Skip to comments.One reason not to vote for President Barack Obama
Posted on 09/09/2012 10:04:54 PM PDT by Chuckmorse
Barack Obama has not been a bad president. He deserves credit for saving General Motors and for killing bin Laden as was noted at the Democratic National Convention. But there is one reason why Barack Obama should not be re-elected and that is because of his attack on Mitt Romney for being rich. The tone of this attack by Obama and by his many surrogates and followers is an attack on everything America stands for.
Firstly, and from a practical standpoint, Americans should celebrate Mitt Romney's success because it means success for others as Mitt Romney's success contributed to the success of hundreds of thousands of Americans. Mitt Romney's company, Bain Capital, really did create hundreds of thousands of jobs due to it's investment in start-ups such as Staples and Sports Authority even factoring in its mistakes and failures. More fundamentally, capital in the hands of the creators of capital, private citizens, goes either toward investment or consumption. Either way, capital creates economic activity which creates products and services which creates jobs.
Certainly too much American capital makes its way overseas but this is because of faulty public policies by the government, policies that should be reformed to encourage domestic investment. The surest way to accomplish more domestic investment is with a favorable tax environment and regulations that encourage business and savings.
On the surface, the attack against Mitt Romney for being rich generates class conflict by stimulating the basest of emotions in many of us, emotions of envy and greed. The reasoning is that because your neighbor down the street has more than you, than you are entitled to a piece of what he has just because you want it. Many of us are envious of people like Mitt Romney and some of us would feel better about our own sense of inferiority if the government moved in and took a bigger piece of our neighbor's property cutting him down to size. This makes no sense as we cut off our own nose to spite our face.
Going deeper, the attack against Mitt Romney for being rich is an attack on self-interest and our ability to freely trade goods and services and accumulate capital. This is an attack on private ownership and this is an attack on human freedom and the human spirit. These basic and positive aspects of human nature, self-interest, the ability to trade in a free market, are demonized when Mitt Romney is attacked for being rich. Mitt Romney is used as a stand-in for the free market and the attack is exacerbated by the vicious stereotyping of Mitt Romney as out of touch and uncaring. This was done with a political ad accusing Mitt Romney of not caring about the cancer death of the wife of a laid-off employee from a company that Bain had invested in. Besides the fact that the tragic death occurred six years after the layoff and that Mitt Romney was not at Bain at the time, this portrayal is an ugly and false stereotype of all successful people.
Not to be too hyperbolic but this was the same sort of attack the Nazis leveled against the Jews and the Young Turks leveled against the Armenians. Both groups were viewed as rich and public emotions of greed and envy were stoked against them making them vulnerable to conspiracy theories and blame for the shortcomings of many citizens and of the governments themselves. The fact is that many Jews in Germany and many Armenians in Turkey were, indeed, rich and successful but this was a good thing, not something to be demonized. If you replace the word "rich" or "millionaire and billionaire" with the word "Jew" you would have very similar rhetoric emanating out of many on the left today generally, and as related to Mitt Romney's wealth in particular, as did emanate out of Nazi Germany with regard to the Jews.
I cant seem to get past the first sentence, what an opening line.
What Obama did was "steal" GM and Chrysler from their rightful owners: the secured bondholders. And he did that so, he could give it to the unions instead.
Not a bad president?
obama did not kill OBL, the Navy SEALs did.
obama did not save GM, they are on the verge of bankruptcy again.
Commie, get thee hence!
Barack Obama has not been a bad president. He deserves credit for saving General Motors and for killing bin Laden as was noted at the Democratic National Convention.Stopped reading after this. Here, let me fix that for you:
Barack Obama has not been a
badremotely good president. He deserves credit for saving General Motorskeeping free market failures in existence and for killingbeing overruled by the military on the issue of bin Laden as was noted at the Democratic National Convention.
You’re... you’re kidding, right?
My brain isn’t up to the verbal lashing I’d like to hand out.
Tell you what - instead of repeating the untruth about “Obama killed Bin Laden”, take a few minutes and watch this, getting this information out is a lot more important than yet-another-blog post:
I disagree that he “saved” General Motors or killed Osama Bin Laden as there is no proof.
Are you sure you don't belong on the DUmp? Or is it that you are blowing double digits?
I didn’t get past the first line. What BS.
Obama didn’t save GM....he saved a bunch of United Auto Worker union jobs at the expense of the American taxpayer.
And doesn’t GM still owe the taxpayers $42 billion?
As for Chrysler, I thought it was purchased by FIAT.
As for Chrysler, I thought it was purchased by FIAT.
Yes, with Fiat money Chrysler lived another day. They still turn out shyt though. I think the ram just won an award for being the least safe truck on the road.
What you might not know is Fiat only owns about 30% of Chrysler.
The UAW owns 59% and the governments of Canada and the US own the rest.
It saddens me that Chuck is so naive. I Refused to watch after the opening sentence.
Well at least he came up with one reason, that’s better than half the country.
One reason summed up in one word: FREEDOM
No Fidel, the virtue of success isn't measured in terms of those who benefit without having done anything to achieve it. Except in a socialist construct.