Here’s the full context of what he said:


We’ve already made a trillion dollars’ worth of cuts. We can make some more cuts in programs that don’t work, and make government work more efficiently…We can make another trillion or trillion-two, and what we then do is ask for the wealthy to pay a little bit more …

There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me, because they want to give something back. They know they didn’t -look, if you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own. You didn’t get there on your own. I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something – there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there.

If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business. you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.

The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together. There are some things, just like fighting fires, we don’t do on our own. I mean, imagine if everybody had their own fire service. That would be a hard way to organize fighting fires.

So we say to ourselves, ever since the founding of this country, you know what, there are some things we do better together. That’s how we funded the GI Bill. That’s how we created the middle class. That’s how we built the Golden Gate Bridge or the Hoover Dam. That’s how we invented the Internet. That’s how we sent a man to the moon. We rise or fall together as one nation and as one people, and that’s the reason I’m running for president – because I still believe in that idea. You’re not on your own, we’re in this together.”

I think he's way off base. The early settlers in America tried the 'commune' style of living. It didn't work because somebody thought, hey, I can work twice as hard and reap twice the reward. If the other guy works half as hard and reaps half the reward so be it. To be sure Americans are THE MOST GENEROUS PEOPLE ON THE PLANET, but I'll work hard and make twice as much. THAT, my friend, is the true American Spirit.

What Obama overlooks completely as he's trying to sell his point is risk. Small business owners take risk. LOTS of risk. He's not stupid. He knows that. But that fact doesn't fit his agenda.

Yes, we rise and fall together. Nobody went to the moon on his or her own, but if I may, I think he's expanding severely on the point for the sake of making a point. Some people DID get there on their own, and to that end I think Danno makes an excellent point in his Saints comparison.

Look, my grandpa drove a truck for a living. He hauled supplies to a military base, and before that he hauled logs. Later he took a job driving a truck for a Conoco distributorship and later, Conoco asked him if he wanted to buy it. He did. And a man with a 7th grade education did very well. Who helped him? The guy who built the road he drove his truck on? Is that Obama's point? Because if it is I'm not buying it.

Funny story about Gramps. He is a Dem. As mad as I've EVER seen him was when I got arrested. The only other time I ever saw him even close to that angry was when he was stopped hauling gas one day by a State Trooper. He was given a ticket because the trooper said his tire treads were too worn.

"That little son of a *****! I was driving a truck before his damn parents were born. I've hauled fuel and have had wrecks in that truck. I know how dangerous it is. That little bastard is going to tell ME when I need new tires?"

LOL. Telling the story here doesn't do it justice at all. That's the "big" government I loathe. Somebody needed to make a rule so somebody could sell more tires I guess. Maybe the Firestone folks were lobbying heavy that year, I don't know. It's just damn silly.

Now, the liberal will say the government should protect us from the evil trucker who is recklessly driving around trying to kill people on bald tires. And look, I know that the government has to monitor and regulate things, but I know you get my point.

My grandpa got out of the Gas business because big government made it too challenging to make a living at it. He retired and built apartments. 50 and counting, and oh my GOD you wouldn't believe the tax he has to pay on those apartments. And here comes Obama wanting more? And he justifies it by playing on American Patriotism? He talks about sending a man to the moon? Who does he think he is, JFK?

Hoover Dam? The Golden Gate? Depression era projects that created jobs. More tax on small business? Not even close. No relation. Period. Sorry Mr President, but sell it somewhere else, 'cause this here white boy ain't buyin'.

But, to be fair Romney said the same thing.

I think there's a misconception out there. A misconception about what liberals "want." There's a narrative that going back to a 39.6% tax rate for income over $250K (from 35%) is somehow a step down the slippery slope to socialism and then fascism is bogus. When Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower (I almost put Howard) maintained a 90%+ tax rate for the highest earners because he thought the debt was important. He's the last Republican president to have balanced budget also. All, I think, liberals want right now is an acknowledgement that our nearly $16,000,000,000,000 is a problem and we can't JUST cut our way to fiscal sanity. What liberals want is a government that is, at least, top 5 in the world in education. An EPA that has the tools to actually protects the environment and an MMS that isn't in the pocket of the oil industry.

I think I'll be branded "a liberal" for wanting those things, but how do they differ from conservatism? An efficient, effective government that is responsible to ALL THE PEOPLE instead of the wealthiest of the wealthy, sounds like conservatism to me and I doubt any of you disagree with it. A balanced budget, or even a budget surplus, if it goes to paying down the debt. Real Liberty for everyone, in the sense that the the government can't tell you who you can/can't marry. If we ban same-sex marriage...or even polygamy for that matter, it IS on religious grounds and IS religious persecution. Any disagreement there?

If anyone remembers my posts from a different thread, you know I know you know I know we can fix this. And we don't need solutions that fit neatly under the umbrella of big government and we do not need solutions that jive completely with the mantra of slash and burn. Effective. Efficient. Responsive.

I share a number of views with my liberal friends. We disagree on plenty though. Remember I'm not a card-carrying member of either party. I used to be. Then I got wise. Here's a sample of a conversation I had recently:

Me: Section 8 is being abused and that abuse should stop.
Friend: How are you going to stop it?
Mr: If you're on the dole, you are responsible to the people paying your way. If, for example, you're benefiting from section 8, you have no business with 52" 3000 dollar televisions, cell phones (the expensive 'smart' ones), fancy Rims on your BMW and stereos that cost more than my mortgage.
Friend: Hey, that's wrong. You can't judge people like that.
Me: The hell I can't. Why can't I?
Friend: Because you don't know where they got that stuff. Maybe their Uncle bought those things for them.
Me: Cool. Then they can go live with their Uncle and get off my taxes.

I have a neighbor who's section 8. Consider too that my electric bill is 350 dollars a month. I keep the thermostat on 78 or above to keep the damn thing from running all the time. My neighbor's system NEVER...STOPS...RUNNING. And when you stand on their porch and someone opens the door, the polar bears come out and start grazing. That's how cold it is in there. They are all obese too, not that it matters. But here's the rub. I am subsidizing that for them. PG&E charges me more as I cross usage thresholds through the month. They do this so my neighbors can get their electricity at a cheaper rate.

My liberal friend thinks I have no right to complain. I, on the other hand, think that if a customer is on a reduced rate they should install 'smart' thermostats that can be locked in at a given temperature. This will force them to use less, which will (maybe) ease my bill because I won't have to fund quite so much of theirs.

Friend: You can't do that. That just isn't right.
Me: The hell it isn't. I don't mind helping those who help themselves, but if I'm paying for your electricity, I have every damn right to enforce policies that control how much of it you use.

Now, to me, that's the biggest difference between me and liberals. To me, what I'm saying makes perfect sense. In my opinion, the only reason things aren't right is because, in my opinion, the politicians market hard, and I mean HARD for the 'poor' vote.

No. I don't mind helping. I don't think most people mind. We have a generation of people who have grown up satisfied to milk the program for all they can. If Obama truly want's to fix the budget, I can give him a thousand places to start that don't have a damn thing to do with placing an even heavier burden on people who in many cases risked everything they had to succeed.

I don't have any problem with "smart thermostats" for people getting government assistance, but doesn't that sound like the government control and infringements on liberty that republicans are afraid of?

No, because in my perfect world such a device is implemented or imposed on people receiving government assistance or are being subsidized on my dime.

Now, If I'm paying my bill straight up and big brother wants to impose some limit on where I set my thermostat because the global warming people think I'm killing seals at 75 degrees versus 78, then yeah, I have a problem with that.

But those two things are clearly separate. My liberal buddies disagree.

Here’s the full context of what he said:


We’ve already made a trillion dollars’ worth of cuts. We can make some more cuts in programs that don’t work, and make government work more efficiently…We can make another trillion or trillion-two, and what we then do is ask for the wealthy to pay a little bit more …