<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/GaGJfzWEJtQ&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/GaGJfzWEJtQ&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object> On the stump this week, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., has pushed back against Sen. John McCain’s description of his tax policies. “The reason that we want to do this, change our tax code, is not because I have anything against the rich,” Obama said in Sarasota, Florida, yesterday. “I love rich people! I want all of you to be rich. Go for it. That’s the America dream, that’s the American way, that’s terrific. “The point is, though, that — and it’s not just charity, it’s not just that I want to help the middle class and working people who are trying to get in the middle class — it’s that when we actually make sure that everybody’s got a shot – when young people can all go to college, when everybody’s got decent health care, when everybody’s got a little more money at the end of the month – then guess what? Everybody starts spending that money, they decide maybe I can afford a new car, maybe I can afford a computer for my child. They can buy the products and services that businesses are selling and everybody is better off. All boats rise. That’s what happened in the 1990s, that’s what we need to restore. And that’s what I’m gonna do as president of the United States of America. “John McCain and Sarah Palin they call this socialistic,” Obama continued. “You know I don’t know when, when they decided they wanted to make a virtue out of selfishness.” It’s unclear if this was a nod to the Ayn Rand book “The Virtue of Selfishness,” with all that the invocation of Rand implies. It would seem to be, given the themes of Rand’s work, what happens when independent achievers are demonized. Which would fit with this description of those who want to keep their hard-earned tax dollars as “selfish.” Atlas may not be shrugging, but Obama is.
Really- why don't you trick-or-treating or something and enjoy yourself. Man, Obama is the end of the world!!! How silly. He's not going to be much different than McCain- just enough for me to vote for him, though. But all this gloom and doom is silly-and that's coming from a Bush, Bush, and Reagan supporter- as well as a Clinton and Obama supporter.
There's no such thing as independent achievement in the present day. None of us can achieve anything in this country without help and participation of others.
That's a pretty convincing argument, if you're someone who takes Ayn Rand's views as gospel (i.e., a nutbar).
Well, if by that you mean that people require parents to raise them, teachers and professors to teach them, coworkers that help train them, customers that buy from them, and the million other interactions that occur between people everyday then of COURSE people need help and participation from others. You can't live in a vacuum and all of sudden succeed. But that is very different than saying that nobody can achieve things through hard work and determination without the government stepping in to "lift" them up. Plenty of people do it every day. I see it in my job, and I especially see it in my father's line of work.
And how does this differ from the dark, collectivist, Marxist days of the 1990's, to which Obama proposes to return us? Oh never mind, forget that, Anyway I'd love to see somebody succeed today with ZERO government help. You know, no police, no roads, no schools or any of the lame-o liberal crap. He would be like a motherf-king WORLD'S MOST BADASS CAVEMAN. He would go out and kill his food with his bare hands. And then eat it. And make clothes out of it. Totally self reliant, and totally awesome. And I bet he would play guitar....f-king SICK guitar.....which he would make out of the bones and sinews of sh-t he killed. I bet he could play the best song in the world on it.
That's not what I meant and you know it. I wasn't commenting on Obama at all, I was commenting on the assertation that there is no way to be successful without help. There seems to be a tone that all of a sudden in America, you can't work hard and be successful without some nebulous helping hand of government intervening in your personal tragedy of a live. This is simply false. You also can't live in a vacuum and succeed completly alone, obviously. The answer is in between, the the meaty grey area of reality. Where on the spectrum does it lie, however. Of course the government should supply basic supports and infrastructure, create laws, support a justice system. The tone of the comment, that there is no independent achievement available made me want to bring up the point that I believe there IS independent achievement in so far as, its still possible to study hard, work your ass off, get a good job or start a business and succeed. Perhaps how I took the comment is not how the poster meant it. It just appeared to me that the poster thought that there is no way to succeed in America, no "American Dream" if you will, without either a trust fund or the government lifting us all out of our poor, sadsack life. I've read several other posts lately from other posters that seem to indicate that this is their belief. If that's not how the poster meant it, then I'm sorry.
What I meant is that no one achieves anything independently. If we're living in this country, we can't help but depend in part on the "government lifting us." Even if we're not directly depending on it in terms of welfare or something, we rely an educated population with which to do business, we rely on basic services the government provides to sustain us and our family and partners, etc. This is the reality. So, when the charge is that "socialists" want to take money earned by "independent achievers" and put it into programs that help other people and that's somehow fundamentally unjust, I don't get it. I think it is creating a false distinction -- we're all inter-dependent.
The thread starter is completely correct, I could have just as easily attended quality public schools and a quality public university and established myself as a hard-working member of society in a country that doesn't tax and redistribute wealth, such as Somalia
Agree with the thread title. What would Jesus say if he knew these blasphemous ideas were being talked about? Rich sharing with the poor.. what kind evil Marxist crap is that?!
There isn't. THere is no way to be successful without any government assistsance of any kind. The most successful people in America rely on it more than anyone. How many of Bill Gates employees went to public schools? How much benefit does Warren Buffet derive from buying US treasuries? Etc etc etc. Oh, you've noticed a "tone"? WHere have you noticed this tone? The implication of tones of armies of lazy freeloaders leads down the slippery slope to Ronald Reagan's fantasies of Cadillac drivin' welfare queens. The "tone' that's coming from the top (the Obama camp) is the end of the incredible government-funded giveaway to the rich in the form of the Bush tax cuts which were aimed to the incredibly wealthy, which launched a lot of yachts to be paid for by future generations - because that's where the money came from. This "tone" is referred to by the right wing is "socialism." That is so stupid it is an insult to Americas intelligence. Yet we hear it relentlessly. Using government backed student loans, with a government guaranteed mortgage - it is indeed possible. Why is this not a helping hand? Or a "tone"....or SOCIALISM?
There are way more people who don't really work hard and have lots of money than there are those who work hard and make lots of money. Also, there are tons of people who work hard and don't make much money. It's just money. Luck, government, race and effort all played major parts in every person's financial situation. No one can say that they have succesfully frozen out everything but effort. When you come to the core of it all, you are silly if you think that doing well in schools, colleges and jobs is working "harder" than someone who has been working in a sweatshop their entire life.
SamFisher, I understand your point but I think you know your purposefully taking his argument in the wrong way. He's not talking about public schooling or roads or even government backed loans which are available to everyone. I think what he's talking about is the notion that there is no way to become successful unless the government takes something from someone else to give to you and forcefully pull you up into the realm of success. Everyone understands that the government plays a role in everyone's life. The problem is that some people go too far in depending on the government to pull them up instead of taking the government aid that is already there and combining that with hard work to pull themselves up. Instead, they complain about those who have already done this and want more assistance and it gets to the point where we aren't incentivizing hard work and a strong work ethic. That's how I see his argument.
This issue is not really about the rich giving to the poor. After all, you can't talk about that issue without also talking about all the ways the poor give to the rich, i.e. through government bailouts and tax breaks to big companies, and even through the loopholes and write offs that many medium size businesses get. Why should a business be able to write off business expences, for example? We allow that because it helps to create jobs and it helps the economy in general. In other words, it helps all of us, and it helps to create a better society for all. Why, then, would anyone complain about an unemployed person getting training, health care, or even just food and shelter, all things that would also help him get a job and be productive and contribute to the economy? We need to take a step back and look at the bigger picture, and not take certain issues out of context. What do you want your society to look like? If you believe, at least in principle, in the idea that no child should be left behind, then should we as a nation not do our best to make sure that no person is left behind? Think about your country as a big family, and your countrymen as extended family members. Wouldn't you want to help a struggling family member get on his or her feet and become independent, and to in turn be able help someone else, maybe even you if some misfortune should come your way?
