I know it's hard for you to look past a single line quote, but try to understand the whole issue and not just one or two soundbites.
Ironic since not a single GOP whine-fest about this has included the line "The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together."
Another straw man. I didn't say that. No one is denying that people who succeed have help along the way. No one's an island and it's absurd to claim that's what anyone is saying. The issue is with Obama basically taking credit with the government for 100% of that help, and demanding additional payment from those people. The issue is with Obama saying that the individual who succeeds succeeded *because* of that help and for no other reason. Clearly, the help helped, but it's not what made one person succeed while another failed.
And if we're going to talk about GOP whiners, can we agree that Rush is the whiniest of them all
? So what does he say?
As I've mentioned a bunch of times, he's literally saying to this audience and to the people he hopes are a majority of the country: "The people who've succeeded and the people who've achieved and the people who have wealth don't deserve it. They did it stealing from you. They used work or labor from you that they didn't pay you for, not fairly. Or they ran businesses that cheated people or overcharged. Or they made too big a profit. They're no smarter than you are, and I'm here to get it back for you!
Strange how he's not claiming that people who succeeded did so without any help at all. Hmmm... He's saying what everyone without liberal tinted glasses heard when Obama made that statement: That individual's don't deserve success and if they get it, should pay as much back to "the people who helped them" (the federal government apparently) as possible.
This roads-and-bridges stuff is just liberal claptrap. What he's doing, what he's setting the stage for is trying to socialize profit so that he can claim it. What he wants people to conclude is that profit was not possible, is not possible, without government first making it possible. And, therefore, government owns it. It's government's profit. He wants to socialize the profit, and that's then the vehicle for going after everybody's money via higher taxes, a wealth tax, or whatever technique that he tries.
Yup. Still not claiming people didn't have any help. Looks like he's talking about government taking the money. Just like I've been saying all along.
Perhaps you should listen to what conservative are actually saying instead of what liberals say conservatives are saying? It might just open your eyes on the issue.
Here. Let's look at a transcript from Hannity
WILLIAMS: But yes, you know what Sean Hannity did this all by himself? No. And to suggest that somehow in America a country that had political stability --
Williams tosses out the same strawman you're repeating.
SUNUNU: Look, there are lots of countries with roads and bridges and sewers but they don't create jobs and businesses like America. This is different. We have entrepreneurs here who have a spirit of being willing to make the sacrifice of taking a second mortgage going out and hiring a few people and taking a chance and creating a lot of jobs. And all the president has been doing is condemning success.
The guest makes the same point I made (and it's the first real point made in the transcript really).
MITT ROMNEY, R-PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: To say that Steve Jobs didn't build Apple, that Henry Ford didn't build Ford Motor, that Papa John didn't build Papa John Pizza, that Ray Crock didn't build McDonalds, that Bill Gates didn't build Microsoft, you go down the list, that Joe and his colleagues didn't build this enterprise, to say something like that is not just foolishness, it's insulting to every entrepreneur, every innovator in America. It's wrong.
It also extends to everybody in America that wants to lift themselves up a little further. That goes back to school to get a degree and see if they can get a little better job, to somebody who wants to get new skills and get a little higher income.
The president would say, well, you didn't do of that. All right? You couldn't have gone to school without the roads the government build for you and you couldn't have gone to school without teachers. So, you didn't -- you are not responsible for that success.
Look, President Obama attacks success and therefore under President Obama we have less success and I will change that. I've got to be honest. I don't think anyone could have said what he said who had actually started a business or been in the business.
****. Even the Mitt Romney quote in there makes the same point I'm making. He's not saying that roads and teachers didn't help. He's saying that those things didn't cause someone to be successful. Lots of people go to school. Lots of people have roads and bridges. They don't all succeed to the same level. To tell someone who is successful that their success isn't really their own, but is owed to everyone else around them is well outside the mainstream thought. Which is why this is getting such a large backlash. In that statement, Obama let slip a bit of his collectivist ideology. Something liberal politicians usually work very heard to conceal. That's why it's relevant.
And no. It's not about whether or not someone else helped you at all. It's about how much is owed to those people, and more specifically whether the government should be able to tell people how much they owe other people for their success and take it from them.
But then they would have to admit that they actually agree with the president and what would they tell people like you to jump up and down about?
No one's disagreeing that people who succeed have help along the way Joph. I've explained this to you at least 4 times so far. So why keep repeating it? The issue isn't with the statement that people had help, but what he's arguing that people owe for that help and downplaying the role the actions and decisions of those who did succeed had in their success. He's also taking credit at the federal government level for things that have nothing to do with the federal government (or very very very little).
It's more than just the words, but the ideology behind them that people take exception to.