We Are NOT Entitled to Success - Obama

[SolomonVII]

Pretty typical Obama. Starts advocating Republican ideas and all of a sudden it's the end of the freaking world.

Sad but true that hard work, freedom to pursue one's happiness and success, and the like are now considered Republican ideas.

It is sort of like the Carrie Prejean controversy of four years ago where she got soundly trashed for stating the same ideas about gay marriage as Obama professed to believe in.

Everybody believed that Carrie actually believed in those ideals, and so she was trashed. Nobody believed that Obama believed in them, so he was given adulation from the same people that trashed Carrie.

As it turns out, Obama's ideas 'evolved' into what people pretty much to where everybody knew they were in the first place.

Likewise people know well enough that Obama sees the American constitution and its ideals as flawed, and that is takes precedence in a correct reading of anything he says.

 

[Quincunx]

This is obvious every time he opens his mouth along with all of his administration . I have never seen such jealously from so many people. It's ok that they can skim off whatever they want for their own pockets, but the people who really work for it should not be allowed to keep it.

Ahem, let me clarify something for you since you have a somewhat skewed view of us on the Left.

I'm not really jealous of what YOU have or most people. I'm willing to bet I have far more education and have attained a higher level of employment than you did. I live comfortably, probably better off than you were. My wife and I are DINKs and we both have graduate degrees so we are "fine". I'm not saying I have it great, but I'm willing to bet I put in more effort to get where I am than you or most of the Republicans on this board. I've spent almost as much time in university as most of you spent in 1st-12th grade. I put in my time in the trenches and then some.

I "built" this and I've even got a couple of patents for other things I've built. I am always cognizant that I didn't build any of it in a vacuum. I had help all along the way. WE ALL DO.

But you know why I'm not "jealous" but still want people to pay more in taxes? Because I realize that all of this could be rendered useless and for naught should a health crisis hit me or my wife. I realize I could lose my job tomorrow (in fact I work for a company that will probably for sure lay my research group off within a couple of years) I want to make sure that there's a safety net there, not just for me, but for YOU and for EVERYONE YOU KNOW!

You give to charity, right? YOu're a good Christian. So why is it so hard to understand that many of us on the Left aren't "jealous" of stuff you have (many of us probably have more than you do!) Many of us simply want to make a better society.

Why is this such a foreign and horrific idea for those on the Right?

Never in the history of America has anyone had to apologize for being successful.

I understand you probably haven't traveled much. As a fine counterpoint let's take Norway. A pretty easy place to live. Part of what makes Norway work these days is that it is actually considered something to avoid to be the richest person on the block. Conspicuous consumption is something you don't crow about. As such they actually have an easier time getting people to all row together to get the ship of state moving for the benefit of all.

In the US we are the polar opposite. We think that in order to want to even get out of bed tomorrow we should wake up and WANT WANT WANT. MOre MOre More! We WANT to be the guy on the block with fanciest car and the biggest house and the most bling. It is kind of what we have trained ourselves up to be.

Only problem is: when everyone is trained on this "I got mine, Jack" attitude it makes it hard to work together for the common good.

It's almost as if they feel guilty for working their hind ends off and made a success because of all the gimmie, gimmie crowd spewing hate because you are successful.

I worked my behind off to be where I'm at. As I said I'm willing to bet I've put in more effort than most people do to get where I am and I'm doing OK. But that doesn't keep me from wanting to give more of my money to the common good and ask that everyone around me does too.

Here's a couple of uncomfortable questions for you:

1. Do you have kids? If so would you mind giving me some of the money I"ve paid in property taxes over the years for school systems? I don't have kids and won't so I'm hoping you live by your dislike of the "Gimme" crowd and you GIVE ME BACK THE MONEY I PUT IN TO SUPPORT KIDS LIKE YOURS.

2. Are you currently using Medicare and Social Security? You do realize that that is a plan set up from the start to be a "current pays for earlier generations" plan, right? I'd really like it if you gave me back my money for that. (You were paying for earlier generations and they were probably getting a lower rate of pay out than you do, what with the cost of living increases, so unless you KNOW you paid for your own COLA's then you are mooching off me.

I wouldn't want you to feel guilty about taking money from hard working people.

 

[Quincunx]

Sad but true that hard work, freedom to pursue one's happiness and success, and the like are now considered Republican ideas.

Actually you are wrong on this one. They are American ideals and the Dems have espoused them just as fervently for the past century as any Republican.

The problem was, the Right don't hear so good. Selective hearing in a sense.

Now Obama says what all of us Libs have been saying consistently and the Right "selectively" hears it! And they complain! Bravo.

Likewise people know well enough that Obama sees the American constitution and its ideals as flawed, and that is takes precedence in a correct reading of anything he says.

Fractally wrong! Perhaps you missed the SUPREME COURT CASE ON OBAMACARE a few months back. It was all over the news.

Perhaps you also know enough about how the American system of government works to understand the importance of Marbury v Madison in cases like this?

You do, right? Right?

If not, please take an intro civics class. It'll do you some good!

 

[SolomonVII]

"This country doesn’t just succeed when just a few are doing well at the top. It succeeds when the middle class gets bigger. Our economy doesn’t grow from the top down -- it grows from the middle out. We don’t believe that anybody is entitled to success in this country," said Obama. "But we do believe in opportunity. We believe in a country where hard work pays off and responsibility is rewarded, and everybody is getting a fair shot and everybody is doing their fair share and everybody is playing by the same rules."

It is clear enough what Obama is saying.

This is all about making the rich leeches pay and rewarding the poor, honest, hard working folks with the spoils taken from the illegitimate monetary gains of the rich.
Hard work pays off, and the success of the few at the top is something that they are not entitled to. the implication must be that the few at the top did not get to where they are at because of their own hard work, but because of the basic unfairness of the system. He is saying that their success is not based on hard work, but because the rules are skewed by them to favor them, and as a result the poor, hard working folk are not getting a fair shot.

The conservative point of view is that everyone is entitled to their success, but the rich are not entitled to government largess. Obama was elected to change that. The fact is that he did not change that. The trillions of stimulus money did not go to the middle, or the bottom, but if it went anywhere at all other than down the tube, it went to the top.

People trusted Obama to be fix this way of things being done in Washington. Four years later, that system is still as entrenched as it ever was.
He failed.
That is all that is relevant here.

 

[SharonL]

Ahem, let me clarify something for you since you have a somewhat skewed view of us on the Left.

I'm not really jealous of what YOU have or most people. I'm willing to bet I have far more education and have attained a higher level of employment than you did. I live comfortably, probably better off than you were. My wife and I are DINKs and we both have graduate degrees so we are "fine". I'm not saying I have it great, but I'm willing to bet I put in more effort to get where I am than you or most of the Republicans on this board. I've spent almost as much time in university as most of you spent in 1st-12th grade. I put in my time in the trenches and then some.

I "built" this and I've even got a couple of patents for other things I've built. I am always cognizant that I didn't build any of it in a vacuum. I had help all along the way. WE ALL DO.

But you know why I'm not "jealous" but still want people to pay more in taxes? Because I realize that all of this could be rendered useless and for naught should a health crisis hit me or my wife. I realize I could lose my job tomorrow (in fact I work for a company that will probably for sure lay my research group off within a couple of years) I want to make sure that there's a safety net there, not just for me, but for YOU and for EVERYONE YOU KNOW!

You give to charity, right? YOu're a good Christian. So why is it so hard to understand that many of us on the Left aren't "jealous" of stuff you have (many of us probably have more than you do!) Many of us simply want to make a better society.

Why is this such a foreign and horrific idea for those on the Right?



I understand you probably haven't traveled much. As a fine counterpoint let's take Norway. A pretty easy place to live. Part of what makes Norway work these days is that it is actually considered something to avoid to be the richest person on the block. Conspicuous consumption is something you don't crow about. As such they actually have an easier time getting people to all row together to get the ship of state moving for the benefit of all.

In the US we are the polar opposite. We think that in order to want to even get out of bed tomorrow we should wake up and WANT WANT WANT. MOre MOre More! We WANT to be the guy on the block with fanciest car and the biggest house and the most bling. It is kind of what we have trained ourselves up to be.

Only problem is: when everyone is trained on this "I got mine, Jack" attitude it makes it hard to work together for the common good.




I worked my behind off to be where I'm at. As I said I'm willing to bet I've put in more effort than most people do to get where I am and I'm doing OK. But that doesn't keep me from wanting to give more of my money to the common good and ask that everyone around me does too.

Here's a couple of uncomfortable questions for you:

1. Do you have kids? If so would you mind giving me some of the money I"ve paid in property taxes over the years for school systems? I don't have kids and won't so I'm hoping you live by your dislike of the "Gimme" crowd and you GIVE ME BACK THE MONEY I PUT IN TO SUPPORT KIDS LIKE YOURS.

2. Are you currently using Medicare and Social Security? You do realize that that is a plan set up from the start to be a "current pays for earlier generations" plan, right? I'd really like it if you gave me back my money for that. (You were paying for earlier generations and they were probably getting a lower rate of pay out than you do, what with the cost of living increases, so unless you KNOW you paid for your own COLA's then you are mooching off me.

I wouldn't want you to feel guilty about taking money from hard working people.

Well where do I start - you seem to put me in a box of uneducated, non-achievers, living off of what other people provided. So just for your information - I've owned 6 companies, worked our hind ends off many hours a day, paid into Medicare & Social Security between my husband and I over 100 years - so people like you will have it when needed. But I don't stand around telling people like Romney you don't deserve to be successful - you worked at it and provided what was needed to build a successful business.

I don't feel guilty about living off of my Social Security RETIREMENT BENEFITS WHICH WE PAID INTO and are not taking from any 'hard working people' any more than you will be when you are our age.

 

[Quincunx]

Well where do I start - you seem to put me in a box of uneducated, non-achievers,

OUCH! DOUBLE FAIL! YOU ARE WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG.

I wish I could explain it to you but you want to be a martyr now so I guess you wouldn't care what I had to say anymore.

I merely pointed out to you that many of us who are achievers and hard workers (maybe even moreso than people who want to speak on our behalf) actually care to give more.

living off of what other people provided. So just for your information - I've owned 6 companies,

Six? What happened to them? Why so many? I would think that "owning" one would be sufficient for someone who succeeded at it.

worked our hind ends off many hours a day

That is why I suggested perhaps I put in more effort into my career than you. I left open the possibility that you could have done just as much or more for yours.

But that doesn't change the original point. But again, you want to see something I guess you'll see it, eh?

, paid into Medicare & Social Security between my husband and I over 100 years

And you owned 6 businesses and you don't understand how Social Security works?

That doesn't sound good. It might explain some issues you are having in understanding the finer points of the debate right now.

- so people like you will have it when needed.

Wow! I mean wow! You really do not understand Social Security at all!

Just ask yourself who paid into social security for the first generation of recipients? And then tell me when Social Security became a "present pays for future" plan?

I'd really like to know.

But I don't stand around telling people like Romney you don't deserve to be successful

No one said that, Sharon. And you know it!

- you worked at it and provided what was needed to build a successful business.

Sharon, I don't know if you never did anything that didn't derive an immediate payback for you. But I've built things too. I have a few patents. Probably more than you do. Most of those netted me nothing, nada zilch because it was part of my job. My job was to do research on behalf of YOU THE NON-SCIENTISTS and provide my work to you. You, on the other hand, could get my research and patents for free or below market price licensing fees. Why? Because that is what scientist sometimes do. I got a paycheck and I didn't have to make you patentable technology, but I did.

You're welcome.

I don't feel guilty about living off of my Social Security RETIREMENT BENEFITS WHICH WE PAID INTO

So it looks like you don't have to understandsocial security before you collect it. Good.

But again, ask yourself the two questions. Who paid into the first generations social security and when did social security turn the corner to be present pays for future.

Just ask yourself those questions and maybe give me a clue as to what answer you came up with.

and are not taking from any 'hard working people' any more than you will be when you are our age.

Umm, you are wrong. Unless when you paid into social security there was some sliding scale that would account for unknown future trends in cost of living adjustments. Maybe you did. Can you explain that to me? How did that work?

Also, again, you ran 6 businesses so it will cause you no effort to explain to me how you think Social Security works.

 

[TerranceL]

When we WORK hard, we are entitled to what we work for.

That depends if someone is willing to purchase the results of your labor.

You can work really hard on making a business, but if it's the wrong kind of business or in the wrong area, it doesn't matter how hard you work you wont succeed.

 

[Quincunx]

That depends if someone is willing to purchase the results of your labor.

You can work really hard on making a business, but if it's the wrong kind of business or in the wrong area, it doesn't matter how hard you work you wont succeed.

I sense that many people here don't have any real experience in how the real work world works.

Let's take, for example, Employee 4456755 who works for Megacorp, Inc. This gigantic megacorporation pays their CEO $30 million a year in salary and bonuses etc. Each year that the company doesn't go completely belly up the CEO gets another bonus, often times up to or greater than 100% of their base salary.

Those same years where the company is slowly grinding along the middle-level folks who work just as hard as the CEO but don't get the perqs the CEO gets (family flies on the corporate jet, etc.) are told "We can't give you a raise this year because we have benchmarked our compensation packages against our peer corporations and found that you are doing just fine!" (Yes, they actually do this sort of thing).

So year upon year we work at stagnating wages while the top gets 100-200% bonuses and stock options etc.

For fun sometime it would be good for some of our capitalist cheer leaders on the board to read SEC filings from publicly traded corporations here in the US to see where the money goes.

And then get back to us about what is "fair" and what is "earned" and what is "deserved".

I heard of one company that paid their CEO about 25-30 million per year and it was written in the SEC filings that according to his contract with the company the company had to help him pay his mortgage.

When someone can explain that to me I will feel richer by far.

Oh yeah: if you want to do this: go to http://finance.yahoo.com/ and search for whatever major corporation you want and look under their FILINGS. There are several of them, I believe the main summaries come out under the 8-K designations. Fun reading! Look especially for "Executive Compensation".

 

[wing2000]

I sense that many people here don't have any real experience in how the real work world works.

Let's take, for example, Employee 4456755 who works for Megacorp, Inc. This gigantic megacorporation pays their CEO $30 million a year in salary and bonuses etc. Each year that the company doesn't go completely belly up the CEO gets another bonus, often times up to or greater than 100% of their base salary.

Those same years where the company is slowly grinding along the middle-level folks who work just as hard as the CEO but don't get the perqs the CEO gets (family flies on the corporate jet, etc.) are told "We can't give you a raise this year because we have benchmarked our compensation packages against our peer corporations and found that you are doing just fine!" (Yes, they actually do this sort of thing).

So year upon year we work at stagnating wages while the top gets 100-200% bonuses and stock options etc.

For fun sometime it would be good for some of our capitalist cheer leaders on the board to read SEC filings from publicly traded corporations here in the US to see where the money goes.

And then get back to us about what is "fair" and what is "earned" and what is "deserved".

I heard of one company that paid their CEO about 25-30 million per year and it was written in the SEC filings that according to his contract with the company the company had to help him pay his mortgage.

When someone can explain that to me I will feel richer by far.

Well said. I get the sense a lot of folks have no clue what is happening in the corporate world.

 

[TerranceL]

I sense that many people here don't have any real experience in how the real work world works.

Let's take, for example, Employee 4456755 who works for Megacorp, Inc. This gigantic megacorporation pays their CEO $30 million a year in salary and bonuses etc. Each year that the company doesn't go completely belly up the CEO gets another bonus, often times up to or greater than 100% of their base salary.

Those same years where the company is slowly grinding along the middle-level folks who work just as hard as the CEO but don't get the perqs the CEO gets (family flies on the corporate jet, etc.) are told "We can't give you a raise this year because we have benchmarked our compensation packages against our peer corporations and found that you are doing just fine!" (Yes, they actually do this sort of thing).

So year upon year we work at stagnating wages while the top gets 100-200% bonuses and stock options etc.

For fun sometime it would be good for some of our capitalist cheer leaders on the board to read SEC filings from publicly traded corporations here in the US to see where the money goes.

And then get back to us about what is "fair" and what is "earned" and what is "deserved".

I heard of one company that paid their CEO about 25-30 million per year and it was written in the SEC filings that according to his contract with the company the company had to help him pay his mortgage.

When someone can explain that to me I will feel richer by far.

Oh yeah: if you want to do this: go to Yahoo! Finance - Business Finance, Stock Market, Quotes, News and search for whatever major corporation you want and look under their FILINGS. There are several of them, I believe the main summaries come out under the 8-K designations. Fun reading! Look especially for "Executive Compensation".

That's nice.

I'm at a loss why you quoted me in your response.

 

[Illuminaughty]

This is precisely where the Right loses it! They basically undercut every single argument they have against Obama when they resort to this sort of silliness!

The problem they are having is that Obama is a center right candidate. Often he will advocate things that are in accordance with Republican ideals. They still need to attack him even for that though .

 

[Quincunx]

The problem they are having is that Obama is a center right candidate. Often he will advocate things that are in accordance with Republican ideals. They still need to attack him even for that though .

Obama is definitely more centerist than some of us wanted when we voted for him, but in some cases that's OK (although I find the idea of keeping Gitmo open to be quite painful). But in general I learned when I first voted for Clinton back in the 90's what it meant to vote for an ideal but then get the real.

The Right is currently going through their dark night of the soul. They are angry (as most americans are) about the economy and they wanted a quick fix.

Everyone wanted a quick fix. Obama has done some things right and "stayed the course" on others.

The attacks on Obama really are, in so many cases, simply unhinged. The latest kerfluffle about the jobs numbers being rigged is beyond the pale.

The Right hammers Obama about how horribly high the unemployment rate is, then when it drops they find a way to kvetch about that!

Obama is too socialist, he's not taking care of businesses enough (as if that isn't full-on communist), he kept Bush tax cuts in place and they want him out so a guy who wants to keep Bush tax cuts in place can take over and keep Bush tax cuts in place.

The fact that Obama really only did one thing of any note that got under the skins of the Right (Obamacare) is enough to label everything he ever does ipso facto evil.

And in the end the biggest irony of the sin of Obamacare is it is predicated on a Heritage Foundation idea from the 90's and Romneycare.

It boggles the mind how the Right can find so much wrong with nearly 4 years of pure straight-down-the-line conservative ideals.

I suspect they find the mouth that espouses them more offensive than they find their own ideals.

 

[SolomonVII]

Actually you are wrong on this one. They are American ideals and the Dems have espoused them just as fervently for the past century as any Republican.

I would have hoped so.
The Democratic member I was quoting on the other hand labeled them as Republican ideas, so who am I to argue what a Democrat believes

 

[Illuminaughty]

Yep "free" market , trickle down, crony capitalism, etc.. are Republican ideals. Unfortunately the Democratic party seems to be down with them as well. That's why I don't vote for either party. I don't consider those American ideals TM though. American have all sorts of divergent ideals and not all of us are right wingers.

 

[SolomonVII]

Free market and free enterprise are most definitely American ideals.
Without big government funding their way, crony capitalism becomes unprofitable. Limit the size of government, and you limit the size of of parasites that can feed off of government too.

People being free to succeed or fail on their own merit, including economically, is the quintessentially American value.
Europeans follow the French Revolution and put their emphasis on fraternity and egalite.
The American emphasis is on freedom to pursue one's own happiness.

 

[Illuminaughty]

People being free to succeed or fail on their own merit, including economically, is the quintessentially American value.

Apparently Obama agrees with you. He was just saying that we are not entitled to success. For some reason that made conservatives mad though which is really fascinating to me.

While I wouldn't necessarily use the term "entitled" in relation to success I do think things should be run in such a way as to (insofar as possible at least) prevent people from starving, falling into homelessness, or being deprived of healthcare regardless of their own merits. When you are a rich country it's a moral evil to let people fall through the cracks because they are unable to "make it". We can do better than that.

Without big government funding their way, crony capitalism becomes unprofitable.

Combining a completely unregulated market with democracy is a sure fire way to hand control of the country over to the plutocrats. Once they get their people in they will just remake the government, it's size, scope, etc.. to their own liking. When too much money finds it's way into the hands of a small group of people they will find a way to pervert the system. Money is power. Too much money in too few hands is a natural recipe for disaster.

Europeans follow the French Revolution and put their emphasis on fraternity and egalite.

I'm a fraternity and egalite kind of guy myself.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Sad but true that hard work, freedom to pursue one's happiness and success, and the like are now considered Republican ideas.

That's what Republicans like to think.

Likewise people know well enough that Obama sees the American constitution and its ideals as flawed, and that is takes precedence in a correct reading of anything he says.

Or he has a different interpretation of those ideals.

Free market and free enterprise are most definitely American ideals.
Without big government funding their way, crony capitalism becomes unprofitable. Limit the size of government, and you limit the size of of parasites that can feed off of government too.

People being free to succeed or fail on their own merit, including economically, is the quintessentially American value.
Europeans follow the French Revolution and put their emphasis on fraternity and egalite.
The American emphasis is on freedom to pursue one's own happiness.

It doesn't make it unprofitable. It makes it free.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Combining a completely unregulated market with democracy is a sure fire way to hand control of the country over to the plutocrats. Once they get their people in they will just remake the government, it's size, scope, etc.. to their own liking. When too much money finds it's way into the hands of a small group of people they will find a way to pervert the system. Money is power. Too much money in too few hands is a natural recipe for disaster.

What you note is one of the reasons why many have often noted that the U.S has never truly had anything remotely close to a truly "free market" ..as the people who are plutocrats have been present in the founding of America since Day 1.

Many things were often done in the name of "freedom/democracy" (translation: people went against the ideologies of those in control of the levels of freeom that other ruling elites were comfortable with ). Noam Chomsky actually did some good review on the issue of how often people have the wrong concept of freedom with "free markets" and how much of it is never truly free.

• Free Market Fantasies: Capitalism in the Real World, by Noam
• 
  Free Market Fantasies: Capitalism in the Real World, by Noam
  
  

America Is Not A Democracy - Noam Chomsky



Noam Chomsky: "Free Markets?" - YouTube

Noam Chomsky - Free Market Fantasies - Capitalism In The Real ...

 

[Gxg (G²)]

When you own property, you take that property out of use for some other potentially productive use. You are free to use your property to add value to the economy, or not. Either way, property taxes are based on the potential productive capacity of the property -- and you did not create the property, and most property owners did not supply the infrastructure that makes the property habitable (water, sewage) and accessible (roads).

The tax on the property can be used any way the govt. deems fit - most just happen to use it for education -- which is productive and adds value to the economy in the form of potentially more productive citizens. Their future productivity will help maintain and create the infrastructure that adds value to property.

Spot on. Many often have no realization of how what they think they "own" is really utilized to help others and the things they pay taxes on go to things they benefit in ways they don't realize.

With the issue of property, I do think that the concept of Georgism would be a good thing to go back to. Although others have critiqued it (more here), there are many good things about it that folks have considered...

• Introduction to Georgist Philosophy and Activity
• Georgism and the Single Tax on Land: Why a 130-year-old Idea is

Georgists have had some good ideas that I think are often not considered. It seems to be a good middle-ground balance and Georgist Thought and the Emergence of Municipal Socialism is something many often don't consider...


Progress & Poverty part 1 ​

In a normal universe, progressive taxation-and-redistribution systems would mean, by definition, that it is mostly the rich that pay for the benefits of the less well-off. But with the oligarchic character of so much of American politics (on both the Democratic (think Wall Street) and the Republican sides), we have a system in which the most productive component of society—and, many argue, the most important component of a democracy—is also the least represented when it comes to policy. And as political wisdom will tell us, if you’re not at the table, you’re on the menu.

 

[Jeffwhosoever]

Spot on. Many often have no realization of how what they think they "own" is really utilized to help others and the things they pay taxes on go to things they benefit in ways they don't realize.

With the issue of property, I do think that the concept of Georgism would be a good thing to go back to. Although others have critiqued it (more here), there are many good things about it that folks have considered...

• Introduction to Georgist Philosophy and Activity
• Georgism and the Single Tax on Land: Why a 130-year-old Idea is

Georgists have had some good ideas that I think are often not considered. It seems to be a good middle-ground balance and Georgist Thought and the Emergence of Municipal Socialism is something many often don't consider...


Progress & Poverty part 1 ​

In a normal universe, progressive taxation-and-redistribution systems would mean, by definition, that it is mostly the rich that pay for the benefits of the less well-off. But with the oligarchic character of so much of American politics (on both the Democratic (think Wall Street) and the Republican sides), we have a system in which the most productive component of society—and, many argue, the most important component of a democracy—is also the least represented when it comes to policy. And as political wisdom will tell us, if you’re not at the table, you’re on the menu.

In a normal universe we are socialists, huh? Let's just all make $10 an hour, regardless of education and effort. Man, that worked so well for the USSR.