Barack Obama told a tax-burdened plumber over the weekend that his economic philosophy is to “spread the wealth around” — a comment that may only draw fire from riled-up John McCain supporters who have taken to calling Obama a “socialist” at the Republican’s rallies.
Obama made the remark, caught on camera, after fielding some tough questions from the plumber Sunday in Ohio, where the Democratic candidate canvassed neighborhoods and encouraged residents to vote early.
“Your new tax plan is going to tax me more, isn’t it?” the plumber asked, complaining that he was being taxed “more and more for fulfilling the American dream.”
“It’s not that I want to punish your success. I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they’ve got a chance for success too,” Obama responded.
“My attitude is that if the economy’s good for folks from the bottom up, it’s gonna be good for everybody … I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.”
Obama frequently rails against what he calls a Republican concept that tax breaks for the wealthy will somehow “trickle down” to middle-class Americans.
Obama says he will not raise taxes on anyone making less than $250,000 a year.
Click here to watch the video of Obama’s remarks.
See Also: Obama’s 95% Solution Is An Illusion
Source: FoxNews
Powered by A Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy
Copyright © 2010 Liberally Conservative™ and Liberally Conservatve.com™ are Registered Trademarks - All Rights Reserved
October 14th, 2008 at 9:27 am
This is a Socialist’s view of how this great country should proceed forward,
I truly hope that people will wake up now and realize that he’s a socialist,
instead of waking up on Nov. 5 and regret their decision in the years to
come!
October 14th, 2008 at 10:16 am
[...] the depths of socialism (video here; HT Liberally Conservative) — Obama told an Ohio plumber who questioned why he should pay more taxes that: “It’s [...]
October 14th, 2008 at 1:28 pm
Today, the news of Obama saying that his economic plan will “spread the wealth around” is spreading quickly through the internet and John McCain has seized on it for his speeches. As is obvious from the many personal quotes that we collected from investors, business owners, Nobel winners, and economists, Obama’s proposals are about stimulating the economy – not about robbing the rich for the sake of the poor.
The goal of the web site was to ask the people who would be taxed more under Obama, why they support his candidacy. While the web site is still just beginning to amass the quotes, it is already obvious from the powerful statements on it that Obama is the right candidate for growth of the US economy.
October 14th, 2008 at 2:04 pm
Just one more “Fight the So-Called Smear” of Barack Hussein Obama. NOT HERE!
Obama said what he said so he has one more site to spin his lie. Indeed!
October 14th, 2008 at 8:19 pm
Doesn’t the plumber provide the taxes and the sweat that allows the rich to get richer. Shouldn’t we all prosper instead of just a select few. Continue to spread filth and see where you end up and where you lead the blind sheep. Please, please, please open your eyes. The middle class deserves better, and we deserve leadership that cares for us, instead of taking advantage of our emotions and twisting so that rich can get richer. It’s “our” time. Make a CHANGE!!!
October 14th, 2008 at 8:45 pm
If you are so jealous of the so-called rich, including plumbers, than why don’t you get off of your sorry duff and make something of yourself. The plumber in this post owned his own business so how is his sweat making the rich richer? He is complaining about higher taxes and Obama told him he wishes to spread the wealth that comes from that plumber.
“It’s our time.” Are you so pathetic you can’t pick yourself up and do something for yourself?
Quit blaming entrepreneurs because you’re lazy and want a free handout. That plumber is prospering, hiring employees and paying taxes and doesn’t want to pay more. If forced to pay more taxes that plumber will not grow. he will be forced to layoff people and maybe go out of business. What if he can’t afford new equipment?
Did the plumber have his gross profits handed to him for free? Did government make his business prosper? NO!
Why should government micro manage small business when the can’t even manage Fannie and Freddie?
You are a blind fool. Indeed!
October 15th, 2008 at 4:20 pm
Lenny,
Your boy, Barry, wants to spread OUR wealth around, but not his. Doubt me? Ask his brother who lives in a hut in Kenya.
As for me, if Barry raises my taxes, I will only choose to keep my money and not spread it around to the employees that I fire.
Raise my taxes and I will fire employees. PERIOD.
Now, genius, go figure out how your Dear Leader will find the money to give a tax welfare check to the nearly half of Americans that don’t pay taxes and $1.3 trillion in new socialist programs when people like me layoff a good chunk of your beloved, so-called “Middle Class.”
October 16th, 2008 at 9:56 am
DMB Nola: Fire your employees (or continuously treat them as disposible) and you will eventually be out of business, Boss from Hell. And when you’re talking about the Americans who don’t pay taxes, I assume you’re referring to the corporations who don’t actually “pay”, thru a variety of loopholes. Your “boy”? Pathetic. “Now is NOT the time to spread the wealth around!” (John McCain) LOL. Now THAT’S frightening. Maybe if we’d have just given the CEOs PLATINUM parachutes, the economy wouldn’t have collapsed, right? Business as usual in the GOP camp. Must suck to be too cowardly to move forward. But reading your comments is good for a laugh.
October 16th, 2008 at 10:18 am
Kelly, you need to study Economics. It’s simple, small businesses with 2-10 employees for example, in many cases make upwards of $250,000 in gross receipts depending on what they do. The fact is Obama is saying $250K but he is also saying business, which could mean people making less in gross receipts.
As Joe the Plumber said, if you keep raising his taxes he can’t afford to employ more people and expand. Chances are he will have to lay people off. Those people will collect benefits for 26 weeks or less paid for by that employer and regular taxpayers.
It does, in fact, trickle down. I will be using eBay and it’s sellers, along with Joe the Plumber as an example of how this increase in taxes works and does move down the scale negatively and why Obama’s plan is negative to business in a future post.
Large corporations like eBay use laws sometimes called “loopholes” provided by government in the tax code. Does that make them crooks?
Corporations create jobs, pay for benefits, provide decent working environments and pay half of your social security while the government gives you little return on that investment. Who is the crook?
Obama and Ayers ran Chicago Annenberg Challenge into the ground and wasted upwards of $160 million. Who would trust Obama and his friends in Congress to micro-manage any business? Barney Frank is guilty of playing a huge role in the Fannie/Freddie corruption as did Obama advisors Jim Johnson and Franklin Raines. Now they are covering it up.
It’s ok to defend your candidate but at this site we present the facts, period. Thoroughly read this site.
October 16th, 2008 at 4:37 pm
[...] Barack Obama told a tax-burdened plumber, Joe Wurzelbacher in Toledo, that his economic philosophy is to “spread the wealth around”. [See LC post] [...]
October 17th, 2008 at 10:43 am
For the last 10 years the gap between the rich and the rest has been spreading as never before. While Wall Street magnates have been milking this country and most of the people in it, regular folks are losing their homes, jobs, and savings.
Once upon a time in America a man could work as a milkman or elevator operator, own a home and support a stay-at-home wife and children. Now a typical middle-class family consists of two working parents, kids in day care, high stress with never enough time and never enough sleep.
Frankly until the standard of living improves for the middle class, I think the rich should pay ALL of the taxes. If they get all the fun, they should carry all of the water.
After years of hoarding the wealth, I really don’t think too many people will lose sleep over people who make millions being made to share their wealth by paying higher taxes.
October 17th, 2008 at 11:06 am
Nice Marxist thinking. What about Barney Frank and Chris Dodd? Franlin Raines and Jim Johnson.
See the video at the bottom of this post and quit blaming everyone else.
And……”hoarding wealth????” That’s called savings.
October 18th, 2008 at 12:01 am
But aren’t you republicans the ones always bellyaching about “cut my taxes”? So, when someone comes and says he will cut your taxes, and many non-partisan sites have checked out Obama’s plan and says that it will cut your taxes, you THEN say that cutting your taxes is SOCIALISM? You are saying that the taxes the wealthy will be required, finally, to pay again, (just like pre-Reagan and there was definitely no shortage of wealthy prior to Reagan) – you saying that you think you will receive their tax money? How dumb is THAT? No, you will not receive their tax money (which would be a kind of socialism I suppose), you just won’t have to continue to pay their share — which means less taxes for you — which means more money in your pocket — which means that you will then be able to spend more – which grows the economy. One rich person spending $5 million on a yacht doesn’t grow the economy like thousands and thousands collectively having $5 million more to spend.
Unbridled capitalism does not work — because those at the top get greedy and it becomes strictly a dog eat dog world. (bush/hoover economics – stupidity is repeating that mistake)
Socialism doesn’t work — because those in control get greedy and take all the best for themselves.
Gee – wonder if that is why the most successful countries are those that have some combination of the two systems?
How stupid would it be to continue on the current path of economic destruction? How stupid would it be to allow people to force their religious views onto people who believe differently and continue to destroy our constitution? (I am a Christian, but MY religion believes sometimes abortion is necessary and, in any event, is PRIVATE and NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS — just between the pregnant woman, her medical doctor and her religious advisor). How stupid would it be to continue a government full of corruption? How stupid would it be to continue the incompetence of the last eight years?
From the Chicago Tribune, announcing their support of Obama:
The Republican Party, the party of limited government, has lost its way. The government ran a $237 billion surplus in 2000, the year before Bush took office — and recorded a $455 billion deficit in 2008. The Republicans lost control of the U.S. House and Senate in 2006 because, as we said at the time, they gave the nation rampant spending and Capitol Hill corruption. They abandoned their principles. They paid the price.
We might have counted on John McCain to correct his party’s course. We like McCain. We endorsed him in the Republican primary in Illinois. In part because of his persuasion and resolve, the U.S. stands to win an unconditional victory in Iraq.
It is, though, hard to figure John McCain these days. He argued that President Bush’s tax cuts were fiscally irresponsible, but he now supports them. He promises a balanced budget by the end of his first term, but his tax cut plan would add an estimated $4.2 trillion in debt over 10 years. He has responded to the economic crisis with an angry, populist message and a misguided, $300 billion proposal to buy up bad mortgages.
October 18th, 2008 at 1:15 am
The Chicago Tribune also stated they didn’t care for the VP choice of Sarah Palin because of her inexperience. How ridiculous when she has more executive experience than any candidate. Barack Obama has the least and that’s a fact.
Further, the Chicago Tribune endorsed John McCain in the Illinois primary. Big Deal! The NY Times endorsed McCain and has spent it’s time since shilling for a presidential candidate in one party instead of reporting news.
The Republican Party is not Conservative, I am. John McCain is not Conservative, I am. John McCain fought earmarks and other spending initiatives when Bush did not. Bush is the blame for spending but Democrats are to blame for the meltdown. Examine my many posts and 11 minute video at the bottom of my site for a visual take on that subject. Also look at my article on Hank Paulson from Robert Novak.
I did not favor the bailout, I call out the GOP on their move away from Conservatism. However, I would never favor the demise of Capitalism for it was Socialism under the guise of “affordable housing” that caused this mess and is now neatly covered up in Congress unless the current Justice Department probe tells the truth. Capitalism is the bedrock of opportunity in America and class warfare is the instrument of the Marxist who wish to take it away.
October 18th, 2008 at 11:50 am
No, it was NOT “affordable housing” that caused the financial meltdown in our economy. The CRA required much stricter loan requirements and is STILL enjoying LOW foreclosure rates. http://www.tradingmarkets.com/.site/news/Stock%20News/1936966/
http://washingtonindependent.com/9127/low-income-borrowers-made-scapegoat-amid-crisis
Before you make statements that show you don’t know what you are talking about, you need to educate yourself more in that area. You need to think for yourself and understand that it would be impossible for the loaning of money to poor people to cause the TRILLIONS of DOLLARS of meltdown we are currently in.
If you were a true conservative you would understand where MOST of taxpayer’s money goes – and no, it is NOT to welfare NOR is it to foreign aid…not by a long shot. If you were a true conservative, you would be FOR a single payor health care system and not go around like some non-thinking partisan, shouting “socialism! socialism”. If you were a true conservative, you would believe that the TAXPAYER VOTER is supreme and his tax dollar should benefit HIM. If you were a true conservative you would believe that those who consume more of our infrastructure should PAY more – oops – that would be the WEALTHY CORPORATES and corporations now paying LESS in income taxes than EVER.
Do you ever wonder why the economy was left in a mess after Reagan/Bush but was left with a surplus after Clinton? Do you ever wonder why the economic mess created by the republicans that lead to the Great Depression lead to a president that cleaned up that mess being elected FOUR TIMES? Do you ever wonder why republicans seem to quote ONLY Democratic presidents and almost never any republican ones? Do you ever wonder why Reagan/Bush claimed to be the party of “small government” but they increased it by FOUR FOLD? Do you ever wonder why bush/cheney said the same thing, but spent more than all the previous presidents in the history of our country COMBINED? Before you become a partisan sheep, you should maybe check out if WHAT THEY SAY, matches WHAT THEY DO. Otherwise, you end up supporting CROOKS and LIARS.
Here is something for you to consider:
Since the vast majority of wealth is taken from wages in the form of surplus value (aka profit), maybe the discussion should proceed along the lines of how upwards of 80% of the wealth generated by American society has become concentrated within the top 400 American families. And that concentration is increasing. http://www.lcurve.org/
Should the wealthy elite be taxed in order to provide welfare checks to the reserve of unemployed who exist – through the manipulation of interest rates – to keep wages down and thus profits high? Wealthy, successful capitalists who want to maintain the capitalist system such as Warren Buffet, George Soros, Milton Friedman etc insist YES, while working class PEONS such as yourself insist no, it’s not fair. Can you explain that to me?
October 18th, 2008 at 12:02 pm
If I educated myself anymore your head would explode.
I present the facts as someone who studied economics from deciples of Milton Friedman.
CPA, MBA – Northwestern University (Kellogg Graduate School of Business
Read all the facts on this site, I cannot explain it any better than that.
October 18th, 2008 at 1:21 pm
Well then, why are you not for the increased taxes on the wealthy? If you have an MBA, it really makes your “Obama’s Plumbing Problem” look as if you slept through that education. How do you explain your “Nice Marxist thinking” remark in that context – given that Milton Friedman is FOR taxing the wealthy (reread my last paragraph — I’m really interested in your answer now!) If you have an MBA how is it that you don’t even know what Marxism IS (it certainly isn’t taxing the wealthy!) If you have an MBA I cannot for the life of me understand how you would even BEGIN to think the economic melt down is due to CRA. Certainly you learned in business school that MORE BUSINESS is desirable to LESS BUSINESS? Certainly, in business school you learned that EXACTLY WHAT HAS HAPPENED IN OUR ECONOMY is the WORST THING that could happen for BUSINESS? And, yet, you regurgitate REPUBLICAN FOOLS’ nonsense?
You have not answered any of my previous questions either. I’m not trying to denigrate you or your views. It seems to me though that you do not have any political philosophy, but a disorganized partisan ideology. You obviously care about the subject and you invest your time in it — yet, you pass on crap the mouth breathers have wildly running throughout the ‘net without the least bit of thought process as to whether or not it could even be factual or whether or not it fits your own worldview.
Perhaps it is time for you to take a deep breath and think out your positions more clearly, more coherently because you contradict yourself and your self proclaimed “conservatism”.
October 18th, 2008 at 2:25 pm
One more time ——— read the blog. Plus, Good night and good luck!
October 20th, 2008 at 12:00 am
I guess I’m having trouble understanding how allowing the Bush tax cut at the highest marginal rate to expire — for those with net income over $250K — and returning to the marginal rate established the rate set during the Reagan administration (the 1986 IRC) is Marxist thinking. What Obama proposes is a blend of Bush’s and Reagan’s tax plans — Bush’s tax cuts for those earning less than a quarter million, and Reagan’s for those above that threshold. It’s tinkering with the graduated rates, with an incremental increase of 3%, a return to the pre-Bush 41 structure, but that hardly rises to the level of expropriation of capital that is the hallmark of socialism. The alternative, then, is a flat tax — something that Obama tried to explain to Joe — and I certainly don’t hear McCain advocating for a flat tax.
I’m wondering if, since you are a CPA, you could perhaps show us, through a model such as the one developed by the Tax Policy Center, the real tax impact that Joe the Plumber and other entrepreneurs (such as myself) would experience. The TPC’s modeling on Joe’s hypothetical $280,000 AGI shows less than a $650 incremental tax bill. Given that economic decisions are made at the margin, I cannot imagine that Joe would lay off employees who bring in far more revenues for that small increase. If $650 would be the tipping pint, then it seems that Joe has an operating margin problem, not a tax problem.
October 20th, 2008 at 7:16 am
This week, time permitting, I will show a model. However, locking in $250K is smoke and mirrors because we don’t specifically know if Obama means married couples, single couples, gross receipts, how health care would effect the worker, age of the business, cash flow, number of employees, etc.
It’s not a simple math lesson. Taxes are complicated but taxing small business especially, who work on tight margins with little financial backup, need to reinvest portions of their income to grow. Amazon.com and Jeff Bezo is a perfect example to study how a business grows through reinvestment. People have complained to Bezo for years because he doesn’t show a profit because he had constantly reinvested to grow. Amazon wasn’t always big.
You can saddle a business with lines of credit and too much leverage or you can pour positive cash flow back into the business and grow it if your business model is successful.
Spreading the wealth and Marxism go hand in hand. The average individual looks at $250K and says WOW, I don’t make that. He’s rich! No, the money for an individual operating a small business isn’t just the owners but must be spread over operating costs and taxes are a part that effects what money is available for operations, new equipment, inventory and in the end little is left especially in the early years.
Typical of politicians and especially Obama’s extreme liberal record he isn’t looking at the particulars of operating a business. They blame Wall Street on the one hand and want to tax small business on the other. Obama’s numbers are wrong on what constitutes a small business. Look at the Small Business Administration standards and study their information on what really constitutes a small business by industry. The $250K goes out the window, it’s not black and white.
I hope this helps, and I’ll attempt to provide more as the week goes on. Thanks.
October 20th, 2008 at 8:52 pm
You’ve stated nothing controversial — that businesses have all kinds of expenses and at different points in their assets’ life cycles will have varying depreciation or amortization. And while I don’t disagree with your proposition, I feel you dodged my question. So let me try it another way: Do YOU believe that Obama’s plan to let the highest marginal bracket return to it its previous rate constitutes socialism, as Joe the Plumber does? If so, why does not make Reagan a socialist, as the rates that we will return to if the Bush cuts see their sunset are the same rates that we had during the Reagan administration.
The starting point — and something I think that Joe and all the riled-up supporters at the rallies don’t understand or want to ignore — is that progressive taxation is redistribution. And you can agree with it or disagree with it, but you have accept as a fact that it has been our nation’s tax policy for 95 years. McCain and Palin have been out on the campaign trail promoting the idea that Obama’s economic plan will “spread the wealth” and this “sounds like socialism.” They are being very disingenuous, because already this country uses tax policy to further social ends, and McCain’s plan is no different in that respect. Their supporters have their undies in a twist because of the not-so-subtle intimation that Obama willl engage in social engineering by taxing some people (the highest earners in our society) and giving tax credits to others (the lowest earners). But that is precisely how the tax structure already works, and McCain’s plan is no different. Some filers have zero liability (and IRS data shows it is closer to 32% than 40%) because the EITC and CTC more than zero them out and the Treasury sends them checks. And I suspect that Joe the Plumber, as a single father, wage earner, filing as head of household with a child under age 14, has been the beneficiary of the very largesse he thinks “sounds like socialism” — he has been on the receiving end of the tax credits. McCain proposes nothing less. He plans to continue the CTC; that works a redistribution from childless taxpayers (especially seniors) to taxpayers with young children, and with the phase out it redistributes from families with higher incomes to families in the lower range; McCain proposes to raise the dependency exemption for families with children; that, too, results in a shift in the effective rate, and discriminates against singles and couples without dependents. Cutting the rate on cap gains and allowing a larger offset of cap losses also favors some taxpayers over others. So I fail to see how Obama is a socialist and McCain is not.
BTW, for your modeling, Obama is defining small business in accord with the SBA’s criteria; McCain assumes that any filer with a Schedule C, E or F is a small business (a definition I quibble with, as it counts hobby income as a small business but ignores that many actuallY businesses report on K-1s).
October 20th, 2008 at 8:54 pm
My apologies for the typos.
October 21st, 2008 at 8:31 am
First, if you read SBA you would see that a small business could be collecting gross income upwards of $27 million depending on the industry. I do not “dodge” questions you, like Liberals don’t like the answer than attack the messenger. The $250,000 number doesn’t fully explain the Obama plan.
The key question, which you are ignoring and anyone defending Obama”, the answer not the question, –. “Spreading the wealth around.” That is the Socialism/Marxism portion of the equation. Obama defenders are shooting the questioner and allowing the person answering the question, while running for President, to give his views.
What about the payroll tax portion of the Obama tax plan? Raising the cap on Social Security would further cost business owners and pay raises would not be forth coming because the additional cost of SS tax would hurt the business.
What about unknown costs out of the control of a business? Let me give you a current and real example of my small business.
A portion of my business is to restore antique trunks. I shipped one yesterday to Ventura CA. This was a 1/2 trunk compared to a full trunk that I shipped a couple of weeks ago. I use UPS. The first trunk weighed twice as much as the second trunk also shipped to CA. The first trunk cost $78.00 to ship. The second, smaller trunk cost $97.00 to ship. Quite a difference and I asked them to double check the calculation. My costs to ship went up and nobody told me.
How do I recover those costs while have the government is also taxing my gross receipts further and adding to my burden of higher payroll tax? Who owns the business, me or Obama? What does Obama know about running a business? NOTHING! He only knows what his entire background tells him, that businesses and wealthy people by his tepid definition are evil and must support people who don’t even pay taxes.
Now we have a problem. How do I grow my business? Is growing the business worth the effort, the sweat, wearing all the hats when the government wants to control my business because they think it’s “fair”. It’s redistribution of wealth but even more it’s redistribution of my gross income, before wages, before health insurance, before all cost necessary to operate a business.
Poor planning and rising costs drive business out of business. Barack Obama has absolutely no right to raise my taxes because he has no education or knowledge of economics and real world business. Like California, he will drive business out of the country because some people can find tax incentives elsewhere and higher other people.
Americans will lose jobs, businesses will close, inflation will rise, consumer costs will rise and they will continue to blame GWB or anyone else except themselves. It’s Joe the Plumbers fault for Obama telling him his Marxist intentions. Will Bill Ayers be the next Secretary of Commerce?
Taking money from individuals and businesses and writing checks to people who don’t pay taxes is welfare and is Socialism. Clinton had welfare reform shoved down his throat and America and people were better off for it. Obama wishes to return to welfare but exponentially. Indeed!
October 22nd, 2008 at 12:13 am
I, too, am a business co-owner, a Republican from a cardinal red state, and voted for Reagan BOTH times. So you have made an erroneous assumption that I am a “librul.”
Nevertheless, I am not so blinded by partisanship that I believe that a return to the Reagan tax rate is Socialism and it certainly is not going to put me and my family co-business owners out of business. We watch EBIT and pay attention to our margins, not tax rates. That isn’t to say I am not concerned about taxes, but a 3% increase is not going to make me start laying off — the delta for me (at just south of $330K net), including the increase in SET, is about the same as what I pay my 19-year-old daughter for two weeks of summer employment doing my word processing. That’s not going to drive my business decisions. And if that small amount outfits a soldier in body armor during his tour in Iraq or it comes back to my city as a highway subsidy, then I figure I am getting a pretty good deal and I don’t consider it welfare.
Crunch the numbers, and the bottom line is not as dire as you predict.
You clearly have multiple issues with Obama, and that’s fine. You’re entitled. Your allusion to Ayres says it all.
October 22nd, 2008 at 7:42 am
Yes I have mulitple issues with Barack Hussein Obama an admitted Marxist (see his books; its well documents this fact)
The socialism vs. the taxes is true because Obama made the comment to spread the wealth around not me not met. Shooting the messenger again.
3% is not the crux of this issue. We wrote all about the payroll tax, which many are ignoring. If you can’t see the truth and you blame me then please, like many others, don’t call yourself a Republican your a RINO. Re-register with the rest of the hypocrites who are calling themselves members of the GOP and vote for an extreme Liberal.
You said an extra 3% may help the troops out as one criteria but I don’t see how someone that voted multiple times against funding the troops will help with that.
I suppose I’m wrong about that too. Yes, Barack Hussein Obama is dangerous and his running mate confirms it. The Wall Street Journal backs me up, I’ll go with that endorsement anytime.
October 23rd, 2008 at 11:09 am
Obama’s first, second, and third priority is to get elected. If that means pandering to large numbers of unemployed, under employed, those on welfare, illegal aliens, and malcontents, he’ll be happy to throw them a few crumbs as a way to get their votes. He will also turn democracy and capitalism on it’s head, and villainize the affluent and successful in our society, in order to rally the masses behind him. With evangelical zeal Obama will convince his followers to replace reason with hope and belief … to blindly follow him … never challenge him … and embrace his words as gospel. In the real, and unforgiving world of economics however, when you immediately gratify everyone by feasting on the goose that lays the golden eggs, the economy looses it’s ability to continue generating growth and wealth. Obama is promising everyone a piece of the pie, whether they helped bake it, or not … but, only in a socialistic, or communist state do the non-contributors demand to share equally in the property that belongs to others. Immediate gratification is like a drug to the malcontents, but in the big picture, every farmer knows that you never eat your seed crop. If Obama gets elected, America will turn into a third world country, with massive government welfare programs, unable to generate jobs for it’s citizens, and unable to compete in the global markets. Keep America safe, free and strong … elect McCain/Palin on November 4th.
October 25th, 2008 at 3:24 pm
I am unemployed by choice because I have felt it best for my family that I be a Stay-at-home mom. I resent the implication that I am so stupid that all Barack Obama has to do is throw me a few crumbs and he will get my vote. I am college educated, but realized a long time ago what is important in this life. Howard incinuated that only in a socialist or communist state do non contributors get to share equally in eating the pie. Well, I would just like to know if Howard is just a republican or is he a Christian who thinks perhaps Christ was a socialist or a communist? Based on your comments, it seems as if you might!