads they drive on through gas taxes, just as much as someone who lives in a trailer park.
JD| 7.19.12 @ 11:51AM
Business owners pay far more in taxes than anyone in a trailer park.
Kwan| 7.19.12 @ 9:36AM
This is collectivist mumbo-jumbo. The Marxist seeks to eradicate the concept of the individual and replace it with the idea of belonging to a hive collective, with the state being the Queen Bee. As there are no individuals everything done is done by the collectivist-hive. This is a very un-American concept perhaps it works well in a Kenyan village but is not what built the United States into a world super-power. Obama has had his brain marinated in Marxist ideology for so long that he is beginning to exhibit signs of being disconnected from reality.
Mimi | 7.19.12 @ 10:05AM
What comes out of his mouth MATTERS...The Roanoke, Pa. remark last Friday July 13th...was and is A Historical remark that will go down as his WATERLOO......You just can't INSULT the AMERICAN people like that and expect them to vote and support you.....It is a monumental moment in his defeat that will surely make the BOOKS.
Many remarks by many politicians are forgiven...but this one goes RIGHT TO THE HEART of what this country is about....He can't walk it back.....This one STICKS !
JD| 7.19.12 @ 12:01PM
You'd be right if the media weren't there to skew and twist his remarks, and criticism of his remarks, in his favor. By the end of this, somehow, Obama will WIN votes as a result of these quotes. Mark my words.
Gary B| 7.19.12 @ 10:09AM
Dr. Ross,
Thank you very much for reporting about your 85-year-old friends. That single anecdote makes me very happy. As you said, that has to be going on all over the place and Obama knows it, even if we didn't. In his desperation little bits of truth are starting to fall out of his mouth. As a friend of mine said, "This is entertainment of the highest order."
Anthony| 7.19.12 @ 10:18AM
So Obozo, what exactly did YOU do to earn your Nobel Prize, or did others rightfully deserve it for things they actually accomplished?
You know, those other really smart people out there, that actually DID something for humanity, like Ronald Reagan.
Obozo always has to argue in the extreme in order to fool his brain-dead minions. Of course we acknowledge limited government to do those things necessary for a civilization to grow and prosper, like police, fire protection, and road building.
Yes Obozo, the road to Harvard Law School was built by others, you didn't do it, you just got the benefit of the free ride on that road to Harvard.
P.S. Where are all my other "partners" today to help me make payroll, you know, the one's that made my practice along with me? Care to write a check today guys???.
Tom Kyba| 7.19.12 @ 11:16AM
Purp has a point, if a minor one. Yes he was referring to the roads and bridges, not the businesses directly. The sad thing is that Purp believes that this somehow changes the overall attitude inherent in Obama's screed. Complaining about others misinterpreting a politician's meaning is rather humorous coming from the left- masters of the tactic. From this he decides Romney is done. I guess there's no need for the Alinsky-style repitition to the nth degree of the idea of hidden tax info then is there? Purp, save yourself some time and just cut and paste the same comment over and over.
JD| 7.19.12 @ 11:55AM
Yes indeed, for any liberal to complain about remarks taken out of context or otherwise skewed is massive hypocrisy. Nevertheless, we need not stoop to their level. The truth is on our side.
The intent of Obama's remarks, like many before them, is to establish an open-ended debt from the rich to the poor. This debt will be used to justify government redistribution. It's deliberately kept vague and open-ended, so that no one can ever say, "Enough, I've paid my debts, you can't redistribute my money anymore."
This ignores many truths. First, the poor have the same open-ended debts to the rich, who give them jobs, sell them stuff, and fund the entire government. Second, anything the rich get from others, they pay for. They often pay too much. They pay their workers salaries. That is the end of any obligation they owe to their workers; both sides agree to that number when employment begins. They pay government's taxes, and as we all know, while the poor pay less in taxes than they get from government, the rich do the opposite.
There is no further debt owed from rich to poor; if anything, the opposite is true.
Americanpatriot| 7.26.12 @ 4:27PM
One thing that needs to be addressed in this massive wealth redistribution is look what happened to Russia and other countries the majority of citizens ended up in poverty and immense shortages of food and other necissities while the elites who ran the country were gourging on the best meats, wine, shelter and everything else. Never forget that the elites do not intend to follow the plan that the rest of us are called to follow.
Americanpatriot| 7.26.12 @ 4:27PM
One thing that needs to be addressed in this massive wealth redistribution is look what happened to Russia and other countries the majority of citizens ended up in poverty and immense shortages of food and other necissities while the elites who ran the country were gourging on the best meats, wine, shelter and everything else. Never forget that the elites do not intend to follow the plan that the rest of us are called to follow.
ElGordo| 7.19.12 @ 11:59AM
I have to forgive his mistatement.
.
I've always believed that he was not competent to complete a simple sentence.
Jeff1000| 7.19.12 @ 12:27PM
Obama has the same resentment of success that all academics have. An academic may think, "Geez, I got 800s on my SATs, I went
to Harvard, I published papers in my field, and some college dropout from Podunk New Jersey becomes a millionaire in the private sector."
You hear that echoed when Obama said that businessmen may say they became
successful because they were smart. Then he says, to paraphrase, there's a lot of smart people around (he said angrily meaning himself), and they were successful not because they were smart but because someone (the government) helped them.
What academics can't seem to grasp is that it isn't about Harvard (or any academic institution), SAT scores, or a 4.0 GPA, but what are you able to
accomplish with what God gave you. And what God gave you didn't come from Harvard. Academics hate that, and want to crush the success of millionaire Joe Blow with a high school education because he makes the intellectual
class look silly.
Do you think Obama would be successful in the private sector? The only way Obama could find success is through affirmative action and sucking off the government teat. So Obama wants to bring down all the people who found private sector success without affirmative action and despite the government.
Norman Conquest| 7.19.12 @ 12:32PM
I don't often find myself in agreement with Donald Trump but his proposal that Romney release his tax records when Obama releases his school, passport, social security and medical records is a modest proposal worthy of Jonathan Swift. It's hard to see how anyone but the most deranged, chin-drooling liberal could be against it.
Americanpatriot| 7.26.12 @ 4:33PM
The chin drooling liberals as you say have two standards for themselves and Obama. They can do one thing but have a whole different set of standards for others.
DRed| 7.19.12 @ 12:36PM
The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together.
That's radically unamerican marxism?
JD| 7.19.12 @ 1:10PM
That's not the point. There'd be no reason to make such a point, if that were all the point he was trying to make.
Obama's point is that the rich have unpaid debts to others. That point is wrong, but it is necessary to justify Obama's agenda. See my post at 11:55AM.
DRed| 7.19.12 @ 2:01PM
That an interesting post. You think Romney is paying a fair level of tax? He's paying (significantly) less in taxes than I do.
Back to Obama, I don't care that you don't think returning the highest marginal tax rate to it's pre-Bush level is a bad idea. That's fine. The effects of taxation on the economy are pretty complicated. But I don't understand how you get from a 4.5% increase in the highest marginal tax rate to 'Obama is a marxist that hates America and wants to destroy capitalism'. We're in a lot of debt and the economy is sluggish while income for the wealthiest Americans is growing. A significant majority of Americans think taxes on the wealthy should be raised-are we all marxists?
DRed| 7.19.12 @ 2:02PM
Obviously, what I meant to say is that Mittens pays taxes at a significantly lower rate than I do.
Goldwater Girl| 7.19.12 @ 2:18PM
If he's paying cap gains tax, that suggests to me that the income was already taxed when it was earned. Do you understand the difference between earned income and investment income? Personally, I think the cap gains rate should be lower than 15%. Why does the government have a right to have a second shot at your wealth accumulation?
JD| 7.19.12 @ 2:20PM
I figured that's what you meant. Nonetheless, there are many other flaws in your post.
First, if you pay a higher effective federal tax rate than Mitt Romney, congratulations. You're paying a higher rate than 2/3 of Americans. This is especially impressive given that you probably pay payroll taxes on your entire income, unlike Romney. Of course, Democrats have told us for decades how those payroll taxes (which they created) shouldn't be thought of as taxes, because they're directly tied to end-of-life benefits like Social Security, which you'll later receive.
Of course, Romney pays the maximum possible into Social Security, yet will get not one penny more from the program than anyone else who pays the maximum, even if that second person has far less income. I know liberals consider it to be unfair when two people pay the same amount for something and get the same thing back, if those two people make different incomes, but rational people have no problem with this.
Disregarding payroll taxes, which factor into supposedly-related benefits in a HIGHLY progressive way, we'll see Romney's rate hold at 13.9% (because payroll taxes are a tiny factor to him). Only about 15% of Americans pay more than that, when their payroll taxes are excluded.
JD| 7.19.12 @ 2:21PM
Finally, of course, a person's true taxes should pay for what he gets from government. Romney gets little but headaches from government. He's overpaying by far. And he has to, to make up for the millions that pay nothing, yet get plenty from government.
As for your myopic obsession with "pre-Bush rates", those rates existed for only 7 years, and those were the highest years in terms of federal revenue as a percentage of GDP in US history. They also were the years when outsourcing and subprime debt took off. Why so eager to return to them?
And of course, as this site has stated many times, increasing tax rates hardly guarantees increased tax revenue, and often does the opposite.
Finally, I never said, and do not claim, that Obama "hates America and wants to destroy capitalism". His policies suggest these things, but I suspect he is ignorant of that fact. Folly, not malevolence, drives him. As for Marxism, the simplest summary of Marxism is "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need". Between claims that "the rich can afford to pay more," and "you can't raise taxes on people who can't afford them", it seems quite clear that many Americans align with that. Marxists, you are.
DRed| 7.19.12 @ 3:29PM
My myopoic obsession? It's what Obama is talking about doing. I'm not eager to return to those rates, but I also understand that we have to reduce our debt. Paying off the debt, incidentally, is not a marxist form of wealth redistribution, is it?
It's nice that you don't think Obama doesn't hate America and want to destroy capitalism. You should try convincing some of your fellow travelers of that. But I suppose you should wait until after the election-it's the best way to convince small government conservatives to vote for someone like Mittens.
JD| 7.19.12 @ 3:36PM
Indeed, the myopic obsession belongs to "you" in the plural sense, not you individually. But again, history and logic show it to be irrational to assume that your tax rate changes will increase revenue, and of course such a change is guaranteed to lower GDP. You make a straw man argument, in accusing me of not wanting to pay off debt. I want to pay off debt, but your tax hike plan will not do it.
As for the implications of Obama's hate of America or lack thereof, you overstate them. Liberals obsess over intentions, believing that "it's the thought that counts" to such an extent that they think all policies achieve their creator's intent. Thus they believe that their policies never do harm, because their intentions are good, and by extension, they feel that all that is wrong must come from others, and these others must have bad intent. Thus they focus on dishonestly maligning the intent of others in their campaigns.
The truth is, bad results are bad results regardless of intentions. As I said in my previous post, Obama's actions are those of a person who "hates America and wants to destroy capitalism". That he doesn't have this intent changes little.
DRed| 7.19.12 @ 4:39PM
Does it? I haven't seen evidence showing that tax increases guarantee a reduced GDP. When Reagan raised taxes did it lower GDP? What about Clinton? The economy certainly grew a lot more under Clinton than under W (I'm not arguing that it was because Clinton raised taxes that the economy did well).
I didn't say you didn't want to pay the debt down. You claim most of America is marxist because we want to raise taxes on the rich and give ourselves that money (I think). But what if that money goes to pay off some of our debt? Is that marxist?
PsychoDad| 7.19.12 @ 4:44PM
I've seen evidence that tax rate increases decrease collected tax revenue.
DRed| 7.19.12 @ 5:24PM
If you increase them enough, sure. From 35% to 39%? I doubt it.
JD| 7.19.12 @ 5:20PM
Money extracted from the economy and not spent surely would have generated at least one cent of additional GDP had it been left in the economy in some form. Even government spending, laughably inefficient as it is, generates SOME economic activity.
I'm not going to delve into whether Reagan raised or lowered taxes here (the Left seems to switch answers depending on conversation). Suffice to say, raising taxes without spending the money surely can't have a positive effect on GDP. Whatever GDP changes happened under those circumstances had other causes.
I can't answer your last question because I don't think your tax increase will pay down debt. If the debt were from legitimate functions of government, it would be society's responsibility to pay it off through reasonably distributed taxes. As we are, the debt is from foolish spending, tax distribution is grossly unfair, and your proposal won't increase tax revenues. Each of those things invalidates your question.
IF the debt were legitimate and your proposal were guaranteed to increase tax revenue, it would still be Marxist to distribute the tax burden in a redistributive way, with "from each according to his ability" as the rationale.
DRed| 7.19.12 @ 5:28PM
You don't think the government should pay the debt because it's not legitimate? I guess we'll just write our creditors a note: Sorry fellas, JD says the money we owe you was borrowed illegitimately. Problem solved!
JD| 7.19.12 @ 6:03PM
I never said that at all. The question was whether it was Marxist, not whether it should be paid. Asking everyone to pitch in for a debt that is merely the cost of giving to SOME is just another form of redistribution. That's why I said the nature of the debt was relevant - to the question of Marxism, not to whether it should be paid.
But now you've succeeded in ignoring everything else I wrote, just by misunderstanding one piece.
Drunken Sailor| 7.19.12 @ 3:43PM
Reid Can't Explain Why Dems Didn't Raise Taxes When They Had the Chance
http://www.weeklystandard.com/.....48760.html
Even Harry can't tell you why they didn't raise taxes then if it is such a good idea now.
Jeff1000| 7.19.12 @ 2:28PM
The bulk of Romney's taxation are capital gains, and that's money that's been taxed three times. First, ordinary income is taxed as ordinary income. When that income is invested it's taxed as capital gains if the investor is lucky enough to see a profit, then it's also taxed at the corporate level.
Low taxes paid by the wealthy is all a big Marxist lie preying on the lowest common denominator voter, OWS types, and other indoctrinated Kool-Aid drinkers.
JD| 7.19.12 @ 3:59PM
Layered taxation exists in many walks of life, to such an extent that we can hardly use it as an excuse to eliminate a tax anymore.
Stronger is the argument that investment income is arguably the world's most mobile wealth, meaning that capital gains tax policy must take foreign comparables into account.
Few countries tax capital gains near their rate of income tax, and these are not exactly a who's who of economic powers. More like old Soviet satellites. Most tax capital gains at near half the rate of income, like America currently does. Many, however, do not tax them at all. These countries have done very well in recent years.
Jeff1000| 7.19.12 @ 6:04PM
Good post.
What's so disingenuous about the left's argument is that they try to make an apples to apples comparison between say Romney's effective tax rate, which is comprised of mostly capital gains, and someone whose monetary gain is through only ordinary income. The capital gains rate is 15% for everyone.
Money earned through, for example, a 40 hour per week job involves zero risk, while investing money is very risky. A lower tax rate for risky investments is not only fair but essential for job and wealth creation.
Like everything else from the left, the entire fair share/ class warfare argument is disingenuous and ignorant (to put it kindly) especially when convoluting the different types of income.
JD| 7.19.12 @ 6:51PM
We don't need to bother with that distinction either. Given even standard deductions, a person's net income tax rate cannot exceed Romney's effective rate unless he makes six figures. Less than 15% of Americans get to this point. another 25% surpass Romney's rate when payroll taxes are added in, but Democrats created payroll taxes and sold them to us as investments in our own future benefits. Why should Romney pay 100 times as much into Social Security as a person making $110K/year does if their Social Security checks will be for the same amount when they file for benefits? Such a system would violate the social contract Democrats claim to have offered us.
Romney's rate is not scandalous. It's just that most people make a different kind of apples-to-oranges comparison. They compare their own marginal bracket rate to Romney's effective rate. There is no defending such dishonesty.
Native American| 7.20.12 @ 7:01PM
Dared, why should taxes be raised on the wealthy?
I'm paying 38% already. Plus sales tax, social security (of which most I'll never see) and homeowners tax.
I'm not being flippant, I really do want to know why I should pay more when I work hard to earn it, and nobody helped me.
Mike G| 7.19.12 @ 12:49PM
I can see Obama's point of view on success. After all, he made a successful run at becoming President, and he didn't do that alone. On the flip side, his lack of success as President shows in his various attempts to run the nation alone, bypassing Congress.
But his situation is totally different from people who run businesses. He has no executive experience, save for what he's learned in the past three years--and if he had learned anything from those experiences, he wouldn't keep making the same proposals over and over.
Native American| 7.20.12 @ 7:18PM
If I may add, he's not a small business owner either.
If he tried that long hard road, he'd find that we are on our own. Unless, he's offering to stay up late with us as we produce our product, hold our hands when banks reject our small loans, and maybe give us a tax break.
This was just about the most offensive thing our president has said, and he's said plenty, if I was sitting on the fence between Romney and Ron Paul, I've jumped off. I will not waste it on Ron and allow Obama another four years.
BackToBasics| 7.19.12 @ 2:14PM
From the article - "Getting our arms around Barak Obama's worldview is extremely difficult for those of us who don't share it. We ask ourselves, how can anyone believe such things?"
Why is it so hard to believe or understand? Many on this site and many pundits can make predictions about his beliefs and thinking even before he says them.
I think those on the right who have a difficult time believing someone could think this way is because they are looking for an academic or logical argument to explain it. The real reason he holds this view is more emotional, along the lines of envy (unfairness) and even hatred. There could be other reasons as well for a leftist holding the opinions they do but they are emotional and behavioral rather than rational and logical. Once a person accepts that it is easy to see why leftists think they way they do.
I find it interesting that the first set of people Obam subtly puts down in these excerpts are "smart" people.
BackToBasics| 7.19.12 @ 2:15PM
corr - for leftists
drake1456| 7.19.12 @ 3:16PM
Obama has overlooked the fact that the government confiscated many $$$ to build those roads and didnt "earn" it.It almost is as comedic as asking pro basketball player to give up part of their immense salaries to fans who cheer for them and encourage them to win.!!
R Mandraccia MD
madagain| 7.19.12 @ 3:57PM
On the other hand, do those words cost him any votes? Those who are incensed by what he says probably weren't going to vote for him anyway. "When the people who are already angry enough to vote against him get even angrier, are there any consequences? Is he increasing the population of voters who are livid, or is the impact simply redundant?"
Yes, the consequence is the same: More money for Mitt. I donated, after hearing Obama diss American businesses.
Frog in Uniform | 7.19.12 @ 4:27PM
This is an interesting article. Your president reminds me of our former president, they really share a lot, you could call yours Schwartzkozy...
http://img88.xooimage.com/file.....679147.jpg
RJ| 7.19.12 @ 4:45PM
It is an incredibly stupid statement and I am sure that many of his supporters will rise to defend it. Think of the fun we can have when they do. Once they claim his statement has validity, you can ask them to prove their sincerity by taking down all the awards and other records of achievement they have in their homes, because they didn't do it; somebody else did. We can go further as ask why they don't move out of their homes because it is not theirs; its someone else's.
Obama's statement denigrates achievement and in doing so he shows us the dictator's view of others - we are minor cogs of the machinery of society to be exploited at the whim of the ruling party; not unique individuals with the right to live free.
JD| 7.19.12 @ 5:31PM
So far, the primary tactic of Obama's media has been to ignore it. The quote hasn't yet been seen on NBC, CNN, HuffPo, et al. When it does arise, they'll claim he was simply saying that businesses don't build their own roads and bridges, nothing more, and condemn us vehemently for "distorting" it.
The truth, of course, is that Obama was here making the claim that business owners owe more than what they have paid already for the work they've received from others. The exact amount they owe will never be definable; the intent is to establish an open-ended debt.
But based on current tax and labor realities, businesses tend to overpay already for what they get from others. The hidden debts that exist run in the opposite direction.
Warrior| 7.19.12 @ 8:43PM
What's sorely missed in this argument is that it was the business that necessitated the road. Go back in history and watch how the cities and towns grew out of the employment from the large corporation which in turn necessitated the services of the small businesses. Businesses are paying the salaries of those who buy the houses which generate the property taxes to pay the school teachers.
To prove the point. Look at the the bankruptcies of cities now going on. Once the businesses close down and move, so does the population who wants to work. Things move to an area that is friendlier to businesses. Thus the roads and schools and infrastructure needs increase in the new area. There is no need for the roads, schools, police, teachers, etc. when the businesses shut down and the workers move.
Bob Grant| 7.20.12 @ 1:40AM
"What's sorely missed in this argument is that it was the business that necessitated the road."
--- This is what our POS president completely misses, whether on purpose of out of ignorance.
Affordable production-line vehicles began in 1908. A national highway system began in 1956. Almost 50 years after PRIVATE companies began mass producing vehicles did the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT determine a road system was needed to accommodate the vast number of vehicles in use throughout the United States.
The ass (obama) got it backwards.
November can't come soon enough!
Native American| 7.20.12 @ 7:03PM
Absolutely!
Marie| 7.20.12 @ 6:24PM
Obama's supporters are lapping it up like it's hot chocolate on a cold winter night. He hasn't lost as many supporters as common sense should dictate.
Buck Ofama| 10.19.12 @ 8:35PM
Hence the appropriate moniker, OVOMIT.
threeleafclover| 7.23.12 @ 1:34AM
I can tell you why your octogenarian friends have become energized. I will be 85 in August. It is not a good feeling to consider the prospect that my life will be lived out under the lunacy of this genuine fraud of a president, if there are enough idiots (as there were last time around) to give him the chance to finish his work. Genuine/fraud - - see, it is already driving me nuts! I am an oxymoron....
Americanpatriot| 7.26.12 @ 3:01PM
Absolutely I always voted most of the time but I never checked to see if my elected officials were doing what they said they would do and how they voted. But Obama has put a whole new level of activism in politics for many,many people. There are so many things wrong with this president and what he has done to our nation where does one begin. He has given our space program to Russia, Taken way away Polands and our protection by disarming the missiles that were in their country. Encouraged our enemies as the ones in the arab spring and alieniated our allies. He is full of hate, mendacity and corruption and has taken the morals of this country to the dogs for which he should have been a light to our youth and led the way between what was appropriate conduct and what was not. No, he was divisive and encouraged anarchy in the Occupy Wall Street affair and the black panther party. Huge deficit spending, high unemployment, cronyism. I am absolutely clueless on how a person who loves their country could possibly vote for him.
Buck Ofama| 10.19.12 @ 8:34PM
>People I never would have suspected have expressed to me an intense resentment and anger about what he has done to the country they love.
I DESPISE THE NIGGERC0CKSUCKER.