Quote of the Day goes to Rush Limbaugh


Rush said the following today:

“Let me tell you the dirty little secret here, folks. When did Barack Obama get rich? During the Bush years!”

That is priceless….for the little Socialist, lefty, Presidential candidate who is lying to the American People about how bad they have had it on Bush’s watch…..well, the Obamaessiah himself amassed a fortune in the last 8 years!   Funny!

Advertisements

12 Responses

  1. While this is certainly a true statement of fact, it’s probably equally true that John McCain grew richer during the Clinton years. So what’s the point?

    And that’s really the issue. In this country, the rich keep getting richer. Every stat tells that the divide between the super wealthy and the rest of us is getting bigger and bigger. Meantime both parties are ever more beholden to big money individuals and corporate who could care less about the fate of average Americans.

    If you were being fair or serious, you’d admit our political system makes it REAL unlikely that someone who isn’t already wealthy could take a serious run at the White House.

    Unless of course a desparate politician decides to put country second and pick an incredibly unready rural governor to be a heartbeat away from the presidency.

    Let’s be honest for once. It’s not that the press is unfair or that the questions are too tough. Can you imagine Mitt Romney, Joe Liebeman, Tom Ridge Kay Bailey Hutchinson or maybe even yourself smoking Charlie Gibson? Not too hard to imagine.

    So, then why did Palin struggle so hard.

    Do we a favor and please ask Rush that?

    Thanks for the chance to comment,
    Tidewater Jackson
    http://www.fullcontactsports.wordpress.com

  2. Tidewater,

    Your analogy of McCain / Clinton is a non sequitur. The point is that Obama wasn’t “rich” until the last few years. He’s been claiming that everyone has done so poorly over the last 8 years (not true), but he kind of glosses over that HE’S done pretty well. Nobody, least of all Republicans, begrudge that. It’s just a bit ironic and REALLY funny.

    “In this country, the rich keep getting richer.”

    There’s a problem with that? Should the rich be getting poorer? I assure you that would be a BIG problem for EVERYONE. If one has amassed personal wealth, then is it surprising that one is able to amass MORE wealth? Because someone has built some wealth, some people (yourself included?) believe you are somehow ENTITLED to a piece?

    What, exactly, justifies this?

    “If you were being fair or serious, you’d admit our political system makes it REAL unlikely that someone who isn’t already wealthy could take a serious run at the White House.”

    The whole idea that you have to be “rich” to run is flawed. What you must have to run a serious campaign is the ability to persuade people to support you financially. Personal wealth comes into play only if you don’t have a large fundraising base. Given the amount it costs to run for President, anyone without the proper fundraising capacity would require ENORMOUS personal wealth (100s of millions) to run a serious campaign. Given that reality, we’ve not had many presidents who were THAT rich…at least not since Kennedy.

    Obama was by no means “rich” when he started his Presidential run, nor has he had to use a dime of his own money. He’s taken so much in contributions that he reneged on his earlier promise to use federal matching funds. Similarly, people like Bill Clinton and Bob Dole weren’t wealthy when they ran, nor did they use their own money. Bush has a net worth of a few million, but he didn’t fund his campaign either. Hillary had to “lend” a few million to her campaign after she spent (or misspent) over $107 mil in contributions.

    Go figure.

  3. tidewaterjackson,
    Your class envy is showing….

    You also said:
    “Unless of course a desparate politician decides to put country second and pick an incredibly unready rural governor to be a heartbeat away from the presidency.”

    How a Palin pick puts country second, or a McCain campaign is desperate is beyond me.

    You might need to rephrase…. “A rookie politician decides to forgo his whole campaign agenda of change and hope to choose a running mate that has spent more time in Washington than any of the other 3 on the tickets”
    OR, perhaps more appropriately, how is it that people like yourself can’t see through the true inexperience of a rookie Senator and radical people organizer (he calls it community organizer), not to mention Socialist, who puts himself and his agenda above the country and you?

    You said: “Let’s be honest for once. It’s not that the press is unfair or that the questions are too tough. Can you imagine Mitt Romney, Joe Liebeman, Tom Ridge Kay Bailey Hutchinson or maybe even yourself smoking Charlie Gibson? Not too hard to imagine.”

    Not sure how you came to become the arbiter of honesty, but maybe you did it in the same way that Obama became God…..self-appointed.

    You said: “So, then why did Palin struggle so hard.”

    I didn’t see Palin struggling at all. While I AM honest and will admit it was not a hit out of the park, she did pretty well considering she was being interrogated like a criminal…..and answered more direct questions (coherently) than Obama’s has been asked in a year and half of campaigning…..

    And lets not forget some real struggling from your candidate when he was off teleprompter and trying to sit on the fence at the Saddleback Forum…..now THAT was a struggle to watch, much less a struggle for the guy who thinks certain Presidential topics are above his pay grade!

  4. Replying to both of your replies to my initial comments.

    Listen, if the quote of the day is simply intended to be funny, that’s great. Perhaps I’m giving Rush too much credit for trying to make an underlying point to the cult that tunes into him.

    Second – I do not have class envy. I’m all for an America where people rise to where their talents and luck take them. That said, I do believe that the policies of BOTH Democrats and Republicans over the last 30 or so years have been to advance the cause of the super wealthy and corporations rather than looking out of the the little guy. And I’m not comfortable in a society in which every stat tells us that the income gap between rich & poor is ever widening. Is that truly a desirable thing? Can’t you see how that bodes really badly for America’s future if we let it go on?

    I much prefer an American government that looks out for the little guy (small biz included) rather than protecting the Warren Buffets and corporations of the world. They’ve got enough lawyers to look out for themselves.

    The issue is that both parties have been ensnared by big money and we see the results in the policies they persue to the detriment of the average American. Buffet’s corporations get to defer tax payments for litterally 40 years. Lenders are allowed to charge credit interest at rates that would have been illegal years ago. De-regulation has brought us the failures of AIG, Bear Sterns, etc that all of us will long be paying off.

    And GBS – I don’t know what you consider rich, but in the last 30 years, every presidential candidate has been rich in my book. Oddly enough, perhaps you’ve got the best argument on Clinton, but he’s certainly made the system work out nicely for him wealth-wise.

    Sharp Right – appreciate your honesty on Palin’s struggles with Gibson. Did find it interesting that you didn’t debate me on my assertion that other hypothetical running mates wouldn’t have had the same trouble.

    Do find it interesting that you parrot the charge of Obama puttin country second, but offer no example.

    Also don’t understand the problem with community organizing, at the GOP Convention John McCain was encouraging people to become just that. And i think many on the right probably spend a lot of time praising people who take to the streets and communities to support their views on the right to life. Isn’t that community organzing.

    Obama is inexperienced, but Palin in even less experienced and unlike Obama hasn’t put any time in to get ready. Admit Obama is a leap of faith. Palin, however, is a leap of desparation.

    Finally, you claim both that Obama is a socialist but yet assert he’s done really well financially. Seems like a contradiction to me. Just saying…

    Anyway, gentlemen, thanks for listening and the chance to comment. Maybe we can all agree that whoever wins, we’ll have a better prez than the current lame duck.

    All the best,
    Tidewater Jackson
    http://www.fullcontactsports.wordpress.com

    PS – please feel free to stop by and comment on my blog. I welcome your POV and perhaps can learn from it.

  5. One more note – didn’t respond on the Saddleback coment simply because I didn’t watch it. I was a bit queasy about both candidates having to be vetted by the Christian Right. I can only take so much pandering

    And I have this crazy idea bout the separate of church & state being a good thing…

  6. “Obama is inexperienced, but Palin in even less experienced and unlike Obama hasn’t put any time in to get ready. Admit Obama is a leap of faith. Palin, however, is a leap of desparation.”

    tidewater,

    Last time I looked, Palin isn’t running against Obama. That’s a mistake the Obama campaign also initially made. However, they seem to have that fixed now.

  7. “I don’t know what you consider rich, but in the last 30 years, every presidential candidate has been rich in my book.”

    Don’t know what to say. I showed you several examples of people who weren’t. The positions that people hop from (Governer, Senator, etc) to a run for the Presidency pay fairly well. Virtually all the viable candidates were/are all public servants earning a decent salary, but whatever personal wealth they had played no bearing in their getting elected. If that’s what you consider “rich”, then I guess that’s the way you see it. However, I’ll ask you this…when was the last time someone “bought” the Presidency with their OWN wealth?

  8. “And I’m not comfortable in a society in which every stat tells us that the income gap between rich & poor is ever widening. Is that truly a desirable thing?”

    tidewater,

    Look at it this way…

    If someone is an uneducated, minimum wage worker employed by say, Wal-Mart, and that’s all they aspire to be, then they are ALWAYS going to be at the very bottom of the wage scale. They will save little, if anything, and will essentially scrape by their entire lives. You probably know as well as I do that there are LOTS of people like this.

    Conversely,

    If someone is educated, well employed, and aspires to advance, then they are going to progressively acquire more savings as their position and salary advance. Acquired savings eventually adds up where it becomes significant wealth. At that point, the saved money starts to make money on it’s own through investment, and the wealth build-up further accelerates.

    In this example, the “rich” person will likely be getting richer until they die, and then they pass on that wealth to their children, who further build upon it.

    The “poor” person will be in the same financial place forever. They will never acquire any significant wealth working in that low wage job. They might WANT something that pays more, but they lack the ability and/or motivation to advance.

    Is this unfair?

    If you’re a Socialist, and believe that everyone should be the same regardless of their choices and/or effort, then the answer is a resounding YES.

    If you’re a believer in the foundational principal of American capitalism that people deserve what they have based upon their effort and choices, the answer is NO.

    I know people on both sides of this example. I don’t believe anyone “chooses” to be poor, but many DO choose to become rich. However, there will always be people that do choose to simply “get by”…and there are people that will choose to do more than that. The people that CHOOSE to do more often become wealthy. Wealthy people know how to make their money grow. That’s how they got wealthy in the first place. The “rich” person’s net worth constantly grows…the “poor” person’s never gets off the ground.

    Yes…it’s normal, expected, and VERY desirable.

    Bill Gates is a perfect, albeit extreme, example of what I’ve talked about. He built his company, Microsoft, from the ground up. He’s now one of the richest people in the world. Another VERY rich man, Warren Buffett, also built his business and wealth from the ground up. There are countless examples of people who have been successful on a smaller scale…and it happens every day.

  9. Tidewaterjackson,
    I do want to thank you for commenting….you are one of the few who actually discusses and I appreciate that. Sometimes it is hard to tell that on the first comment but you clearly like to discuss instead of name-call…..refreshing.

    Anyway, you said:
    “And I’m not comfortable in a society in which every stat tells us that the income gap between rich & poor is ever widening. Is that truly a desirable thing? Can’t you see how that bodes really badly for America’s future if we let it go on?”

    I also believe stats tell us that, especially in the last couple of decades, more and more people have moved up in their income so that there are more people closer to the rich side than the poor everyday. We are a prosperous nation with more affluency and more conveniences than ever before…can’t you see how that bodes so positively for America’s past and her future?
    As far as the gap, I can’t say I want anyone to be “poor”, but in a free society, we all have the ability to make our choices in life. In addition, I would say that there are so many opportunities out there already for education and work….more so than at anytime in our short history as a nation. Yes, there will always be some who can’t or won’t take advantages given to them, but there is really no excuse for those able-bodied people who can’t make a living or gain some type of skill or education in this country. It is simply a matter of priorities in most cases…..

    The poor choices or lack of initiative by some should not be rewarded with the dollars earned by the hard work or others…simple as that.

    In addition, the fix for such a gap is not to try and bring everybody down to the least common denominator. The fix is to incent lower income individuals to produce and prosper….you know…the old line, “give a man a fish and eats for a day, TEACH him how to fish and eats for a lifetime”.

    That is true here….when you take money from the prosperous to hand it out to someone else, you suppress job creation, lower capital in the market, not to mention the suppression of ambition and innovation. And the recipient of the handout may never learn to prosper themselves, especially if they become dependent on the “free money”. That has been proven in our welfare system. (BTW, Obama’s so-called tax cuts for the middle class are really not tax cuts, but excessive credits for those who pay very little or no income tax today…that is usually called welfare by those not wrapping their socialism package in a the conservative giftwrap called “tax cuts”)

    In addition, the solution is also not one that over-taxes business. This suppresses business, job growth and innovation….AND raises consumer costs….those low income earners pay for those tax increases in the products and services they buy…which further suppresses the economy.

    While I am sure there is some corruption in corporate America, and some policies that should be “reformed”, it is by no means the norm and is certainly not a huge factor in small business…..small business is one of the biggest sparks in the engine of our economy.

    You also said:
    “appreciate your honesty on Palin’s struggles with Gibson. Did find it interesting that you didn’t debate me on my assertion that other hypothetical running mates wouldn’t have had the same trouble.
    Do find it interesting that you parrot the charge of Obama puttin country second, but offer no example. ”

    The other hypothetical running mates most likely would not have been treated like a criminal on trial with a condescending interviewer. While I’m sure most of those hypotheticals would have had a very good handle on the issues, they have been at this “Washington” game for a long time. I think Palin is the epitomy of what McCain was seeking in a “Washington” outsider. While she may not have her main strength in ,say, foreign policy, she does bring to the table a proven record in reform and taking on the establishment. None of the other people on your list would be as convincing in that role. Palin also brings to the table a background in energy development (she was on the oil and gas commission in Alaska) which is a key issue in this election.

    Further, having been myself a woman who moved up the ladder in corporate America, one of the things I always had going for me, was an ability to learn, to take risks that are unpopular at times, and excel where your gifts and talents lie. I believe that is where McCain made the right choice. The two of them, McCain and Palin, are very complementary in their strengths. (I might also add that, as a woman, in the good ‘ol boy system I was frequently underestimated!–Remember that with Sarah Palin…to many objective women, she has winner written all over her)

    On Obama, I can name issues where he either puts himself first before the country or puts his goals ahead of honesty:

    1) Obama’s attempt to undermine the Bush Administration’s policy and dealings with Iraq so that he could form an agreement with the Iraqi’s after he is (presumably) elected in an effort to appear the statesman and hero. This is self-absorbed on many levels including the fact that he has argued that every month the war is costing Americans something like $10 billion per month and must be ended. Then he engages, illegally some believe, with the Iraqi leaders to extend an agreement and keep troops in Iraq longer …..to the tune of $10 billion per month….all so that Obama can be the hero….taxpayer money and the lives of troops don’t seem to matter much to Obama in those actions.

    2) The Wall Street issues this week are an example of Obama’s goals going ahead of his honesty…..There surely is plenty of blame for this mess that cuts across party lines. However, Obama has tried to pin the issue solely at the feet of McCain…(and Bush)….Remember that Obama is a Senator…the Democrats have been in power 2 years…Obama nor the Democrats have done anything to anticipate this week or fix the issues… Worse…one of Obama’s top donors to his campaign ($400K) was Lehman that just filed for bankruptcy…in addition, Obama’s campaign was the second highest in dollars received from Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac…second only to the Democrat Banking Chair Christopher Dodd….to tell me that those dollars didn’t buy the influence of Obama who, apparently, thought it best to let them continue their practices! And then he blames everyone else…

    If you read much of my blog, there are many examples of Obama’s incompetence, political hardball, questionable relationships and more….While I certainly believe the man is dangerous for our country and I write with that mindset…I always try to reference sources and other opinions.

    You also said:
    “Finally, you claim both that Obama is a socialist but yet assert he’s done really well financially. Seems like a contradiction to me. Just saying…”

    That is the issue with a Marxist or Socialist..their view is always “good for thee, but not for me”….In other words, he has no problem with the accumulation of wealth himself (while criticizing the economy that spurred it, I might add), yet he believes others like him, and even those much less wealth than he, should pay out more money in the form of taxes in order to hand that money to others.
    If Obama (and other Socialist Dems) truly believed that the rich shouldn’t get richer, he would stop investing his own money, he’d stop writing autobiographies (or give the money to the government), he would voluntarily offer up more of his money to the government…he will never do that….and guess what…I don’t want to either…but that is essentially what Socialism forces those with “more” to do…..
    Bottom line, while he fully believes in accumulating wealth and spending/investing his own money…he is telling the rest of those making over $200,000 that the government can best handle their money….BIG HYPOCRISY.

    Thanks!

  10. Sharp Right Turn – first thank you for the props on wanting to discuss rather than name call. I really appreciate that & truly that is my goal. And feels to me you share that from your thoughtful replies.

    SRT & GBS – I think you both have me wrong. I do not want to bring everyone to the same level. I do want an America where their is equal opportunity. But, I guess the big difference between us (and one that we likely won’t bridge I guess) is that I truly feel the government has lost it’s way over the last 30 years. In my opinion both parties have been corrupted by the influence of big money.

    I know Iikely won’t convince you, but here are just a few examples:

    Healthcare – both of you depend on a beautiful idea. The idea that almost any American that wants to can advance. I Love that idea. Unfortunately, we despite being the greatest nation on Earth, can’t seem to get the hang of an equitable healthcare system. We are one of the only advanced nation’s on Earth where healthcare is a major concern for workers. One lay off coupled with a major medical problem and guess what? You are bankrupt. Doesn’t matter whether you are hard working or not. Also, how is it that depite having some of the best tech in the world, our infant mortality rates are so horrible.

    The IRS – fact is since the late 90s, it’s a fact that your chance of being audited is much great if you make less than 250K. Basically, IRS policy is to go after the low hanging fruit that doesn’t have a team of lawyers to fight back. Is that good or fair policy?

    Warren Buffet – seems like a nice guy, very grounded, gives a ton to charity, and assume he’s selfmade. That’s all good. What’s not good is that Mr. Buffet’s companies are allowed to defer 60 Million dollar tax bills for 40 years. All legal, yes. But, fair. Can you or I get that deal?

    Buffet part 2 – In Iowa, Buffet’s folks have led the way in privatizing electric utilities. After all, free market always benefits – right? Not so fast… turns out that in Iowa that places that have government utility provided electricity get much cheaper electricty than the towns that converted to private utilities.

    Free trade in general – and clearly this is both a Democrat and Republican issue. Sounds like a fantastic idea until you realize that it bascially allows American businesses to open up factories overseas where labor is much cheaper. And those jobs are never coming back…

    Finally, with the implosion of Wall Street firms like Lehman Bros, Bear Sterns and AIG not to mention Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae COULD NOT disagree more with the assertion that corporate corruption is rare. Anyone remember Enron? That’s what’s going on every day. We’ve bought into this idea that government regulation is always bad when in fact sometimes it’s quite useful.

    So, in summary, I don’t want to redistribute wealth. I just want the government to go back to working for the people again. And that goes for both Republicans and Democrats.

    Country first, corporations second. I love business and making money as much as the next guy but we should never lose sight of the fact that people elect our reps not corporations and so politicians should serve us and not the Wallmarts of the world.

    Thanks again to both of you for the considerate tone of your responses.

    All the best,
    Tidewater

  11. Everyone has a chance in this country. What they need is drive. A friend of mine grew up picking cherries on a farm. He was motivated to better himself, put himself through business school on minimum wage, and became an executive in a major corporation. He is now a multimillionaire, and is still making money. Pretty good for a cherry picker, huh?

  12. … And THEY’RE STILL getting rich from “THE BUSH YEARS” !!!
    That’s what Most of THE WORLD is suffering at THIS moment in time. Most of those who relish “those times” are NOT aware of the last part of the phrase, “He who laughs last.”.. “HAS NOT been TOLD the terrible TRUTH.”
    When the “drive” to make one’s self better requires the destructions of another, how DOES that IMPROVE who, or WHAT they ARE ?
    Let us ALL remove the glasses that blind us of those things that appear to give us Life, Liberty and the “pursuit” of HAPPINESS. If their attainment is by the loss of another we have deprived that EQUAL person of the very RIGHTS we are guaranteed.
    Is it ‘right’ for those that “had” to continue their thefts ? Then praise those efforts ?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: