Skip to comments.Obama: 'A New Vision Of An America In Which Prosperity Is Shared'
Posted on 08/13/2012 11:37:46 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
(VIDEO AT LINK)
President Obama: "Too many folks still don't have a sense that tomorrow will be better than today. And so, the question in this election is which way do we go? Do we go forward towards a new vision of an America in which prosperity is shared?(continued)
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
A New Vision of an America in which Poverty is shared
Some children never really learn the difference between “my toys” and “someone else’s toys.”
Redistribution of wealth. Yeah, that should go over well.
Why doesn’t Obama start sharing his wealth?
And why does Michelle moan about not getting paid?
After it all shakes out and each level of government gets their turn at our paychecks, we’re already “sharing” a little over HALF of our “prosperity” as it is....
Is that NOT ENOUGH? For once(a debate would be a good place for this), I would just love it if someone would ask a liberal how high is high enough when it comes to our taxes. Where’s the limit as to how high they should go? I’m SURE we wouldn’t get a real answer to THAT question......
I heard the audio of Ubama saying this on the radio today. If those “moderate” cowards (Medved, I’m looking at you) who previously pooh-poohed the suggestion that this piece of dogsh** Ubama is a flat-out African communist still grimace when conservatives say it out loud, then they have their heads so far up their fat asses they can’t breathe.
So there’s still someone who considers Medved a conservative? Even compared to Chris Buckley, Kathleen Parker and David Frum, that’s a stretch.
Wasn’t the Revolution fought over certain 1% taxes?
I don't know. Hope not.
Prosperity shared by those who do not work! Socialism at its best is being touted.
I would prefer to “share” my prosperity on my own terms, thank you very much Mr. Obama.
That will include such things as patronizing establishments of my own choice, buying products and services of my own choice, and giving to organizations and charities that share my values and promote goals I find worthy. Again all on my terms, and at my choice.
The notion that somehow government can do a better job of sharing my prosperity than I can myself is preposterous on its face.
But then, there isn’t much of Obama’s political thinking that I don’t find preposterous and essentially sophomoric.
The tragedy is that it was possible for such a clown to manage to be nominated by a major party and then worse, get elected. And then even worse, manage to STAY in office in the face of overwhelming evidence that he fails to meet minimum Constitutional qualifications for the office.
This says something very discouraging about out nation.
I’ll put it in a nutshell:
Obama is nothing but Snot Boogie writ large.
Why did people vote for him despite all this? “Got to man, this is America.”
Do we go forward towards aThere is a law of physics - you know, the kind of thing your people wanted to repeal or just ignore when discussing plans for new Government Motors cars - which states that matter can neither be created nor destroyed.
newstogy old vision of an America in which prosperity is shareddestroyed?
But prosperity is not a thing, is not matter. Prosperity is the pursuit of happiness, and it is a process rather than a thing. As such, it can be prevented, just as the rights to life and liberty can be violated. But as Newt Gingrich put it, the Declaration of Independence did not say that anyone had the right to happiness itself, because happiness is not a thing which is in the gift of anyone to guarantee; there is such a thing as a Food Stamp, but there cannot be a Happiness Stamp which the government can print and make good on. Rich people can be unhappy.
In fact, believing in your own right to happiness is ironically a sure way to make yourself unhappy. You can only be happy in accordance with your ability to love and to give. The trouble with being a Socialist is that you become so eager to equalize happiness that you become, not a giver of happiness but a promoter of unhappiness.
Thankfulness is indispensable to happiness, and its opposite - envy - guarantees unhappiness. That is why community organizing can succeed and utterly fail at the same time. The people get things - even titles to houses - but cannot maintain themselves in a happy state in them. They got them through a process of envy, and cannot actually be thankful because they are convinced they had a right to them. And, being ungrateful, they remain as unhappy as ever.
Adam Smith said that we dont look to the grocer to give us food out of the goodness of his heart, but because he gets a profit on the food he does provide. And yet, how can the grocer not also take satisfaction in the knowledge that he has provided us with sustenance and pleasure? The person who is not under the sway of the community organizer thanks the grocer as he walks away with his food even though he has paid for that food and is indisputably entitled to it. The person under sway of the community organizer is so obsessed with his rights that he must count his change obsessively and fret that an egg in one of his packages might be broken, or that the quality of the food may not be as good as what Bill Gates might have.
George Washington was a wealthy man. I think everyone should have as good a dental plan as he did. He had the best false teeth that money could buy - which wasnt saying much. Today everyone in America, essentially, has better dental care than George Washington did. You may say, Of course - the inevitable march of science has progressed far beyond the technology available in the Eighteenth Century. Well, science and the useful arts certainly have progressed - but was it inevitable that the useful arts of dentistry for the ordinary person would progress so much? The community organizer assumes so, but the framers of the Constitution did not take that for granted. They made specific provision for the Patent Office to allow the people who improved dentistry to effectively claim credit for their inventions. The public, leaving the dentists office with sound teeth or, at worst, better dentures than George Washington could get, both pays money and thanks the dentist (and hopes not to need more dental work in the future).
Americans today find it hard to relate to the behavior of wealthy Southerners before the Civil War. And yet, in historical retrospect, slavery was an institution which was accepted worldwide and throughout history up until the Eighteenth Century. Not just, not even especially, Christians had slaves. Southern slavery was maintained by Christians with rifles - and was overturned by Christians with rifles. Slavery was abolished, not just in the South but essentially worldwide, by Christians with rifles and influence. It was not done by atheists - slavery was important in the Soviet Union and other Communist countries, for example - and it was not done by Muslims or Hindus or Buddhists or any other culture. It was done by Christians. And the ideology behind the Declaration of Independence - the concept that people have inherent rights which are transcendent - lies at the root of that great progress.
The southerners who owned multiple slaves (including George Washington and other founders) were undoubtedly rich by the standards of the time. But none of them were as rich as Queen Victoria (1820-1901). And an American secretary today has so much better health and dental care (for herself and her family), and so much better transportation and so many electrical and electronic conveniences and amusements, than Queen Victoria that the secretary is arguably better off than the queen was. The plantation owners of the South arent even in the running.
So let us hear no more of the conceit that American free enterprise has never worked for Americans, and that a new vision of governments somehow enslaving the wealthy for the benefit of the poor (whose physical conditions are better than that of most people in Asia today) offers hope. Hope, in the secular sense, is not that doctors and other valuable professionals will be forced to work for less money. Hope lies in the progress of science and the useful arts, applied to making medical care better, not making the medical profession work cheaper.
The community organizer demands more, and more is never enough to produce happiness. America asks for, and gratefully accepts, better instead. Better health care for ourselves, even far better than that for our children and grandchildren. We were bequeathed that legacy by our forefathers, and we are unwilling that we should fail to bequeath the same legacy to posterity.
You are correct, which is why this nightmare vision of America is constructed upon the lie that "you didn't build that."
These modern Marxists justify their filthy thieving by redefining personal achievement as random luck that certain people like you got too much of.
“Do we go forward towards a new vision of an America in which prosperity is shared?”
“we” = government
“forward” = everywhere
“vision” = agenda
“prosperity” = mediocrity
“shared” = relinquished
More and more, Obama is sounding like Lenin without the originality.
Four more years of Obama’s half-baked communalism (for the benefit of Blacks, illegal aliens and union members only), and America will look like a cross between Russia and the Central African Republic.
Why doesnt he just say we all want to share the Wealth Like they do in Cuba,Venezuela,Mexico,North Korea,Russia,China.
Come on Barry let it all Out
Is that NOT ENOUGH? For once(a debate would be a good place for this), I would just love it if someone would ask a liberal how high is high enough when it comes to our taxes. Wheres the limit as to how high they should go? Im SURE we wouldnt get a real answer to THAT question......
Ron Paul has been asking these questions and many others for decades and warning against precisely what is happening to us. The Founders warned us of precisely what is happening to us today more than 230 years ago. Congratulations, Amerika.
Democrats had the same dream - that prosperity be shared, back in 1860. They wanted others to do the work while they reaped the rewards of that labor. Seems that they want the same now.
Exactly as planned. What I do not understand is how so few people actually recognize this almost 4 years later.
Obama is a marxist, pure and simple. His grandparents, who raised him, were marxists. His mother and "father" were marxists. His grandparents went out of their way to enroll his mother in the only openly marxist university in the country at the time. His "mentor," arranged by his marxist grandfather, was a marxist. His adopted father was a marxist. He was raised by feral marxists in the wild. He married a marxist. He has associated almost exclusively with other marxists. He began his political career at the home of a marxist terrorist who not only remains free, but is also responsible for shaping young minds at a major American university. He attended a marxist, anti-white "church" for twenty years. He was a member of the marxist New Party in Chicago. He has surrounded himself with other marxists during his stint in the White House, from advisers to unconstitutional appointees to supreme court justices. His policies and those of his appointees are clearly marxist in nature to anyone who has a lick of sense and even a cursory knowledge of Das Kapital and The Communist Manifesto. He and his marxist wife immediately upon occupation replaced all of the books on liberty and republican government in the White House library with books on marxism, maoism, and a post-American world (his reputed favorite, by the way). He and his marxist wife hung marxist and maoist ornaments on the White House Christmas tree.
Why is it in any way surprising to so many people that the smiling jackal in the White House is suddenly acting like a "socialist?" Why was it in any way shocking when this same jackal, whose entire life is the story of other people opening the right doors for him, openly claimed that government is the font from which prosperity flows?
Why is it in any way surprising?
The press and the academic community, in particular, share an inclination to self-deception about the trends of history based on the happy illusion that Mankind is progressing toward some sort of millenium or Ideal State; perfection of society (as if such a thing could even be defined, let alone engendered) as a substitute for perfection of the soul, which has been the ageless basis of all true religion.
Lenin saw this early on, and required his followers to eschew religion in favor of the worship of The State, with himself as G-d.
Thus the beliefs of society’s intellectuals became almost infinitely malleable, to the point where nothing had any fixed meaning anymore.
We see this now with the situation vis a vis marriage; any and every idiot who walks the planet knows what a marriage is, and yet, if the Marxists can redefine political terms to mean whatever they like, then why shouldn’t homosexuals take a page from their playbook?
This is the essence of political correctness - define the terms of the discussion and restrict the terms allowable to the opponent.
In this way, the campaign to redefine a simple English term has become so well established, that everyone now debates whether we as a society should allow “homosexual marriage” - tacitly yielding the point that such a fictional entity could even exist.
It cannot, but no one even thinks to make the point anymore.
In this way, all traditional values are eroded and lost, with the ensuing and perfectly predictable social chaos; the very chaos Marxists depend upon to revolutionize societies - invariably downward toward failure.
However, it is a failure they can exploit in order to gain power.
To be a Marxist is to live by such distortions, and when you’re in the habit of lying to others, it becomes quite natural - indeed, an ingrained habit - to lie to yourself, as well.
And that is precisely why so many people don’t look at what Obama does or consider what he says; they look only at what he “intends” - the habit of lying to themselves is so ingrained that they they give him credit for all sorts of things which simply are not there.
FREEDOM v Free Stuff
Isnt this sweet? Coming from Obama, who only donates 1% of his entitlement salary to charity. Whose own half brother lives in a slum. Whose aunt lives in public housing and on welfare? Whose uncle works a liquor store awaiting deportation.
His statement of moving forward to shared prosperity sounds like looters dividing the spoils
I have been saying this for four years now. God bless you for your frank honesty that so many Republicans can’t seem to muster.
Why are we Republicans and the right in general so afraid to speak what is documented truth about who we now have as president?
Why is it taboo to say we have a Marxist in the White House?
Why don’t we hold Obama to task for HIS history?
And why don’t we have an honest discussion about communism, what it is, what it means, and what we will look like if we go down that road that the left is attempting to label as something else (progressiveness, liberalism, etc..)????
That was excellent.
So to combine a couple Obama quotes: “We will share your prosperity since you didn’t build that...”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.